Jump to content


Sign in to follow this  
Guest Satyr


Recommended Posts

Guest Satyr

Nihilism is a psychological position concerning nature.

It is an idea(l), a group of ideas, a moral stance, a standard for measuring value(s)–it is an attitude, a genetic predisposition, producing multiple memes expressing an antipathy and a desire to negate natural hierarchies and the immutable past.

Using psychosomatic contexts, we can define nihilism as dis-ease, unease; dissatisfaction with what is perceived, leading to the usual fight/flight mechanism.


We have now, in this age, entered into a state of memetic warfare – one where the old hot-wars have cooled down to verbal exchanges, battling over hearts and minds; a feminine type of warfare, where words become solidified into code, losing their artistic qualities, or are detached from their role as symbolic description of the sensual world, and turned into vehicles of escape; a war sharpening words into blades, into surgical instruments to amputate, or grind into a uniform mixture what has been inherited.

And to this we must respond, and adapt by first disarming the opposition with clear definitions that return words to their rightful place: noetic symbols of a sensually perceived phenomenon, and artistic devices bridging the gap between ideal and real.

In this war of words, words are all that is left to us.  




This war like no other is over the hearts and minds of humans.

Its focus is human reality – it is political and spiritual, in the same sense that the Cold War introduced a new age of warfare.

In this war words replace guns, and the pen is mightier than the sword.

The manner in which each camp uses language, defines and exposes them as what they are – their intent, their principles, their ideals.

We, as devout Pagans expose ourselves as realists and lovers of life and nature, and our usage of words reflects this fact.

It is on our commitment to connecting the noumenon to the phenomenon, using the word, and not to detach it, so as to manipulate emotions, human frailty, eroticism, and naiveté.

It is our "less is more" attitude which forces us to be brutally honest, driving away the feeble minded the coward and the charlatan where we present ourselves as what we are.

It is on our severity, our principles where we find the power to endure, and to speak clearly, simply, and honestly, not wanting to obfuscate and construct false complexity so as to make the nonsensical feel sensible.

It is our unyielding spirit that helps us endure the pains of perceiving world, as it is, and not as we wish it were, that lays down the cornerstone for our ideals.

It is because we do not care to seduce, erotically, but challenge thymotically, that we draw to our midst only the strong and honorable, those who would sacrifice existence to dignity, and pleasure to pride.

It is because we know life is hard, that we make ourselves harder, and do not succumb to the easy self-flattering call of the priestly miser, collecting and hoarding to endure what he cannot.

It is because reality is independent of our hopes and desires, that we must sharpen our subjective limits, become warrior artists, to approach the objective real.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Binary thinking emerges from the continuously evolving mechanism for sensing the world – the sum of all otherness – giving the organism the survival advantage of a quicker (re)action time.

Evolution works on a slow, natural selection, rhythm, but the evolution of immediate (re)activity, using sensual input, speeds-up the process.

The gain is qualitative, in other words it is temporal.

The mechanism is based on the simple on/off concept, corresponding to flow (more, fast), and no-flow (less, slow).


On: The condition where a neuron, a sensory cell, experiences energy influx, via the nervous, or sensory, network.

Off: The condition where a neuron, a sensory cell, experiences no energy influx, via the nervous, or sensory, network.


Of course, since all is in Flux, all is changing, energy, fluid, the distinction between more or less is in relation to the organism’s own sensory network.

The sensory cell is the standard, and more/less, faster/slower, is a relationship of neural pulse to neuron.       




Two streams of data converge in the brain.

One, from external sources – sensual {exoteric}.

The second from internal sources – nervous system connecting ever organ, every cell, to tis “hub” (esoteric).

This dual influx is also what reinforces binary thinking and dualism – division between objective and subjective thinking; mind/body, where mind represents the exoteric (phenomena), and body the esoteric (noumenon), selectively and arbitrarily inverted with nihilism, depending on the circumstances; the motive/objective always being fixed.    




The concept nil is presented as the opposite of one – the no-thing, to the some-thing.

Yet, both nil and one, (1/0), are part of the same nihilistic paradigm.

One implies the other, and both are different ways of representing, symbolizing, insinuating the same concept: absolute.

The absolute is the non-existent, that which contradicts existence.

Whatever form this binary system takes, whether it be as 1/0, something/nothing, here/not here (there being a projected here), now/not now (after being a projected now), good/evil, if these abstractions are taken literally and not as representations, human simplifications, generalizations which are abstracted and projected as points in space/time to help the will orient itself, they are projections of the annihilation of reality, of existence... in the same way a picture of a tree, if taken as the tree itself is the negation of the reality of the tree it depicts.

Both sides of the duality, the binary logic, if considered anything other than symbols, metaphors, artistic representations which the mind fabricates in order to find direction, to direct its will in the flux, are nihilistic, in that both annul existence conceptually. They are the noumena that nullify the phenomenon, if it taken literally.


One side of the ambiguous projection implies the other, and both need each other to make sense.


Outside of the human brain none of these abstractions exist, and without each other these words lose meaning – they are nonsensical. 

This is why to contradict one or the other you must resort to an absurdity... because the starting premise is nonsensical.

The sentence trying to convey the meaning that the absolute is non-existent “There are absolutely no absolutes” is paradoxical because the existence of an absolute, which cannot be experienced, has already been taken for granted s a given. The original nonsense is then negated by a sentence that takes as its starting point the non-existent.

How does one negate what is not in existence? 

There is no one nor a nil in existence... both are human constructs, abstractions, which insinuate each other and remain ambiguous, undefinable... if by definition we mean a connection of the symbol, the word, with the phenomenon, the perceived.

The human mind believes that one is the opposite of the other, when, in fact, they are both part of the same nihilistic paradigm, within which human perceptions are trapped.

The modern mind thinks it is engaged in exploring reality when it is trapped within a paradigm where both sides of its binary code are annul the dynamic, the (inter)active, the real, the existent.

Therefore in the dualistic paradigm of nihilism the opposite of Being is non-Being... and both are nonsensical concepts if taken on their own and if taken literally and not artistically, figuratively, metaphorically.

Contradicting both is reality, Becoming.

Becoming in neither Being nor non-Being... it is process, not thing.

Both Being and non-Being, as absolutes, annul Becoming... they negate it. 

Becoming is positive in that it is experienced, it is not hidden, it creates what we experience as reality, as the world. 

Both Being and non-Being, the something and the nothing, imply a thingness, which is the true negative, the nullification of the phenomenon.

But for a mind trapped in this binary nihilistic paradigm what is opposite to something is nothing, and what is opposite to nothing is something, both based on the presumption of thingness... and this thing, cannot be experienced anywhere... it is the true nil, the concept that is non-existent.




Consciousness precedes self-consciousness; ergo the brain is originally a tool for distinguishing otherness; it is a tool for dealing with threats to the organism – that which presents itself as a disorganizing element.

The only threat to the self-organizing is what which will destroy, or imbalance, this organization.

The senses are always outwardly focused, and there is no possibility for introspection, early on.  




Sensing is the term which best describes a rudimentary form of consciousness.

When the neural network, the sensory parts of an organism, is still undeveloped the organism is pure automated (re)activity to stimuli.

With the evolution of a central processing hub, the brain, consciousness becomes possible.

Just as sensory input is a method of (re)acting to external conditions, adding the strategy of immediate adaptation to the survival panoply, so does consciousness begin as an outwardly focused automatic (re)action to sensual stimulation – it’s advantage is that of an increasingly wider space/time field of awareness; a wider and deeper perceptual-event-horizon.   




When self-consciousness emerges the beginning of dualism is birthed along with it.

Dualism is the projection of binary thinking, and binary thinking is the most primal, simple, form of perceiving.

The perceived diminishes as the alien otherness, as the unknown with the potential of good or bad, whereas self is (re)cognized within this multiplicity of otherness, through reflection, as another part of this unknown; as the slightly more familiar within the foreign.

The long journey towards self-knowledge commences.      




What we call life, this self-maintaining/self-organizing, emergent unity, is a (re)action, to the world – a resistance to, a detachment from.

Reality, being characterized as a “towards randomness” (chaos), defines life as an ordering in the disordering.  




Conflict between exoteric and esoteric sources of data, results in this sense of alienation, resistance to world – individual struggling to remain intact within the Flux.

Contradiction of the objective by the subjective can reach the degree of a total rejection – disconnection.

The subjective is preferred, because it is malleable, under the will’s sphere of control.




Degrees of fluidity, in relative to the perceiving organism’s own fluidity, determine the projected absolutes of matter/energy. 

From this relationship, the neurobiological, (more flow, less flow) become the on/off switches which then evolve into good/bad, positive/negative. 




(Inter)Action is another way of saying Flux, of expressing the concept of fluctuating fluidity, which is existence.


(Re)Action is a way of describing Flux, possessing a will, a direction, and a focus.

Since only conscious, living, organisms, on various level of awareness, can direct the aggregate energies, at their disposal, the sum of processes under their control, (re)action is a term given to a living organism, a self-organizing, self-maintaining, emergent unity, when it focuses its actions towards this goal, in opposition to temporal flow, towards increasing chaos.




The confrontation of the emerging conscious nervous system by the world is the precursor for the establishment of the dialectic between brain, the noumenon, and the world, the phenomenon, the apparent – it is a dialogue between the ordering and the disordering.




Binary thinking is the next stage in consciousness – its advancement from primitive to more sophistication.

From consciousness of other, we discover self as another otherness, and self-consciousness emerges as this either/or, I/other.

If the brain becomes stuck in this state of thinking its world remains a simplistic black/white, good/evil environment – the religious mind.

The next step is to break free from this binary method by (re)cognizing it as a method, a tool, a necessary abstraction and symbolization, and not as that which is being symbolized – the artistic mind.    




Binary thinking is the easiest form of conceiving to emerge, and so it emerges first.

It makes quick judgements using self as the pivot point in space/time, separating reality into good, for self, and bad, for self.

More sophisticated forms of thinking, such as the artistic mind, demand a projection of this pivot point, this self, to a point in space/time other than the one being occupied, other than the immediate.

This sets-up a quadrant: self (pivot, or now/here, self), good (for self), bad (for self), and projected self (objectified self, self as detached from the here/now).

The evaluation of good/bad shifts and a tension is created between the ego, and the projected detached ego, between the feminine and the masculine, between body and mind.

This constitutes an evolution is thinking which breaks out of binary thinking, and escapes dualism.

Its basic requirement is imagination, but not an imagination detached from reality, as in fantasy, but an imagination still firmly engaged with reality.     




The shift between the predominance of external stimulations affecting the nervous system's central processing hub, and internal organ (inter)activity taking precedence, can only have occurred when the external world became less of a source of satiation, for cellular, organic, needs, than it was when the environment evolved the nervous system.

This shift was from consciousness towards self-consciousness, as the primary focus of the brain's processes

The nihilistic psychology emerged from this first step.


The source for feeding need turned inward, when the body's basic requirements were easily met, and the brain's functions were diverted inward, seeking for needs to be serviced.

It was the effectiveness of intelligence, as a pre-emptive projection, using the past a guide, which liberated the brain's functions to a degree where it would feel ennui, which became the most pressing need of all.

This boredom was the result of energy accumulation without a direction nor a motive to relieve the increasing internal pressures.

From this first stage, the mind diverted its energies towards surrogate object/objectives, originally meant to function as a method for reproduction.

Sheltering and reproduction as a “right” also reproduced organ weaknesses, and mutations that were contrary to survival.

The result was degeneration, pressuring the still accumulating aggregate energies towards decadent means of expression.

When the shift occurred, redirecting the brain's focus, the word became more important than anything it originally referred to, and how things felt more relevant than how things appeared.

The shift of consciousness towards self-consciousness could only have happened if the external world, and its processes, had become predictable less of a source of anxiety/fear, more predictable in their ordered human state.

The price was servitude, and the benefit was an internal escape.

Whatever natural processes remained and still required satisfaction through an external source could be diverted towards alternate methods.

Creation emerged, as an artistic expression of these internal pressures needing a focus.

For the less sophisticated nervous system, the direction was towards an alternate object/objective.




From quantities emerge qualities, and only after a particular level comes into congruence.

From multiplicity of patterns a delicate harmony binds them into an agreement.

The first dialectic, binary relationship, is that between agreement (accord), and non-agreement (discord).    

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Levels of Cognition

Each level of cognition corresponds to a state of relating to world, and, in turn, reflects the different levels of intellectual sophistication starting with basic consciousness of other (subjectivity) to self-consciousness, and then towards the objectification of consciousness as a consciousness of self-consciousness (super-subjectivity), and onwards towards increasing objectivity.

Awareness is always sensual and involves a medium (inter)acting with phenomenon, and then (inter)acting with sense organ, where the stimulants are gathered, translated into a form the organism has evolved to process, causing a topical (re)action, triggering automated biological processes.

In higher life-forms these stimulations are translated into a form, a code, the organism has evolved to process, and then transmitted to a central nervous-system hub (brain) where they are integrated into a unity (abstraction).

The more sophisticated the organism is, and its nervous system has evolved to be, over time of trial/error, the more sophisticated the abstractions created will be.

An abstraction is a noumenon, a noetic device, a representation, tool, referring to a phenomenon which has triggered the process via a medium.

The phenomenon is a continuum of (inter)activity which is simplified/generalized into an object/objective, a thing, in the brain – in other words the processing of simplification/generalization, resulting in an abstraction, is a cutting away of data, of stimulations, corresponding to possibilities (spatial dimensions), converting the dynamic, (inter)active continuum (pattern) of phenomenon into a thing, into a noumenon, an abstraction.

Noumenon is the subjective, laced and combined into intricate webs of cognitive models – idea(l)s.

Phenomenon is the objective, fluid patterns in an intricate web of (inter)activity we call world, or existence, or reality.

Phenomena exhibiting no pattern, or a pattern too complex for the brain to process, to convert into bio-code the nervous system can use, is interpreted, translated as darkness, void, black, the nil of the dynamic.

Such phenomena though not perceived consciously, can be processed as detached segments of awareness the brain cannot integrate into abstractions, allowing them to linger as vague sensations, coming out as dreams, intuitive feelings with no object; as paranormal occurrences and feelings.


1st Level of Cognition

Awareness of other in relation to need/suffering; other as (re)cognized pattern promising satiation of the sensation of self as existing – Subjectivity.

Consciousness of Otherness.

Self is perceived as (inter)activity with otherness, felt as stress producing need/suffering.

Other is the source of both pain and pleasure; pain/pleaser are self. 


2nd Level of Cognition

Awareness of self, as other, amongst others; as (re)cognized pattern differing from others (self as not-other) – Hyper-Subjectivity.

Self as Other.

Self is perceived as pattern, amongst patterns, with particular differences that distinguish it.

Other and self are the source of pain and pleasure.   


3rd Level of Cognition

Awareness of self from the projected perception of other; alienation of self from self – Objectivity.

Self through Other.

Self is approached from the vantage point of an otherness; projected consciousness.


4th level of Cognition

Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a whole; relationship of self with otherness as a one – Hyper-Objectivity.

Self and Other.

Self, and Other become part of a unity, approached from a noetic vantage point of a detached, consciousness – God.

Confusion of self as other, and other as self.   


5th level of Cognition

Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a non-whole, from the vantage point of detached, indifferent, consciousness – Supra-Objectivity.

Reaffirmation of self as other than other, with no end.

The self is distinguished more clearly, more precisely, as a pattern, amongst patterns, forever self-ordering, similar to other patterns, but forever other-than. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr


Abstracted Symbolism





Language = code, symbol of representation, externalizing mental-models (noumena –abstractions) so as to share them with other minds.


Language, made up of words, just as DNA is a double-helix (dualism, 1/0, binary) of interlocking nucleotides arranged into chromosomes (sentences), represented in language by letters, numbers.


Language is memetic DNA, or genetic method of passing on past, towards future, translated into a mental abstraction used to externalize this method – body to mind, phenomenon to noumenon.

Techniques/Technologies are reproductions, extensions, of genetic processes.   




Language represents the outward projection/expression of internal abstractions/representations.

Its purpose is to share, to express, internal sensations, abstractions, as a more sophisticated form of primate grooming.

This already predisposes it to what is bonding, for the very emergence of language presupposes someone to share with – it presupposes a same otherness commune with: social.

If this predisposition is manipulated it can result in a containment of its promise.    




Language, and its use, determines the boundaries of the brain’s effect, and the form this effect will take – it shapes the projection of abstractions, and their quality.




Language shapes itself by the mind’s intention – its motive (movement towards…).

If the intention is to produce a seductive boding, or to include all within identification, or a concept all can identify with, then language is restricted by this motive.

If, on the other hand, it breaks free from this consideration and it is used by a mind motivated only by the need to see, to understand, and to identify, whether this is all-inclusive or not, then this, too, shapes the way the linguistic method is applied. 




From basic physical grooming, establishing and reinforcing hierarchies, relieving the stress of internal social dynamics, language evolves as a mental more efficient form of the same behavior.




The mechanical production of particular linguistic forms, as these develop in time/space, within particular environments, and due to particular circumstances, has a visceral connection to the concept being symbolized.

The relationship between speaker and what is spoken of is expressed not only in the usage of words but in the way these words are formed – what parts of the anatomy are used to shape, and project, them.

Letters, being parts of the word, are, therefore, a crucial element in what emotional relationship the individual has to the concept, and/or the phenomenon, being referred to.

Letters are symbols of sound, later to evolve into the written text, which a human can produce using the mouth.

The mouth is also how nutrition is passed on from parent to offspring.      




Learning a language is the first stage of initiation into the "human family".

It makes it possible for an organism to come into contact with the divine, through the WORD: salvation found through the code; the word correcting, by replacing, the action.

During times of high illiteracy the few in the literate priestly class were the ones who could act as mediators between the masses and the word of God.

But the word had to be spoken in the right order and enunciated in the right way.

A ritual had to be followed... the right words had to be spoken in the proper sequence, using the proper tone, otherwise the possibility the word offered was lost.

The Devil being the linguistic seducer who rearranged the divine words so that the illiterate strayed away from God's Will.

Satan reconnected the symbol, which the word represents, to the action, the existent.

To this day the correct recitation of code, the appropriate data interpreted in the correct way is part of the humanistic dogma.

Most words are permitted but how one relates to these words are strictly regulated – the divine should not be soiled by “evil”.

By "interpreted" what I mean is “understood”.

To know, through the reading of the word, or being told of the word by the "specialized," literate priest, the anointed/christened who could decipher the script, for a one, a some-body, and do it in the right sequence, was a way towards the unifying Divine... the ONE, to assimilate him/her into the communal Body (Church).

Christ’s blood and body ritually consumed, assimilated, accepted as part of the individual’s reborn/new Self – an introduction into the Christ-Church. To consume the metaphorical, the symbolic, is to swallow, and be altered internally, by the shared word.


To be born human is to be born with the potential for salvation, the potential to learn a language (recited code), the potential to know God, the absolute, the Divine. But this potential had to be nurtured, or else it was lost, corrupted.

It had to be nurtured in that the right words recited in the right order, like every chant should, was very important if one wished to find salvation through them.

Rejecting Satan's definitions is a necessary rite of passage.

The community had to be on the same page, and recite the same passages with the same tenor and reverence; otherwise the magical feeling was corrupted by an off-key singer.

In modern times with literacy being a prerequisite for being a "civilized" person, education takes on the form of ritualized salvation.

Through this training one learns how to recite the words appropriately – using the same gestures, reaming true/loyal to the word, to the Script(ure).

Understanding is not so important because servitude only demands that one knows how to read the codes, follow the methods prescribed, remaining true to the ritual, the play.

It’s all faked: actors playing a role in a sacred theatre.

Teachers take over the priestly task of educating/directing young minds on how to not only decipher the code correctly, but to do so in the right order, placing it in the "right" context, and do it with an appropriate conviction to make it believable – conviction depends on their performance.

The teaching of reading also accentuated the illusion of shared salvation.

All who could learn to decipher the code became worthy of what the code revealed to them if it was read correctly – the prayer was effective only if it was performed properly; the esoteric in harmony with the exoteric pretence, the inner convinced by its own performance embodying the role: faith.

Nothing inherited mattered because with language, and reading, all had access to the “communal genius” of mankind.

This shared stock of words IS God… Humanity becomes the new word for the Divine.  




The confrontation of the emerging conscious nervous system by the world is the precursor for the establishment of the dialectic between brain, the noumenon, and the world, the phenomenon, the apparent – it is a dialogue between the ordering and the disordering.

The word begins as a method of reinforcing communal bonds so as to more effectively deal with a challenging, threatening, world.

Then it becomes a symbolism, which refers to mental abstractions, sharing, perspectives of the world, and spreading communal data about the world.

This communal sharing creates a condition of parity where the superior in perception implant on the inferior the words they need to participate in the community struggle against otherness.

In modern times the word has become the mimetic shell within which man attempts to establish internal order so as to deal with a world of chaos.




Language is a tool, not a divine singularity, nor a mystical source of power.

All language does, and can ever do, is symbolize a mental model (abstractions) which may, or may not refer to something real.

The reality of the perceived is a subject separate from language.

Here the topic becomes one of epistemology, and how to validate what is more or less real, and not a figment of the mind’s imagination.

When reality becomes the topic then the issue of how and how well the abstraction refers to the apparent, or how many connective references the noumenon has with the phenomenon. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr


Projected Absolutes




Cellular diastolic/systolic processes, the on/off of flow/no-flow of neural pulses through neural networks, evolved to the cognitive dualism of good/bad, I/other , and the binary methods of categorizing, culminating in the most abstract form of mathematical 1/0.




Dualism is the linguistic, formal, form binary expresses itself through; it is the name given to the projected absolutes, the on/off neurological functions.

From this flow/no-flow state the multiplicity of human conceptions emerge, and evolve from the basic flight/fight, into friend/foe, edible/inedible, good/bad, God/Satan, infinite/finite, something/nothing, One/Nil.  




There are two projections of an absolute, in tune with the brain's own methodology:

Towards absolute Order, Godliness, Oneness – Singularity (1)

No activity, no movement, no possibility (time/space).

Probability = One, Absolute Certainty.

Life, and the consciousness which evolves to maintain/direct, it, are irrelevant.

There is nothing to be conscious of.

Total Solipsism.

Life is superfluous, or a big joke – the comedy of existing.   


Towards absolute disorder, chaos, randomness – Void (0)

Infinite activity, infinite movement (no patterns), infinite possibility (time/space).

Probability = Nil, Complete Uncertainty.

Life, and the consciousness which evolves to maintain/direct it, is impossible.

There is no order, no matter, randomness nullifies all organization, and there is no pattern in absolute randomness.

Total Chaos.

Life has no probability of evolving out of its primitive emergence.


Both are nihilistic, for they negate, as concepts, the (inter)active, the Flux which makes life possible.

Both represent, in ambiguity, and in theory, the end of life and consciousness, one by making it impossible, and the other my making it irrelevant.

The, so called, left, whatever form it takes, is always obsessed with the attainment of the nullifying absolute.

Both the Communist and the Nazi are directed by a need, turning obsessive, to annihilate the present, so as to direct its energies towards an absolute, towards a totalitarianism.




Life has an antagonistic relationship with the world that makes it possible.

It is both a part of it, and also striving to distance itself from it, trying to maintain itself within it; it is both a product of it and also threatened by it; it is both forced to adapt to its fluctuations and also trying to intervene upon it – to contradict it or correct it. 

This antagonism creates the possibility for an existential contradiction, which makes a mind cling to life while hating it at the same time.

This contradiction results in linguistic paradoxes.

The word is turned into a representation of this internal conflict.

Instead of trying to represent the real, the perceived phenomenon, the word becomes a tool to create an alternative reality. 




Dualism is the soil within which all human ideas and ideals are rooted.

They, then, splinter-off into variations of a common theme, some towards the light and others towards the darkness.  




Sexual duality, by-products of the binary brain functions, produces two divergent attitudes, yet with a shared libidinal foundation, towards the world and its negation.

The reversal of attraction must be kept in mind.

The masculine nihilist will place himself in the role of the singularity; the one that devours the world and reduces it to a paste.

He wishes to consume and then defecate a new world of feces.

His disgust for the real world is the disgust one experiences at the sight and smell of another’s shit – one’s own is never so bad. 

The more feminine nihilist will seek relief in the other, and will desire to surrender to the nullifying power of absolute order.

(S)He will wish to be devoured, used, assimilated; dreaming of belonging to what (s)he can never attain on his/her own. 

For him/her God is the perfect symbol of this state of absolute Being.

God’s word, scripture, is a divine memetic sperm, inseminating his/her mind with possibilities. 




Emphasis on exoteric, or to esoteric, sources of data, shifts duality towards a prejudice.

It acknowledge the other, but rejects otherness to establish boundaries of self, using arguments either based on external, or internal sources.

Realism, or objectivity, bases it on phenomena, the apparent – words connecting noumena to phenomena.

Nihilism, or subjectivism, base it on noumena, the implied, the word, the emotion – words disconnecting from noumenon form phenomenon so as to reconnect it back to noumenon. When the connection “back” is outward, in another brain, the illusion of objectivity is maintained – collective consciousness, identifying with the greater “Self”, the hive mind. 


Esoteric is where “magic” is effective.

Its power limited to inter-subjective “world”.

The “exo-”, the world, remains unaffected, but can only be influenced when the collective act as agencies of change, of intervention, constructing an artificial reality then justified by redefining words, or taking a vague dictionary definition of words, and applying a meaning with no reference outside this shared “reality”.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Negative/Masculine Nihilism

Beyond – Past





The division into masculine/feminine is not arbitrary. It is a natural consequence of progression from the singular, towards increasing fragmentation, reflecting existence as a process of increasing chaos.

Masculine/Feminine represent reproductive roles, in (re)action to this ceaseless fragmentation: order(ing) in contradiction/conflict {agon} to the dis-ordering.

Each role develops, to a degree, the physical and mental traits that will facilitate its reproductive role. These traits establish an attitude towards world, other humans, and, consequently, language as a means of engagement/relating, with humans as part of world.       




“Order” is the word used to describe this absent absolute.

In its emerging stages it formulates the conception of a singular Deity, a one.

The masculine nihilist will find this totalitarian regime deplorable.

For him the promise land is where absolute chaos presents itself to him, like a maiden begging to be inseminated with his organizing ideals.  




If the male judges his past/nature to be insufficient to cope to excel in world he will desire to nullify it, and bring all others down to his nil, with him.

Honesty, his male pride, cannot be twisted to a feminine lie.

His only solution is self-destruction, and if he is also resentful of others continuing to exist, and cope with what he cannot, he will dream of world destruction as his idea(l). 




The “positive” one, the absolute singularity, is a duplicitous concept.

It attempts to signify a negation of a negative, when the negative is presupposed, implying its own positivity.

What it, actually, signifies is an end to existence, when existence is defined as (inter)activity (flux), with the implosion of space/time into a monad, a theoretical oneness, also called God.

With the feminine type of nihilism almost the same effect, in relation to life, is implied with an explosion of space/time and the attainment of infinite possibilities, which signifies the elimination of probability (chaos).

Life, or consciousness is nullified in chaos, whereas in the absolute order of a singularity life is made irrelevant.




“Negative” is pure, an affirming of Nihilism.

Direct and honest, it hides only the motive, the reason for all this destruction and leveling all to nothing.

The masculine spirit wishes to destroy what order exists either because it shames him, through his failure to match it, or because it wishes to destroy so as to rebuild something in accordance to his own tastes: leveling of order to build upon chaos a new order.

A less duplicitous form of Nihilism.  





An example of masculine nihilism.

It could only be part of what is called the “left wing” political spectrum.


Anarchism is a ruse.

It declares an antithesis to an arche {αρχη}, and yet it is driven by one; it rages against hierarchies, and yet it proposes a new one; it attacks order, and yet it promotes a new one.

Its duplicity is more direct.

What destruction, levelling, it dreams of, is a kind of bulldozing preparatory stage; necessary for a new foundation to be built.

Flatten things down, convinced that in the emptiness produced it will rise up from the dirt, to become the new master – a desperate attempt, which would rather destroy “what is” than live in it.   




The male need to order the chaos is an expression of his libidinal desire to impose his will upon otherness.

The first step towards lucidity, awareness, is the nullification of what cannot be processed, or integrated into a coherent concept, an abstraction.

Consciousness begins with nullification.   




In its extreme masculine nihilism leads to the depression of absolute negation – pure nihilism, or nihilism proper.




God, the absolute representation of the Masculine, is both a one and a nil.

Oneness, absolute order, would be the elimination of all possibilities, or their restriction, within the singular probability of One/God.

It is an annulment of space/time, within its noetic implosion into a singularity.

Ordering is the exclusion or rejection of possibilities, so as to enable the desirable possibilities to become more probable, therefore absolute order, whatever name it is given, is the rejection of all possibilities and the presence of a singular absolute probability. 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Positive/Feminine Nihilism

Immanent – Future




“Positive” Nihilism is duplicitous, false, and full of promise and hope.

A feminine appeal offering itself as a means to an end.

Through the feminine form of nihilism possibilities expand to embrace the infinite, the “all is possible” universe of chaos – randomness with no order, no probability restricting possibility




With no ability to create/establish order sufficient to deal/cope with chaos, the feminine seeks order, the absent in itself, in other.

It is seduced by order, reflecting a power to withstand/resist/reject chaos, and gravitates towards it, sensing it as a probability (hope) promising relief: peace in the war, stability in instability, certainty in uncertainty, a semblance of an absolute representing what was lost – past/nature (God).    




Sexual types and their genetic psychology will determine which type of nihilistic mimetic variant the individual will be attracted to.

Where the more masculine will find God a competitor, preferring the chaos to build his sacred Kingdom for himself, the feminine psyche will be easily seduced by the masculine promise of a God. 




Nihilism acquires the sexual traits of the mind.

The more feminine psyches will be seduced by the power of change, though it is tending towards absolute chaos.

And like all shameless lovers this irresistible force will promise them, through its priestly representatives, the fantastic, and the undeniable, just to get under their… skin.  




A nihilist will not come with empty hands.

This will expose him to others and to himself.

A nihilist comes bearing gifts of hope and positivity.

He hides from himself his inner emptiness by filling it with words.

He hides from himself.




The “positivity” aspect of this projected nullification of the present is that it remains a promise, seducing the mind but never disappointing it, because it is never attained.

It is the promise of hope, and the feminine form of nihilism.

Surrender to entropy becomes the surrender to possibility, fraught with unfathomable opportunities – the siren song.




The duplicitous soul will find nothing wrong with lying to his own self to inherit eternity.

Like all hypnotic states this one relies on the active, compliance of the one being hypnotized.

Exposing the hypnosis as a fraud only exposes the self-hypnotized to their duplicity.

They will take this unraveling personally.

The hypnotic priest has nothing to worry about in this performance.

Though he may be exposed as a peddler of dreams, the purchaser is part of the lie, and the one with the most to lose.   




In a feminizing meme/culture, the Modern, nihilism takes on its feminine mask, attempting to harmonize internal structures with its all-leveling force of forgetfulness.

Nihilism becomes a method for internal mind-control – it reduces the elements that can create friction by slowly smoothing/eroding away natural processes.  

The word “Modern” can only refer to this socioeconomic cultural state.




Manipulating the internal is how a female asserts herself upon the dominant, externally, male.

The effete male, the emasculated, beta, finds here his only hope of salvation.

What he cannot deal with, applying what (s)he’s inherited, is compensated with words, redefining reality to be less harsh in relation to this inherited past/nature. 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Nihilism – Modern

Institutionalized Negation


Modern Mind Control  Modern Dialectics  Symptomology   ◙




The nihilist wishes to make everything "mental,” as he calls it; noetic, accessible to corrective interventions.
The idea of an immutable past, he cannot access, disturbs him, because it imposes upon him a determining factor he cannot change, but only cope with, and adapt to.
He is forever obsessed with the immediate, the current, and the future, the coming, the immanent.
The past is forgotten, rejected, considered inapplicable.

The "physical," in a simpleton’s dualistic thinking, is a metaphor – he takes literally – of what lies beyond his will, his noetic power of reinventing or correcting.
In this case the corrective intervention presupposes an understanding preceding effort; the success or failure remaining dependent on the precision and clarity of this understanding.
The shallow past is still accessible, because of its immediacy.
The aspects of this past which remain beyond the mind's immediate ability to intervene upon are dealt with by covering them up, hiding them, denying them, rejecting their relevance.
The nihilist cocoons himself in a temporal box, determined by his will's potential to intervene and to change what has been determined by forces he is not aware of.
His world is fish-bowled into a container where his will's potential to change things, become the boundaries of what he considered acceptable and what he rejects as "evil.”
Ironically, that he shrinks his perceptual-event-horizon, in this way, makes him primitive, animal-like, though he considers himself progressive, and enlightened: he makes himself dependent on intuition, and instinct, and the forces he is not aware of are forever beyond his perception because he's blinded himself to anything that may offer him insight so as to preserve his fish-bowl existence.
This is why experts become the only other source of understanding he has access to.




The word referring to an abstraction, is a representation of that abstraction that noumenon.


The noumenon need not refer to a phenomenon, or what appears in space/time and is simplified/generalized into the abstraction, into a thing.

The word is a tool, a symbol, and it may very well refer back to itself and other abstractions, connected and integrated into a bigger abstraction, a larger idea(l), or, it may very well refer to an abstraction in an other's mind, transferred linguistically to one's own.

If the abstraction, the noumenon, and the word representing it, has no reference outside minds, to the apparent sensual world, the real, then it is ambiguous, and if taken literally, and not as a tool, a representation, it can function as a nullification of the real, the apparent.

The abstraction is a static, simplification/generalization, of a (inter)active, a dynamic phenomenon, and, as such, its effectiveness is determined by how well it serves its function, how good of a tool it is, and how well it simplifies/generalizes the dynamic.

By understanding what the word is, and how it relates to what it is supposed to represent, and simplify/generalize, one is not dismissing its function, but one is clarifying, it, sharpening the tool, as it were, and one is also throwing away words that refer to nothing but back to human constructs with no reference outside minds, sharing, perhaps, a common definition, along with the imagery, to make the word functional within the human world of communication, exploitation, hierarchies.

Confusing the representation for the represented, is idolatry, and in this nihilism is a form of idolatry which with its representations annuls what is perceived and replaces it with symbols, numbers, concepts with no reference outside the mind, constructing an ideal, idealized, inter-subjective alternate "reality".

Once it assimilates, indoctrinates, enough minds into this alternate noetic universe, it can begin to self-refer, self-validate, relying, now, upon numbers, or popular appeal, referendum, to validate or to dismiss an idea(l).

These Nihilistic memes require a certain number of subjects, to inappropriate into its alternate universe, for it to become viable, and so population control and seduction, is its primary usage of words.




The Triad of God/Holy Spirit/Son, refers to World stimulating sensual organs, agitating nervous system – Determining Past – God <>  Nervous system, including brain, processing stimulations – Soul as the agitated nervous systems – Holy Spirit <> Body sending sensations, to the nervous system, of organic interactions – Passion – Son.




The Modern mind either because of an inherited, determining genetic limitation, or due to a stunting inflicted upon it by its environment – produced by the environment by imposing a limit of shame, guilt, social convention, social exclusion, peer pressures etc. – cannot think outside this binary, primitive form of conceptualizing.

For it all dichotomies pivot around the immediate, the self, and even when it denies self it places there a surrogate and stands behind, beneath, within it – it disappears so as to avoid the repercussions of its sacrifice.

When and if it can project self as an otherness, objectifying it, allowing the artistic mind to emerge, it cannot help but fall into the trap of fantasy, where the extraordinary, the supernatural, the unreal combinations in its mind, governed by need and fear, are projected as objects/objectives detached from the sensual world.

This projected objectified self, at a distance, becomes the mind, leaving behind the body in the immediate space/time.

This is the point where the Nihilist loses itself in hope – rejecting, as it were, what binds it to time/space, wanting to liberate itself from what limits it and determines it indifferently–the individual is ripped in two, choosing to go with the projection, detaching itself from itself, as part of a Becoming in the world.

This detachment creates the division between the real self and the idealized self, existing in reality or in idealized space/time.

If dissatisfaction with the immediate, the real, is present, then the mind rejects the projecting self, and settles on the ideal self, reaffirming the schism.

It can now reject all the determining past, and its manifestations as sex, race etc.

Fantasy is preferable when reality has proven to be cruel.


Moderns live in idealized space/times – in their own projections of their ideal self, at a distance.

This is the root of their cynical aloofness, and the reason why they deny anything to do with the past, nature, with the physical manifestations of this immutable before.

This rejection, denial, distancing, this forgetting is Nihilism.




Those who feel the most embarrassed about themselves, insecure about their higher cognitive potentials, those who feel ashamed of their past, will want to pull everything down to its lowest common denominator.

Only then do they feel secure, proud, and happy.




The modern nihilist's binary logic, now projected consciously as dualism, separates the real, the (inter)active fluidity (Flux), using the rates it exhibits.

Slower rates are his physical, materialism, what resists change the longest, what is more timeless, more present.

Faster rates are the mental, energy, what exhibits a constant alteration.

Being forever dissatisfied with what is produced, by this (inter)activity, the modern nihilist is always in a perpetual expectation of what is to come.

He rejects what resists change, in other words what order maintains itself in the disordering, for longer periods of time, because he, being a manifestation of the past, is always determined by what he wishes to flee from.

Having closed himself off from exploring this past, in an open, and honest way, he has detached himself from the only exploration that can help him alter his future, in whatever way he can, and to what can also help him deal with what cannot be altered, or what cannot in a manner which would affect him immediately.

His only consolation is this denial of past, this forgetting and dismissing, and his focus on the coming, the yet-to-be, the void full of unknown potentials (hope), is this projection into the future.

He is a "progressive" in this sense: the future, whatever it may be, can only be better than what is, and what was.

Not because he has dealt with it, explored it, understood it, come to terms with it, and not because he has come-up with methods to adapt, but because he has selectively rejected it, depending on immediate cosmetic interventions, and a shared lie.

This shared lie is what he demands all, in his environment, adhere to: a social contract.

It is the shared comforting, grooming, need, language has evolved to satisfy.


The word, giving one's word, is a reaffirmation of this shared lie.

No matter what may be real what matters is that the word can stand-in like a curtain, so as to create this social environment within which the real is reshaped into a new-reality; constructed, sometimes in antithesis to what it tries to change, and denied when this cannot be facilitated. 




Orwell hints, to us, what we need to know.

Orwell, George wrote:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

The first quote hints at the contradictions produced by nihilism.

The word, taken literally, rather than figuratively, creates this schism between the noetic and phenomena.

To deal with it the mind compartmentalizes its standards for evaluating what is real and what is not.

This creates the rift, a schisms, which I consider a natural by-product of modernity.


Orwell, George wrote:

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

The second quote hints at the reversibility of human constructs, since they are now detached form the anchoring, determining, sensual, and become self-referential, and based on human emotional reactions and fabrications, and desires.

With the concept of war, the idea that all life is an agon, a struggle, a battle, a fight, against dissimulation is not explored.

It is posited as only a human practice, making peace a concept promising relief from existential struggles.

The only peace, is death – one "rests in peace" only when the struggle to remain alive is done with.

But now, with the word detached from reality, it becomes an idea(l) implying, with vagueness, what is nowhere in evidence: a state of living death; to be alive and at peace, at the same time.

A paradox resolves with selective reasoning or compartmentalization.


Orwell, George wrote:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

In this third, and last, quote, we find a hint at the power of the word.

Once the past has been forgotten, denied, or reinterpreted, by detaching it from experience and connecting it to mental constructs and emotional sensations, the work of human husbandry is almost done.

What remains is to rip identification from perception, so as to reattach it, to human artifices.

This is difficult since the organism, in this case the human being, is a becoming, and most of its processes are unconscious, automatic; one can erase human conscious memory but not genetic memory.

The word, by limiting human conception to the immediate, detaching it from reality, is part of the solution.

Shame, indoctrination, morality, also contribute is slandering self, and turning ego into a vice.

The rest is dealt with using inebriation, and distraction: fatigue (excessive work), sexual obsession (preoccupation with the sex organ), and numbing methods (drugs, alcohol, religion).




The true motive of the modern nihilist is to reduce all discourse to the mundane and the trivial.

Any talk of the divine, the sacred, the out of bounds, is a desperate attempt to place the subject beyond reach. 




What many men call "progress" is only their forced adjustment to the tides of change.

They are like a river walker who tries to maintain his balance in the water's course.

As the flow alters his environment, he struggles to remain afoot, and this struggle in relation to change he cannot control, nor stop, but only endure, he calls a "step forward".




Demystification: the leveling down of reality expressed as a need to reduce it to a thing, eliminating it as a source of anxiety, producing respect.

The mind ashamed of its nature dreams of tearing down the world to where it finds a common grounding in the base.

The cynic makes everything into a joke; he diminishes the fluid, turning it into an object, and then he ridicules it, bringing it closer, making it more intimate – something lovable because now he can relate to it.    




The word "nihilism" simply means to annul, or it is a doctrine of annulling, negating.

In modern times it is only used to indicate a negation of human constructs, which have no reference to anything outside the human condition.

In other words those who negate existence, as being just that, void of meaning, finality, a moral standard, a universal, absolute, have twisted the word to mean a positive, simply because it is positive to human needs.

The insinuation here is that reality must be positively inclined towards human life, and not that human life stands in a state of antagonism, resistance, to a reality which also gives rise to life.

This reversal of meanings is typical of nihilism and its methodologies.

Not only was the "word" first, in this self-serving paradigm, but humans are the centre of existence, which must conform to human needs, hopes, and projections. 

The organism, in this case the human species, is not burdened with adapting to the world, but the world must adapt to human constructs, defined and symbolized with words.

Language has one function: to symbolize a mental abstraction; a mental abstraction, an idea, being the product of sensual data, collected and processed by the brain, and then simplified/generalized, into an image, at first in its most primitive form, or a concept, attaining the height of a numerical value.

This is where it can acquire a secondary function:

To detach, dismiss, avoid, correct, detach, from the sensual input used to construct it.

This is solipsism at is rawest form.

A self-reference begins, as the word, symbolizing an abstraction, can now be looped back to refer to another abstraction.

The real, collected as input, and interpreted (simplified/generalized) as mental-models (abstractions), falls into the background.

Baudrillard refers to this process as a simulacrum of a simulation.

I go further and connect it all the way back to the Bible, and its obsession with the word.

It's not that there is a God (an absent absolute, referring to an absolute order, a complete past), but that with the bible the word IS God.


The word is authoritarian because it demands total obedience to its shared definition.

It is determining because it shapes and limits human thinking.

It demands loyalty because the sensual must be denied power – it is cast as the Devil.

The word is malleable and so it is comforting, it offers salvation from the real, to minds who must escape their past/nature.

The only possibility for eliminating the sensual, the experienced, the perceived, is to shame it, turning it into a "sin," or, like in the east, into an "illusion."

It's not that the word fails to adequately describe the real, but that the real is totally false, leaving the word in the void.




Modernity as Consuming and Digesting

To consume is to deconstruct, to destroy, and to then assimilate the parts into a new organization.

Life is this consuming self-organizing part of reality.

To life is to destroy what is alive, and to then be destroyed and assimilated, by another.

Nihilism is this method of internal reorganization of what has been destroyed, cut into pieces, and then selectively devoured.


It is an internal digestive process of a Superorganism, feeding on organisms.

The destruction of identity, the detachment of the organism from its past, from nature, from reality, mirrors the process of killing, masticating, and then swallowing the ground up into fine pieces.

Digestion is the creation of a fine, uniform paste (equalization), from where the new organism draws nutrients from (production) – reorganizing the pieces in accordance with its own internal structures, its own needs (institutionalization). 

It in an internal digestive process.




One begins to consume otherness, only when this hunger has already fed upon itself.

The organism begins to consume itself, to the point where pain/suffering commences.

Then it is driven, so as to not eat itself alive, to seek nutrition elsewhere.

Have not modern minds been deprived of nutrition to the point where they’ve eaten themselves alive?

Almost dead, they stumble into the world, sniffing for something to fill them up.

Need is how a hungry mind is lead to the slaughterhouse.




The modern is so encased in his own little world – the one he pays for to retain the “right” to do so – that now he no longer has to watch the news or anything which he finds deplorable or outside his/her comfort zone.

With his service to the system, offering him this “right,” he purchases his own tiny world, cut-off from everything and anything that challenges or contradicts him.

He can tweak, twitter, surf, watch, listen, and enjoy anything he likes, just as long as he remains loyal and useful to the service provider.

He can become a loner, a recluse, an asexual, totally detached form the world outside his small existence, and all he needs to do to purchase this “right” is to pay his dues to the institution that shelters him from a reality that cares not about personal spaces and enclosed universes.

Within this sheltered, enclosed, reality, this mind can now feel safe enough to remain aloof, cynical, and indifferent to anything which he chooses not to touch him.

He refuses to acknowledge what he has accepted, as self-evident, to purchase this tiny, little space, or what he must do on a daily basis to maintain this "right" to mock and to remain detached and carefree, and careless.

But the cost is not a high one to pay for the many who have either remained stunted in their sheltered existence or have not inherited the potential to grow beyond a certain limit.

Not much reason is sacrificed by the average Christian who gives it up as evidence of his complete faith in the irrational he calls belief, and the average modern man has very little identity to deny so as to gain the "greater" identity in the projected Ideal.




A language using symbols with no reference to a phenomenon is a language detached from reality.

In modern times, words are used not to refer to reality, to what is perceived, but to refer either to another mind, an authority (deferring, dependence negating independence), or to refer back to itself (delusion, solipsism).

The word becomes a method, a way of escaping the world, rather than engaging it. 




The Modern man projects his need/desire upon what is empty of permanence, void of complete satisfaction, and then declares it to be a negative.




Because of the absence of absolutes, all theories, all godlike visions, all revealing, are flawed.

To cope, therefore, becomes a matter of finding the exceptions, the flaws, so as to discredit the entire theory.

The one who sees must humble himself, show deference to this idea that since all theories are flawed, then all are equally possible... which means none are so.

The status quo is preserved... nothing is done... zero effort.

Any resistance on the part of the one who sees, who reveals, is to be considered hubris, arrogance, an ego wanting to dominate because it feels insecure – it is compensating.

No superior/inferior hierarchy is accepted – no survival of the strongest meme, the most probable possibility.

All must humble themselves to the negative, the absence of the absolute – which is presumed but never presented.

Before the unknown Absolute – out there awaiting discovery, like a coming messiah – all perspectives must bow – as equally flawed, equally sinful, and equally weak.

The one who reveals must show deference to the collective who have already settled and want things to remain as they are, only debating on the minor details of what is shared – Biblical studies.

Philosophy as a debate over who saw what, where nothing is ever considered superior and all is mere perspective.

The one who exposes must be reminded of his humanity – he must be brought down to the lowest-common-denominator so that nobody is forced to adjust; nobody shamed, nobody hurt, nobody embarrassed, nobody exposed as a liar and a hypocrite.





The, so called, Abrahamic religious traditions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), represent, for Aryan tradition, that period of overturning when the previous form of nihilism, as a looking back towards absolute Order, slowly entered into its Modern state, as a looking forth to an absolute end.

With Abrahamic religions the Absolute reached its apex/nadir state, and man approached the Divine.

Man was placed in between the God, overhead, and the Devil beneath his feet, each anthropomorphized according to taste, or abstracted into an ideal.

With both these binary projections so close at hand man felt the pressure of their presence in his mind.

In the past the Divine was perceived as this distant absent-absolute, a thorn in his mind, coming to his presence in the guise of gods and goddesses, each with their own demands upon him.

In modern times the absent-absolute is projected as the coming, the second coming of the near-absolute that has to be forgotten so as to make the approach towards it more effective.

Forgetfulness is this reinvention of self, by letting go of the past as unneeded baggage, enlightening the mind as it sprints forward.

Still in the midst of this flipping of the perspective from looking to the distant past, to looking to the shallow future, the present secular-humanist psychology reflects this passing stage of Abrahamic immediacy relating to the absent-absolute.

One can expect that as time progresses, and the distance from the near-absolute past–the real–increases (represented as God or Big Bang), that man will project his imagined/created ideal further and further ahead, wanting to compensate for the increasing chaos (randomness), leaving behind the Abrahamic stage as the point in space-time when he psychologically, culturally, altered his attitude in relation to self and to this need/suffering that characterizes his experience of existing.

This projection towards increasing distances will detach him imagination from its past, and fantasy will take over where creativity rooted in reality once governed his mind.

This will constitute the final stage of alienation from self.

No longer aware of the past, and his hope cast further and further adrift in space/time, he will be left alone in the waves of Fluctuating (inter)activity, the tides growing stronger and stronger, the winds picking-up speed, his vessel, itself a construct of the past, crumbling all around him.

What shall keep him afloat then?

Forgetting is a form of self-condemnation, self-damnation.

Only a mind that forgets can repeat its past mistakes having nothing to draw support from.                     



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Modern Mind-Control

Shaping Perspectives




1- Repeat Official Dogma

The consistent repetition of imagery, words, associated with ideas, emotions, constructing a shared consciousness by creating an immediate past.


2- Emotion

Use Shame, Guilt, and Ridicule to silence any contrary position.

Use love, joy, humour, hope in relation to the preferred world view.

Place a high price to any exploration of a possibility that contradicts the official narrative; impose a higher standard of proof on any possibility that does not agree with the official dogma.


3- Confuse Knowledge for Understanding

Make the knowledge of a word associated with an idea synonymous with the understanding of the idea.

Education becomes a way of turning minds dependent on institutions.

In more complex specializations train the mind to follow established methodologies, precedent, and the shared manual.


4- Restrict thinking to binary dualism, the either/or

Any contrary opinion must be categorized as being on the opposite camp which is preferably one characterized by positions which accept the basic principles of the preferable dogma – McLuhan’s thesis applies.

Playing both sides of the dualistic paradigm restricts all conceptions, forcing them into seemingly contrary positions which, nevertheless, never challenge the shared underlying principles.


5- Inhibit Pattern Recognition

The inhibition of patterns recognition restricts the minds ability to reason independently.

Dependence on authorities to educate it on what is perceived, and what it means, institutionalizes the individual.

To further inhibit free-thought insecurity in one's own judgements is promoted, as no idea is taken seriously if it is not referring, or deferring to authority figures, or is not speaking on behalf of an established institutionalized perspective.

Even if the mind is able to perceive patterns and it can analyse possible explanations, it is embarrassed to risk an opinion unless it has been supported by an established authority or it has been accredited by an established institution.

Of course this only applies to subjects that are considered undesirable, or socially reprehensible, or perspectives that contradict the internal cohesion.

Judgment in all other areas is uninhibited. 

To gain this institutional credibility one must first absorb, and perhaps internalize, the official knowledge and its acceptable understanding.


6- Cultivate confusion rather than Lucidity

The usage of language to imply depth, complexity, which cannot be displayed, is how a concept is converted from absurd to feasible.

Detaching words from external reference points is the first step before the second of redefining their meaning, by connecting them to noetic constructs.

Hiding the process in unnecessary complexity is how the vague, exploiting emotion and human vulnerability, convinces the many, creating an inter-subjective reality – a world within the world.

Nihilistic meme detaching from gene.

What paradoxes remain as the by-product of this idea(l) being contrary to the real, can be easily smoothed over, using the same method of (re)definition and word placement within a sentence, when the mind has been properly identified (as a fellow mind in desperate need), and indoctrinated (educated). The other will want to be convinced, otherwise he is excluded from the sheltering community of delusion, of Nihilistic detachment.

His willingness will make him an agency of his own imprisonment. 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Modern Dialectics

Deciphering the Code of Nihilism




One of the ways minds are entrapped within nihilistic structures is through the socialized process of education.

Words are redefined, in some cases to the extreme point of reversing their original meaning.

If and when this training/educating succeeds, total indoctrination is established. The mind cannot think outside the definitions and word-play, and it is released from direct supervision – the illusion of freedom becomes possible.

The turning of reality upon its head, the reversed pyramid, indicates an overturning of hierarchies.

The "meek shall inherit the Earth" but only if they buy into a world where definitions are altered–a world of artifices created for them, seducing them into its promised liberation from their condition. 

What follows is an exploration of the feminine tactic of word-play, verbal manipulation, selling a "positive," emotional, product by negating, nullifying reality – a process of seduction, and emotional manipulation.  

Appropriate if we begin from the very word Nihilism itself.


Nihilism– The concept of Nihilism is now defined as any position which admits to the fact that there is no moral law, no teleos, and no absolute law, outside of the human brain.

Essentially, the positivity of the world, as that which makes life, consciousness, possible, and permits creativity, as the expression of a Will's command, is defined as a "negative".

The missing absolute, a human construct itself, its absence in the world is labelled a nil, implying the "positivity" of what is a human artifice.  

The world is nil because it does not conform to human needs, human desires, human dependencies, and the positive the one, in the binary system, is human projections which "correct" this deficiency in nature.

This is the beginning of the process where reality is replaced by the idea(l).


World– When a Modern speaks of the world he most often speaks of the world of man.

Even when engaging reality, nature, it does so through a mediating human proxy.

The world is never something it engages directly, and whenever the term "world" is brought up it is always a reference to human artifices, the world of man.

The human world rather than being a tiny part of the world at large, now becomes the all-encompassing paradigm swallowing up reality into its human simplifications.

The world becomes malleable, less stressful, more predictable, simply by incorporating it within human abstractions, expressed with numerical or linguistic codes.

The practice of using the term “world” when referring to manmade artifices, in time, and through constant repetition, becomes established as a norm.

The world can only be engage via a human proxy, or a humanitarian agenda–perceiving must wear the glasses of humanism and see the world through its self-serving decrees. 


Perspectivism– Originally a term used to describe the human limitation admitting to the fact that all human perceptions are interpretations, perspectives, of the real; it has now become a method of levelling all opinions down to an equal footing, erasing hierarchies.

The implication begins from the negative, as all nihilistic positions do: the absence of an absolute, in this case omniscience, now becomes an argument for the presence of an absolute parity, the oneness of human ignorance.

Because language shares data, perspectives, disseminating them within human structures where even the lowly can adopt them and parrot them to indicate inclusion, the idea that an equal understanding is also achieved.

Data dissemination – access to knowledge, information – becomes a way of establishing the illusion of equality in reasoning, or in analyses of data.

Here is where the previous misinterpretation of the term “World” becomes important. When all approaches towards reality must go through human artifices, or human experts, human authorities, institutions, disseminators and analyzers of data, information access is castrated because none of the minds with access to it has the ability or the attitude required to process the data – find patterns within it.

It either repeats it verbatim, like a parrot, regurgitates it as it were, or it defers to another who provides it with an analysis, an understanding.

If this proxy fails to provide an answer, or declares the concept far too complex, or postpones a conclusion indefinitely, then the minds using this proxy follow suit.

The “official” position on any matter is the position of merit.

All other perspectives are equally speculative, and only perspectives of the official position; not reality itself, but perspectives of a perspective.


The illusion of parity, based on communal ignorance/gnosis, is strengthened by imposing a higher standard upon any perspective that challenges the communal perspective, and a lower standard for any perspective that feeds into the communal perspective.

In some cases absolute evidence, an absolute certainty is demanded, from the first, whereas from the second any absurdity is tolerated as philosophically "possible" – the objectivity of the mediocre Modern mind. 

The modern mind failing to rely on its own authority, and having become dependent on community authorities, or communal decrees of what is more or less possible or what deserves consideration and what does not, can never show the deference requires to consider a position outside these social conventions.

Perspectivism becomes a method of dismissing any opinion that does not go through a communal proxy.

The average mind having no ability to perceive or to analyze reality beyond a certain point, determined by its genetic inheritance and mimetic stifling, redirection, of potentials, can now repeat the conclusions it is given without having to understand the process by which these conclusions were reached.

The mediocre modern mind can now defer, refer, knowing that someone, at some time, has done the thinking it cannot do, for it.  


Positive/Negative– Perspectivism offers the perfect excuse to avoid connecting words, like positive/negative, to reality.

Having no proxy which would dare offer one which contradicted social conventions, the words are left to describe a subjective perspective.

No attempt is made to refer them to real phenomenon, in the fear of losing control over the words themselves, by placing the standard outside human artifices–artifices which can be controlled and altered at will.

All definitions must be filtered through proxies, referring and deferring to human needs.

When the need is based on the socio-economic, cultural paradigm trying to establish and maintain internal harmony, then all definitions which connect words to a reality outside this paradigm are rejected, or judged using the most absolutist, stringent, standards so as to ridicule, and then dismiss them out of hand.


Emotion– The usage of words to stimulate innate emotional responses, is part of the Pavlovian method, and a tool for the application of nihilism for the creation of uniformity, in this way minimizing internal structural frictions.

The emotion of "love", being a natural, instinctive, bonding mechanism, is presented as the opposite to the anxiety, a preparatory stage for the fight/flight mechanism, we call fear when it reaches an extreme... just as we call suffering when need exceeds a certain level of human tolerance.

In fact hate is the opposite of love, but this method is meant to blur the connection of fear with its numbing mechanism love.


Words in Nihilistic, Modern, environments are used to refer to a sensation, an automatic (re)action, and an emotion.

Reality, the perceived, the aesthetic, the real, is, again, excluded... pushed into the background.

All concepts must go through humanistic emotional filtering.

Shame is the peer pressuring method of silencing any idea which exceeds this social need to maintain internal harmony.

Love becomes the replacement of God – the divine being stripped of its anthropomorphic representation, leaving behind its emotional humanistic ingredient.

Ergo, whatever goes beyond the acceptable, within modern nihilistic dialogue, must be connected to hate, or fear... because fear can only produce hate, it can never result in love as a way of dealing with it.

The sacredness of love is preserved by disconnecting the emotion from its natural roots, allowing it to remain an ambiguous, purified, noetic, abstraction.

For the Modern nihilist all ideas concerning reality cannot be approached independently from sex, race, or personal circumstances. For him reality can only be judged by how it affects the individual personally, and the idea that someone may consider a position superior even if it hurts him on a personal level, is something he cannot process.

The evolution of love, as a way of coping with fear/anxiety is, therefore, rejected as "inhuman," because it connects the emotion, the phenomenon, with a reality that is indifferent to human concepts and sensations.


Progress– The concept of progress has been subverted by modernity. The word has been hijacked, forcefully recruited into Nihilistic dogma, and taken away from any definition other than the one it has now been mimetically attached to.

To "progress" is to move forward... but we are all moving, and if the direction you take you prefer to call it forward, because it is before you, before your eyes, which is significant for a predatory species, then this movement is always forward.

But this is not what the modern mind understands by forward. For it the movement is not merely a movement forth, a towards a projected object/objective because the only forward it can accept, in relation to the unknown immanent future, is the association of the object/objective with what is prefers, what it desires, what it needs.

The action, directed wilfully, towards an object/objective can only be a "forward" if it leaves what it does not desire, what it finds distasteful, what it does not need, what, in fact, is detrimental to what it needs, behind.

Behind is "overcome", it is undesired, it is forgotten, it is primitive, and why not, it is inferior to what lies ahead, forward, towards the yet-to-be, the immanent, the promising, and the possible.

Space, as a projection of possibilities, must always lead to a "positive" to its needs, outcome.

The only acceptable possibility is a possibility that fulfils a need... dissatisfaction is behind, as what must be left there forever.

Dissatisfaction is what motivates and motivation must be left behind.

The imagined, not pushing it forward, but pulling it... placing the Will at the helm of what motivates.

So, it is not the need pressing it forward, but the Will, guided by a projected object/objective, now taking on the form of a promising idea(l) which motivates, which causes it to move in that direction.

Need/suffering is overcome.

It no longer motivates... the willing is purified.

It is not moved by need/suffering, but by pure promise.


The Modern will deny need/suffering, fear, being what motivates it.

The artist, for instance, does not create out of need, the lover does not love out of need, the action is sanctified... placed in the coming future, in the beyond the present, and far beyond the despicable, primitive past.

The object/objective, now the idea(l), does not exist... it is in the beyond space time, forever coming but never present; it never appears, it is pure promise.

Nothing worldly can soil it pragmatically because it is never applied, it avoids becoming real, remaining forever ideal.   


Equality– The notion of 'equality' is directly linked to the codification of reality and its detachment from the aesthetic world of experience.

The tautology that 2=2 or that a=a refers to an ambiguity, a symbol referring to a mental construct with no connection to anything outside the mind, unless one draws the symbol on paper or on some material surface.

The symbol can now refer to anything in the real world, and its only consistency can be found in its strict adherence to a definition, which is itself encoded symbolically. This practice of providing a written definition is necessary because the symbol may lose meaning, being understood differently by every mind, since it has no shared reference point outside the human mind.

This stringent adherence to the code, the written down words, which enforce an intellectual consistency for the understanding of concepts which may or may not have a sensual reference point in space/time now creates the illusion of parity.

Because the word "human" must always be equal to itself no matter how many times it is replicated, or in what medium, or colour, or general linguistic form it is replicated, therefore the concept “human” becomes a concept which implies equality for everyone it is used to describe.

The code must remain true to the definition, the book of definitions, and so the concept the word describes can now also remain constant and uniform no matter how many variation of the same is replicated.


Freedom– Freedom, as a concept with no definition not related to human constructs, becomes, for the Modern the highest virtue.

For the Modern Nihilist freedom means liberty from the past, from nature, from self as it has been determined.

The concept fills the mind with terror, and over time the first excitement turns to a sense of emptiness, and desperation, seeking for something to attach one's self to, something to light the path towards an object/objective.

The most terrified are the simplest minds; the ones who are the least able to cope with an idea they have no thought through.

These simple minds are the first to attach themselves to a new dependence.

Their original overestimation becomes a desperate cry for an alternative incarceration.

Independence is not possible as an absolute.

The moderns dream of detaching themselves from the past but they can do no more than forget, and deny its effect upon their presence.

They mistake their choices as free choices, when the very degree of their options is limited by the past, as it projects itself forward.

The consequences of this delusion is the loss of self, a denouncement of ego; self-hatred becoming a rejection of one's inheritance, a resentment of presence/appearance, and the desperate attempt to castrate one's body from one's mind, as if mind were not the product of brain processes.

This is nihilism twisting a self-annulment into a "positive" value, by projecting it as some coming future state and by refusing to define the word used to represent the feeling the ambiguity gives the brain.

American "individuality" is the most popular manifestation of this drive to self-negate.

Its social purpose is to disconnect the mind form any supporting sources that would increase its resistance to indoctrination.



The previous exploration of some of the words used by moderns to cocoon themselves in the humans artifices they were raised to depend upon, and to value because they eliminate nature (past), offering them an easy way to parity, leads to this:


>Declarative sentences, full of self-aggrandizing, self-flattery, insinuating what he cannot deliver, being arrogant but not directly so, so as to retain his commitment to communal humility.

Here the recitation of words that imply one's own superiority, or conformity to the communal dogma which gives them superiority through association, may not refer to anything real... it may even be contradicted by performance.

What matters is the statement, the casual insinuation, which is supposed to leave a residue one can benefit from, or reject, if called on it.

For instance, one might mention how well-read, or well-travelled, they are, implying cultivation he cannot then prove with his positions, or the defence of the positions he's adopted, as his own, from an authority... or someone might name-drop a famous figure, or another mind's work (treatise or famous philosophical school of thought), implying collusion through shared understanding but unable to prove it by defending these views using his own words.

This, too, is part of the communal illusion of parity. 


>Deference to a known or unknown authority, either an individual thinker or an institutionalized position.

The deference to this authority need not be accompanied by personal understanding.

The mind need only know of the words associated with the position, and be able to recite them from memory.

No personal participation beyond this regurgitation of words is necessary.

Furthermore, ignorance positions itself on faith. 

It has faith in the institutional decrees, which must have thought these things though, are motivated by reason, and have the particular mind's interests in mind.

Such a mind cannot say why or who or what, but it has faith that somewhere, somehow, the shared communal beliefs are justified by someone, or something.

The Modern mind can now distract itself with hedonism, materialism, and judge his performance accordingly, because it has faith that its best interests are being handled by minds superior than it, in knowledge, not in quality... the illusion that it, too, could function as such an authority if it committed itself towards this goal, must be retained.

The child, also, has faith in parental protection, allowing it to direct its attentions to play.


>Emotional Appeal– A proposition is now judged not by its reasoning, its arguments, connecting it to a perceived shared world, but by its emotional appeal, its connection to a shared method of coping with the world, which must be kept at a distance.

Emotion has changed its functionality.

It was meant to offer efficiency to an organism with automatic (re)action to reality, later it became a method of dealing with individual weakness, making herding, heterosexual reproduction, and then communal living, and cooperation, possible, but now utility is founded on how it preserves the internal artifices, by shaming dissenters into silence, or by evoking emotional arguments to defend shared illusions. 

The standard for judging, for thinking, has ceased to be perception, reason, awareness, and is now a reference to how the perceived affects the individual, or the community of individuals, personally, emotionally.

The appeal to emotional criteria is really a veiled appeal to hedonism and materialism, or to whatever gives us, as humans, pleasure.

The need is to remain comfortable, comforted, content... Happy.

Thinking is returned to its primal motive, its primitive unconsciousness, while it is now defined as an enlightened state.

Consciousness does not necessarily lead to happiness, to contentment, in fact it exposes the mind to what is troubling, indifferent, and uncertain, outside its comfort zones.

With Modern Nihilism the sheltering verbiage is preferable because the mind needs to remain infantile, playing carelessly, while someone else takes care of reality for it.




Modernity and the Word [1]

When it comes to words the modern mind must detach them from anything perceived, from what is sensually perceived.

By detaching them, the word is liberated from its purpose, as that which attempts to define, to refer to, the real world.

The word only retains a reference to a text, the book (dictionary), which defines it in the most abstract way (simplification/generalization), so as to remain useful as a method of communication; it need not have a reference outside the text, made up of words itself, nor a reference outside the human brain.


The word, thusly liberated, can now be manipulated with fewer restrictions.

It can be used to symbolize the reverse, the ambiguous, always retaining a connection to an emotion rather than a sensation.

The word becomes evidence of Perspectivism because each mind can now apply it at will.

Once freed from the world it had to submit to the mind that utilizes its symbol. The word now refers back to personal attitude, an emotional (re)action to the phenomenon, not to the phenomenon itself–its application is a matter of perspective, indeed.

The more abstract the concept being symbolized by the word is, the more it can be detached from the sensual, the perceived; it can now hover in limbo, forever insubstantial… mystical, magical.

Words like male/female, positive/negative, good/bad, one/nil, lose all substance.

They have been made interchangeable, pure abstraction with no referential point outside human abstractions.         




Modernity and the Word [2]

The modern nihilist passionately assaults all attempts to connect a word, a concept, with reality.

To do so would take away from him the power of reinventing everything, including himself.  

(Re)Attachment to reality is what he seeks to avoid, with its determining, immutable, pasts.

The word, referring only to a mental abstraction, must remain in a relationship of symbol, defined by text, denoting a mental model, or an authority providing one.

The word must remain mysterious, and ambiguous, or else it loses its power to contradict the perceived.

Any attempt to (re)attach the word, symbolizing the mental model, with the phenomenon, a pattern of (inter)activity, is attacked as being authoritarian, totalitarian, fascistic, bigoted.   




Modernity and the Word [3]

Nihilism has taken over both sides of the binary model, each one representing the other’s opposite, each one with nothing real to present as an example of its reality, each one presupposing and implying the other.

The 1/0 binary model is the most abstract form of dualism.

In fact, both sides refer to the same concept, the same negation of the real, the same end of existence.

No longer symbols, they’ve become the absent absolute as symbol, as word, as pure abstraction (vaguely implying a dimensionless reality), with no referential point.

What they are is companions of nihilism, the masculine/feminine, the good/bad, the positive/negative, represented as opposites but both participating in the world’s symbolic annihilation, if taken literally.

Whether one negates existence with an absolute singularity or an absolute nil, makes little difference.

All that it indicates is a psychological, sexual, predisposition in the mind showing a preference in one or the other, as a final destination point. 

To them both, and to the model they both participate in, the existent, stands forever as that which lacks both a one and a nil.

To deny this is to deny the world as it is.    




Positive/Negative [1]

In relation to the concepts of positive/negative the polarities are reversed, once the word has been detached from the realm of human experience and perception.

Each term, representing the other’s opposite in typical binary dualism, can be arbitrarily applied, in accordance to whim, or how the particular individual relates, on an emotional/cognitive level, to the perceived phenomenon; personal taste, individual psychology, tip the balances either way – on the either/or absolute scales.   




Positive/Negative [2]

Positive is no longer that which requires effort, agon, to persist.

It can now be given the characteristics of the negative, and what requires no effort to persist, as if this change of names will also alter the nature of the phenomenon.

The element of expectation is involved.

The mind resists the (re)connection to reality, and submits to fate.

That which requires no effort is now full of possibility, “positive” in relation to the mind’s needs.

The female mind must remain open, remain accessible, give herself over to superior possibilities, and there is no greater force of increasing possibilities than this “towards chaos.”

The “positive” aspect of what these possibilities entail, are left to chance – a blind hope (faith).  

The female mind must give-in to what holds, for her, the most promise, is the most seductive with its apparent potentials, and in this sense chaos, change, is full of possibilities, whose potentials are indeterminable – a mysterious, charmer, full of promises, delivered through the mouths of his representatives.

No matter how powerful a force a corporeal, mortal, ephemeral, ordering can present itself as, it is no match to the natural ease of effortless change, exploding with increasing possibilities.

Another paradox emerges: a female mind, attracted to ordering, as an indication of masculine authority, is now “swept off her feet” by a force no real man can equal.

She is promiscuous in her endless search for the “perfect male,” and because no real-world masculine entity can ever completely meet her criteria, she becomes cynical towards masculinity.

A far greater, force is present; an irresistible one.

But it remains faceless, enigmatic, threatening.

To enable her submission to this force of change, this towards increasing randomness, which is more a promise of decay and lifelessness, clever minds project into this coming future, this progress towards the unknown, an order beyond the human mind’s ability to imagine – a Divine Being, a something, a paradise, a utopia.

Chaos has now been redefined, with a word, into its opposite.     




Modernity and the Word [4]

When the spoken word was made into the written word, the emergence of moderns, as children of the book, and by the book, became inevitable.

The contact between the physicality of the concept and the world it was describing became fragile.

The path towards detachment was set.

Abstraction increased where not even the utterance of the word could remind the brain of its roots. The word became purified as a thought with few attachments to the experienced.    




The body acts, because it can do nothing but act, its existence is that of acting.

The brain thinks, as its own form of acting, wanting to direct the body's actions, only then questioning its own direction, later questioning its own acting.

The methods used to direct the primitive mind to act in particular ways later become the motive of the act itself.

The brain interpreting the sensation of acting as need, and the sensation of successfully carrying through with an action as pleasure mistakenly believes itself to be the source of both when it is nothing other than a tool in the service of acting.

Modernity manipulates this misunderstanding, directing the mind's control over the body, towards socially useful behaviours.

The mind of the Modern confusing the sensation of an action motivated and then completed turns the completion into its reason for acting – Hedonism.

Materialism is Hedonism given a tangible object/objective.

Simpler minds need tangible goals, with the promise of an immediate gratification.




From the perspective of need/suffering being the driving force for human creativity, for life’s struggle, reflecting cosmic processes, Abrahamic religions proposed the absolute as present, occupying some hidden crevice of our perceptual-event-horizon, there, but not-there, all at once.

From the position of need/suffering, existence, being something a man had to deal with, cope with, find ingenious methods to trick and to overcome in himself, we pass through that phase where surrender to the certainty of the absolute’s demand being paid in full, and we enter the next phase of the nihilistic virus’ lifespan.

In modern times payment can be postponed, need/suffering forgotten, denied – a rejection of past/nature – pleasure finding equal footing with pain, just as the ideal surpasses the real in relevance.

Need/suffering no longer urges man to act, but he is freed from the past, now motivated by his own will, his own creation, as the ideal pulling him towards it with tis hypothesized promise.

Man’s activities are sanctified when they are torn away from their natural “base”.

The idea(l) having nothing to answer to releases itself as pure speculation.

Man feels liberated.

He can invent himself as this coming “future man” because he no longer resides in that looking back, and the present God of Abraham has not satisfied his expectations. He is pure expectation, he no longer draws inspiration form the past he forget or denounces; his expectations are purified in idealism.

He wills the coming perfection, becoming master of himself.

He is the coming God, no longer in the past, not in the most immediate past, the present.

He is pure idea(l).

The meme surpasses the gene.         




God is dead, is the proclamation of the rejection of the determining, immutable, higher-ordered past.

Past, yes, being another term for nature – sum of all nurturing.

The sacredness of nature, once divided into multiple forces, later simplified into an authoritarian, autocratic, singularity, is to be declared dead.

What has been declared dead?

Man's nature, human past.

Now it’s no more than a place to visit, like a park, a zoo, or in the mausoleum to reminisce over a long lost relative.

Man is released from his past... he is now Modern.

He forgets, denies, and reinvents himself with words.

Whatever he cannot turn away from, his appearance, he redefines, he declares shallow, inapplicable.

And what are words?

Words are God reinvented... not past, any longer, but immanence, the up-and-coming, the immanent future.

Man is not propelled forth by his past, his need, his lost order trying to organize itself anew, but he is pulled forth by the projection of the absolute as a future idea(l), represented by the code (language: numbers, words).

The idea(l) replaces the real – progress is this focus on the projected object/objective.


The Monist God was the intermediate stage when the Divine was flipped on its head, proclaiming the age of Nihilism.

As with all flipping, there is a short time where the object flipped rests perpendicular to one’s head.

The Monist God of Judeo-Christianity was this singularity hovering over man’s head, threatening his existence with its mass.

Now morality, teleos, meaning, once associated with the concept of Nihilism are the projected human constructs made real with words.


God morphed into symbol.

The past is forgotten, denied... and a New Age, a new form of Nihilism, is born and baptized; announced with joy.

One that rejects reality, nature, the past, because all of that was void of human constructs, empty of the things man needed to remain sane, to comfort himself, to placate the masses, to direct them with hope – hope being an antidote to fear.

The forever immanent future turns fear into hope.

The Judeo-Christian phase was this process in the most present, where the monist God was closer to man than any other time before.

But such hope no longer stirs the cynical modern mind.

Spinoza, the most famous secular Jew, announces the turn from past, then to present, and finally into future.

The "present" was still far too connected, far too determined by the past.

It had to be left behind, along with the past.

The future, on the other hand, is free from all such constraints.

When one thinks of the future one is free to fantasize as he wishes.

What the human mind can imagine it can project as possible.

Imagination detached from nature (past), becomes fantasy – the fantastic.

Man is released from his responsibility to his ancestry.

His family is to be escaped from.


Did not Jesus declare himself as the way which one had to undertake by first leaving behind his family?

Did not God test Abraham by commanding him to slaughter his only begotten son?

Modern man has castrated himself from his nature.

He can now make himself new (reborn), identifying with the most recent, or the most hopeful yet-to-come.

He has no obligation to anyone, or to anything but himself.

Modern man does not live in the past, nor the present, for that matter.

He exists as a future possibility, as a fantasy, a pure idea(l); one that is always on its way, always full of possibilities because it is unrestricted by probabilities determined by an unforgiving nature, a determining past.

He has alienated himself from himself, and he feels empty.

His new-found freedom, achieved by self-mutilation, self-castration, exposes him to Sartre's terror.

He rushes back to the ongoing present, seeking there an immediate gratification, a relief, a sense of self in pleasure, in matter, in the here and now.

He numbs his pain with chemicals, fills himself with numbness, and distracts himself with the trivial.

And in his desperation, his need for a fullness he forgot, the one he gave up, he surrenders himself to the current.




The Pagan gods were powerful but not omnipotent, wise, but not omniscient, beautiful but not perfect, not impervious to the ugly.

The Judeo-Christian God was all that, and also self-contradictory, to make room for His existence.

Good, but not so good as to not be able to conceive of evil.

Perfect but whimsically imperfect in His indifferent boredom; wise but with a bit of insanity to explain human suffering.

The Yin/Yang of the east, with a dirty-old man's face – Abraham's appearance.    

Modernity "surpasses" both with the simple act of self-lobotomy – fragmentation of mind, compartmentalization, schizophrenia.

A traumatized mind often uses self-hypnosis to isolate a memory and then quarantine it out of consciousness.

It's inability to cope results in technique, permitting all weak psychologies to cope.

Madness, as a method of culling, becomes a social imperative.

To be insane is no longer a vice but a virtue; remaining infantile, exo-pragmatic, no longer a recipe for self-destruction, but the height of human playfulness.

Play not as a necessary step of preparation, practice, and ascetic training... but as an end in itself.

Infantile play as the final stage before senility.        




The surrender to authority, to the word of the master/expert, is a reflection of world in otherness.

The Modern, cannot be exposed to the world, cannot have it revealed, without him thinking of the other, who has done this to him, as the origin of the vision.

The one exposing is then accused of being the one creating the vision, because they are born and raised in a world where realities are constructs of human abstractions, suing words.

When the world is exposed, the one exposing it is the creator of what is being exposed.

He invented the world as it is revealed to them... because they know-not of a world outside human artifices.

He tricks them with words – with rhetoric, with word-games – because word-games are all they have to appreciate and to escape.

Hate redirected.

The world as revealed is frightening... anger, hatred, fills the mind.

It requires a focus.

How does one feel anger towards reality?

He anthropomorphizes it.

The one who has revealed is the one who has done this to the mind – wrath is directed towards the one who exposes the world, as if he invented it.

Nature = Devil


Fight/Flight is no option.

How does one fight the world; how does one run away from it?

Love... the drug of inebriating hope.


An addict deals with a world it cannot deal with by medicating himself – placing himself in a state of numbness, lethargy, confused, sleepiness.

He does not exit reality – he numbs the organ that makes him conscious of it – the brain.

He is oblivious to the world.

Same applies for the medicating memes, of Nihilism.

Same applies for the purifies, sexless, Platonic idea(l) of love.

It's a mind-numbing oblivion.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr




The old saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" must be modified to "Beware of Nihilists using words".


The symptomatology of Nihilism will follow.

It permeates what we call Western Culture, because it has been infected, thousands of years ago, by a mental virus, a memetic pathogen.

The pathogen infest the weakest of the weak, spreading throughout from these vulnerable spots.

It has been called by many names, but the most recent, modern, ones are: Liberalism, Feminism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, and straight out Nihilism.

Past monikers are: Christianity, Monism, Islam, Judaism... the last being the infection point where the virus came into contact with Indo-European, manifested as Hellenism/Pax Romana.   


We begin with an inversion of the current definition of Nihilism as the absence of meaning, purpose, morality.

All these being human constructs, noumena (abstractions), with no reference to anything but back to human abstractions. 

These words are used and abused, precisely because they are entirely human constructs.

There is nothing to limit their application.

With nothing apparent to refer to, they are "free" to describe whatever human abstraction man invents.

In the case of morality the word has been detached from its biological function, as a social behaviour enabling cooperative harmonious coexistence, and has been used as a substitute for the other human construct symbolized by the word "God".


What will follow is a brief, and helpfully concise description of this mental virus which has now become so ingrained in western minds that we can only call it Modern.





Detachment of symbols, metaphors, words from appearances, the real – the phenomenon.

The practice involves the maintenance of words, representing noetic abstractions, in a state of perpetual limbo.

The mind disconnects the symbol from its reference point, and redirects it back to the mind, which is then shared (hive mind) as a community of the like-minded.

Since a reference point is required to substitutes for the one missing, the mind reconnects the abstraction to an emotion, a lower cognitive process, and then supports its word using animal instinctual criteria, then determining it as involved in higher cognition, or it is enlightened, superior, awakened.

This condition of self-referential looping, is considered an ascent, as it is a breaking away from reality, the world, towards the stratosphere of noetic constructs, no longer constricted by the base, earthly, the phenomenon, the apparent – the world.

The effect is that of expansion, of liberation, an emotional (re)action to the detachment, even if noetically, from an indifferent, harsh, threatening, uncertain world of (inter)activity.

This is called Subjectivity.

It is also given many different other labels, which will be explained in another entry.








Multiplicity as evidence of freedom:

The modern mind correctly assumes that having more options, is a sign of freedom, but it associates a detachment from reality, which limits options, as the epitome of liberation.

The effect is one of multiplicity, void of content.

Whereas minds referring to reality, are limited by this reality which is not in their wilful control, the Nihilist experiences no such constraint.

It can now use words in almost any way he wants, only limited by the central Scripture of words, the Dictionary, and this because his condition is reliant of community which he must remain within and in constant contact with.

His noetic constructs becomes increasingly fantastic, each generation adding more to the mix.

Because realists cannot and will not detach from reality they presume a conspiracy, or an illness, because for them remaining in agreement with another, for any period of time, is a sign of being brainwashed, given the multiplicity of options available to a mind that is no longer attached to reality, and dismisses it as illusion.

For the Nihilist words are games, toys, to be used and then abandoned for others.

The idea of being limited in this is authoritarian, brutal, enslaving.

Change is how the Nihilist experiences its own detachment form reality, only this time it is not forced by an external world, but is governed by internal whims, tastes, sensations, emotions.

The result in a constantly shifting mix of "individuals" with no sense of self, and no world to discipline them, being easily manipulated by clever minds that can now use emotions and their addiction to remaining free form anything real, to direct their activities.








Uninhibited by anything external, anything outside human brains, the Nihilist uses words with the creativity of a child playing with toys.

It' only limit is imposed by a vague Dictionary definition.

This is why abstractions associates with phenomena can be freed from space/time and placed in any sequence, in any place, with the only guiding principle being emotion, or gratification.

The word's meaning is entirely emotive.

It is judged and justified using pleasure/pain criteria, and in relation to a positive emotion: such as love, compassion, hope, freedom, God, immortality etc.


"What feels right is right", as it were, replacing the "might is right" now used as an example of a subjective mind, like their own, imposing their constructs upon others.

At this stage reality has been completely forgotten.

The one challenging their subjective delusions, is automatically someone imposing his subjectivity upon them - authoritarian.

The rule being that the only limiting factor is a Dictionary (or some other word based Scripture, such as Bible, Koran etc.) and the subjectivity of the other.

It is implied that in a community of detached delusional minds the only moral rule is that you do not disturb the other's delusion, and he will not disturb yours.

Debate, conflict is accepted, within limits, but nothing that threatens any subjective delusion will be tolerated.

The practice of debate is only meant to strengthen the bonds that govern this community of detachment, and to reaffirm the "right" to remain as delusional as you wish, if you do not bother the other.

No matter how ridiculous the other's subjectivity is the Nihilist will refrain from exposing his delusion as weak, because this sets him up to be exposed in turn.

Ergo multiplicity is sustained as a symbol of free-thinking – independence meaning free from reality, which most often refers to a determining, immutable past.

The opportunity is taken for the mind to strengthen the detachment from reality, by covering up holes in his mental constructs.








Another general rule governing Nihilistic discourse, is that you never mention what you, or the other, can do nothing about.

This immediately renders most "negative" aspects of reality as non-applicable, or as part of the unmentionables.

To say something honest, objective, about world or other, must be accompanied with a solution to it–a hope.

The majority of what is perceived is not to be spoken, and he who does must benefit from this unseemly, uncivil, practice.

Therefore, nothing too disturbing is ever permitted entry into the Subjective solipsism of the modern.

What remains of the word world is now only what is, and can and ought to be corrected.

All that is permitted to be spoken of will be solved, resolved, and turned from negative into positive.

Everywhere the modern looks he sees problems that will be solved.

Even the unknown is made known by giving it a label, a symbol, a word: God, Humanity, Universe, Whole, One.

Baptising it with a word makes it intimate, more certain, less threatening.

And so when the word God is discredited it is replaced with a new word, with the same non-referential, emotional, noetic contrivances: morality, humanity, one, order, and so on.

The unknown, the un-knowable, the absent, is made present as abstraction, as feeling, as dictionary entry, word.








In the either/or dichotomy of simplistic binary logic, what even animals are capable of, the dilemmas arise, and the solutions presents themselves as emotional appeals, and moral options.

The Nihilist taking the only thing he can understand, his own absolutes, his own emotions, and simplicity as a guiding light, assumes that whenever a superior probability is presented it is an expression of an absolute certainty, or of an omniscient truth.

This is also a defensive method, dismissing all superior perspectives on the ground that they are not absolute truths, or accusing them of proposing an absolute truth which is indefensible.

Now their own simplicity can hide behind the common ground of imperfection, for that which is not perfect must be equal.


With no omniscience, no God, all is relative.

Degrees vanish in relation to a fluctuating world.

All is either/or, and since what is left is nil, then some settle for nil, while the majority, of the more hypocritical kind of Nihilist, settle for emotional justifications–in the absence of absolute knowledge, the deciding factor are emotional.,

Here, because emotions are shared, common, base, all find congruence in the lowest-common-denominator or they are monsters with evil intents. 








Words are central to the nihilist's psychology.

They are the vehicles of his escape from the base, for him, the earthly, the worldly, and the real.

They are sacred, divine, magical, because they do not have to refer to anything outside his own mind, or the minds of those with whom he shares a vocabulary and an agenda.


With words he can dismiss the past/nature, he can reinvent humanity, baptise himself by another term, find justice in a cruel world, find confidence through association – a community of shared linguistics.

The nihilists will detach the word from its reference point or he will slander words altogether, denying them relevance for all minds, for all time.

He will have no trouble comprehending nihilists like himself, but then will feign an inability to comprehend words when they are attaching to the apparent.  

Words are the noetic floating systems he uses to stay adrift in the tumultuous seas of (inter)activity... up there on the surface, hoping no wave will drown him, because he never learned to swim, but only learned how to float... and even floating is given to him, as words with no depth, no substance, no connection to the abyss.








It is because the nihilist is a self-deluded hypocrite, that he can only comprehend those that challenge his delusions as such.

It is because he dreams of changing the world, if not to escape it, that he can only comprehend others as wishing to change reality, to challenge what is, and not only as those who wish to confront human lies, and to challenge nihilism.

It is because the nihilist is part of a cult of shared self-hate, world-hatred, expressed for the reason already given, in multiple ways, that he can only comprehend those who see reality as it is, as cult members.

It is because he is ill, and feels insecure, and lost, that he can only relate to others on that level.

The nihilist abhors value judgement, in relation to a goal, an object/objective, not of his kind.

This is why he must reduce the objective to an emotion, an appeal to a shared weakness.

God, as universal Truth/love, is shape-shifted to Objective Morality, with good/bad, standing in for God/Satan.

All must refer to this emotional human construct.

To go outside of it, into objectivity, is to place this coward in unknown waters – which must be given a name he can relate to.

Objectivity ceases to be about world, outside human words, hopes, emotions, and is returned back to the familiar territory of mind, noumenon (abstraction).

He can only relate to world through others, and this other is usually some famous figure. 








 Using others as supportive elements is another Nihilist tendency.

The quickness in referencing credentials, to schooling, trying to impress, or to imply that he knows what he is talking about because he refers to "great" minds, is a symptom of insecurity, because no matter what the Nihilist intuitively senses his own condition.

And so "intellectual discourse", or dialogue, becomes a posturing based on knowing, and on parroting others, and not about personal conceptions about a world all have access to.

The implied elitism, of being part of the few who have access to profound knowledge, contradicts their egalitarian, democratic ethos.

The insinuation is that if you are "trained" sufficiently, infused with the proper understanding of what others said, and told why they said it, in accordance with cultural norms, you can be respected.

The obsession with education, and with reciting knowledge, acquired through second-hand sources, is an indication of a personal failing – ether stupidity, or cowardice in seeing what is always in front of you; requiring no proxy.

Deferring to an authority, if not God then to some famous rich individual which becomes a shared icon, is a way of escaping the natural selection process.

When the mind cannot take responsibility for itself, and feels that it is not up to par, it seeks out an icon to hide behind and to find confidence in.

The proxy is also a potential scapegoat.

If this icon proves to be weak, then he is discarded, and so changing your mind about everything, indicates a reliance on others (power in association), and it also indicated poor judgement.








Bragging, posturing, inflated egos while ego is denied...

The quickness in which a Modern Nihilist tells you, using words, what he wishes you to believe about him, indicates the reverse of the intended.

It is always the one who will name-drop, will brag about how much he gets laid, how much money he has, what schooling he has, how happy he is, whom he knows, that is the one who is desperate to hide his innate inferiority.

When stressed the fall-back defensive position symbolizes a retreat.

As always words, symbols, references to other minds, is how the Nihilist escapes, or tries to escape the reality of what he is, in relation to world.

Words, once more, come to the rescue, for he can claim whatever he wishes using words, which refer to nothing real, as in behaviour, (inter)action, appearance, apparent.

Using the word "happy" for example, implies what the individual wishes to plant into the other mind as a possibility.

Repeating the word reaffirms it, and the individual hopes the word will root itself in the others mind as a judgement about him.








Considering the power words have for the Nihilist mind, an almost magical power, exposing him to reality and also offering him a way out, we can understand the love/hate relationship he feels towards them.

Sometimes wanting to discredit them even as tools, and at other times worship them as saviours.

Words are all a nihilist has, since he no longer wants, or cannot, see, and hear, and feel the world directly, but only experience it through proxies.

Because all is via a proxy, all must be increased in volume in sensation, to make him feel something vicariously.

He sacrifices pleasure, at times, just to avoid pain.

Words have the power to make or break him, because he is completely given over to their power.

The magical escape also makes him vulnerable to manipulation, by those who understand what words are: tools.








The central common them, shared by all nihilists, no matter what method, what words, they use, is a desire to detach from past/nature, and pretend that it no longer applies nor affects them in the present.

World-Hatred often exposing a self-hatred, a disappointment with self as it relates to others, and to the world, is what these nihilists share, no matter what multiplicity of methods they use to detach and discredit and dismiss.

This denouncement of sex, race, of nature, as the sum of all past nurturing, and the hyperinflation of the nurture, the social influence, exposes them as what they are.

The idea(l) that everything from sex (gender) to race, and from homosexuality (sexual mutation, dysfunction) to stupidity (learning disorder), are socially produced is part of this idea that all that nature has rendered can be corrected by the interventions of man – and this will not produce a need for further interventions to deal with the collateral effects of the previous ones.


A highly romantic idea(l).

This is sometimes accompanied with a cynical fatalism as in "It will all turn out for the better", or "It's all part of a bigger plan" abandonment to human consults.

The inability to differentiate natural from artificial where world of man is confused for the world itself.

Confusion between the mathematical/geometric method of human cognition with a universal plan, a hidden logic, a reason.

Fatalism as in the faith in this belief, and how it is directed by some underlying will, some reason, some consciousness, some order.








Confusion between world of man and world itself, where one is but a part of the other, is what underlies this cocooning, matrix-like, subjectivity – this confidence ion words, numbers, symbols.

Responsibility is abandoned. The external other will take care, and all will become as it must.

Man intervenes upon natural processes, creates all sort of collateral effects, encases himself in a symbolic world of his own making, enslaves others to this reference point, and then dreams that in the end nature will clean things up.

No integrity, no honour, no accountability.

The motive here is living a life in ignorant bliss, and the future can take care of itself.

Disconnecting from past, tradition, inheritance, is what creates this me-me, individuality.

A shallow birth to death identity, earmarked by consuming, pleasuring; masturbation of mind and body.

What do lies matter when you die and you hold yourself accountable to nothing and nobody?

All that matters is fooling as many who are alive along with you, as possible: pride of the degenerate.

Eat, drink, fuck, pleasure yourself in any which way, consume and be consumed, use any orifice for any deed, and then die knowing you were not judged and could not be judged by anyone, at any time, for any reason.

Nobody knew you, or could ever understand your complexity.








One of the nihilist's favourite lies is how complex humanity is, and in particular how complex he is.

He may think all is knowable, but this all never includes him.

He may claim to know a dog better than it knows itself but this never applies to him, in relation to a higher mind.

He cannot be accurately understood, valued, known, unless he tells you himself.

He is true to his own word, because words are magical, mystical and he controls them.

Nobody can judge him, because there is no standard which applies to him... all being subjective standards, he thinks.

No matter what he does, how he behaves, what choices he makes, nothing matters, and all is correctable.

Nothing is determined by the immutable past, forever condemning him to repeat these behaviours, and choices.

He is his own standard.

This is the basic principle of nihilism, with only the golden Rule, the social contract, as the limit.

All is morally maintained.

A Christian threat/promise.

It bleeds over to feminism and the idea that females are complicated, incomprehensible to men... they exists on another plain, a different planet.

This is how female nihilists, modern women, comfort themselves when they behave in contradiction to their social memetic norms, and in accordance to their natural instinctual proclivities.

Why do they change their minds constantly, why do they contradict their words with their actions, why do they do the things they do... nobody knows, nobody can know, they are genius, they are governed by a mysterious logic.








Victim psychology is the emotional string binding all nihilists into one cohesive group.

There are many shared identifiers, masked as multiplicity and the many ways the real is avoided and escaped, and victim psychology is one of the central themes in their mindset.

First, they are victims of chance, of the world, born as this sex, or that race, born in this situation and that circumstance, born of a past that they do not like nor feel proud of.

If not of the world then they are victim of another, a will outside themselves.

And for this reason, all who expose them to a world that challenges their delusions is the v one victimizing them.

Because all is subjective, in their minds, even evil, immorality, the indifferent unjust world, is also a subjective construct, and they the victim of an evil mind.








Nihilism or any degree of it, is only viable when there is a protective umbrella, a cocooning will, to protect it from the repercussions of denying, ignoring, dismissing reality.

The natural consequence of any level of detachment from reality is death, or some severe cost.

The only way it can persist and multiply, is because there is an ulterior motive for preserving it.

The only ulterior motive is because of Nihilism delusion and its vulnerability and dependence upon others, to maintain itself.

It is a mental virus propagated and maintained through weakness, dependence, inferiority...which is the majority vote.


The "Might is Right" is exposed as belong "Right is Might" and those seeing clearly honestly, have an advantage over those that hide, forget, deny, reject a world they cannot escape.

As always, nihilism inverts concepts.

It presumes that it is because some subjective mind says so that it is subjugated to a world being exposed by such a mind.

It presumes that only hypnosis, trickery, rhetoric, is at play, because for it only words have substance and are real.

It confuses success, dominance, based on clarity, honesty, objectivity, for an imposition of subjectivity, because it requires a mind to direct it, to tell it, to lead it.

He who sees the world as it is, and not as he wishes it were, will succeed within it.

He who is blind to it will accuse the first of being a manipulator, because he denies objectivity so he can only understand dominance subjectively.

In the nihilist's mind the individual decides what is objective, and so objectivity for it is a subjective construct.

It cannot understand a world outside human opinions, determining if these opinions are more, or less accurate.








One of the first presumptions of the nihilist, one based on all that has already been mentioned, is that all deserves respect, or all is worthy of consideration.

It's logic follows from the either/or foundation – no absolute means all is ignorant, in equal degree, because there is no objective way to determine what is more objective and what is less so – no hierarchies.

The absolute serves two functions: 1] it provides an external logos, an authority, to subjugate all subjectivities to – equality under a one God, a one specialist, a one mind, and 2] in the absence of said absolute external source of authority all are uniformly ignorant, the negative becoming a unifying negative.

No other way to decide is ever explored and accepted.

This is why objective reality must be ridiculed or converted into something they can dismiss as subjective or as a human construct.

Essentially, no matter what you say it is to be taken seriously or as seriously as anything anybody says, and this is most effective when what is said is about something the Nihilist feels insecure about, such as the injustice and cruelty of nature, or the immutability of the past.

To not abide by this parity of deservedness is an aggressive act.

The only deciding factor is majority vote, or some popularly accepted authority figure, which has ceased to be the god-head.

In other word, only via a proxy mind, is the subjective evaluated as superior-inferior, since the objective world cannot be evaluated directly without discovering how indifferent, to subjective interpretation, and cruel, unforgiving, it, the objective world, remains.

Basic things like the evolutionary function of the orifices, and of the sex organs, and how appearances indicate essence, are dismissed on the grounds that no authority has validated this, and there is no real absolute way to determine what is most probable.

In other words, the nihilist chooses to ignore his own sense if this protects him from a disturbing perception.

The matter of complexity enters the scene when the mounting evidence tilts the balance in a direction which the Nihilists does not like.

Now all is too complex to decide.

This is particularly so when it comes to humans.

Nihilist logic indicates that if there is no absolute certainty then all possibilities are equally valid, escaping the obvious.

Once more, more probable versus less probable is dismissed in favour of parity through shared ignorance, or using the negative as an argument for the positive.

Christians claim that in the absence of no evidence disproving their God then all possibilities are open, which then gives credence to the emotional angle, turning it into the decisive component.








The nihilist contains his thinking within cultural and social realities. He cannot explore further back, discovering from where memes emerge, and how genes manifest as memes, then expressed as principles, ideals, morals, world-views.

For modern all must be the product of a reason, a will, a human motive, and nothing pre-existed the emergence of social and economic systems. This is also part of the inversion. Where memes emerge from genes, in their convoluted minds, the reverse is the case.

All genetics is the products of memes, of socio-economic artifices, and human interventions.

Ergo all is noetic, as in founded on human prejudices, requiring an external god, authority, to validate them.

Millions of years of evolution ignored for the last 2-3 thousands years of human culture.

Therefore, for nihilist’s gender is a human fabrication, having no connection to sexual roles, as these evolved to facilitate reproduction.

This connects to the logic that all orifices are human playthings to be used in whatever way the individual wishes, having to predetermined genetic function and reason for evolving.

And if gender is a human artifice, a social construct, then so is sex, and why not race, and appearance in general.

Now that man can intervene technologically, with techniques, upon the manifestation of thousands of years of evolution, covering them up, nothing is except from human covering-up and correcting.

And when such a mind, raised in sheltering environment, is never made to face the consequences of his own stupidity, he becomes cocky, dismissing suffering, need, war, violence, all that troubles and confronts his ideal world, his desirable reality.

He then accuses others of wanting to change the world, when he's already done so, and is now attempting to complete the task by replacing reality with human artifices.

Unable to complete the task he suffers from the pains of an evil world contradicting his naive premises.

Then the dilemma arises.








The Nihilist despises every attempt to connect words, to appearances, particularly when dealing with humans.

The attempt itself is ridiculed, because he denies the existence of an objective world which would connect the subjective via a symbol a word.

For instance, gender becomes entirely a human construct, and has no reference to anything outside human brains, and human social conventions.

The discipline of philosophy is about referencing other minds, essentially a discussion about philosophy, and not the world itself, which is rejected as being accessible or approachable.

Also the word "truth" referring to a more accurate description of the real is made into an entirely subjective absolute that can only be imposed and accepted on faith.

To connect the symbol, the abstraction, to a source, the noumenon to the phenomenon, would take away their central method of escape.

First comes the word, and it is the alpha and the omega.

The word is no longer a tool for dealing with the world but a toy, a ploy, a way of dismissing the world by reattaching the symbol the abstraction back to other noetic artifices.

The mission for the nihilist is to retain the word as an abstraction, a human construct, with no reference to anything outside human minds, because only then can he claim that gender, race, as social inventions, and truth, if it is not absolute, is untrue, and so a democratic decision is required, and only then can male/female cease to have any meaning outside social fashions, and only then can the concept "human" be stripped of its original meaning and become a mystical, magical, idea(l), embracing and saving all who are included within its bosom.

The word "philosophy" is of particular interest for us, because its objective has ceased to be clarity about world, or objectivity, which can then result in wisdom, clarity, a useful application, but it has become a discussion about philosophy – philosophy is talk about philosophy, or philosophers, as the subjective mind can only recognize other subjective minds.

As such, any perspective that challenges this delusion is considered aggressive, or based on purely subjective criteria, such as "I say so".

The idea that an opinion, expressing a perspective, is more or less accurate, more or less objective, based on the apparent, the phenomenon, and the indifferent to all subjective perspectives, world of (inter)activity is dismissed so as to maintain the all is subjective universe.

Even the word "world" has come to refer to the human world, and in relation to human constructs.

World now means humanity, and humanity means world. Not humanity as a species, a pattern, within the world, by humanity AS the world.

Gender being now explained as entirely a human artifice, but nothing else, such as morality, or love, or compassion.

Nihilists are selective as to which words are mystical, profound abstractions and which are evil abstractions easily rejected from human discourse.

Words like love, empathy, respect, sex, race, are not permitted to be connected to anything but back to human noumena.

Empiricism has a limit.


A cult of victim of weakness.








An interesting by-product of all of this comes about in time.

The Nihilist begins to believe that denouncing the one who exposes them to an objective world, or a subjective interpretation of world which is more lucid, can protect him from what is being described.

This would be like ridiculing the one who claims death is the end and there is no afterlife because this will ensure an afterlife.

It agrees with the notion that all it takes to change the world is to change your mind.


The belief rest on all that has been mentioned, and it has faith in the assumption that if what is being said about the objective world is rejected, ignored, dismissed, that this is an escape from what was being described.

Kill the messenger and the message is dead, but what if the message was accurate?

Have they dealt with reality by slandering the one who exposes them to it?

Sheltering ensures that the immediate effects of being wrong are never experienced as severely, because of the cocooning within humanity, these nihilists fight to preserve, for good reason.

Only within the bosom of a multiplicity of like-minded individuals can the singular person escape the costs and risks of being wrong.

We call this the social safety net.

Every careless, stupid choice, is protected from its own stupidity, propagating the delusion that all perspectives, superior/inferior, are equal, or that the consequences are so minimal as to make the inferior mind arrogant.

Like when a teenager lives under his parent's roof and because he has it easy begins to believe he deserves it, and that it is because of his qualities.

How many times have you heard a female say she intimidates men?

She confuses fear of the institution that is protecting her for fear of her, because of her spirit, her mind etc.

Consider the arrogance of a simpleton who has memorized a few word, references, data, deferring to famous figures or obscure ones to imply a unique understanding, believing that this is philosophy.

This is like an art critique, an art historian, confusing his knowledge for artistry, and including himself amongst the artists he knows by name.








The importance of words for the nihilist is evident in his desperation to use them to insinuate what he cannot display.

He is quick to accuse the other of what he is most guilty of, he brags, and declares himself victor, trying to implant, with words, what he fears he cannot with deeds.

He never says anything clearly and honestly.

He is always insinuating, laying down an escape route as he slowly creeps forward with words.

He never takes a position. He is always flattering, fawning, implying this and that, at the same time, remaining aloof, and imprecise so that he can never be exposed without him having a plausible deniability.

It is why he talks through proxies.

He is always of two-minds, or more, uncertain sceptical to a cynical degree, insecure and desperate to not lose face.

Humour is how he evades the discomfort of his nature.

A quick, stress releasing, evasion.

He is always potentially joking, or is he being serious?

Depends on the reaction of the other.

He is always joking, or is he?

Nothing is direct and honest about him.

He is a hypocrite and a lair, protecting a weak, fragile ego, from the devastating determinations of nature.

This he calls his complexity.

Nobody can know him can ever see him – he alludes the experts, he mesmerizer all.

He is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, sprinkled with fairy dust.

No category can define him.

Words are toys, and he plays.

The objective is childish escape from the real.

His entire life is a testament to the devastation of this adolescent method.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr



When the nihilist speaks he speaks about noumena (abstractions) that only exist in human minds, such as equality, justice, morality, fairness, similarity, one/nil, whole, God and so on.

For these concepts there is no external reference.

They exist through sharing, memetic propagation, and are maintained through cultural rules, ideals, traditions, common value standards.

This is why he presumes that all talk about an objective world as outside and indifferent to these human constructs, that what is being discussed in another abstraction with no external reference.

It is because he bases his delusions on "I say so" then supported in "We say so" that he assumes that all perspectives are a declarative "I, or we, say so".

The difference between the two, in his mind, the only difference, is popularity. The quantitative difference in the "we" determines which "we" is validated, and all other standards, particularly those independent from quantitative standards, are to be discounted as evil, or authoritarian.

In such a case, the existence or not of Allah is entirely dependent no how many can be converted to Islam, and whether a child born with mental/physical dysfunctions is to be considered good or bad is a matter of popular support.

This is why he desperately seeks communal approval and he strives to impress the majority, thinking that this has an effect on what is real.

This is why connecting the abstractions that can be connected to phenomena, and ignoring those that only have a reference back to other noetic constructs, causes him distress.

He loses control over good/bad, and their manipulation using emotional techniques.

This is the Bottom-Up thinking which he contradicts with a Top-Down inversion, claiming that both are the same.

From the vantage point of one who is interested in approaching the objective, and avoiding the corruption of subjectivity, as much as possible, all words, symbolizing abstraction, have to be connected to a world independent from all interpretations of it, and those abstractions (noumena) which cannot find such a reference point should be exposed as being pure noetic metaphors, referring back to human abstractions.

Who and what is superior in nature is never in doubt, it is only within Nihilistic social systems protecting weakness, where things become confusing, and are open for debate and verbal acrobatics, including evasion.

The Nihilist can never and will never define his words, or try to connect them to perceived phenomena, because it is precisely that he does not, training them as vague dictionary references with no connection to the real, where he feels independent, strong, clever... safe.

He remains elusive, sceptical, cynical, never taking a stand on anything, never wanting to be clear and direct, always feigning and evading and changing his angles, keeping open as many escape routes as possible.








For the Nihilist, the modern, good/bad, positive/negative, can only have a subjective meaning.

It is only in relation to human needs, hopes, fears, emotions, where these terms have a meaning, in his mind.

But not in relation to an object/objective, because we also strives for a communal agreement, a universal good/bad, which is so because universe, world automatically means humanity.

Positive/Negative can never, and should never be defined independent from human needs.

And so all becomes a moral issue.

The words are disconnected from pragmatism, from a motive, a particular need, and universalized as in a shared human need, a shared human motive, a shared human idea(l) which is never clarified because this will expose its motives, its essence.

Remember, for him world=humanity.

The shared good/bad is a Super-Subjective reality, independent of the objective world.

Within this shared subjective the rules of existence, can be altered with a political decision.

Killing can be good, and then later it can be bad.

Paedophilia can be bad today and later, years later, it may become good – see homosexuality.

Male/Female may have meaning yesterday and tomorrow they be debunked, redefined, dismissed.

Everything is malleable within the Super-Subjective or what I've called the SuperOrganic.

More so if this SuperOrganic promoted Nihilism internally, to control through uniformity, and contradicts it externally.

All organisms, individuals, included are expected to tow-the-line and agree with the basic truths necessary to maintain internal harmony.

After evolution integrates the individual as a cell is integrated into an organic structure, the conception of world is dominated by SuperOrganic constructs.

This was metaphorically displayed in the movie The Matrix.

For such a cell there is no world outside the organic hierarchies and relationships.

All is organic and all follows the rules the SuperOrganism enforces.

The only distinction within this paradigm is utility, as in more or less useful and more or less harmonious.

What the cell was before it was integrated no longer applies and in time is forgotten.

This is why past is always dismissed, forgotten, denied, and why all words can only refer to noetic artifices. There is no world outside the SuperOrganism within which the organism, the cell, finds power, comfort, utility, safety, meaning, purpose.

SuperOrganism is God, and if God is dead a new SuperOrganism must quickly replace Him.

The cell is unable to give itself meaning, purpose, direction – it entirely dependent, and can no longer function outside the SuperOrganic premises.

Defending the SuperOrganic rules, principles, order, is a matter of survival for it.


SuperOrganism= society, culture, socio-economic system – meme.

The genetic has been absorbed into the meme. It has surrendered will, identity, independence, for the sake of survival, and the advantages of synergy–power through association.

Notice that for the nihilist his well-being, his sense of self and his self-evaluation is always a product of other, as in majority, popularity, communal appreciation.

Its particular subjectivity is associated with the SuperSubjectivity.

The world outside, as in objective world independent from subjectivity altogether, is non-existent... and/or evil.








The Nihilist reduces the topic, the issue, philosophy in general, down to the absurd and then dismisses it as absurd, so as to hide his own intent and his own absurdity.

He creates decay and then uses it to justify his own decay.

To put it more bluntly, he indulges in simplicity and stupidity, and then accuses that which he has reduced to this level of being nothing more than absurd and stupid.

To put it in yet another way, the Modern reduces all to word-games, and then denounces it as only word-play, including all attempts to connect the words being used to what is independent from words.

The cynical motive of the pseudo-intellectual, hedonistic, Modern: by all means hide inferiority.

Find the lowest-common-denominator and build a castle upon it, inviting all to settle down. 

Because when all is levelled down to a uniform stupidity all that remains is masturbation.








Another example of Nihilistic inverted thinking...

The Modern variant of this mental dis-ease, confuses emoting, emotionally based reasoning, thinking infected with emotional appeals and considerations, with passion, and the passionate defence of objective reasoning.

In his pretentious psyche, to pretend you are aloof, and distant, and cynical, indicates a cold reasoning, which must, obviously, be accompanied with the benefit of the doubt towards every absurdity presented before him as deserving consideration, and respect.

This is almost as insane as their confusion of knowledge with understanding.

Most cannot tell the difference.

It is why they scavenge books and internet spaces for data to present as evidence of their intelligence and quality of mind.

It is also why amongst Modern education, or the correct kind of training, is synonymous with equalizing intelligence, and why credentials and social status is so important when trying to impress them.

He has no other way of determining quality than quantity.

Without an external authority he is unable to say what is more reasonable and what is absurd.

Easily exploited sheeple.








For the Nihilist his theories are meant for an ideal creature, existing in an ideal world and an ideal universe.

His perspectives are applicable not in the real, but in the surreal, the supra-real, and not in the natural but in the realm of the super-natural.

Once disappointed, and having awakened to his own naiveté, if he ever does, the only other solution is the opposite.

If not the ideal then nothing.


If no absolute is possible then the nil is all he has.

No gradation.

Absolute 1 and 0.

What can be worse, for him, than a hierarchy where he finds himself at the bottom?

If all cannot find Utopia then all, we all, must be in Dystopia, or if not Paradise where he is also included, then all must be damned to hell.








For the nihilist math is not another language, using abstractions.

The most abstract language of all is not to be doubted, mostly because it produces techniques and technologies it considers positive.

Yet, he cannot define what one or nil are, nor point to a one or a nil.

It has no ability to comprehend the relationship between an abstraction (noumenon) and the real (phenomenon), or how a static symbol can adequately represent a fluctuating world.

All it knows is that experts, his replacement priests, use these symbols to produce magic.

How science might be directed through funding, when dealing with the socially touchy subjects, is not to be taken into consideration.

All it knows is that 1+1=2, always...when 1 is taken for granted.

Binary brains exporting their dualism imitating organic processes.

Self-referential logic, based on biological methods, replicating biological organs

None of this registers.








On the lower end of the Nihilistic spectrum we have the absolutists, the either/or fundamentalists with their binary logic and their dualistic certainties.

On the upper end we have the terminally sceptical, the unable to decide between either/or, preferring the continuous state of undecided procrastination.

The first, being the more infantile, live in a black/white world and they conveniently have decided that the truth, as they define it, is on their side – the universe has them as the central theme.

The second are eternally cynical so as to never take a stand.

Everything has its positives and its negatives and they are reluctant to say what is more on the positive side and what is on the negative side.

The concepts of positive/negative fitting conveniently to the previous group's good/evil, with humanity being the core, the balancing point for the entire cosmos.


The first are fanatics, and they quickly fall back to reciting the code, as they have learned it.

They identify with WE.

They are always safe within the collective, the herd, the big SuperOrganic Other, the Divine Self.

They accept responsibility through other.

The second are hypocrites, sometimes on this side, then on the other, never actually saying anything directly, clearly, succinctly, indubitably.

They are always on the side of ME, and being on that side, the easiest side to be on, they switch sides, they change their minds, and they never expose themselves to the possibility of hurt, and ridicule, and shame.

They are always safe inside themselves.

They never accept responsibility for anything.

They are always unseen, able to escape detection, nobody has or can ever know them, unable to hold onto ideals not pertaining to their ego.

They consider themselves open-minded because they never decide, and are continuously open to suggestions, which they then de-construct to dismiss, in the event that things become too threatening.

They find pride in being liked by everyone, simply by agreeing with whatever they say.

This is clever, for them: to trick without detection, by telling the other exactly what he wants to hear.








The Nihilist exists in a reality that only exists as a hypothetical future world, or some hidden world, or a Utopian world populated by ideal humans and ideal creatures with psychologies and behaviors not of this world.

It is the syndrome of Christianity, and Communism, two of the many offspring Nihilism gave birth to.

The Christian and communist fails, (is a sinner, has not been educated/trained sufficiently yet, is unenlightened, has not received the divine light) but the ideal is perfect, meant for perfect creatures constructing a perfect reality.


Philosophy becomes a defense of this perfect Utopia against the evil forces of reality that disrupt its development.

Instead of being the discipline that explores and describes the world as honestly and clearly as possible so that then THEN, a human can chart a course, philosophy has become a infantile exploration of the fantastic, the hypothetical, the "what if" and the hidden underneath this brutality this hated by them, world.

As I noted before, the deal is that you will not disturb the delusions of the other and he will not disturb yours, enabling all to exist in their own personal reality.

THIS is what is called subjectivity and why it is so popular among them. This is why perspectivism is a Holy Grail for them, and why an Objective world, other than the one authorized experts offer them, cleaned of anything that may be not politically-correct, and insulting, is attacked as a fabrication.

Only an authorized expert is to be respected as a proxy between them and reality, not only telling them what they sense but what it means.

And my authorized what is meant is that he has been vetted as offering the right kind of analysis.

Many examples of scientists who have not repeated the shared myths and faced personal consequences are available to all.

No man would risk his career, and his family's well-being by saying anything honest about the holy trinity of Modernity: homosexuality, women, and race.

The first has been taken of the list of psychological dysfunctions where it stood for decades.

In a few decades, transsexuals, perhaps even pedophiles can hope for such generosity.








The Nihilist says nothing outside the norm.

His ideas are common, simple, politically-correct, and fashionable.

His courage is the product of his simplicity.

He can brag about speaking his mind openly because nothing he says diverts from the common, or contradicts the average.

He is dull.

Nothing is controversial about him.

Even his rebelliousness is a pop-cultural imitation.

He is a caricature, his personality retarded in a state of perpetual adolescence - forever young, naive, impressionable, seeking distractions, happiness, intimacy, a purpose, a way to be impressive to the many: marketable.

His public face is his private face, because he is a simpleton.