Progress! Ron Paul Says It’s NOT The Jews On Dim Tool’s Droolcast
casual rapist
https://twitter.com/MLiamMcCollum/status...2748069888

I oppose Tim Drool's manky 90s beanie. 

That being said, the movement needs some new thinking on how to make progress. 
Plot reveal: Heidegger has some interesting ideas. 


The prevailing way by which we (attempt to) plot progress is embedded within our prevailing understanding of the world.  This doesn't get us anywhere.

Our prevailing view is that the universe consists of discrete entities that are ultimately related by physical laws. We relate to other entities by either direct understanding of these laws, or mental representations of them to various degrees of accuracy. 

So you get all these individuals (discrete entities) running commentary (the hot take economy) declaring what the world is, or should be. And why won't you listen? 

The first part of the individual diagnosing the laws, which we take to govern reality, inherently sets up a challenge that can't be solved, that somehow the individuals stop being discrete entities.

The entire paradigm is a giant cope. 
If your hot take is worth a damn, there must be some significance or necessity to your individual existence. 
But the desire for politics also imposes the resolution of your starting premise, that you properly exist as one.  But how does it all come together? 
There must be a third thing, which itself is unitary and stable.  And "proper" knowledge of this thing achieves unity among the discrete entities.  Many become one.  Man, thusly, is the "rational" animal.  Knowing is his nature.  Knowing what?  The world, ya dummie.  If you can't understand the discrete facts staring you in the face, then just listen. 

Now insert the manner in which you, as individual or individualized unit, sub-group, want to blab about the third thing.  The laws of physics. Theology.  Ideology - a formalized doctrine of preference.  Whatever. 

And don't muddy up the fucking waters!
Anybody saying something else is my enemy! 


Anyway, this is all useless. 

The world is what comes into presence.  Ni mas, ni menos. 
As such, it's contingent on mental representation or phenomenal perception.
Man is the grounds over which presencing occurs.

This is not just yourself for yourself, but also how you understand others for yourself.  This points to how you deal with those you disagree with.  Their presence is the grounds over which reality occurs.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

There is no reference to some outside rule-set, which validates or invalidates, and therefore affirms presence or revokes presence.  This judgement is a waste of time anyway; you have no ability to revoke presence.  If you're following a world concept that tells you you do, then you're being deluded.  The givers of hot takes are spending their time on delusion without having thought about their own position, or what role is open to them if any.  Failure to cope with what you are yourself. 

And it's not necessary to revoke presence.  This has to be the conclusion, because anything else points to a role you don't have.  You can't make progress pretending you have some other position on the gameboard.  A world concept that tells you so is misleading. 
So if you revoke presence, you revoke the grounds over which the world unfolds. Nothing to work with then. This has to be the conclusion, if you're going to have any influence.

"Progress" is the extension of presence. 

So here we have Ron Paul on Tim Drool.  And he says there's been a coup, JKF, etc.  This is all good unfolding of presence. 

There isn't a valid reality or invalid reality.  Only a reality of those of us here, and the phenomenological impression made.  We're interested in how we understand reality, the narratives told, but there is only influence and not external proof. 

The benefit of this event - Ron on alt media - lessens at min 4.  The narration surrounding "progressivism" is part of a package of understanding the world which was designed by our enemies. 

Anyone who now has an explanatory purpose assigned to "progressivism" should redefine "progressivism" as simply "high modernism" and dismiss its role in further explanation.  Step over the entire idea, unfold the conversation in a different direction.  Simply doing this is progress.  And the number of circles you can inject this message and move forward is large.

Modernism is the ascendance of external "facts" as truth, "falsification", empiricism.  High Modernism is an intellectual moment well into this ascendance.  The accumulation of empirical facts naturally inclines one to the impression (if not reality) of "progress".  That's all "progressivism" of the early 20th century is.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It's not significant as metaphysical fulcrum - which is the purpose and foil our opponents make of it. 

The reason why we wash our hands of the "progressivism" narrative is twofold.  First, and most importantly, it unfolds the narrative of understanding in a direction which prevents the presencing of another reality. 

Secondly, when taken on its own terms, the "progressivism" narration implies the world concept assembled according to understanding, "proper" understanding, which implies the stability of what is to be understood and its independent existence from ourselves.  There is no such thing. 

The two sides of the "progressivism" narration are 1) pro-"progressivism" as accumulation of facts, material knowledge, and therefore the ability to improve material circumstances, and 2) anti-"progressivism" as a categorical mistake of empistemology, of "material" and thus changing knowledge as superior to "metaphysical" and thus timeless knowledge.  This debate implies some ultimate proper ordering, the understanding of which we must get right.  "Properly understood".  That entire paradigm as world-concept is a dead end. 

Ron on alt media is now a reality.  Pretty good. 
He makes real conspiracy.  But steers into a dead end on the questioning of Dim, who himself expects the dead end answer but also thinks it's right.  Shit tier alt media personalities (read: all of them) believe themselves sophisticated by echoing this "the real problem, ya see, is progressivism".  They dum.

It's all a good event to build off of.  The place to pick up is stepping over role "progressivism" plays, and back up rewind, and pick a different explanation. 

Plot reveal #2: It's the kikes. 

But amusingly, I've been banned from Boomer blogs by simply delivering the "new" understanding of "progressivism" above.  Putting it in context, indicating its historically natural, if not necessary (we do continue to increase knowledge of material "facts").  And that its emphasis as narration device is to steer into dead end - the two sides of the debate are just recycling a material vs metaphysical argument, and not really key to political outcomes.  Distraction. 

Getting banned for this shows the mods intentionally protecting the intellectual trap they've built for retard boomers.  Final judgement: They were kikes. 

Try it and see!
The_Author
Is this a fucking joke?
Guest
Correct, this is why Drag Queen story hour is so effective at setting reality. Introduce it to kids at youngest age possible and it becomes the eternal truth. Not only at current moment when they are forced by parents to go but in all continued life it will hold place within memory as blindly accepted truth.

The only way we can counter this is with boyscouts and eventual youth gangs who rove streets looking for next victim.
casual rapist
(04-14-2023, 11:00 AM)The_Author Wrote: Is this a fucking joke?


In what respect?  I tend to write in layers, otherwise it's boring.  Humor is in there somewhere.
casual rapist
(04-14-2023, 01:18 PM)Guest Wrote: Correct, this is why Drag Queen story hour is so effective at setting reality. Introduce it to kids at youngest age possible and it becomes the eternal truth. Not only at current moment when they are forced by parents to go but in all continued life it will hold place within memory as blindly accepted truth.

The only way we can counter this is with boyscouts and eventual youth gangs who rove streets looking for next victim.


Yup, your intuitions are correct.  Developing the thought fully, towards strategic relevance, might change the reasons why though.  The long and short of it is to begin from a posture that the temporal world is formless. 

This is the inversion of the Modern perspective where we take the temporal world to be the realm of discrete entities.  Formed objects.  "Objective" truth.  And so on. 
And, for us, the "imagination is limitless".  Creative "thought".  Man's mind is without limit.
Giving us Faustian man's quest for knowledge to jam one inside the other. 

Flip the attributes of these realms around.  The temporal world is formless.  Man's mind is where that which is formed resides.  But contrary to Plato, said forms are not a priori.  (They're a posteriori, in a sense from experience, but again the temporal world is formless, so our forms are not "input" from that realm.) 


So going back through your observations, the intuitions of which are correct, but strengthening the why of it all...

Drag queen story hour is "so effective at setting reality"... for its participants as a social event, the significance of which is wrapped up in the nature of man as an apex social animal. 
And that nature - sociality - as the grounds for the emergence of "forms". 
And that such forms are our grasp of reality, the how of what we take reality to be, which can simply be collapsed to the naive perspective that they are reality. 
(Which leads to the inverse impression - that "reality" are the objects [forms] we "see" outside, and that these "pass into" our brain.  Not so.) 

The exposure of children is another axis to untangle - and not actually of the significance we ascribe to it (unless the kid gets diddles, and chemically altered brain synapses, imprinting future processing if not drives.  Like niggers getting fucked in the butt in prison, hat tip Dr. Quantavius Carson.) 

The exposure of children is significant as the conceit of adults. 
And the ignorance of such adults as to what "culture" is, what man and his purpose are, and what "reality" for us ultimately is. 

But we make the same mistakes in our extrapolation that "early exposure creates a reality that then extends" (or "eternal truth", as you say).  This is not fully committing to first premise, of a formless temporal world, and what forms are, namely that they're eternally emergent (not a priori). 

If the social practices - ritual - of "drag queen story hour" are perpetually performed, then the form persists, which means its reality extends.  We build on the concept of forms as socially emergent, to participatory as event, the repetition of which is "ritual".  The purpose of ritual is the extension of forms - their origin in the temporal and social - where extension lends stability to understanding, creating for us a stable reality. 

The conceit of dog shit stupid adults (which is where our focus should really be) is the dynamic of "elites" in microcosm, the "high" vs the "low".  And this is only the embodied (made human) dynamic of emergence itself.  The "high" is "formed".  The "low" is "formless".  The "human", in most general terms, is the grounds within which the transition occurs, from one state to the other. 

The "high" when embodied as "elites" are in symbiotic relationship with the "low", and is created by the socially mediated meaning-creation process (innate to man as apex social animal...).  The "elite" is their [read: of a particular people] "form" actualized - man steps into the form he together creates.  This would be your "champion" in ancient combat.  Whose form dominants is that left standing.

The act of "ruling" is the exercise of what comes next - that "elites", by that status given, hold prerogative over "form". 

This, in turn, breaks down to what is seen (or kept from view), which is the fundamental delineation of "the social".  Collected attention (man is firstly a VISUAL animal - our other senses are shit). 

The adept ruler is he who understands how to orchestrate what is seen and what is not, and how to wield the prerogative granted him as to this emergence of "the form of the real" - or that which is real (for the social group as a whole) - without losing awareness that his prerogative has only been granted and can be revoked.  Its possessions is contingent on its continued function within a greater whole, social in nature - the integration of high and low, which is the act of "form" creation: delineating, graduating and extending what is significant from a formless temporality together.  If we're talking about an emperor over a civilization, we're dealing with a much more developed formal language - calcified forms a la Spengler - and orchestration of what is seen or not according to representation, pomp and patronage.  But the same dynamic speaks to a smaller unit, a tribal chieftain, a leader, an alpha male.  A more fluid situation, collection of signs, more direct action, individual presence.  And easier to be upended or thrown off.  In our times, technology is the equalizer, in its access and scalability of representation. 

The more you understand this, the more you understand why the kike - as a condition of his own being, and we'd have to get into what this is - is a royal fuckup.  Cancer waiting to be cut out. 

It has to do with the social and assimilation.  (But the 2CB cope of "ordeal of civility" is totally insufficient as understanding or solution - that sits on liberal assumptions, which sit on platonic assumptions, which the kike rejects and that the western euro cannot think in any terms other than, which is where the mistake originates).  And the function, almost machine like, of the social in meaning creation.  The social nature of man.  And the BAP longhouse is nonsense (to be generous, perhaps he sees it as corrective to kike being and mistakenly extrapolates it to all mankind.  But the kike is a parasite and not fundamental to mankind.)  The solution needed for Western euros is exactly the reverse, and very contingent on the social.  Platonic epistemology is wrong - which is the issue with western euros, and what we need to get back to if we're going to sufficiently deal with dog shit elites, in macro or micro scale. 

And there's no epistemology in Strauss, the rabbi of the political Jew on the "right" (which itself is a platonic notion - "left" vs "right" - normative to Europeans but irrelevant to heebs; they are understood according to different paradigm). Understanding the "JQ" is understanding the confusion between opposing paradigms.  It's not a material question, although their genes are fucked up.  It's not a theological question, although, as Nietzsche says, Christianity is platonism for the masses and so we can get closer here.  Because platonism is the grounds of divergence - or if there is "truth" to esoteric Straussian talmudry, it's of a "white" and "black" platonism.  One European and utterly sincere, around which they're manipulated. And the other heebish, disbelieved and political, and for the purposes of manipulation. 

Heidegger gets us closer to a grounds of understanding, the deficit Europeans face, which he traces back to Plato.  But maybe for us the divergence occurs at his "care" structure driving being, which he essentializes but where we'd qualify: this sincerely driven by "the good" for the European (this platonic construct we insist upon), matched to a particularist jewish reading of what's "good [for the jews]", conditional or zero-sum as need be, but most often in more mundane expression as indulgence of utter "carelessness" for what drives the goy.

These points are orbiting around meaning-creation, or what is brought into being, including self as individual and collective, even though Adolph Heidegger maintains he's about something more fundamental.  But we're not. 

To back up to the top- the material world is formless, infinite flux.  The mental world is finite and where form - also finite - resides, but it has to be created.  To skip ahead, creation is downstream of what we see together.  Shared attention, in turn, delineates a finite space.  And this finitude is the actionable grounds - fight over it.  Men need to control what's seen, as precursor to what is, or being.  That's the long and short of it.  Everything else - and everyone else - falls in line.
anthony
(04-15-2023, 03:17 PM)casual rapist Wrote: To back up to the top- the material world is formless, infinite flux.  The mental world is finite and where form - also finite - resides, but it has to be created.  To skip ahead, creation is downstream of what we see together.  Shared attention, in turn, delineates a finite space.  And this finitude is the actionable grounds - fight over it.  Men need to control what's seen, as precursor to what is, or being.  That's the long and short of it.  Everything else - and everyone else - falls in line.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it seems that the "shared attention" drawn in by Drag Queen Story Time appears to be negligible irl among children, and almost entirely influencing the world around people tweeting about it on the internet. For all I know they don't even happen irl. The effect of them doesn't appear to be a generation of American children who think these ugly retards in dresses are normal. The effect appears to be a bunch of doom-porn for conservative faggots who give money to Ben Shapiro and Steve Crowder.

And as for the rest of your post I still don't see how this angle of yours is relevant or essential. The fundamental point of your post seems to be that the ZOGbeam spew of anti-cultural bullshit is bad for people. I don't need coherent epistemology to figure that.
WhiteSmartypants1488
(04-16-2023, 08:08 AM)anthony Wrote:
(04-15-2023, 03:17 PM)casual rapist Wrote: To back up to the top- the material world is formless, infinite flux.  The mental world is finite and where form - also finite - resides, but it has to be created.  To skip ahead, creation is downstream of what we see together.  Shared attention, in turn, delineates a finite space.  And this finitude is the actionable grounds - fight over it.  Men need to control what's seen, as precursor to what is, or being.  That's the long and short of it.  Everything else - and everyone else - falls in line.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it seems that the "shared attention" drawn in by Drag Queen Story Time appears to be negligible irl among children, and almost entirely influencing the world around people tweeting about it on the internet. For all I know they don't even happen irl. The effect of them doesn't appear to be a generation of American children who think these ugly retards in dresses are normal. The effect appears to be a bunch of doom-porn for conservative faggots who give money to Ben Shapiro and Steve Crowder.

Isn’t this statement less “dismissive” and more affirming of everything he just said, especially the part you just quoted? The Narrative leading to an actual real life effect. When examining the possible real life effect you reference money gibs to grifters while ignoring that this can only come as a result of a passion inspired inside that can be used for a political agenda. 

At most I see you saying how actually conservatives being mad about drag queen story hour is something counter productive towards real political goals, but if drag queen story hour is real then we have two real results, that it continuously grows unopposed in fear that any apposition will cause it to grow more, or there is resistance to it. If it’s fake and something merely created for the culture war then then are conservatives randomly shooting themselves in the foot or could this be recognized as an attack by the left in means of propaganda? 

At the end I feel that from some of your past posts you are too pro-tranny without understanding it within it’s true destructive nature. Trannys are the dissolvement of man towards simple life sustained on the lowest conceivable passions. The idea of trannys being neiztschean comes from the fact that they are essential on the tightrope that is man but instead of endeavoring towards the overman they walk in the opposite direction of the overman, in the sub-human.
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)