Jump to content


Sign in to follow this  
Guest Satyr


Recommended Posts

Guest Satyr



Rummaging for debris, through the guardrails, a tender morsel is found, here and there, amongst heaps of decaying failures and self-mutilating pretenders.

I stretch to grab it, my little fingers playing notes upon invisible keyboards with anticipation.

I've been relegated to parasitism when other options extent beyond my wingless condition(ing).

A sign of the times... of my times... of my adaptation to its unyielding premises.

I offer a sign back, in secret, when such gestures would expose me to my prey and make it unattainable... aloof and high-browed, when they have no reason to be.

There's such an innocence to weakness... especially when it over-compensates.

One, almost, wants to smother it in kindness, and feed on its tender, unblemished, pristine loins.

And what beauty in this rotting corpse.

An acquired taste in forbidden flesh... as predator and prey merge in uniformity, and their appearances are clouded in the steam of cultural contrivances.

Nature is now pushed back into the surroundings, a pretty frame for a gilded simulation, an impressionistic painting, self-referencing and self-involved.

From a distance the brush strokes are smoothed over, by a trick of the eye, of perspective, and it all mergers into an ideal spectacle that has no reference outside its own fabrications.

But get closer, place your eye next to its surfaces, if you dare, and there they are, those desperate clumps of vulgar paint, swirling in confused symmetry, attaining the absence.

The fantastic beauty of the hoped-for has to be sacrificed to appreciate this view.

Then the discovery is finally digested and you realize that you do not belong to this kind that prefers the image to the real, and it's pasteurized, homogenized, by-products are defecated back into the cesspool it feeds from.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

“Ride the Wave”


The only thing that matters today is the activity of those who can ‘ride the wave’ and remain firm in their principles, unmoved by any concessions and indifferent to the fevers, the convulsions, the superstitions, and the prostitutions that characterize modern generations.

The only thing that matters is the silent endurance of the few, whose impassable presence as ‘stone guests’ helps to create new relationships, new distances, new values, and helps to construct a pole that, although it will certainly not prevent this world inhabited by the distracted and restless from being what it is, will still help to transmit to someone the sensation of truth – a sensation that could become for them the principle of a liberating crisis.” – Evola, Julius


The voice of the dead, directing the actions of the living dead.

Into the sewers, like rats, for the world lies in ruins and only in the refuse of its decay can we smell it crumbling.

This New World Order demands a New World Response – a radical counter-(re)action to its leveling activities; a shameless flexibility, adapting to closed frontiers and fenced perimeters.

Into the catacombs where darkness can hide our eyes and the walls will muffle the chanting of those old songs.

There is a war happening, and its leveling blasts, we wear gas masks, use clandestine tactics: a growing conspiracy of distinction wanting to preserve what is left – conservative rebels – wanting to maintain the possibilities.

The enemy uses a sophistication gathered over centuries of continuous husbandry, turning meanings on their heads, redefining terms, erasing metaphors, stunting spirits. We must preserve our ideals with patient silence, gathering in small groups, exchanging support via the very mediums that bind us – tapping on the prison walls in rhythms only we can decipher.

Solitude is our path – everything we need contained within us – rarely socializing, and then only in secret, where we can exchange forbidden ideas that reaffirm our connections to the past, while the masses are cut-free, being told that this is free-will... striving, hoping, for an annulling future.

What can a mind do with choice when it cannot use it outside the prescriptions?

What good are the senses when they lead you to illusion?

What use is awareness when discriminating is shamed?


They've been confused by quantities, these manimals; numbers rule their senses – graphs and polls and images and surveys – and quality remains too obscure to focus upon; but they feel it, these living dead. Some part of them still senses mother nature – her cruelty troubling but not so easy to forget.

Some part of them remains alive, but too afraid to go on living.

Who, now, shall preserve this decaying human spirit, and return man to the pursuit of more lofty goals, than material wealth, comfortable altruism and animal hedonism?

If not we few, then nobody.

“The idea and only the idea can be the true fatherland for them. Not the fact that they are of the same nationality, that they speak the same language, and that they are of the same blood, but the fact that they belong to the same idea, should be the deciding factor that unites or divides them.” – Evola, Julius



I adopt the vulgarity, arrogant certainty and naïve selfishness of my time so that when others criticize me, because of it, they are really commenting on what they’ve allowed themselves to become.

I make myself into a mirror, and using their hatred and rejection of my pretense I read their nature beneath the socio-economic standards they’ve adopted to find identification, and I find clarity.

It is not only that one rejects my reflected projections back to them, but it is more how they do so which makes them known.



What does it matter if you are big and strong and rich and beautiful to look at, when you are empty inside?

A cavernous husk, with the appearance of mass, pushed to and fro by subtle winds, lacking all connection and anchoring… you are a paper-doll, a smile drawn on your vacuous head, looking for weight to hold you down.

Has not modern western civilization been a slow disconnection from everything which is past and identifying; has not man been made into an amorphous ambiguity, void of all substance?

You look for a direction?

Look back…



A leaf, a flower, a damn turd... let it all be beautiful.

Oil spills are meadows; garbage dumps are forests... a matter of aesthetics.

Why not rename the dumps parks, and solve the problem with a word... an artistic flare, a coward's solution?

Bend over and be a modern man.

Be good

Hate all haters, and then call hating a sign of psychological compensation, to mask your own; despise pedophiles, scatophiles, necrophiles, but remain true to your health and expose the disease of intolerance towards niggers, fags and women, who are trying to be just like everyone else.

Do they not deserve consideration? Was it not given to them by a divine source? Were they not born?

Do you want more?

God is dead, long live the Ideal Man – saints are gone because now all are holy... life is holy, as we munch on flesh... holy shit!!!

Exploitation is evil, violence is bad, and we fill our SUV with black gold and fruits we just happened to acquire at reasonable prices.

The defeated now come-a-knocking at our summer-home doors to be hired as servants, and this is taken as a sign that we are onto something great.

What else can it be?

We are not compensating... only others are.

Our prejudices are common, and our judgments selective.

Appearances matter but... only sometimes, only when it's allowed to matter.

We are free-minds. We know the difference between fascism and liberty.

It comes to us, mysteriously, through electric avenues, awakening us to a profound truth: we are all the same.

History rewritten and gender falls from outer space, while homosexuality is natural... no symbolization there.

We only see what we wish to see and we only dig as far as we wish to dig.

It just happens that we dig enough to discover common truths.

Our sanity would not tolerate intolerance in a world of virtuous tolerance for all, and how else can we fit in when we see what culture so vehemently teaches us to blind ourselves to?

Perspectivism is our new dogma... even aesthetics is a matter of perspective. Reality is malleable to human judgments, rather than judgment by reality.

It's a world of reversals: an upside down world.

Getting it up the ass from a human is good; getting it up the ass from a horse is sick. Giving it up the ass to a man is wonderful; giving it up the ass to a child is ill.

We draw the lines arbitrarily.

It's a matter of aesthetic perspective, really.

We can now live in our heads if we remain harmless and productive to society; believe what you like, as long as you do not rock the boat; be what you think you are, as long as you do not threaten the system.

Nobody will bother you... nobody cares... just... as... long... as... you... do... not... awaken them all!!!

We become creators of our own world while it hurls through a galaxy that knows nothing of our desires and hopes and... ideals.

Just dream that our hopes matter... and presto they do!!!

God had to be killed because now man creates his own bubble-reality, protected from fear and the consequences of his own ignorance by a system that taps into secret desires and twists them into yarns of gold to hang them high.

Your balls – like ornaments below.

Just for show, really; shiny, hairless, colorful balls.... but color does not matter.


A happy cow is a productive cow, a sophistication in husbandry, and a fag can think of himself as he wishes, just as long as he stays within the lines.

Fuck a cow... if you wish... but, damn it, hands off your neighbors wife... that's a sin!!!!

Watch the homo try to be just like everyone else, by marrying, even while pretending to be other or promoting his otherness – queer!!!

What the mutants want is to be included in the label of 'normal', and only then declare how uniquely artistic they are; how different they are.

But what room does reality have in a human world where hands are needed, where consumers and producers are needed, where dumb ants are essential, where loving your job is paramount? Idle hands...

Hermaphrodites, we shall be, where sex deteriorates into a triviality, race into skin-deep pigmentation, beauty turns into the eye's beholding and intelligence into a specialization of knowledge... a matter of education really.

You see sexual orientation is genetic but intelligence is nurturing.

The atrophying muscles rejoice at the coming of a level terrain, because then their own inferiority is lost in the pretenses of mediocrity and the reality of growing averageness.

Downhills are even better.

Just let go and go screaming towards the abyss... towards the emptiness of selfless enlightenment, hands in the air like children on a roller-coaster.

Somebody else is picking up the tab... so just have fun; do not think that'll only ruin it for everyone, you killjoy!!!!

Remain a child, they tell you...the highest principle of retardation. Never lose touch of that inner-child in this infantile world, because then you will find yourself the ill one.

Live in the moment; live like an animal... hand to fist, day to day, thinking of nothing but the immediate – immediate gratification.

Pull the plow and harvest the master's fruits.

Fruits, more fruits!!!!

The world will be one, even if multiplicity produced it and reigns supreme beyond the walls of civility and behavioral controls that offer that desirable illusion that potential is equal, as it should be.

Genetic pollution accompanies the more common materialistic one, and slowly decadence takes its toll... until the rebooting begins and all that bullshit is washed away in a torrent of fluidity that cares not for human foolishness.

Either witness reality as it is or remain a victim of it, content that for the time being you are saved from its immediate impact.

Now secular humanism takes the palace of the dying gods and man raises himself the new idol, pretending he has broken free from his ego, when he has simply redirected it to savor its duplicitous altruism; fear underlies his new-found hope – a fear that cowers behind accusations of phobias when the opponent reaches to pull down those fake smiling masks of civility.

Are you afraid of them?



How easily the child grows, casting aside those old fairy-tales with which its parents lulled it to sleep, and when the dark engulfed the world in its shroud and the mind could only turn inwards for a spark.

More mature now, it lights a candle in the dark, to push away the night, and it begins worshiping the flame… as if it were a thing…hoping that the heat and the light, emanating from it, will last forever – dreaming of a universe bathed in its glow… hoping that reality would disappear in a flash and suffering were left outside.

There is no “divine” outside the human mind, and nothing “perfect” unless man calls it so.

From the subject, the God and Being, Being-in-the World immerses itself in existence, never imagining an exit.

According to Lampert, “the death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism”

Afrikan Aleksandrovich Špir was a blockhead.

Let the sons of Heraclitus drown this fantastic Being under rivers of refreshing υδορlet us cut it away from Becoming, where it still clings, like an old deflated rubber rag.

Let us finally surf the waves.



If there is no potential for any meaningful conversation with a mind that is just not on the same... page – let's call it page rather than level – then what is the alternative?

One would be easily dealt with but it is their numbers which has always made the simple and the easily manipulated a force to be reckoned with; they become an army in the hands of more clever minds – blunt but massive and thick.

Can't escape them.

Can't pretend they are not there.

Can't tell yourself that they and their stupidity does not affect you.

Can't kill them.

You can't even exploit them to the degree that they are begging to be exploited.

The internal fragmentation of man has begun.

I see it happening along subtle lines of gathering around common watering holes; listening to the same music; watching the same movies and experiencing them in similar ways; reading the same books and understanding them in similar ways; living lives of comparable complexity and social engagement.

The genetic diversity is now fully morphing into mimetic diversity... and uniformity is causing internal rifts, across idealistic stress-lines.

The uniforming entity, whether Church or State whither in time and the ideals and principles and methods become weaker, more transparent; the facade crumbles exposing the mechanics behind it, and Oz is seen behind the curtain... but not by all.



It’s pathetic, really, but these manimals have been adequately trained to selectively accept and deny empiricism.

All applies except when it comes to them and their precious humanity.

What creates species, splintering bloodlines towards different directions, is considered a cultural fabrication when it comes to the homo sapient species; race and sex are too simplifying and generalizing, but human race is not.

There’s no reasoning with a mind that can exhibit such a defensive capacity to trick itself into hypnosis.

Such manimals must only be engaged as a means, to be exploited or avoided.  



No victory, no honor, no final resolution, all I am is a soldier swinging away, with my sword of choice; cutting away cowards, slicing away at beasts, offering my own justice to a world that knows of none.

No remembrance necessary.

I did the only thing I could do, the only thing my nature permitted me to do; I remained true to who and what I was.

I fought in an unwinnable war, against a formidable foe, and I stood fast; I made my existence, small as it was, count, like a pebble in a stream.   

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Methods of Mediocrity

Here is the latest assault from one of the most mediocre types of minds, delivered to me in private:

JerryTheJew wrote in regards to my views and their on-line expression:

You throw around the N word so liberally.

I wonder do you talk like that in your day to day life, or are you just another internet troll hiding behind a computer, talking tough? You are lost in your own self illusions of superiority and false self-perceived intellect. You attack people with morals and personal goals. You hate it when people take a stand for their own individuality and fight for a purpose.

This is because you have no purpose, you stand for nothing and you are personally too cowardly to stand for anything. Instead you chose to sit passively by as the world goes spinning by out of your hands and out of control. 

You fear reality because in reality you know you are just another do nothing siting behind a piece of plastic. Yes I am Jewish and for that you hate me. You hate Jews because we have an identity in a world that's lost, and you are lost.” – Jerry the Jew


In this tirade of verbal assaults, we see one of the most common forms of defensiveness.

The "Say it to my face" argument.

According to this not telling a homosexual boss, for example, what you think about him and his lifestyle, is "cowardice.”

The tactic uses a form of shame, trying to manipulate masculine psychology.

What it implies is that unless you confront the one who you describe in ways that cannot be argued against, then your argument is flawed.

Therefore, not telling a Negro what you think of his race, is an indirect debunking of your views.

The challenger has no argument to propose, so (s)he resorts to emotion and threats.

I would think that keeping your real opinions to yourself in a time when political-correctness has taken the form of an assumed, yet never stated, restriction, would be wise.

I would also not poke a bear with a stick, if I find myself in its neck of the woods.

We might say that "not speaking your mind" if it goes against the popular, regurgitated decree, is what one would call "civility."

There is also an allusion to a presumed self-interest.

I think I've gone into this before, but I will repeat it in brief here.


The average, mediocre, mind cannot imagine a perspective which is not immediately and easily beneficial to it. That someone can hold an opinion that may be unflattering or that denies that easy hope most are addicted to, and because it is part of a majority, it, naturally, assumes that all opinions must flatter and must benefit the one stating them, immediately and easily.

I say "immediately and easily" because a perspective can offer a heightened possibility, simply by having it, but a possibility does not mean that it is automatic and a guarantee.

For instance, knowing what materialism is and what the benefits of self-control are may increase the possibility that one will develop a response to materialism or a desire to nurture self-control, but it does not necessarily mean one will succeed.

The mediocre mind cannot cope with such uncertainties and "tough love" attitudes. For it, an opinion must offer a facile and direct benefit... with no ambiguity and no added effort required.

Because of the reasons stated, such minds automatically assume that when a position is unflattering to them, it is wrong, and so it must be flattering to the one who dared propose it as a possibility.

It then constructs this straw-man to unleash the anger it feels for being forced to confront a possibility it had no considered and it dared not think about.


The last part is comedic, for anyone who actually knows what is happening here, so I will not address it.

I will only point to the "identity" argument, urging all to then connect my previous posts with the idea that only one people have identity, though it be as the eternal victims, and no others have one.

I will not go into the more ancient source of our identity, for, at the moment, we are studying the disease itself.

I remind you all of my definition of identity and how it is about the past.

I also remind you all of this particular identity: the life-hating, world-denouncing, nihilistic identity with being chosen to suffer on behalf of a singular Deity – the cult of victimhood, sweeping across the western world, as we speak.

It is an identity not with a genetic past, but with a mimetic one; a meme now trying to establish itself as a gene.

A meme using feminine, insidious, seductive methods to deal with a foe it could not deal with in any other way.

To speak of the Jews as a "people" is to speak of a lie being repeated as if it were true.

Shlome, Altzmon are two more recent Jews who have exposed the lie, and Weininger, Heisman and many others have exposed the other aspects of this infamous source of Nihilism.   

The one thing we can say, for sure, is that although it begins amongst the excluded, the meek, the ostracized, in one tribe, it quickly spreads across tribes...which are rejected due to the particular nature of this infection which claims a special status.

This, of course, is the famous, and often repeated "hate" this sampling of depravity, mentions.

But it is a hate experienced by the lowest of the low of tribes who were denied access to this status of being God's chosen servants of pain and suffering... and one denied by the aristocratic mind, which feels no hatred for a virus that may infect it and may force it to die or grow stronger.  

Shall we repeat how the identity of the European man is being eroded by this disease?



Another example of this mediocrity is in its reliance on word-play... semantics, to defend positions it cannot otherwise.

I've tried to explain my own positions on language: what it is, how it is used, why it unavoidably becomes a method of controlling the masses, how it confuses, even the most brightest, by turning the symbol of the real into a substitute for it... but I fear I have not said enough.

I am, once more, forced to repeat myself, opening myself up to accusations that I am verbose.

I've tried to be laconic, but this only makes the average, mediocre mind, gain a false sense of arrogance, thinking that my triteness is weakness.

I know that I should not be bothered by the beliefs of the simple-minded, but in this case allowing them to enjoy the slightest sense of comfort only exacerbates the predicament we find ourselves in.

These, simpletons, after all, are given a democratic vote.

But, allow me to repeat as briefly as possible:

A word is a mental construct; a symbol, a code, referring to a mental abstraction. In other words it is a mental artifice pointing back to a mental artifice.

It is a way of expressing, sharing, of this mental artifice.

We immediately begin to sense a solipsistic trend, which, in fact, is what underlies most popular, populist, world-views in our time.

Now we become aware of two additional factors:

1- It is easy to understand why this self-referential method would be preferable to a mind abhorring the uncertainty and indifference of a reality it has little knowledge and even less understanding of.


For this method to remain sustainable over a long period of time, what will be required is a sheltering, protective, umbrella.

A shield that may internally promote the ideas it then ignores, or considers naive, so as to remain effective as a shield.

This results in a contradiction, necessitating internal dumbing-down and/or compartmentalization... or selective-reasoning... or Orwell's newspeak. 


#1 takes us back to my previous posting.

It reminds us that imagination unhindered by sensuality, or freed from that ghastly, deterministic reality, is what we call "fantasy" and if it reaches a particularly high degree of detachment form reality it is what we call "delusion.”

We also know how dumbing-down is a degradation of all mental faculties, one of which is the mind's ability to imagine.

We witness this more clearly in how minds, today, are incapable of creative thinking but must immerse themselves in the fantasies, imaginations of others.

See movies.

The insecure mind turns inward, not for strength but for escape routes.

Finding nothing there, as identity has been retarded and not allowed to develop, it then immerses itself in the eroticism of an otherness.

It is, effectively, consumed, assimilated, in the thoughts, thinking, ides, ideals, of an otherness.

This is what we call "herd psychology,” or better understood as slavery.

Imagine, if you will, if you can, trying to live-up to another's ideals, opinions.


#2 points us towards the modern day practice of using two standards to measure one phenomenon, without being able to justify one or both, because doing so would expose the mind to the lie.


We also realize that this sheltering, although comforting and comfortable, is not without a cost... without a motive, because nothing in this life or any other we know of is for free.

In this case promoting internal genetic decline is a way of ensuring internal harmony. Technologies, techniques, then, attempt to deal with the collateral effects.

The entire system is geared to implode, as the resources required to deal with these collateral by-products, these genetic fallouts (pollutants) begin to exceed the aggregate energies at the sheltering system's disposal.

The system requires an influx, transfusions, from other sources, to maintain its stability and the internal simulations that keep it going. Ergo, such anti-nature methods of population control and manipulation are obsessed with growth, and wealth, within its contexts is about pooling, accumulating, collecting.

Their anti-natural ideals inevitably result in their disharmony within natural processes they are trying to "correct,” replace, ignore.



Another example of mediocrity and its methods:

This, too, I've gone over before.


It is the old negative/positive dilemma... or perspectivism.

We can agree that a phenomenon is a phenomenon and is neither positive nor negative.

Having said that we must also agree that we, as living organisms with particular needs, are also a phenomenon; a phenomenon, with the ability to perceive phenomena... including self.

The latter, developing later, after some sophistication has taken place, whereas the former, perception of phenomena being an organism's method of dealing with otherness, so as to preserve its own capacity to remain the particular phenomenon that it is: one with the potential to direct itself efficiently and effectively, thusly increasing its possibility to remain intact.

Ordering in the Disordering.

Now, many have offered their own definitions of negative/positive, so allow me to offer my own feeble attempt at one:

For me "negative" is all that requires no effort to persist and to grow... i.e. entropy, darkness, cold, lifeless matter/energy (ordering)... this leaves the opposite - because the mind must begin to think by first positing binary extremes – of "positive" as that state of becoming, that phenomenon which requires constant and consistent energies to maintain itself and to grow: order, light, heat, life etc.

The projected binary extremes (dualistic poles) are, once more, mental abstractions... tools for orienting the organism within a reality in Flux.

Therefore, reality is this fluctuating combination of the positive/negative... neither one nor the other, yet existing as contrary to both.

This is why I described nihilism and absolutes as being feminine/masculine or negative/positive – God, the positive absolute, absolute order, being no less a nullifying end, than absolute disorder, randomness, emptiness, void, the feminine side of the singularity.

No sexism... there's a reason why this "towards entropy", this surrender to what requires no effort, is feminine in spirit and why the masculine is this towards Godliness... "Will to Power"... Will to Life.


Once all this is understood then we can proceed.

We must begin by admitting that although positive/negative are in relation to the living organism, they are, nevertheless, useful categories.

Teleology is not required as this would be an attainment of the absent absolute.

Therefore, we may agree that death is neither positive nor negative from a detached objective perspective, but such a perspective is non-existent, as there is no god, and no absolute objectivity, but only varieties of subjectivity.

This variation in subjectivity constitutes an approach, but not realization, of the absent absolute.

It denies the common usage of perspectivism as an equalization method, where all perspectives are deemed equally possible, given that omniscience is absent.

No, that's what cowards and hypocrites do.

I say, that although there is no absolute "truth," because truth is a word denoting an absolute omniscience, a transcendental perspective, there are degrees of truth, which are superior or inferior, at any given time – the last takes into account the ongoing fluidity of reality, as (inter)activity.

But when we speak of reality we are not talking about a level of fluidity that would make all order impossible and inapplicable – life, being such an ordering, is present, proving that patterns still persists, at this temporal stage, and so some perspectives are more accurate, more precise, more aware, more sophisticated... more true than others.


What was I saying?

Ah yes...

So, albeit we can say, from an imagined detached, beyond, perspective, that death is neither positive nor negative, we can also say that for a living organism death can only be a negation, a negative.

We can apply this to anything.

We can say that being a sexual mutation which is unfit is neither negative nor positive, but from a perspective of a living, breathing, organism, dependent on sexual reproduction to make its life have purpose and meaning, the mutation of homosexuality is distinctly negative, parasitical, and detrimental to the organism's future.

Same goes for stupidity. Although being a simpleton is neither positive nor negative, all things considered, we cannot help but admit, even if in private, that we all consider stupidity as a negative trait.



Another tactic used by mediocrity is one used on Philosophy Now Forum, not so long ago.

The idea that a category says nothing about the particular.

It was in the context of "Spot is a dog; how tall is spot?"

This is an argument constructed on bad faith.

It does not care about discovering what language is and how it works, or what categories represent, but it seeks only to discredit to preserve the illusion that categories, in any context, but when it comes to humans, more importantly, do not apply, or are superficial.

If we begin with the ultimate category of EXISTS and define it – I've defined it as 'all which is (inter)active, or dynamic' – then we realize that categories are sub-categories of this one.

Sub-categories enhance our understanding and what they represent, since activity is our basic element for existing, is potential, or possibility, and if said activity has a pattern, an ordering, it is about probability.

Probability being a higher state of possibility.

When we say "probable" we mean that it has a higher possibility in regards to a projected ideal or projected goal or projected result.

In regards to a category, such as species, when we say giraffe we are saying that the particular phenomenon has the combined, general, attributes of a living phenomenon we then categorize and symbolize with a word: giraffe.

The "general" reflects an average, as these are established through observation, and designates an upper and lower extreme for each particular attribute, then combined in a pattern we call the species.

The same applies to a sub-category of a sub-category... so if dog is our starting sub-category of the sub-category canine which is itself a sub-category of the sub-category mammal , and so on, all the way up to "existing", then breed is a further enhancement of the particular. 

The general attributes of dog, being established as a pattern of potentials, the breed sub-category streamlines our understanding of the particular dog by further shrinking the probable, focusing it further.

Therefore, a breed, sub-category, is a lesser generalization, in comparison to the sub-category dog, just as dog is a lesser generalization in comparison to the sub-category mammal.

Each sub-category focuses our understanding by shrinking the probable.


If we are told that spot is a dog, we may not know exactly how big the particular is, but knowing the general pattern of what dog is, we can place it within a probability ratio.

If we are told what breed of dog it is, our probability ration shrinks or becomes more focused, more precise.

Of course absolute precision is impossible since flux means that the particular may be an exception to the rule, because it has been affected by environment in unpredictable ways.

But this does not make the categories unnecessary and inapplicable... otherwise no science would be possible.

What a category represents is a pattern of behavior, a pattern of (inter)activity.

Patterns can be broken or changed, but then the reason why they have changed becomes a factor.

Though we may not know how tall spot is we do know that it falls within an upper and a lower limit, from our experience with dogs.

The only reason this gap is big is because dogs, are a special type of phenomenon; one where humans have intervened upon its genetic potentials, promoting and/or inhibiting them in accordance to a desired outcome.

But if we were to speak of wild dogs where only natural selection applies then the upper and lower limits would be closer to the average, or the median.

Same thing applies to all sub-categories when dealing with a species and with particular breeds, genetic branches of said species.

This also includes humans.

We can say that all science – science being a human discipline trying to understand the world by categorizing it based no appearances (empiricism), and perceived patterns of behavior, (inter)activity.

Science does not study the particular separate from all experience with the same type. It places the particular within the context of a general category, as this has been established through observation.

It may not know, for example, the exact mass of a distant sun, but it can use the sensual data perceived to assume the upper and the lower limits of its potential mass. This is also important because a pattern is a fluctuation, and not a static THING, just as a particular human, a sub-category of the general type of homo sapient, itself a sub-category of primate, sub-category of mammal and so on.

A man is not the same within all temporal periods.

A man is not the same as himself in the past or himself in the possible future.

Here, we see that it is "sameness" which is the illusion, the generalization, and not difference, not divergence.

Identity is based on a continuum held together in the observer’s memory or in the organism's memory... genes being a form of memory.

So, a man is a pattern exhibiting a potential, a probability, which is altering, as time goes by.

This pattern is based on the particular's performance; his previous (inter)actions.

This is why one's own potential is unknown even to the one trying to attain his highest potential. Stretching the limits is a way of self-discovery, as it makes conscious the individual's upper potential.

In regards to race, or human breeds, as these have been established not through human intervention, necessarily – we exclude the intervention of slavery which selected for breeding individual humans based on potential productivity, which is a relatively recent development – but through natural selection: genetic isolation, inter-breeding, environmental conditioning, fauna, geography, climate, resource quality and accessibility, random natural occurrences (volcano eruptions, tsunamis, climate cooling, mass extinction due to meteorite hits, earthquakes, viruses etc.).

The physical effects can be easily noticed as a by-product of all this past history, this sum of all previous experiences, nurturing (nature), but the brain divergences are more conscious and so more easily dismissed and denied existence, especially when human social conditioning also establishes a behavioral limit, creating a uniformity in thinking and acting within controlled social environments. But, having said that, if we are honest and our goal is to truly understand the human condition, rather than to create a comfortable, comforting environment in agreement with the popular, acceptable norms, then we can also witness this mental divergence through the observation of the particular sub-category (breed, type, race, kind) over a period of time and within many different contexts.

If we say that the presence of mostly individuals coming from one racial type at the 100 meter dash is coincidental or a product of social factors, then we must also apply a similar skepticism when to comes to the dominating presence of mostly one species in the fields of science and art... or one breed of dog dominating certain skills.

If we choose to arbitrarily apply different standards to the more controversial areas dealing with mind and psychology and intelligence, than we do when categorizing and understanding the physical, then we must first explain why this duality of mind/body still applies and what justification is used to explain why the brain is unaffected by environmental conditioning establishing a general potential, a higher or lower probability, when everything besides it is affected.

Then we must explain how consciousness evolves, if we believe that consciousness evolves and is not some mystical, transcendental power; and if consciousness evolves then how do the different levels of consciousness, we may call intelligence, come about, if, that is, we actually believe that a dog's intelligence is inferior to a human's, or a worm's consciousness is inferior to that of a cow.



By far the most popular method of dealing with reality is the emotional one.

The argument consists in evoking feelings as a counter-argument or as a reason to withhold opinion or selectively perceive reality.

This tactic presupposes that the world is interested in our (re)actions to it and that something making us feel bad makes it unreal or biased or undeserving of attention.

The tactic of burying your head in the sand or, up your arse, if you will.

This is related to the notion of positive/negative.

The belief that reality is innately "good" is guided by a Judeo-Christian world-view; one which still underlies the psychology of even diehard atheists (Marxists) or secular humanists (liberals). 

God is good and when "god is dead" the "goodness" still lives on, in human form.

This presupposed "goodness" then becomes a moral stance, where ethics becomes some kind of universal law, a natural force, akin to gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism.

Although it is not stated outright it is always alluded to that despite the evidence, contrary to our experience with reality – no matter how sheltered and deprived it may be – no matter what we see in nature  (and not in controlled social environments where hypocrisy and behavioral limits and indoctrination is a factor, but within nature unaffected by human contrivances and human interventionist) that all of this is inconsequential, an illusion, false, because underlying it all is some "goodness" that always wins out: it can be called "karma", divine grace, poetic justice, morality or whatever else the mind comes up with to maintain a comforting delusion which is contradicted by the world itself.

This is a perfect example of nihilistic thinking.

Though the world shows us that entropy is increasing, that order is rare, that life is the exception to the norm, and that science tells us that everything is veering towards absolute randomness (chaos), that despite this all is "positive" because the apparent is an illusion and underneath this reality there is an even more real reality, where the exact opposite is true.

Therefore, your senses evolved not to aid you in the world, in existence, but to test you, trick you... challenge your faith.

Here the real is set-up as a hellish, negative state... ergo nihilism offers the more positive, preferable world (paradise, utopia).

This is the nihilistic reversal of consciousness; the Orwellian newspeak.

From this starting emotional foundation we get to the position that if the other insults us, or contradicts our undeserving self-esteem, or makes us question our own falsely created identity, then he is to be dismissed, ignored, or assaulted on a personal level. The assumption here is that if a position makes us feel bad then the one proposing it to us is trying to hurt us: motive is presupposed as the reason for our own emotional (re)action to a perspective. This does not apply to the "positive" feelings.

Nobody tries to find a motive behind another making us feel good. In this case we focus on the end result, the feeling of pleasure, goodness, itself.

We do not question the motive because we do not want to risk losing the feelings.

The reverse is true when we are made to feel bad. There, the feeling is focused on and denied, rejected, and the motive is always proportionally as "bad" as the feeling it produces: a bad feeling must be rooted in a bad motive.

The idea of tough love or of indifference – that is of stating a fact unconcerned about any emotional appeal or possible (re)action to it – is never considered.



A favorite and comforting lie – one adding to the soothing delusion that a perspective should be judged by how it makes us feel, rather than by how accurately it explains and represents our experiences in reality: The majority can't be wrong.

This is a supportive component in the "equality" bullshit mythology.

Essentially, what it attempts to justify is the idea that because all minds are equally endowed, that the majority of minds will always believe in what is closest to the real.

Any mind contradicting this position is either "ill," or has an intention contrary to the shared truth, and so must be resentful or guided by some false sense of self-confidence, or is motivated by some other reason, contrary to establishing the facts about reality.

This is "reality, by democratic decree.”

Democracy is, of course, a political system representing a capitulation of reason to necessity, and one the ancient Greeks themselves did not fully respect.

In our times Democracy is but the political ideology reflecting equality, or the uniformity of potentials.

The "one mind one vote" does not only achieve parity – equating the choice of the wise with that of the moron – but it leads to a decline in quality, as the majority will always be the expendable by-product of natural selection which, in this case, is given undeserved consideration and respect, and "rights" which conflict with natural standards concerning quality of mind/body.

The majority, in nature, are produced because within austere natural environments there is a lot of predation, waste, genetic drift, losses due to diseases absence of opportunity, randomness we call "luck" and/or chance.

To compensate nature produces abundance so as to increase the possibility for survival.

This would also explain why male and female births, in our human species, are almost equal, though males are more expendable than females, and they are more easily excluded from the genetic pool.

Once men intervened upon the natural processes so as to allow the survival of more males, necessary to the survival of the tribe, state, empire, it followed that these males would be given the possibility for passing on their genes and for having a voice within the tribe they were asked to serve.

Paternalism, as they call it, gives rise to the possibility of a theoretical political parity.

This remains theoretical because the leader of the tribe and his opinion always trumps that of the masses.

At first it does not matter, because tribal homogeneity makes the leader a natural representation of the best and the brightest of his own clan, of his own bloodline.

Success leads to a collateral effect.

Growing populations increase specialization, which then increase the disparity between those specialized in fields essential to the tribe and those specializing in fields of secondary, supportive importance; it also produces increasing heterogeneity, as the population is inflated by the influx of peoples who belong to inferior tribes, attracted to order/power, and the excess of resources this produces.

The inferior, again, exceed the superior... and so the tribe is slowly inundated by growing numbers of inferior stock.

At first they take on the role of slaves or supportive work essential but too time consuming for the native group.

Seizing the opportunity leisure provides a genetic superiority births a culture, and then a civilization, as all these masses have to be controlled and ordered and guided, using laws, norms, procedures, bureaucracy, ideologies.

Numbers swell, and the quality is overrun by quantities, as those of quality are now more interested in creative activities (leisure) rather than in toil.

Decadence ensues.

Democracy and the egalitarian ethos is born in this stage of decay. 

Sparta was pulled down by this softness, manifesting in a love for comfort, luxury, symbolic value (wealth).     

In this environment the "self-evident" lie of parity of potential finds fertile ground and it becomes an "innate" memetic disposition.

We are living in the aftermath of generations of this ideological indoctrination.

Not only do we consider it "logical" that all deserve respect (respect being a form of intimidation), but also that all deserve propagation, and that all opinions are worth considering.

Some methods of filtering out stupidity do come about but these also become methods for ignoring the undesirable or for controlling ideas.

Today, we are more likely to lend our ear to the mundane, the idiotic, than to someone who challenges our established, comforting, comfortable, world-views.

Politeness is  the perfect excuse for dismissing anything that disturbs, disrupts, and like with controversial theories concerning conspiracies, putting all these ideas or perspectives in one box, is an easy way of throwing out the 'baby with the bathwater.'

Consider how questions about the 9/11 events are now included in the same category as UFO abductions or Big Foot sightings... and then consider how "trolling" is being used to exclude, from consideration, the disturbed and purposefully disruptive, along with the ones offering positions considered "evil", "debunked" controversial, too insulting or hurtful to be taken seriously, etc.

The majority, and how many are hurt, insulted, disturbed out of their self-evident complacency, is the measure of what is to be called civil, serious, of value.


Civility is a code-word, meaning, mediocre, average, the middle-ground. To cross it means that you are now proposing something that more people than not feel hurt by.

But it goes further, because of the shared "rights", lie.

If one person is insulted or hurt, then the idea, the opinion is flagged as potentially "bad", "evil", motivated by something other than intellectual integrity.

Democracy is built on mass participation, and the masses are its foundation.

Therefore, the only measurement of quality it can allow is one of quantities. It has no ability to determine or to consider anything demanding a judgment dealing with quality; it feel inhibited by shame, by morals, by uncertainty to consider doing so.

Since numbers, the codes of modernity, is all which is permitted – though numbers are also ambiguous and baseless – it surrenders to statistics, the popular vote, what sells, what is popular.

The standard shifts to how much a product (thought, idea) makes the many happy.

Feeling bad, being made to feel bad, being forced to reconsider things one needs to remain sane or feel good about one's self, is an automatic dismissal.

The conception of reality turns to a hedonistic appeal: make me feel good, or be silent, or face the consequences.

Reality becomes a benevolent, good-natured, state, and encompassed within rules and regulations ensuring the well-being of all; all except those who confront and contradict this basic requirement.

Who would deny pleasure, but a sick mind or one with ulterior motives or one finding pleasure in the other's pain?

Sadomasochism becomes the alternative label for fascist.


We love those who give us some kind of hope – hope being the antidote to existential angst/fear – ergo anyone who takes away hope is hated or hateful.

Love becomes the mystical term describing the hope-giver: Jesus of Nazareth, God, the cult leader, the spiritual guide, the leader, priest, and teacher.

The easier the hope, the more universal, the less effort it requires, the more hopeful it is...ergo, all opinions not offering immediate gratification, demanding nothing more than a shift in attitude, a repression of self, a seductive escape from a less malleable aesthetic conception, is the most attractive, the more lovable, the most seductive lover of all.

Our feminine side is swept off its feet, and raised up to the heavens.


"Kiss, me, love me, give me hope, offer me promises, a promise, shelter me, safeguard me, protect me, possess me... make me yours!!!"

All the girls swoon.

The most adorable one is the one all the girls want to be taken by.

Have you met your God, yet?

Don't look at me... I'm the anti-dote, the anti-god, the anti-Christ.

Through me despair, and a need to find hope inside of yourself.

Not hope in delusion, in romantic idealism, but in endurance, in compromises, in a shattering laugh against the inevitable.

Who, the hell, are you to ask me for hope, when I was never given any; when I had to make it myself?

Whatever I needed I took, or I constructed on my own, and if I could not then I learned to do without. If you wish to be taken, by being given hope, then do not be surprised if I do with you as I please, when I please, how I please.

To be given you must give. If you wish to receive hope from me, through me, then be prepared to be taken.  

If I am to offer something then it is what has always been right in front of you, though you turned your eyes away.

I offer you what confronts and challenges. How you will respond is not my problem.

I only wish to observe you (re)acting, because I sharpen my own reflexes in that way.


I scream, because you are in a deep trance: “LOOK!!! See it!!! It has been there all along. Unconcealed it just waited to be seen by one who could bear the sight.”

And if the calf is encompassed in a mass of beefy bodies, when the wolf comes sniffing, what of it?

How long will it find a warm, safe place, in the center of the herd, and how many bodies can protect it from reality for an eternity?

Time is my master.

I watch time lay waste and pull asunder; I watch time build and destroy, turning all into a fine, uniform sandy desert.

The sun's energies dissipate. The uniform surface grows unbearably hot, while deep down cold grips the moisture, and pulls it downward into clumps.

How deep will you dig to wait for the cooling rains; how long will you withstand their sweeping force?



We may all forage and hunt on the same fields, but some never swallow; the nutrients never become digested, they never become integrated into the body, excreting the toxins out as waste to fertilize new crops.

Some chew and then regurgitate to chew some more. They mull things over indefinitely.

Their teeth turn flat and dull; appropriate for endless mastication.

The eternal skeptics, the one who cannot decide, the procrastinating dullards, who fail to find adequate reasons to come to a conclusion, to take a stand, to utter a word.

The data is too ambiguous, the differences are too small; the information is sketchy, indefinite, and they have no courage to take the risk and pay the possible price for coming to an opinion.

They want to be given a reason, a deciding will, stepping in, offering them the “right” to have an opinion.

When none meet the criteria, they settle for being undecided, uncertain, unable to say one way or another; all opinions have merit, all arguments are equally enticing.

They call themselves “open-minded” when what they are is intellectual cowards standing behind whatever is most ubiquitous, yet apart, wanting to remain distinct and special in their indistinguishable essence, in their non-committal dubiousness.

That’s the best place for them: behind, so as to not be held accountable, and slithering to the side, to pretend that they are not of the same kind as those who are fanatically committed to the absurd absolute.

The “truth,” for them is out there...just as for the naïve girl the “prince” is on his way.

One day (s)he thinks this, and the next another charmer takes over; reluctant to totally give-in just in case something better comes along.

Yes, even little boys become stuck in a state of womanly indecisiveness.

Uncertainty in one’s own judgment becomes an intellectual virtue.

Such minds do not escape mediocrity; they hover over it, next to, it, behind it, not wanting to commit to it, as well. They are pulled in by the gravity of mass, but they never crash land into it.

They live and die never daring to see, because when they look all they see is haze, clouds of smoke, ill-defined boundaries, and what they need is that evasive absolute.                



It's the sheer volume of words, the ease in accessing and sampling the words of others that fills the breast of the average mediocre mind with jaded confidence.

He's heard it all; he knows of it.

He may have munched on it for a time, before he spat it out to return to the usual routines.


We have television, computers, and movies, all offering us a touch of everything: every spice, every concept, and every perspective. We can pick and choose, according to taste, only to try something else tomorrow.

Ideas bounce in the head, never coalescing into something useful, something tangible.

Information overload, where nothing is ever appreciated fully: the culture of recycling, artistic repetition, with a primal heartbeat, in the familiar rhythms of a musical style.

The established is not in question, for it allows us to question everything else, besides.


The comfortable industrialist can discuss Marxism with the unemployed anarchist, because the ideas have been stripped of their danger, their effectiveness.

They are t-shirt logos on the chests of the youthful nouveau riche, depicting dead revolutionaries; conversation pieces that lead nowhere but to lost time; entertaining vehicles of avoiding the settled.

The internet provides this ready medium of sampling ideas: a pooling of wisdom and insights that can be sampled with a few dollars a day.

No thinking required... click and read.

Retain in memory long enough to make a sensation, then leave the words fall back into the subconscious where some future repetition of the word can stimulate it back to life, along with all the associated emotions, imagery, sensations.

All can partake, all can taste, and all can use and then throw away.


Individual qualities lose their effectiveness, when behavior is restricted – options denied – and when pretentiousness is aided with training.

Then it becomes a matter of perceiving the talented liar from the average one.

And who better to accuse the other of hypocrisy than the biggest hypocrite of all?

Fortunately pretense cannot exceed its own limits, and so humor, the ability to divert using the constant cynical mirth of the inwardly insecure, saves the facade from breaking.


Nothing is unknown, nothing is mysterious, mystical... everything is out in the open.

Everything becomes a joke because we've heard it all... at least the words.

You can say anything you like, believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as long as you do not take it seriously, because to think there is an escape out of this status quo can only be taken as a tired joke.

You are telling the audience that has most to lose from taking you seriously of something they will never allow to go beyond the distastefully comedic.

Yes, they've heard it all, they've read it all; the words have passed through their ear canal and the pulsations have made the eardrum vibrate.

They've heard it so often that they've become used to the sound of the words, and the automated responses to them.

They begin to believe that this habituation constitutes an understanding.

Like cows in those proverbial fields, they've tasted every weed, so often, that they begin to believe they've digested it all.

Most of it passes right through them, never leaving anything behind, because their constitution, aided by years of training, has automated the way they deal with certain fodder, but the taste remains on their tongues, with the usual automatic responses.

They recognize the taste, and they've been told how to deal with it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr

Dullards and Dullness


It is always those who cannot create, cannot write, or paint, or think outside the social and cultural box, the norms, that most complain about the popular forms of creativity, as they experience them, and have access to them.

They are the harshest critics, because there is always an element of resentment, of an inferiority complex wanting to avenge itself.

But their critical harshness is very particular.

They find the repetitive reaffirmation of what they hold dear, and consider self-evident and necessary, as exciting, when it is presented to them in a variety of ways, but are quick to become bored by anything contrary to it.

The dullard is easily amused by the same, when it simply reminds him of his sameness, and the dullness this produces, but cannot tolerate anything which reminds him of a difference, because then it becomes annoyingly repetitive.

Dullness is only acceptable when it produces that flow of endorphins that help the dullard escape his dullness.  

The dull ones usually expect to be serviced, to be taken care of.

They want to be given new things, be stimulated in new ways, be inspired by the unique, like a baby would, because they are dull, and empty inside; they are bored with themselves and the world they feel comfortable within.

The dull world they reaffirm daily with their dull mind, and expect it to reciprocate in kind.

For these dullards, the unique is not only possible but expected. Better to be vulgar and idiotic than to be boring, when boredom is the world they live, and have immersed themselves within.

All is dull because they are dull, and they associate with dullness.


The dullard expects to be entrained, and whatever threatens its dull existence is called exactly what it fears is prevalent in their own dullness: ennui.

The dullard projects its dullness outward, wanting to turn the different into something it can deal with: the dull.

Boredom is not only its preferred state but a defensive mechanism.

They want to be awoken from their lethargy by new, more creatively dull ways.

They want excitement when it leads back to boredom.

They want the different when it leads back to the usual.

Packaging is what they crave.

New and exciting ways to package the same crap.

They want dullards stimulating them out of their shared condition with harmless, fantastically, childish ways.

For them change is preferable, only if it does not change what they consider fundamental, and self-evident.

They want change, the different, but only when it does not surpass a limit they share with the dullards that surround them.

If it is not absolutely different then it must be one of the same.

Sameness is the dullards narcotic.

They want a more creative way of dealing with their dullness.

Change is desirable because it is always within the context of what they consider manageable.

What exceeds it will be accused of dullness, or avoided, preferring the harmless kind of repetitive dullness they think is exciting.

They expect the different, in a world of change, because they are trapped in a cocoon of conformity which they both depend upon and despise, unable to decide is stress is preferable to boredom.

Their dullness insists and demands the same.

It feels entitled to taste the same in a variety of different ways.


The world is constant change, this is its nature, but they do not simply wish for any-old change, but a particular, by-the-book, sort of change, where the return to the dull usual is also part of the expected, unstated, deal.

They want opinions to change, only if this change is superficial, because they think this is open-mindedness, and because they expect reality to be so dynamic that nothing ever holds true for any period of time, unless it is frightening.

When it is frightening then they demand that it changes, to get rid of its threat.

Then they expect immediate, change, back to the usual, but packaged differently so the appearance of accepting change is retained.

For the dullard, their safety-net are these expectations for that which threatens to alter, and by "alter" the dullard means change to harmonize with its own dullness.

For a dullard, change is a code word, meaning that what threatens its comfortable ennui must change to adhere to a different variant of his own dullness.

It wants change within boundaries.


Have you seen them flock to movie theaters and to new book releases?

The same shit delivered in a different book-cover, and with a different title.

They love change, theoretically, because the present, the real, is so distasteful to them, and so unflattering to them and to their lineage; but not just any change will do.

For them change is synonymous with good, or tasteful variety.

A buffet of edible differences, which all remain edible and digestible.

Their stomach, their constitution, is a gauge of what is acceptable and what is not. 

Though entropy means increasing negativity, in regards to human needs, for the dullard, being that he is a dullard, change can only promise goodness, for anything, but anything, is better than what is, so thinks the naive dullard.

Hope is the dullards aphrodisiac.

Blind, naive hope, the antidote to fear.

What do we call blind naive hope?


The dullard must have faith.

He hates the past, because it made him dull, the progeny of a long line of dullards, and he despises the present because it is how he lives this dull past...so his only hope is in the future.

The future is where he places his faith, his hope.

He remains fearless towards it because for the dullard, the divine can only bring goodness.

It is part of his naïveté.

For the secular dullard, the one who has enlightened his way out of Monotheistic dullness, the future is what takes its place.

What else can the changing present bring but a future full of benevolent, kind, goodness, eventually to become dull?



The dangers of speaking honestly, and clearly about the essence of reality, and the nature of the world, has been known since ancient times.

Particularly when women, children, and a variety of males, each with his own failings, are present, any honest expression becomes a risky affair.

Each feeble-minded listener will (re)act to what is being exposed in a way which protects his/her vulnerability... and the easiest way to protect it is to attack the source from where this vulnerability is threatened.

The speaker will be the first target of the average mind's wrath, having no other way to defend itself against what is being exposed to it, and what it cannot deny as being so.


The wise man is only honest and clear when amongst other wise men.

When amongst the average he promotes the ideas that comfort and sooth, or he allows the prevailing beliefs to continue unchallenged by him.

To do otherwise is to put himself at risk, before the defensive, angry wrath, of minds that cannot cope with anything beyond the communally subjective.

If he wishes to reach the exceptional amongst the average he must employ indirect, artistic methods: ambiguity, metaphor, symbolism, cryptic language, prose, humor...

In an age of Democratic herd psychologies, controlled resources and no accessible frontiers, the few must always remain wary of the many.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr


Θεία Μανία


If the inaccessibility of frontiers persists, the decay will persist.

If, and when, it stops being a decisive factor, what will remain and how it will develop shall be determined by how much it has preserved of a past that has already been forgotten amongst the many.  



Asexuality will be a fact, if new frontiers remain inaccessible.

The advancement of technology that made masculinity obsolete will then make femininity so, resulting in the elimination of sex as we know it.


Relationships between humans will become increasingly memetic, or totally dependent on emotional satisfaction and physical release, with or preferably without a productive outcome.

The designation of “human” will cease to apply, as the term is a biological designation based on sexual reproduction.

Once the biological category is detached from its sexually productive content it can be redefined using other productive standards.

To replicate or to reproduce the memetic code will replace any reproduction of a genetic code, and man will be reduced to a numerical value measured by its production and utility.    



In time the affluent will breed while the rest rarely, if at all…

This will give a new dimension to the division between haves and have-nots.

Although many methods will be used to convince the many that they participate in an abstruse unity, a family of man, the many will become increasingly disillusioned and un-invested in the well-being of the few.

These free-radicals, being excluded from the gene pool, will tear down the memes that hold the unity intact.    



During the point where the imbalance is tipped towards prevailing chaos (randomness), life emerges as a counteraction to this change in balances.

For this reason I consider life and the human condition to be characterized by tragedy, in its battle against increasingly dominating chaotic forces.

During the first phases – represented by the Ages of Man – the best are placed on the foreground of this struggle, preserving and reflecting the hierarchy being preserved; later on this gives way to mediocrity, as quantities are mustered to support qualities; in the last stages, the lowest of the low, remain to surrender to the decline.        



There will come a time when humans will wear a symbol of authenticity, like food items are labeled for their naturalness.

A bar code, or some other symbol indicating that the sex they appear to be is the sex they were born as – or further than that, a lawfully binding declaration of what interventions have been performed upon him/her to alter his appearance, or to change his inherited presence.

It'll fall under marketing laws.



A new renaissance is coming.

One that will follow near extinction for European man.

The signs are already noticeable.

Those who manage to survive the Dark Age will be the ones who find a way to adapt, and weather the long winter of the demographic Ice Age, and the urge to join the herds migrating south.

The urge to follow will be strong, and what will come is a long desolation, solitude, endured with patience only a few can muster, and ingenuity only a few will be gifted with.

At the end, and if some survive, a new European will emerge from the wombs of those noble females that stayed behind and looked back to the memories of their own forefathers.




Burden of awareness is its indecisiveness, before possibilities, opening up choices with cost and benefits requiring analysis.

Self-Awareness exposes the mind to a world that makes it feel vulnerable, uncertain.

Will to live becomes a death wish, seeking relief, when faced with the inevitable.

Survival instinct becomes the pleasure principle.

It is time to reclaim survival, as revival – the will-to-live, as the meticulous consolidation of past, preserving it as a foundation upon which to construct our kingdoms, and from where we can launch towards our ideals.

Not survival for its own sake, but survival as reaffirmation of what has come before, particularly that which has distinguished us within existence.

A re-routing, to invigorate forgotten root systems harvesting hidden subterranean caverns.

Self-maintenance redefined as remembrance.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Satyr
Να συστηθώ.


Γεννήθηκα στην Σπάρτη Λακωνίας.

Πριν το πρώτο έτος ζωής οι γονείς μου με μετακόμισαν στον Καναδά, όπου και μεγάλωσα τα πρώτα χρόνια.

Ο πατέρας μου, σαν πολλούς μετανάστες, δεν του άρεσε το εξωτερικό.

Ποθούσε να γυρίσει στην μητέρα Ελλάδα, οπότε κάθε πέντε-έξι χρόνια γυρίζαμε στην Ελλάδα.


Αυτό έγινε τέσσερις φορές – από ηλικία δέκα μέχρι είκοσι-ένα, όταν απολύθηκα από τον στρατό.

Πήγα στα ελληνικά σχολεία, και υπηρέτησα τον Ελληνικό στρατό – Έβρο, και Κιλκίς – είκοσι-ένα μήνες, ήταν τότε.


Μιλώ άπταιστα Ελληνικά μα η ορθογραφία μου είναι απαίσια.

Μου σπαταλά πολύ χρόνο να διορθώνω τα πολλά λάθη μου, γι’αυτό προτιμώ να γράφω στα Αγγλικά.

Μετά από τόσα χρόνια γράφω καλύτερα στα αγγλικά.

Τα Ελληνικά μου φθάρθηκαν, όπως τον μυ που ατροφεί όταν δεν τον χρησιμοποιείς.


Ο σκοπός μου είναι να εξυγιάνω την Ελληνική ψυχή, που επίσης ατροφεί, και αργοπεθαίνει.

Το χρωστάω στους προγόνους μου, προς τους οποίους αισθάνομαι μεγάλη ντροπή με τα κατάντια της Ελλάδας και του Ελληνισμού.


Η μεγάλη αγάπη φαίνεται στην κριτική μου.

Όπως ο πατέρας γυμνάζει τον υιό του, τον κάνει να υποφέρει, να κλαίει, για να δυναμώσει, να γίνει τρανός, να ξεπεράσει τον ίδιο, έτσι κι’εγώ κάνω ότι μπορώ στην εποχή που ζούμε.

Το κάνω για τον υιό μου. Για να μεγαλώσει και να είναι υπερήφανος Έλληνας, και όχι αυτό που βλέπω στην τηλεόραση καθημερινά, και με λυπεί, και αυτό που έζησα τα χρόνια που ήμουν εκεί.


Το φιλότιμο δεν είναι μόνο μια λέξη, που την πετάμε εδώ κι'εκεί...είναι πράξη ζωής, είναι βίωμα, είναι υπερηφάνεια και αρχοντιά. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


Εάν σας ενδιαφέρει να γίνετε ενεργό μέλος του Hellenism.Net σαν moderator στο forum, ή αν σας ενδιαφέρει να γράφετε άρθρα/κείμενα στους λογαριασμούς Facebook, Twitter και Google+ του Hellenism.Net, ή αν ασχολείστε με προγραμματισμό ιστοσελίδων, τότε επικοινωνήστε μαζί μας!

Χρειαζόμαστε εθελοντές για να κρατησουμε το  Hellenism.Net ζωντανό!

Follow us

Hellenism.Net Facebook Feed