Questions for Dr. Aquino
Cindy
I have a few questions, if you would please answer them:
1. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy?
2. If yes, what is your opinion of Ms. Rand's philosophy and have you
incorporated any of the tenets of Objectivist thought into your life?
Thank you.
--Cindy
PowerSurge
"Cindy" <selfmadem...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:e23a5c42.01081...@posting.google.com...
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>1. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy?
>2. If yes, what is your opinion of Ms. Rand's philosophy
>and have you incorporated any of the tenets of Objectivist
>thought into your life?
1. Only to the extent of _Atlas Shrugged_ & _The
Fountainhead_ as primary sources. In secondary
sources I've looked at various critical essays, which
only left me all the more convinced that my PS
impression was, ultimately, accurate.
2. Although Anton LaVey was a Rand enthusiast, I always
found her & her ideas - as filtered through the above books -
extremely repulsive. The words "brittle" and "neurotic"
come to mind, in the sense of a woman hating her self-
accused weaknesses *as* a female and thus fantasizing
absurdly meta-alpha males (who inevitably conquer &
humble even the strongest whip-mistress females,
thus reaffirming inevitable female impotence &
subservience). [A couple of decades later, Rand might
have been writing _Gor_ novels.]
In short, the whole Ayn Rand "scene" struck me as
penis-envy-gone-crazy - about as pathetic, ludicrous,
& ridiculous as men clumping around in dresses & high
heels and caricaturing what *they* fantasize as
"extreme" female attitudes & behavior.
To the extent that there is anything to "Objectivism" beyond
this bizarre sexual overlay - and I am content to let others
argue endlessly about that, as I have *no* interest in trying
to jam Cinderella's stepsister's foot into the glass slipper of
authentic ideology - it is unrealistically callous and cruel,
like the tantrum of a spoiled brat who insists that everything
benefit & glorify him, while he cares not a whit for individuals
weaker or less fortunate than himself, much less society
generally.
Michael Aquino
* * * * *
As a postscript: It's not too difficult to see the same kind of
arrogant narcissism in what I'd call the "underbelly" of
the old Church of Satan in its earliest years. The theoretical
ideal Satanist was projected as someone very much like
Rand's Galt, steamrolling everything in his way to get
everything he wants. As you may know, for example,
Anton took the "Nine Satanic Statements" for the
_Satanic Bible_ from Galt's speech (pages #936-993)
in _Atlas Shrugged_, even in the same sequence - as
detailed by Adept George Smith in the June 1987
_Scroll of Set_:
1. LaVey: Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
Rand: A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a
sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of
others, is giving you death as your standard. By the
grace of reality and the nature of life, man - every man -
is an end in himself. He exists for his own sake, and the
achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral
purpose. (page 940)
2. LaVey: Satan represents vital existence instead of
spiritual pipe dreams.
Rand: My morality, the morality of reason, is contained
in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice:
to live. The rest proceeds from these. (page 944)
3. LaVey: Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead
of hypocritical self-deceit.
Rand: Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for
the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish
virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the
reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness
of others. (page 945)
4. LaVey: Satan represents kindness to those who
deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
Rand: To withhold your contempt from men's vices
is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold
your admiration from their virtues is an act of
moral embezzlement. (page 946)
5. LaVey: Satan represents vengeance instead of
turning the other cheek.
Rand: When a man attempts to deal with me by
force, I answer him by force. (page 950)
6. LaVey: Satan represents responsibility to the
responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
Rand: You have been using fear as your weapon, and
have been bringing death to man as his punishment
for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his
reward for accepting ours. (page 950)
7. LaVey: Satan represents man as just another animal -
sometimes better, more often worse than those that
walk on all-fours - who, because of his "divine spiritual
and intellectual development", has become the most
vicious animal of all.
Rand: Damnation is the start of your morality; destruction
is its purpose, means, and end. Your code begins by
damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a
good which it defines as impossible for him to practice.
It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept
his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start
not with a standard of value but with a standard of evil,
which is himself, by means of which he is then to define
the good; the good is that which he is not. (page 951)
8. LaVey: Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as
they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional
gratification.
Rand: What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers
call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired
when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their
myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge -
he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was
the knowledge of good and evil; he became a moral being.
He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor; he
became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience
desire; he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.
The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality,
creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence.
(page 951)
9. LaVey: Satan has been the best friend the church has
ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.
Rand: And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping
blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help
of a morality that proclaims that he'll find no solution
and must seek no fulfillment on Earth. Real existence,
they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true
consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent -
and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that
his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.
(page 952)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO3y7DWRWyNykJwrDEQK7GACghhaWr9wWE2Z5UT0XfAj7xV5tlVgAnRtD
2COQx4lHly0Bb6hmE3CwmBAY
=kVQT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PowerSurge
When young people ask me about Satanism, and what should they read first, I
always tell them "Anthem". I figure if they can't finish it, or don't 'get
it', there is no point in spending any more time with them.
I will have to look at her work with your perspective now, and see if I
agree. It's an interesting point of view, but you know your stuff.
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
"PowerSurge" <circuit...@the666club.com> wrote:
>I am so disappointed. When young people ask me about
>Satanism, and what should they read first, I always tell
>them "Anthem".
Satanism is much more than applied social philosophy;
it is a metaphysical religion based on apprehension of
the Prince of Darkness. Without that core element, it
becomes merely a word of personal convenience.
But even in the realm of political philosophy there are
so many richer, less psychologically-tortured avenues to
pursue. To take just one example - and there are many -
send your "young people" off to read _The Meditations_
of Marcus Aurelius, a profound compendium of the
Stoicism that made the Roman Empire great. Or, in
a more aggressively analytical vein, _The Aristos_
by John Fowles (many of whose philosophical principles
he illustrated in his novel _The Magus_).
>I will have to look at her work with your perspective
>now, and see if I agree. It's an interesting point of view,
>but you know your stuff.
I enjoy, admire, & appreciate heroic, wise, and gracious
women - from Baum's Ozma & Glinda of Oz all the way to
Rider Haggard's Ayesha (the _She_ series) & _Cleopatra_,
Bram Stoker's Queen Tera (_The Jewel of Seven Stars_),
and many more. I am *absolutely opposed* to the notion
that the female sex is inherently "inferior" or "imperfect"
and thus, to the extent it becomes fully aware of itself,
must inevitably sink into frustration and self-hatred.
Against the neurotic aggressiveness of Ayn Rand I would
quote Conchis from _The Magus_:
"Men love war because it allows them to look serious. Because
they imagine it is the one thing that stops women laughing
at them. In it they can reduce women to the status of objects.
That is the great distinction between the sexes. Men see
objects, women see the relationship between objects. Whether
the objects need each other, love each other, match each
other. It is an extra dimension of feeling we men are without,
and one that makes war abhorrent to all real women - and
absurd. I will tell you what war is. War is a psychosis caused
by an inability to see relationships. Our relationship with
our fellow-men. Our relationship with our economic and
historical situation. And above all our relationship to
nothingness. To death."
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO3zNwGRWyNykJwrDEQKaHgCbBMPCmk2vm+294eTxBZyN2pYmjQEAoOuK
im9GoSK8UBdcckA2Gt1pE+HB
=nYMc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
People's Commissar
She WAS everything she loathed. She behaved toward everyone she knew in a
manner that she DESPISED.
She personifies the term "wannabe."
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010817023614...@nso-fr.aol.com...
People's Commissar
Rand in there - and she is trashed.
I see thru that shit. She herself was the epitome of everything she
loathed.
That - well, that's a klippoth.
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"PowerSurge" <circuit...@the666club.com> wrote in message
news:N83f7.58$7X.1...@nntp3.onemain.com...
Cindy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>
> >1. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy?
> >2. If yes, what is your opinion of Ms. Rand's philosophy
> >and have you incorporated any of the tenets of Objectivist
> >thought into your life?
> > in the sense of a woman hating her self-
> accused weaknesses *as* a female and thus fantasizing
> absurdly meta-alpha males (who inevitably conquer &
> humble even the strongest whip-mistress females,
> thus reaffirming inevitable female impotence &
> subservience). [A couple of decades later, Rand might
> have been writing _Gor_ novels.]
*We have a point of agreement here. Rand was, by turns, both
brilliant and flawed.
>it is unrealistically callous and cruel,
> like the tantrum of a spoiled brat who insists that everything
> benefit & glorify him, while he cares not a whit for individuals
> weaker or less fortunate than himself, much less society
> generally.
*I take it, then, that your personal ethics include a level of
compassion toward others -- and perhaps a bit of altruism as well? If
so, then I'm also curious as to how you might define the word
"altruism".
My personal ethics include compassion and fairness, among other
things.
> Michael Aquino
>
> * * * * *
> As you may know, for example,
> Anton took the "Nine Satanic Statements" for the
> _Satanic Bible_ from Galt's speech (pages #936-993)
> in _Atlas Shrugged_, even in the same sequence - as
> detailed by Adept George Smith in the June 1987
> _Scroll of Set_:
*Yes, I am familiar with this.
--Cindy
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>how you might define the word "altruism"
It's a nonsense term, like "selflessness". Everyone
does anything for profit, advantage, or pleasure
[or avoidance of pain, as in _1984_]. Helping
a little old lady across the street, as in my Boy
Scout days, was done at minimum for a sense
of personal pleasure from the *illusion* of being
"altruistic", at maximum for points towards
graduating from Tenderfoot to Second Class
Scout.
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO31FKWRWyNykJwrDEQLqywCgpfwMD9tYEpTN3ZNIr8taNuRWwZMAoJar
7CnunxLcExGRQ5nUd3x6hpZc
=q3yi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PoisonTongue
> read the thread on here called "Philosophers." There is a bit or two about
> Rand in there - and she is trashed.
>
> I see thru that shit. She herself was the epitome of everything she
> loathed.
It is so blatantly obvious that you automatically gravitate toward and
embrace the comfort of The Majority Opinion. Your collectivist
tendencies make you un-satanic.
Others are entitled to their opinions, which may differ from yours. Of
course, your collectivist\communistic mentality shudders at the
concept of individuality and difference.
You are no satanist.
PoisonTongue
> like the tantrum of a spoiled brat who insists that everything
> benefit & glorify him, while he cares not a whit for individuals
> weaker or less fortunate than himself, much less society
> generally.
>
> Michael Aquino
~Chuckles~
And now Mr. Aquino would have us believe Setians are above that sort
of thing. Yes, we are to believe Setians care for and have a
beneficent gesture toward the weak, the oppressed, the less fortunate.
As for LaVey's endorsement of Rand and "the underbelly" of Satanism -
and your supposed gripe against those things - I must ask just WHAT
initially drew you to the Church of Satan and WHY did you remain a
member of it for years, if you find such behavior so reprehensible?
Victor Le Nettoyeur
I disagree. A great many _economic_ collectivists (i.e. old school
Socialists/Communists/Anarchists) were strongly in favor of social freedom
and individual liberty. Proto-Satanist Jack London is one perfect example.
Bernard Shaw is another.
Other examples (to some extent) would entail: Bakunin, Lenin, Benjamin
Franklin, Voltaire, Robespierre... etc.
Jason Yuschenko can probably explain the tendency for revolutionists to
gravitate toward the Satan archetype better than I.
>
>You are no satanist
You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree again.
While I don't share a lot of Tani's more radical ideals, she certainly is a
Satanist in my book. I've been one of her harsher critics here, and if it
weren't true, I'd be the first to agree.
You may be seeing the forest in her words but missing the trees. I've found
Tani uses sub-text to get many of her messages across.
Just my opinion. Tani doesn't need me to speak up for her...but I thought
I'd throw that out for discussion's sake.
--
That's nice, Victor.
<exponent_...@yahoo.com>
------------------------------------------
If morons had wings,
alt.satanism would be LAX...
-Dr. Lao
------------------------------------------
Jason Yuschenko
Revolt against God .... revolt against Church, State
Bakunin has several good passages on this in God and the State. Lunacharsky
saw in Satan the opposing force to empire.
Satan as radical individualist is just that .... I see no contradiction in
one preferring Rand or Bakunin.
Some will see it in completely material terms, a force, or a will to revolt
..... or elements of 2-3.
Who is a Satanist? I don't think it can be arbitrated. I can give opinions,
nothing more.
It would seem the phrase "You are not a LaVeyan Satanist", would be
appropriate in this context.
I doubt there'd be any disagreement there.
Jason Yuschenko
- wolf -
> found her & her ideas - as filtered through the above books -
> extremely repulsive. The words "brittle" and "neurotic"
> come to mind, in the sense of a woman hating her self-
> accused weaknesses *as* a female and thus fantasizing
> absurdly meta-alpha males (who inevitably conquer &
> humble even the strongest whip-mistress females,
> thus reaffirming inevitable female impotence &
> subservience). [A couple of decades later, Rand might
> have been writing _Gor_ novels.]
>
> In short, the whole Ayn Rand "scene" struck me as
> penis-envy-gone-crazy - about as pathetic, ludicrous,
> & ridiculous as men clumping around in dresses & high
> heels and caricaturing what *they* fantasize as
> "extreme" female attitudes & behavior.
When I read _Atlas Shrugged_, I was left with the exclusive impression that
it was a cheap version of the TV show _Dynasty_. It struct me as nothing
but a soap opera. That's about where my "analysis" of the book ended,
perhaps with the exception that the main character (I forgot her name)
appeared incredibly sexless to me, and that apparently Rand cherished a
rigid, self-tormented spirit.
- wolf -
PowerSurge
I know that, and I don't even have a TV.
"- wolf -" <wo...@blazingangles-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3b7d89ef$0$97106$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
People's Commissar
I was trashing the bitch long before ANYONE trashed her. Why? Well, maybe
I knew things about her life before she got here that others didn't know.
I don't know the majority opinion, twitling. I also don't know the minority
opinion.
I DO know my opinion.
The problem with you, evident from your last waste of letters in a post, is
that your LIFE depends upon "others" opinions - you not only KNOW them all
in meticulous detail, you CARE about them.
Rand was a BITCH - I said it FIRST to people who were RANDIANS. I said it
to a whole damned class full of Rand worshipers. I said it with such
emphasis that they were convinced I must have known her, or her followers
personally or something. Nope. More ego projection.
Damn, you are also another idiot with her face up my butt, BOTHERING about
what I think.
I'm rather surprised to see Aquino trashing Rand - I'd have thought he'd be
a big fan of hers since so many Satanists are. The FACT is, she was a
self-hating piece of dreg, a bitch par excellance, a god damned wannabe: a
klippoth.
I said it first - I said that in the fucking 1960's.
TJ
PS: GET a life, twit.
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"PoisonTongue" <nemt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:15927819.01081...@posting.google.com...
People's Commissar
Please, this poster Poison is a godDAMN dumbfuck twit that imagines that I'm
Enemy Number One amongst the Tossers - and that this should MATTER to me in
some way - to the extent that I shouldn't post to them.
I'll post to ossama ben laden if I feel like it. I'll chat with a person
that was on the other side shooting real bullets at me during the "riot" of
1967 (which, if that happened in a country like Denmark they'd have called
it a WAR). This is somehow supposed to determine who I chat with? Herd
bitch she is.
Right, I'm The Enemy of the TOS - I plan to pour napalm on them at their
next conclave, I intend to slaughter their wives/husbands and disembowel
their children, uh huh. I'm REALLY Dr. Aquino's ENEMY, you see. I ruined
his life, I destroyed his marriage, I murdered his kids. Uh huh.
The BITCH needs to get real about what is and is not an ENEMY. Coistered
fuck must have lived in a god damned closet all her life. This is the
second time she stuck her face up my butt because I posted to Aquino. One
can almost FEEL her "CARING TENDRILS" reaching out with Big Concern. What
the fuck is it to HER who I post to? The fact that it IS something to her
tells me one thing for certain: SHE IS NOT A SATANIST. She is more
collectivist than I am since she thinks I SHOULD (SHALLT) belong to a
collective called the "I hate Aquino club." Sorry, but I don't JOIN clubs.
I MAKE clubs. I don't join orgs - I MAKE THEM.
Hey - maybe I should make a newsflash: I AM AQUINO'S SECOND COUSIN.
:D
TJ
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Jason Yuschenko" <yusc...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:tnqvmj6...@corp.supernews.com...
People's Commissar
saying:
THOU SHALLT NOT talk to Aquino - if you do you are a suckup nnya nya. That
is designed to do what? Elicit a post from me (you got one right here now,
good girl) or make me stop talking to Aquino? HA! It is apparently clear
that it means a LOT to you if I post to him, or if he posts back.
(SNICKER).
THOU SHALLT NOT agree with Aquino (actually HE agrees with ME; I said it
first ages ago) or else you are not a Satanist (oh, WOW) and you are herd.
Nya nya nya. Nice try, cunt.
OH, so then, I should agree with Poison Tongue MAYBE? HA HA HA. I should
join the "I hate Mikey" fan club maybe? HA HA HA. Oh, you stop talking to
people you don't like? HA HA HA. Sucker.
I have something to say to you, then - a THOU SHALLT. Go start your OWN
fucking organization and see what you get in it? ANYONE? You little BORING
dreg of non-being. I'd debate with you H2SO4 in hand. You have nothing of
VALUE to say, not to anyone. You CARE too much about what others do and you
try to play the most kindergarten level "head games" as you do with me. You
have a THING for Aquino maybe? EH? Yeah, you sure do. Are you a woman
scorned maybe? I think so.
You don't want to know what Aquino thinks of Rand at all. HA! Why not just
admit that, at least? ADMIT IT, BITCH! You just want to FUCK with him.
Right? Riiight!! When he answers you - that SHOULD be the end of it. Oh,
but noooo, you continue with YOUR conflict over him. What does he do? HA -
he posts the most hilarious shit possible about why he helped ladies across
the street as a Boy Scout. I almost ruined a keyboard reading that (coffee,
ya know?) You are THAT transparent, Poison. You can not COPE with being
ignored by Aquino. Are you in love with him? Probably. His groupie maybe?
That has to be why you are OBSESSING over me posting to him about what I
feel like posting, but NOT obessing over OTHERS who also post to him that
might be at odds with the TOS. Newsflash: I'm not at odds with the TOS
just because our doctrines are different. I don't CARE about the TOS enough
to BE at odds with them. YOU DO, that you CARE so much, makes you clearly
herd - and obsessive at that. WHY do you care what Aquino thinks about
Rand? WHY? I'm surprised to see what he wrote. I give him the credit for
having CLARITY into the bhuta.
It's official: Tani says Aquino has clarity. I can imagine Aquino now
putting on his clarity medal. Archive this, print it out and FRAME it.
This is from a super old thing on Rand written in part of a debate and at
that, it's from even older 1960's notes against the dumbfuck bitch. It's
about HER, not what she wrote. I DOUBT that anyone else you know ever said
such things. Aquino is merely describing a breed of Jewish woman that are
this way - and it's definitely something I've noticed in Jewish (not
Christian or Moslem) women time to time. Patriarchal MALE-women - they are
men with no dicks. They are ALL OVER Wicca when they try to rule the roost
(Their Jehova all over again, with tits), and this was a MAIN complaint
against them in the very early 1970's feminist movement; they merely replace
the Christian male patriarchal figure with THEMSELVES - bossing non-Jewish
feminists around - it was a MAJOR complaint. That's how they feel to be
near. Like dickless men. Fascists in the inner sense, patriarchal
suffocators. Moralists in the extreme. FUCK morality, it's born of fear!
They'd call me a NAZI for saying that. More attempts at "moral blackmail"
by calling me that. Don't work. I'd say Heil Hitler to them and talk about
how Uncle Mengele gassed their parents (shock talk). yeah, SHOCK HORRORS.
And ha ha ha, they'd "stop talking" to me. Bwhahaha. They definitely DO
NOT know how to deal with That Which is Wild and as Amoral as a Tornado.
I've driven more bitches (like you!) into "moral fret" over such issues -
like trashing every race that thinks it exists on newsgroups. Tish tish.
Try to silence me? HA! And claim they believe in freedom of speech? Mofo,
say what?
You, on the other hand, are just a Christian that CARES what others say and
CARES about who agrees with me, or who I agree with. You are PETTY in the
extreme. You are PURE, undistilled herd - and so stupid you don't even
recognize that the things you "care" so much about, MAKE you undistilled
herd. Even what you NOTICE - makes you pure herd. You notice and care
about the identical things THEY care about. Now go masturbate over that
concept - something you'll never quite see anyway. I never asked Aquino
anything about what he THINKS ABOUT this or that. Clue: I didn't care? You
asked him. But you don't care either - ADMIT IT, BITCH. You care to get an
answer from him, tho. HA HA HA. Well, ya went and got yourself an answer
from ME right here. Oh, but you aren't into girls, right? HA HA HA. Oh
shit, I think this is a flame. Anyway........
Long ago I said: I don't like the PERSON, Rand - Alice Rosenbaum? I don't
give a shit what she wrote - I tried to read it, it didn't grab, it was
drama soap opera bullshit and more of the self-loathing idolization of "that
which would exterminate her people." ANOTHER self-hating Jew. I KNEW what
kind of thing she was too, long before anyone could have known it - and I
was RIGHT. A self-hating bitch that claimed to be everything she was not,
that idolized the total opposite of what she was as a RACE even, during a
time when RACE was considered a very real reality; she idolized a racial
type that tried to WIPE HER KIND OFF THE EARTH due to RACE type! Love thine
enemy anyone? She GOT OFF thinking about that - that is what caused her to
adopt the "personna" of that which would loathe her and exterminate her.
Sure it was superior: TO HER in terms of brute force and the will to
exterminate.
She came into this American society during a time when anything BUT one's
natural abilities and own merit could get them anywhere, and she left a
society where this WAS HAPPENING for the first time ON THE PLANET! And what
did SHE make that was practical and useful? Nothing. One of her acolytes
is Greenspan of World Bank - and she thinks that's American? That whole set
up was ANTI AMERICAN to the HILT! She is in favor of laizzes faire, yet
mass production makes laizzes faire IMPOSSIBLE - so where is HER objective
reasoning ability to figure this out - it's OBVIOUS too, not hard. Did
little Ally Rosenbaum ever WORK a day in her life? Did she ever labor? Oh,
she wrote a book? That's not labor. That's LEISURE. She mouthed off and
was promoted by her OWN PEOPLE in this country. If she had been ignored,
she'd have had to WORK for a living.
She claimed all this and DID the opposite -she claimed to like free love
(translation: fuck whomever you want to fuck) but freaked out when HER
lover (possessive jail shit) had other girls! Inner LIAR. OH, I guess HIS
selfish was irrelevent - his dick didn't have the choice to get hot over
another woman.
When it is said of her Objectivism, that it involves the ability to
objectively know reality, that's like what Marx said, but HE was talking
about practical daily things - LIKE WORK, HEALTH, MONEY, economy. What did
SHE mean? She seems to me incapable of KNOWING the objective reality she
was LIVING IN, during the PRE-depression USA days! USA HAD TO, was FORCED
TO, institute 8 of Marx's points as "new laws" to SAVE the fucking country!
So they called it the "New Deal" - they didn't dare give Marx credit (but
not all were blind). They had to use this to SAVE the USA! She didn't KNOW
this? She seems to have been unable to know that she left a society that was
DOING the very things she said she wanted. She actually left there because
her father, a doctor, was ripping off patients and got into trouble for it.
That's WHY she left.
She hated followers. Yet: She gathered around her a bunch of followers who
she claimed were "superior" yet they seem to me to be pathetic
soap-opera-type characters that fretted over trivialities and got upset over
who is fucking who. HERD, pure petty herd.
Just because me and a friend got a free icecream with a meal, and he bought
the meal to split with me, and I GRABBED first at the free icecream, (hey, I
WANTED the damned ice cream) I've been accused of being "Randian." This was
so far back in time that I thought "Rand" was some Anglo guy and I thought
"Ayn" was ANN, someone else. Let's get real - accuse me of being Randian
because I ate ice cream? HA! Translation" "whaaa, I wanted the ice cream,
whaaa, you got to it first, whaaaa." I think what ticks me off when someone
"ACCUSES" me of saying something Randian is that they have the AUDACITY to
presume that I don't have a brain capable of thinking of something
KINDERGARTEN OBVIOUS. Oh, then WHY try to have a chat with me IF THAT is
what you think??? In order to play sage on the stage? Yup! Now I can
surely talk on that level (treating a Ph.D like a 6 year old, heh) but why
would someone "educated" WANT to talk to a fool - if that's what they assume
I am? And to think, all this is over a bowl of fucking ice cream! godDAMN!
Ah! In order to feel HIGHER, SMARTER, in order to try to play "let me
INFORM her" games. EGO shit. On hindsight, he was probably trying to
"guilt me" into sharing the ice cream, HA! Welp, it didn't work. I ate ALL
the ice cream and he lost a friend forever. Gee uh.
But it has happened more than once, and whatver head-games they were
playing, or trying to play - must have fallen on deaf ears because they got
a face full of flames about philosophy and "the obvious" from me. It's
ALWAYS when I've said or done something BEYOND obvious, that someone
"accuses" me of this shit.
Another one of my own thought out statemtents ages ago from watching and
knowing about INSECTS was "what doesn't kill them, makes them stronger." I
came to that idea as a CHILD, maybe 8 years old, from watching insects in
the yard - even watching them form columns to fight wars. I got "ACCUSED"
of quoting Nietzsche and yet I never read HIM either when I came to that
idea. OH, but my idea is way different from Nietzsche's on the inner level.
NO ONE ever imagined that I knew this from INSECTS. Why not? Because
Nietzsche parrots are into emotional ego pipe dreams - not nature and its
creatures. I did NOT come to that conclusion from observing humans because
"what doesn't kill humans" often DOES NOT make them stronger, it cripples
them or maims them or ruins their entire lives so that they WISH they died,
or they DID die within! MOST OF THE TIME, TOO! War didn't kill lots of
boys - who came home without legs! What kind of LIVES did they have?
Stronger ones? HELL no. Nietzsche parrots talk in Platitudes. My
statement was not a platitude - it was REAL FACT about INSECTS! What
doesn't kill them REALLY DOES make them stronger! And the strength is
inherited!! Let a human being SAY to me "what didn't kill him, made him
stronger" and LET HIM be talking about a broken love affair, or parental
abuse, or ANYTHING LIKE that and I KNOW: he's lying to himself. If he's
talking about the FLU, then he's speaking the truth. I know what KIND of
human thinks TO say such things about himself: ones who have been BROKEN in
a way that can NEVER be fixed....but sure, they aren't dead. They never
THINK to say this after they have survived the flu. If they said it about
the flu, they'd be LIVING IN REALITY and speaking something meaning
something REAL. I NOTICE WHEN they think of saying it. Timing. What
happened to MAKE them think this up. What they mean is that they have
CLOSED their hearts and now imagine they are like steel; and they STILL
suffer that wound which makes them THINK UP this platitude shit while
becoming NUMB to the world and life. This is ALSO obvious.
That's what I KNOW sours this, and it did about Nietzsche too in the past.
The most OBVIOUS stuff - and I get accused of being a mindless parrot of
some fucking philosopher, and it's always negative - and AH, now they think
they got me pegged into some dumb fucking cubbyhole in THEIR OWN paradigms.
And oh lawd have mercy if someone in some enemy org, Trot, ML, MLS, etc etc.
ALSO agrees with me. Their own innate herd buttons click on. UGH! Someone
HAS to be sucking up. Ego projection. That they CARE about this
meaningless shit, proves one thing: they are HOPELESSLY herd. Probably
klippoths.
Or they do the reverse, they "give me credit" for dark doctrines as if I
philosophized them out of thin air when they are in fact real traditions
that were around thousands of years ago: BUT anyone who feels it and agrees
is ACCUSED OF! being a Tani follower when I can assure them, the accused are
definitely NOT that! That tells me a LOT about anyone who THINKS THIS WAY.
THEY are mindless idiots! THEY are incapable of one single original
thought! THEY are uncreative and barren! And above all, they are JEALOUS.
Awww...nobody wants to follow THEM! HA HA HA.
More recent. I looked it up in the encyclopedia. Objectivism is an
ethical theory (!) that there are objective criteria for determining the
rightness or wrongness of actions. Objective criteria in this sense are
independent of any given mind and thus have a reality based on more than
just inward feeling.
Gee are they talking quantum physics here? Subatomic reality? Are they
talking about how the observer changes the objective reality by observing
it? Um, I don't think so. Reality: walls are not solid. Subjective: try
walking thru one: you can't - invent the dogma: walls are solid. Nope, Rand
and her bilge are just revomiting up MORE ethical/moral shit, as if we don't
already have enough of it.
Next, they refer you to existentialist opposition and naturalistic meta-
ethics and value. HUH? Uh duh, I done missed the class in Wassa Matta U
on that one, yups... I know by "value" they DO NOT mean money or anything
I'd consider REAL because I have NO CONCEPT of "value" unless it's REAL
THINGS. In other words, I don't know WHAT they are talking about but it
seems to me to be nothing real - ergo it's DISMISSED as unreal. They can
define it as if it's a "real thing" and yet I see nothing there, just air.
"Value a friend" is the closest I come. I know what that is: I value -
i.e., I LIKE, FUN and sharing it (can't play cribbage alone...). So then,
does "value" mean what you LIKE? That's as close as I can fathom this
invisible thing THEY talk about since they AINT talking about "value of
labor" or "goods." I don't value air or food: I NEED air and food. That's
different. A simple eg: spending 1000 (I just did) to have routine things
done and problems fixed on my car is something I feel AWFUL about, it's
stressful and negative but I HAD to do it, it was a NEED. But spending
money on something I want to buy, even so it's still money, feels GOOD and
positive even tho this thing is NOT a need or necessity and I DO NOT have to
get it. It's inner feeling for sure even tho it's still money spent. I'm
sure there are people who WISH they didn't get hungry or need food, too.
Why? Because starving SUCKS! But the body needs food - NEEDS it. You
might get hungry just at a time when you just DO NOT want to get up and make
food or eat it cause you are doing something else; or on a long interstate
streth with no rest stops nearby. Well, the stomach calls.
But the encyclopedia definition: "Objectivism is an ethical theory that
there are objective criteria for determining the rightness or wrongness of
actions. Objective criteria in this sense are independent of any given mind
and thus have a reality based on more than just inward feeling." This can be
argued, the tangents my brain is forming are SO VAST that I'd not know where
to start. The definition here of objectivism itself tends to cause
cognitive dissonance in my brain - the words don't seem to have any REAL
MEANING, like "cup" "water" "chair."
I will explain in baby simple language: First of all, the "objective
criteria for determining the rightness of action" when you change your car
tire, are VISIBLE criteria, eg a flat tire. There is nothing "ethical"
about it! This I understand fully. BUT: Let us then take a well known
issue to start baby simple: slavery of one race by another. That's a
criteria that is different from the old slavery which was to make slaves of
those who LOST IN A WAR; the winners took the losers as slaves; all parties
KNEW these were "the rules!" What's right or wrong with it? They made the
rules up, there is nothing right OR wrong with this. This is also very
different from the objective "rightness" of changing a flat tire and the
objective "wrongness" of driving with the flat and ruining the whole wheel
(especially if it's not YOUR car). It is not objectively right/wrong in any
COSMIC sense, but it's objectively right/wrong when it comes to how you
order your own money and keep up your car - so then, is this SUBJECTIVE?
Uh, yeah, it could be said to be subjective!
But back to the slavery issue: This is slavery of one race by another. How
is one to determine the rightness or wrongness of this? How? The "ethical
judgements" CAN NOT BE independent of any given mind, or group of minds.
They are NOT independent of the HUMAN mind at all. First, one has to AGREE
that the groups are two DIFFERENT races and that races exist! That's not
independent of minds - it's TOTALLY dependent on minds! "How people think
about it." Even moreso, HOW people THINK ABOUT objective biology when they,
who just happen to rule for the moment, SUBJECTIVELY split variations of
many kinds into a few distinct ones using VISIBLE criteria that mean very
little in real biological terms, to support an AGENDA which is PURELY
subjective.... and self serving! The minds change: "slavery is wrong" "the
slaves are equally human." OK. But there is nothing objective about it!
It's still SUBJECTIVE. How far do you want to take it? It's wrong to
enslave horses and ride on them after you break them? If you have a concept
of "humanity" then there are no races, all are equally human. Then you just
"invent" a moral that makes it "wrong" to enslave another human being.
What's objective about that? NOTHING! Objective thinking would
REASON/FORETHINK that eventually the slaves will rise up and destroy all you
have, maybe you too. That's a GOOD reason to NOT own slaves! It's
OBJECTIVE but it has SELF- PRESERVATION in mind at its root. Now I don't
see THIS is ethical at all! It's practical! Logical. It's also SELFISH!
But then what if these people who MIGHT BE slaves or WERE, rise up anyway or
do things to destroy a society? Then it would have been better to keep them
enslaved or at least get rid of them. Again, practical. Not ethical. But
is that right or wrong? Well, if you did right, it's right. If you fucked
up, then it's wrong. DUH. Is that TOO simple? The only OBJECTIVE criteria
is the OUTCOME of whatever it is the collective minds agreed to do.
My problem with all of this is "what's right and what's wrong?" and "in
terms of WHAT are you determining the rightness or wrongness of actions?"
There are criteria - but people, using inner feelings or half the data, DO
NOT SHARE AGREEMENT on what the criteria are! So HOW can this be
objectively solved by people WHO HAVE minds and WHO HAVE feelings that they
often don't even know they have? Did Rand know she loathed herself? Did
she know she was a jealous petty bitch?
More to the point: WHAT determines that you OWN the factory? Other people
in town AGREE that you "own" it, or you can "hold onto it" by brute force.
They don't have to agree that you own it -especially if they work IN that
factory and their labor MAKES mega profits that they don't share at all.
Then your paper deed can be torn up, you murdered and others now OWN the
factory. Heh. Baby simple: what determines that you, as a kid, OWN your
lunch money if another kid can push you and say "GIMME your lunch money" and
take it? Then HE owns it and you tacitly agree that he owns it - after all,
you handed it over to him! What determines it? BRUTE STRENGTH! That's
pathetic, that's pure MONKEY shit, but's it's also true. You can get a
bigger stronger kid to defend you lest the bully try to take your money
again. Sure, you might "do things" for your protector, to ensure his
protection - behold monkey hierarchical dung heap societies. Change these
individual people into NATIONS. Bingo. Reds tend to go off into BIG
LANGUAGE ABSTRACTIONS to explain this simple thing. Hell, what determins
that "the French" live in a place they call "France"? Who draws the lines
in the dirt that determine that "THIS is our turf?" That's how I view the
Israeli issue. That's also how I view the Amerindian issue. It's VERY
simple. But is there a rightness or wrongness to any of it? I say NO! OK,
then if it's wrong for Jews to take Israel or buy it or whatever, or wrong
for various kinds of Europeans to take America, then is it wrong for "The
French" to claim "France?" Is it wrong for the Han people to claim China?
No one even THINKS that way. NO ONE asks this question - they think it's
absurd - but NO IT'S NOT! It's the ROOT of all of it. Is it wrong for the
"Danish" to claim "Denmark?" Same thing. How'd they get there? Who was
there before? When did they get there: ah, that seems to be the CRITERIA
everyone uses - WHEN.
Why choose the criteria of timing AND insist on being unchronological? I
refuse to choose timing as a criteria. That puts things in stasis or makes
selected slices of CERTAIN chunks of events "important" as if there is NO
chronology. That exculpates others for past actions and puts blame on
another for PAST actions that determined present actions. It's only "a
criteria" because we happen to be here NOW. Timing.
Some say it's "right" for man to advance, and to do that one needs the
things industry makes. OK. Lots of that stuff is in other countries. One
has to DEAL with "The French" "The Chinese" and "The Danish" to get some of
these things, but what of people who have no way to get it due to
primitiveness? What if a country that has what you need can't be dealt
with? So then it's taken from them as we all know. Same for the primitives
that HAVE stuff others need. It's just taken. Do they benefit? NO. But
ok, is that right or wrong? According to who? According to a human being
with a MIND and INNER FEELINGS? Yes. It used to be right manifest destiny
to go in there and just TAKE. Now it's PC wrong to exploit other peoples.
Yawn. But according to evolutionary biology, there is NOTHING right OR
wrong about it!
That's all well and fine for a Ms. Rand who was able to DUPE a bunch of air
heads into being her followers and then LEECH off the benefits in this
capitalist country. But what if she were in another place, NOT reeping
benefits? Where is her objectivism then? GONE. And... When it is found
that this industry is poisoning our eco system, then it becomes objectively
WRONG to continue doing ANY of it. Unfortunately humans are anything BUT
objective - they are anything BUT smart - they are MORONS. So then, are Ayn
Rand's followers all environmentalists now? Are they calling for a total
STOPPING of industry as we now practice it? Are they promoting fuel cell
technology and battling the entire oil industry? Are they demanding that
cities all make plasma containers able to turn ALL TRASH into hydrogen and
helium (we HAVE the technolgy, it was done already)? Above all, are they
demanding that companies foot the BILLS for the change over and NOT put it
on the already broke working people who use this stuff? HA! I don't think
so! So WHERE is their objectivism? Let me guess: in their delusional egos?
Oh, there are lots of objective criteria out there - but I see it all being
IGNORED by people. They most certainly DO let "inner feelings" that they DO
NOT EVEN KNOW THEY HAVE rule everything they do and they try to force unreal
things into play, while ignoring REAL things, with their MINDS.
There was Rand with her little dollar sign. What good is that if the money
LOSES all value? It's THINGS that have value and LABORING PEOPLE MAKE those
things! That's ABSOLUTELY TRUE! Money can BUY a refrigerator to keep food
in, but money can't MAKE a refrigerator - hands of workers have to make it
and if they refuse to make it? Could RAND make one? Fuck refrigerators,
could the bitch HUNT? Money can BUY food, but you can't EAT money if no one
agrees to make the food and no one hunts it, grows it or fishes for it. Why
is this so hard for anyone to grasp? I think it's cause they DO NOT live
inside their own bodies and/or learn from REAL LIFE experiences on the baby
level! I'm convinced that's the reason they don't figure this out.
The issue keeps tipping not into "rightness" or "wrongness" but into the old
good and bad shit. There is a difference between so called ontological
goodness and moral goodness. The first, ontological, is biological: a frog
is a completely evolved animal, ergo it is "good." What about the frog as
viewed by the insect who is also ontologically good? And so forth. This
is all human cerebral SHIT as far as I see it - it makes NO sense. It's
NONSENSE! It's FINE to write letters over and dialogue and THINK about, but
it doesn't MEAN SHIT. It's NOT REAL. I don't like philosophy BECAUSE the
vocabulary of it seems like so much NOISE AND NONSENSE. And the lowest
dregs ala dregs chime in with the Cosmically Absurd as soon as you commit
the sin of AGREEING with someone on an issue. Klippoths. Herd scum, monkey
beings.
As I see it, a society or culture has to BE ABLE to grasp objective real
criteria out there as their limited human FIVE SENSES are ABLE to grasp
them: their five senses DO NOT PERCEIVE atoms! But ALL the matter they
touch is atomic matter, including themslves. THEN the society or culture
makes up RULES about what they are going to do and not do and they
DEFINITELY DO make up those rules based on their OWN BIOLOGY AND the
ENVIRONMENT THEY HAPPEN TO BE IN - their NICHE on the planet, which is
LIMITED, not all encompassing. Aborigines might not know shit about physics,
but they KNOW that "those there mountains cause death" and so they make
rules to stay away from them and warn others off. Europeans dismiss their
mumbo jumbo as superstition until they discover there is a lot of uranium in
those mountains, and one DOES get sick if they live near them. But do
Europeans make rules that say "stay away?" or do they get ideas of making
weapons or making profits and digging up this stuff? Which is right or
wrong? Neither. The aborigines had an "ethos" that promoted their own
people, or anyone else they warned about the mountains, staying healthy and
having healthy kids. Europeans don't have that ethos! OBVIOUSLY!
Later still Rand certainly was not what she claimed to be. She was guilty
of - what did she call it? - metaphysical selfhood? When you need the
valuation of others to FEEL valued - instead of IDGAFFING. (I.D.G.A.F.-I
Don't Give a Fuck). She CARED what her critics wrote, even tho her book
SOLD! HA HA HA. Hypocrite. As for Nathaniel Brandon, he was a manipulative
patriarchal bastard with a hard on for that total air head student of his
(forgot name already) and too GUILTY to fess up that he was fucking her (OH
DEAR!). That he was in a clique that even HAD TO "fess up" about the "who's
fucking who" tells me ALL I need to know: KLIPPOTHS. Did he also have to
"fess up" about who he bowled with or went to dinner with? I doubt it was
an ISSUE. He manipulated his wife Barbara out of HAPPINESS (which is
selfish) with the trumpet player (forgot name already). So Rand had a fit
of jealousy, in front of Nat's wife no less, over Nat fucking the student.
OH DEAR. What would this superior (HA HA) being do to his wife Barbara if
he had REAL POWER? WHY would he WANT to fuck her up like that? Because
he's EVIL - but of course, he imagines he is The Ultimate Good. Uh huh.
What did Rand IMAGINE she was DOing when she had a FIT of jealousy? EH? I
KNOW what she'd do if she had the power TO do it. I'm not fooled at all.
The Soviets should have shot her as vragi naroda. She went out of their way
to emotionally blackmail her "superior being followers" whenever what they
WANTED differed from what she wanted. And they in turn did the same to
others. As polite society Jews who were very cerebral, I doubt they were
used to the "low class" type that would bash their heads in physically if
they TRIED to pull a stunt like that. Like "what's it to you mofo?" punched
face. "You object to me doing what? say what?" smash bottle over head. In
this sense, violence is a breath of fresh air.
Here is the problem with her ENTIRE philosophy - and I'll say it in a more
clear form than Nemo ever did because no matter how hard I try, his essay on
Objectivism and Satanism and the differences sounds like cerebral
gibberish - and if the man CAN NOT say it concretely, then he does not KNOW
IT concretely. She maintains principles, moral dogmas, for herself on the
inner level. That's not objective at all! It's STUPID, it's just another
MORAL STRAIGHTJACKET which goes to PROVE that Judeo-Christians CAN NOT
REALLY take off this straightjacket so easily - they just REPLACE IT with
another that appears to be different: it's STILL a straightjacket. Period.
I personally might get into a miff with a person. I might do violence to
that person. I might walk away. I have DONE BOTH. It all depended on what
I FEEL like doing. There is NO moral, NO rule, NO dogma. I have no problem
not being consistent in my behavior. If that's a problem for someone else,
then what's it to them? Why is it THEIR problem? It shouldn't be,
especiallyif they are NOT the person I'm in a miff with. "What would I do
IF....." I have NO problem saying "I don't know." I can always base any
given answer on what I have done before, and thus KNOW what I'm capable of
doing. But that is NO guarantee I'd do it gain IF.......
She claimed she was not the head of a cult. She either lied or was unaware
of having created another cult NO DIFFERENT from the 2000 year old one she
railed against. She couldn't just be SELFISH - admit jealousy - and beat
Nat up for that. Nope. She had to lecture him on how he BACKSLID (for
fucking the student!?) - how his love of the student and HAPPINESS WITH the
student was really backsliding, abandoning the principles. Oh? As dictated
by WHOM? Jehova? It's the same line of SHIT Nat pulled on Barbara when she
was happy with the trumpet player: "he's beneath you, you degrade
yourself." What fucking bullshit SOUND FAMILIAR?
She ridiculed a person for feeling FEAR OF what their boss (at a job!)
thought of them - even tho that directly affected the JOB - equals MONEY -
or whether or not the underling GOT the job. Rand was against playing up to
the boss, or not being honest with the boss. Oh, she could surely AFFORD to
say that - she didn't have a boss or risk a job. Her own people (ethnic
group) kept her in dough by publishing her bilge and passing it off as
"philosophy." And SHE was against collectives? Bwhahaha.
She was MERELY human after all, maybe subhuman, and her collection of
admirers were a pack of herdish losers after all, and she was indeed the
leader of a CULT, after all.
Later: The problem? PRINCIPLES. Morality. That's the problem. Someone
ELSE's "thou shalt not" when the "shalt not" makes no damned sense at all.
But she saw social programs that aim to keep EVERYONE happy, at least
content and not wanting for things, as "altrustic." She was against this.
I see, she wanted to have it all and LOOK DOWN on everyone else? Bwhahaha.
Dickless she-thing. She wanted to BE Jehova.
WHY did she see it that way? ....Did she also see parental care for newborn
babies as altruistic since logical and reasoning adults have to give up some
happiness and sleeptime to care for the baby? She never had kids. She
didn't THINK about that!
Didn't she realize that the Soviets she hated so much only came into being
BECAUSE the previous rulers practiced exactly what she advocated? They were
overthrown by OTHERS who wanted to ALSO be happy! HA! SHE lacked reason on
this. She lacked foresight and time-connectedness, - that is, ability to
see events in chronological order and UNDERSTAND why the Soviets came into
being - and evidently treated her badly. And how did she treat Nathaniel
and Barbara? Badly. the Soviets treated BAD PEOPLE - badly, I can ATTEST
to that! I also treat bad people badly. what is "bad?" that which tries,
in any way, to HARM ME in a manner which I CONSIDER TO BE harm.
Way later: Responding to my letter Re: Ayn Rand where I wondered why anyone
would listen to the philosophy of a moron preaching laizzes faire.
Vad wrote: "I think the attraction lies in her emphasis on rationality which
makes possible an attack on the blatantly non-rational Xtianity. I also
think that the reasons COS people aren't Objectivists lies in the fact that
Rand stops her line of thought prematurely. She has a kind of idealistic
morality underlying her arguments and she has a bad grasp of how FORCE works
in this system. ...Rand's rationality was as much a weapon against herself
as anyone else."
She has a straightjacket on - It never mattered to me WHAT jacket it
was -it's a jacket and people with jackets tend to want others to wear the
same jackets: hence religion. She was SUFFOCATING.
Now, I DO NOT have the "spirit of rebelliousness" in me at all (that might
strike you all as a total lie, heh...but wait wait...): I don't mind someone
telling me "what to DO" -that goes on at jobs all the time! I can be told
what to do in a cooperative effort, even one which involves assembly line
motion, to get something done. We are building a screen porch: ok, what
SHOULD I DO now? I don't mind that at all. I have no feelings about
this -I'll just DO what I'm told to do since the boss knows what's to be
done - and I'm being PAID big key word. What I mind is someone telling me
what I "SHOULD" feel/think - and for no reason except that THEY ordain it as
THE rational thing to think/feel! I see no practical purpose in this that
WOULD benefit me or collectively benefit the whole society I live in: and
hence ME TOO. Eg, the dialogue with the student about her job and boss. One
might hate one's boss and disagree with him (feeling) but logically one has
to OBEY and COOPERATE with that boss to get into the job even if it DOES
"compromise your principles." What do principles have to do with anything?
At least GET the fucking job! That should be the ONLY focus. As such, a
person who believes that McDonad's food is poisoning people due to
cholesterol levels might have a job working for McDonalds. I see NO issue
with that. It's one huge SO WHAT. I know that fossil fuel poisons the
planet. I drive a car. So what. There is no issue. I don't FEEL one way
or the other about it. One Big IDGAF.
I don't find that "do what the boss says to do, he's PAYING you" to be a
conflict at all -but IT IS for people with egos! So: the fact that they HAVE
the conflict: IS the conflict! The boss is NOT "the issue" at all. Here is
logic: The boss is like a red light in traffic: one must have a
disagreement with the red light when red lights make you stop when you are
in a hurry: but you DO STOP. So, in this situation, rationally, "boss"
equals red light. But they do not FEEL that way ABOUT it. WHY do they
care? That's the issue. That's where they aren't merged at all, their
think/feel is split up, they aren't aware. 9 times out of 10, "boss" equals
mom or dad, or sibling. THAT IS WHY they get all conflicted over this
non-issue instead of just viewing "boss" as OBJECT TO JOB and GETTING the
job equals money, equals means to HAPPINESS on your own time, equals
selfish. I'm sure they don't like taking a shit or brushing their teeth
either, but they don't have conflicts over it or get their "principles"
involved. Oh...well, some of them do have unconscious problems about such
things....enter anorexia, bulemia and other psychotic shit.
Rand could put down the student lover of Nathanial all she wanted - the fact
is that the student woman GOT what she WANTED: NATHANIAL! NOTHING stood in
her way, including Ayn Rand and Nat's wife! So? Oh dear, was that student
a (GASP) PREDATOR? The woman Rand hated so much merely practiced what Rand
preached! And was Rand really angry that Nat "compromized his principles"
or "lowered himself to be with that women" or was she just plain and simple
jealous? She was JEALOUS - simple as that. She was far too above it all to
ADMIT she felt jealousy - but, of course, she knew every emotion she ever
had and could rationally explain it. NO: she could rationalize jealousy
into some "higher purpose." I have a higher purpose: go to the beach and
float on a tube. That's my highest purpose. I don't need to rationalize it,
justify it to anyone, or explain it. I DO it. I want to do it. Ergo I do
it.
Later. You say non-rational xianity. Keep in mind, Rand was not raised in
ANY KIND of xian culture OR society: she was JEWISH and most of her fans
were Jews too. She FLED from an ATHEIST society! A society that was VERY
rational and practical! A society that judged her father to be a LEECH and
judged her to be bourgeois, spoiled and ALSO a leech. Jews are VERY
different from xians - None of YOU are Jewish nor have you KNOWN many Jews:
I have! This type can be SUFFOCATING. They aren't PHYSICAL AT ALL yet they
WORSHIP or idolize the physical - whether it's the well-built Aryan ideal
shown by the Nazis (that they LOVE! - after all, THEY glorified it in
Hollywood) or later on the well-build super-endowed African American that
they also LOVE. It's a kind of envy-worship they have for something that is
in all ways the OPPOSITE of what they are (which they know when they look in
the MIRROR). They seem retarded on simple things, like the ability to
"touch/feel the difference between cotton and velvet." And doing this,
touch/feel, is of so little importance to this type that they never bother
to do it and look at you as if you are retarded if you point out the
differences in feel. They are motor retarded a lot of times - and we equate
that with a kind of stupidity. Talking heads. Cerebral things - no body.
Yet they WORSHIP/IDOLIZE that which is the complete opposite (whether it be
Aryans or Africans). I used to call them "cerebro-scrotal." HA! They are
SUFFOCATINGLY moral and seem to be a people born with GUILT. Over what?
Who the fuck knows. They have the unmitigated audacity to TRY to shove this
moral blackmail on others, and they use what they THINK is emotional
blackmail which BACKFIRES on them a lot of times. They CARE what others
feel/think - It is as if they want to get inside your SOUL and make you into
a puppet, to have every thought/feeling you have be an open book to them.
REALLY like Big Brother. It FEELS like this. If you agree with the
opposite, they call you stupid names like a follower, or herd, or whatever.
IDIOTS. These people are unaware idiots of the LOWEST form. This TYPE of
Jewish person, especially the females, are overbearingly suffocating, like
Patriarchal Male-mothers or something; it's hard to explain it. You can
find a LOT of them in Left wing politics, or they used to RULE feminism and
RULE Wicca. They are not women - they are MEN without penises! Yes!
That's how it FEELS to be near them. Rand was exactly like this. What she
needed, really, was for someone to belt her across the face and knock her
down. That would have been a DOSE of reality.
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"PoisonTongue" <nemt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:15927819.01081...@posting.google.com...
the artist formerly known as IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"PowerSurge" <circuit...@the666club.com> wrote:
>
>>I am so disappointed. When young people ask me about
>>Satanism, and what should they read first, I always tell
>>them "Anthem".
>
>Satanism is much more than applied social philosophy;
>it is a metaphysical religion based on apprehension of
>the Prince of Darkness.
Sez you.
>Without that core element, it becomes merely a word of personal
>convenience.
And with that "element," it becomes a word for another garden variety of
theism. Catholicism in a black robe.
>But even in the realm of political philosophy there are
>so many richer, less psychologically-tortured avenues to
>pursue. To take just one example - and there are many -
>send your "young people" off to read _The Meditations_
>of Marcus Aurelius, a profound compendium of the
>Stoicism that made the Roman Empire great. Or, in
>a more aggressively analytical vein, _The Aristos_
>by John Fowles (many of whose philosophical principles
>he illustrated in his novel _The Magus_).
Marcus Aurelius is not for young people. Fowles isn't either.
No wonder the ToS persists in parasitizing off of the evocative imagery of
Satanism: you people are dreadful bores. If you weren't slithering
lamprey-like near to the glamor of Satanism, you'd never acquire any new
members. As I have always said, your game is "bait and switch."
Personally, I think Objectivism is a fine thing to introduce an (american)
teenager to, as long as you let them know that it is training wheels. It's
a fairly grounded thing, which encourages the young to strive for excellence.
Its sense of self-righteousness will appeal to any teenager. Ayn Rand's
neuroses are obvious to grown-ups, the flaws in her writing were painful
to me even as a teenager (I realized later, her main literary influence
was, unfortunately, Victor Hugo), and her objectivist ideas are
fundamentally as silly as any other philosophy, but it is still a healthy
thing to give to young individualists to inculcate them with a sense of
virtue and purpose.
As Ms. Rand said: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a
heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,
with productive achievements as his noblest activity, and reason as his
only absolute."
What Satanist could argue with that?
If you want to inculcate a youth in the ancient virtues, give him the
Iliad to read, or the Histories of Herodotus, or Plutarch's lives. Or tell
him the story of Julian II, such as Gore Vidal did. What the hell is a 15
year old going to make out of Aurelius?
>>I will have to look at her work with your perspective
>>now, and see if I agree. It's an interesting point of view,
>>but you know your stuff.
>
>I enjoy, admire, & appreciate heroic, wise, and gracious
>women - from Baum's Ozma & Glinda of Oz all the way to
>Rider Haggard's Ayesha (the _She_ series) & _Cleopatra_,
>Bram Stoker's Queen Tera (_The Jewel of Seven Stars_),
>and many more.
I notice the fellow married to Pat Wise/Sinclair hasn't managed to
mention any nonfictional women here.
What about Lise Meitner, Lou Salomé, Sichelgaita of Salerno, Cleopatra the
Seventh or Livia? One should look to history, not fiction, for heroines
and heroes to emulate. That is, if you are interested in making a dent in
the real world, rather than playing make-believe.
I'm a bit confused as to why you're defending yourself against a
non-accusation of misogyny for not liking Ayn Rand.
> I am *absolutely opposed* to the notion
>that the female sex is inherently "inferior" or "imperfect"
>and thus, to the extent it becomes fully aware of itself,
>must inevitably sink into frustration and self-hatred.
Yeah, well, let's keep your personal life off the newsgroup, Mikey.
-Lupo
"je fermai les yeaux, comme un homme ivre, à la pensée d'avoir un tel
etre pour enemi, et je repris, avec tristesse, mon chemin, à travers les
dédales des rues." -Lautreamont <i...@fnord.io.com>
Cindy
> like the tantrum of a spoiled brat who insists that everything
> benefit & glorify him, while he cares not a whit for individuals
> weaker or less fortunate than himself, much less society
> generally.
>
> Michael Aquino
Dr. Aquino, aren't you a Machiavellian? I've read _The Prince_; also,
I know that book is on the ToS Reading List.
After having studied both Rand and Machiavelli, I can't say they are
exactly INcompatible. It is curious to me that you are adamantly
opposed to Rand (is there absolutely *nothing* of value in her
philosophy to you? Not even her championing individualism and egoism?
You are an individualist and an egoist, are you not?), yet hold
Machiavelli in esteem.
Care to comment? Thank you.
--Cindy
Cindy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>
> >how you might define the word "altruism"
>
> It's a nonsense term, like "selflessness".
>
I disagree that it is a "nonsense term." Rand defined the word
"altruism" as "sacrificing a greater value to a lesser one." I think
it's a well-founded definition, as the sheeple of the world are prone
to altruism.
--Cindy
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com
(Cindy) wrote:
>I disagree that it is a "nonsense term." Rand
>defined the word "altruism" as "sacrificing a
>greater value to a lesser one."
Nonsense term. In Rand's definition the act in
question _de facto_ makes the "lesser value"
the greater one. Q.E.D.
>the sheeple of the world are prone
>to altruism.
All people are motivated per my previous post;
"altruism" is simply one form of personal
pleasure, in which the pleasure is privately
increased by the act of pretending, and often
bragging, that there is nothing in the act for
the individual in question.
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO34BRWRWyNykJwrDEQIZQACg89UhuKDRsEvVigWP4Oq1Q4zXdhUAoJr5
VNEKKsKZv2uP6pwNVeD7uS5b
=Wedj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com
(Cindy) wrote:
>It is curious to me that you are adamantly opposed
>to Rand (is there absolutely *nothing* of value in her
>philosophy to you? Not even her championing
>individualism and egoism?
As separately self-concious beings, we all experience
individualism and egoism; the issue is what you *do*
with your freedom to decide & act.
Rand essentially says to pursue personal satisfaction
by any means and at all costs, and in disregard of
others or the community interest. Thus she never
matures beyond the child throwing a tantrum to
get what it impulsively wants, as illustrated by
the "heroes" in her novels.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, sought the well-being
of the community, much in the sense of the ancient
Greek _polis_. M referred to this as _ordini_: the "good
order", a general state of well-being that is the aim of
politics.
M sees the sociopolitical environment as beset by "a
joker in the deck of life" - _fortuna_: the worldly factor
of fortune, luck, chance, fate, providence. To
overcome _fortuna_ at least partially, one
cultivates _virtu_: the ability to think and act
resolutely and intelligently in order to get what
we want.
M's _virtu_ has nothing in common with Rand's
emotional selfishness. M emphasizes that _virtu_
must rather be guided by _necessita_: doing things
necessary for human purposes ... the use of
intelligent _virtu_ in the face of _fortuna_. Such
actions must be undertaken with an eye to
_occasione_: "historical opportunity", "occasion",
"the right time" - to the end of _ordini_.
M's interest was in the ancient Roman tradition
of civic virtue: _civitas_. He advocated *civic
humanism*: "Politics is a noble art, can be studied
as an applied science, and can be practiced so
skillfully that it sometimes can bring about
humane results, the best political results that
can be expected under the circumstances." M
did not mean that "might is right", but rather
that "might has the power to institute and
enforce right".
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO34H8WRWyNykJwrDEQKL/QCg0ksVnGno9QnJua9FcdGbEMZO/tEAoKTG
5V0d7g/m/5OfAeNV4BmkiyNp
=6qgC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
People's Commissar
than the history department, I'd recommend for kids (and I mean legal adults
here) a grammar book, the old McDuffy readers/spellers - and Euclid's
Elements. That should do it.
A book on how to fill out a resume explaining that this is not the same word
as resume (re-zoom) - it's (re-zoo-may). Heh. Oh, and a book called
Windose for Dummies.
For a nice philosophy course (?) on non-gods - give them Lovecraft. On
second thought, that might be way too hard.
Now I'm keeping it very real (spooky, eh?)
TJ
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"the artist formerly known as IX Corp" <i...@bermuda.io.com> wrote in message
news:94kf7.7419$4b5.1...@news6.giganews.com...
People's Commissar
don't see that at all. I see dog eat dog in most of the people in the
world. There is agreement to cooperate (forming collectives) but lawd have
mercy if you fuck up and prove to be a leech. Then it's US dogs eating
THOSE dogs. Heh.
I don't even see "altruism" in a mother (of any species that does it)
risking her life to protect her offspring. That's not any kind of -ism.
It's pure instinct. Cats are not altruistic. Cats don't even have the
concept. Try harming a cat's kittens.
There are "rules of society" where one can be CIVIL - or one can be a dumb
brute. These have nothing to do with altruism and more to do with
indoctrination in terms of behavior (modification). Everyone has had it
done to them - EVERYONE. Recognizing this, you can also make a conscious
choice to change your personal rules and values by questioning all that was
instilled. But you have to recognize it first. Keep the good stuff, trash
the shit.
And then there is this fad in civilized countries where people are bored
with themselves and try hard as hell to FIND some meaning to their own
boring existence: they go on a crusade to help the "fill in the blanks."
Of course, they manage to NOT really help at all - if they did, their help
would no longer be NEEDED - ergo THEY would no longer be needed - ergo
they'd lose their high and fine and "noble" purpose. They aren't altruistic
either - they are parasites that should be exterminated - for it is about
them that the statement "the roads to hell are paved with good intentions"
is applied.
TJ
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Cindy" <selfmadem...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:e23a5c42.01081...@posting.google.com...
People's Commissar
this to the newsgroup - you did NOT email Aquino.
Machiavelli = Stalin
Rand = kulak.
That sums it up.
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Cindy" <selfmadem...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:e23a5c42.01081...@posting.google.com...
- wolf -
*like* Dynasty). Try and forget who wrote the messages you reply to, man.
- wolf -
"PowerSurge" <circuit...@the666club.com> wrote in message
news:Ymgf7.20$_q.2...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Atlas Shrugged was a book quite a while before Dynasty was on TV.
>
> I know that, and I don't even have a TV.
>
>
Cindy
I'm curious as to your thoughts on isolationism. I'm currently
reading _Entering Space_ by Robert Zubrin (internationally renowned
astronautical engineer, former senior engineer at Lockheed Martin,
founder of Pioneer Astronautics, and president of the Mars Society);
here is what this distinguished gentleman has to say about
isolationism:
"The would-be Pax Mundana has a weakness. Like all other
self-satisfied societies, it rests upon a conceit: that there is
nothing of importance *outside.* Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, and
the Chinese Middle Kingdom all enjoyed this belief, and suffered
destruction in the process of its refutation."
I'd appreciate your comments. Thank you.
--Cindy
xganon
Cindy wrote:
>
> Dr. Aquino:
>
> I'm curious as to your thoughts on isolationism.
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---
Delila
Cindy wrote:
>
>
>
> "The would-be Pax Mundana has a weakness. Like all other
> self-satisfied societies, it rests upon a conceit: that there is
> nothing of importance *outside.* Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, and
> the Chinese Middle Kingdom all enjoyed this belief, and suffered
> destruction in the process of its refutation."
>
>
Sounds like the USA.
D.
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>I'm curious as to your thoughts on isolationism.
The world is long past the point where
isolationism is even possible, making debates
about its desirability simply a waste of time.
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO36hq2RWyNykJwrDEQIMTQCbB2zGV2qIXpg5pUA46Klya3cVHcQAn1Lt
q8dL0KsoqR98CKP9Q5D4pyNQ
=aVB5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cindy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>
> >I'm curious as to your thoughts on isolationism.
>
> The world is long past the point where
> isolationism is even possible, making debates
> about its desirability simply a waste of time.
>
> Michael Aquino
I wasn't interested in *debating* the matter. And who said (or
implied) it is a *desirable* thing?
Perhaps I should have been more specific, i.e. isolationism (or the
desire for same) in small groups of people. You don't wish to discuss
this, okay.
--Cindy
People's Commissar
I didn't take notes or anything like that and I couldn't read it. It was
not a translation in English (no good) - it was a real Talmud from a Jew. I
did ask some Jews I know to go looking for me, but well - no luck yet. I
think sifting through the entire Talmud is a bit much to try to ferret out a
few words especially if they are not very fluent in the language or at
reading it. English translations are worthless.
It would make sense in the way Jews DO tend to be collective and had (HAVE?)
a strong sense of us versus them as a need to survive. Rand was Jewish -
Jewish women are schooled in the laws, especially back then she'd have known
a lot about this.
Dzerzhinsky also said very similar things on how Comrades should behave
toward each other and toward others. Dzerzhinsky was not Jewish but if you
think about the LaVey 9 statements - very clearly put, they are just common
sense and good advice basically for being NICE. Albeit what Dzerzhinsky had
to say was not presented as statements but more like "what Comrades are
like" versus "what enemies of the people are like" - which is similar to
what I said: what Eros people are like, versus what theThanatos are like.
In other words, it's a categorization and LaVey's 9 statements are more like
a breaking down OF these categories. The way I presented it, it seems as if
I took the 9 statements and synthesized them. Nope. It's more like the
other way around - but I doubt LaVey saw these from the same source I saw
them. VERY possible he saw them, or heard them, from the Talmud. Where did
the early Bolsheviks get it? Well, there were a lot of Jews back then in
the early Bolsheviks - and they saw Bolshevism as the same as Judaism - and
they WROTE THAT in their own newspapers. So I think that's the real source
for all of it: Talmud. On Vad's website there is a document about the 9
COS statements revisited (I think it's still up there, but to make it super
simple and non-org-politics related, I'll repost it here after this.
1. LaVey: Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
Taken as just words in themselves - when a meal is ready for supper, you
indulge. Of if you want to go out and play, why not just do that? It's
more to me like a statement against phony "thou shalt nots" that have no
purpose.
>
> 2. LaVey: Satan represents vital existence instead of
> spiritual pipe dreams.
This is clear enough - it's anti religion - period. Exist in the now, live
in the real world - not a pipe dream.
>
> 3. LaVey: Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead
> of hypocritical self-deceit.
Undefiled Wisdom or undefiled truth? To thine own self be true.
>
> 4. LaVey: Satan represents kindness to those who
> deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
An ingrate is a leech, a parasite. Kindness to them is like throwing it in
the trash.
>
> 5. LaVey: Satan represents vengeance instead of
> turning the other cheek.
Purely Jewish Old Testament - eye for an eye.
>
> 6. LaVey: Satan represents responsibility to the
> responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
If you don't work, you don't eat. Makes sense. But, hey - this is no
statement of genious here - most people just DO this anyway.
>
> 7. LaVey: Satan represents man as just another animal -
> sometimes better, more often worse than those that
> walk on all-fours - who, because of his "divine spiritual
> and intellectual development", has become the most
> vicious animal of all.
The first part of this is purely Darwin. The second part of it is
poppycock.
>
> 8. LaVey: Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as
> they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional
> gratification.
He qualifies that with the words "so-called" for sins. SO-CALLED sins.
Murder is a sin too. LaVey didn't advocate that.
>
> 9. LaVey: Satan has been the best friend the church has
> ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.
That's debatable.
TJ
People's Commissar
Here are 9 simple statements I'm sure you've read. Anton LaVey made them...
But did you READ them?
And yes, they are as simple, if not simpler than the colorful way one might
define something that one must be able to FEEL in order to grasp.
Well, here these are again with some comments.
SATAN REPRESENTS:
1. Indulgence instead of abstinence.
Do you know what abstinence is? Gotta diet, don't eat that. Don't smoke.
Don't drink. Don't eat meat. Don't make love. Don't dance. Don't sing.
Don't talk loud. Don't laugh. Don't play. Don't be rude. Above all don't
be rude, be polite and kow-tow to lies. CENSOR yourself, GAG yourself lest
you speak from your HEART some undefiled truth or REAL FEELING. KILL your
feelings, DENY them. DENY the flesh but strive and strive to be something
else. ALL of that is abstinence. Let xtoid inquisitors in your families, in
society, lord it over you with rubbish "questions" as they PRETEND they are
actually asking a question they WANT the answer to. NO, they don't want the
answer, they just want to JUDGE you and make you have to JUSTIFY YOURSELF to
them or at least try to make you FEEL THE NEED to justify yourself or your
feelings when you have only TOLD THE TRUTH about something that you think or
feel: TABOO in xian society. "Mom, that food tastes like SHIT, ptewy!"
Letting them get away with this is a form of abstinence!
Do you know what indulgence is? Indulgence is the REFUSAL to let ANYONE do
this to you, to REFUSE to censor yourself, to SPEAK from the heart, to DO
what you feel and want. THAT is indulgence. IT is a LACK of judging
oneself like the ascetic dualistic xtoids tend to do. Indulgence is BEING.
It is not BEING LIKED. IT IS LIKING TO BE!! INDULGE MEANS: I LIKE, I
WANT, I DO, or it is also I DO NOT LIKE, I DO NOT WANT, THEREFORE I DO NOT
DO.
Peer group pressure? This term means nothing to a natural born Satanist.
It ONLY works on ABSTAINERS. THINK IN THE INNER way about this. Peer group
get you to abstain from BEING YOURSELF! You do the "in thing" for the
group, no matter if you FEEL like NOT doing it. That's abstinence to, in an
inner sense.
2. Vital Existence instead of spiritual pipe-dreams.
Do you know what Vital existence is? The 2 point up star is a glyph for
this. It means LIBERATION, it means normal kundalini flow and release. It
means VITALITY, the physical quality of BEING VITAL AND WHOLE.
Do you know what a pipe-dream is? FAITH! Fake belief in disembodied
entities out there. Fake creators of man. Fake idealized states of being
like kingdom of god or various other-earthly ideas where you are no longer a
body but just a disembodied mind. It means a PIPE DREAM, a WANNABE, a LIE
and a "robe" you wear while you PRETEND to be what you ARE NOT! Pretend to
know things you KNOW NOTHING about: pipe dreaming. It is belief grounded
not on TRUTH, but on a fantasy that society calls a "religion" or "faith."
Spiritual pipe-dreams cover a lot of things. Some religions have MORE
pipe-dreams than others.
3. Undefiled Wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
Undefiled Wisdom or Inner Truth is a subject we've been dealing with a lot
lately and you all can SEE what the Inquisitors (shit-disturbers and
bullies) have done to us and tried to do to "we who have it and SPEAK IT."
(Yet they PRETEND to be for freedom of speech, and can't even speak one
truth from their own hearts. Undefiled Wisdom or Inner Truth is knowing the
HARD TRUTH about yourself, without the bullshit or facades or pretends.
I.e., if you are STUPID, then RECOGNIZE IT.
Hypocritical self-deceit? It's when you claim to be something you are NOT
and you BELIEVE IT YOURSELF. Lots of neo-satanists in the "rebellion phase"
and stuck in this phase are doing self-deceit LOUDLY. When you lie to
another person and deceive THEM, this is OK! When you deceive yourself, you
are schizoid OR WORSE. Hippocritical deceit is just what Oral Roberts did.
But hippocritical SELF deceit is when e.g., you claim to be in favor of
Freedom of Speech and yet are your OWN inner censor, cry over rude words
that might "hurt someone's feelings" even tho the words are ONLY EXPOSING A
LIAR to be: "A LIAR!" Such a person IS NOT and CAN NOT BE in favor of Free
Speech because they do not even PRACTICE IT. They deceive themselves in
thinking they are for it. It is deceiving yourself to be ANYTHING you are
not. Such people tend to go into ballistic reaction mode when someone who
REALLY KNOWS something comes around and SMASHES their little fortress of
lies. Then they can be seen to go into self-destructive behavior and also
retreat to their old faith: BELIEF in lies despite evidence to the
contrary. Self-deceit is a tall subject because 99% of the Christian world
LIVES AND BREATHES in a Sea of Lies: their own culture. They are not
self-aware ENOUGH TO EVEN KNOW they deceive themselves. They are the
ENEMIES of self sincerety inside their own selves. Hippocritical
self-deceit is the fool screaming about sexual freedom when he never even
GOT OFF who really has another agenda aside from "FREEDOM TO WORK if you are
sexually different," and who would know if he doesn't blab it all over to
UNinterested others? His agenda has more to do with ACCEPTENCE BY OTHERS
since he obviously does not accept himself. You can spot them: they'd try
to PREACH this bullshit to people who have been HAVING SEX quite naturally
since they were 13 years old or so. This is hippocritical SELF-deceit.
This is not the same thing as a hippocrite! SELF-deceit is not the same as
deceiving others.
4. Kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
Yes, Xtoids are raised by FIENDS and told that this is love: so they grow
up in this way. They automatically are chummy with scum. Like the
"girlfriend" who does you a "favor" and gets you some crack when you are
pregnant. They think this is a "friend." They don't recognize real
kindness: they react to it as if the person is either an enemy to fear or a
doormat to be walked on. We who are not like this KNOW what this statement
means. It doesn't NEED explanation. But to the damaged xtoid it may as well
be written in Satanese. They grow up loving or WANTING TO LOVE parents that
any healthy normal animal would want to SHOOT in vengeance instead.
The statement about Love is almost different as one can be kind WITHOUT
feeling love. One can be kind to a total stranger simply out of
animal-human decency. Love is a FEELING, it shines out of the heart area in
a gentle way, like sunshine. It doesn't feel like anything to BE loved, but
it feels like JOY TO love someone OR something. Love comes all of a sudden,
and it goes just as suddenly. Normal healthy people would just let it go
when it's gone and not try to FORCE something to exist when it's gone. When
you do that, Love turns to obligation and then to hate. In the xtoid world
there is a lot of love/hate. And we see love/hate is really HATE, not love.
Love is writing a song you are inspired to write. Love is sharing it with
another who liked it too. Love is NOT a bond of clinging as if you are half
a person NEEDING another half. No: that is more a war of Wills because two
people are TWO PEOPLE, not ONE. Love is something xtoid types (klippoths)
CRAVE. I see they HAVE NO love, not for anything including themselves. And
that is WHY they are kind to enemies and treat others who are truly kind
like doormats. Love has many forms and English is not adequate to define it.
There is the love of a thing or of knowledge, there is kinship love, mother
love which is more of an instinct and quite different, love of an area
(feeling at-home, more like territorial feelings), love of a mate (I don't
mean lust which is felt in the LOINS). Love is felt in the HEART area of
the body, in the chest. Kindness can be called compassion and is more like
empathy. Xtoids preach this, but they have ONLY malice and feel good only
when they can pretend to lord it over another which they do out of inner
weakness. Many neo-Satanists also do this, they delight in ganging up on
anyone that is "not like them."
5. Vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
Yes. SMASH. We all know what vengeance is and what it feels like to want
to GET IT. It is something any wild animal feels. There is nothing
sociopathic about it except in a sick, decadent Xtoid society where laws
are made to protect abject scum. They get by with impunity, mouthing off,
ripping off, as of old, but when the other side is given the freedom to GET
EVEN they pass laws. Well, some animals don't care about that! When you
taunt a wild animal that was never xtoid-tamed enough, it might GO AFTER you
and rip off your head. Animals in zoos have been known to do this: it's
natural. People, after reading "Toxic Parents," did what the book said and
confronted their TOXIC parents. Result: a lot of parents ended up being
killed by their kids. Our kind would have EXPECTED it.
"Turning the other cheek" is when you chicken out and then pretend that you
are "above it all." In reality this self-deceit FESTERS and poisons the
emotions. Often people attempt to "try to like" the HATED ENEMY in an
attempt to NOT FEEL these festering emotions. Nope: it doesn't work.
Turning the other cheek is an inward thing and NOT DOING that doesn't have
to mean you have to get physical vengeance: just SPEAK OUT AND SHOUT IT, at
least don't pretend to YOURSELF. Otherwise, if you really don't WANT to get
even, it's not turning the cheek then, it's indulging in not caring! As one
Satanist I know said, you can throw a curse on a person, no need for
violence. Well... to one grown in an inner city WITH violence, that
doesn't sound like something carnal enough.... Even when the curse WORKS,
it STILL doesn't feel quite as good as physically smashing the shit out of
the enemy, with your bare hands! Take it from me: I KNOW. Once that's
done, you REALLY don't care about it anymore: the feeling is GONE FOR GOOD.
6. Responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic
vampires.
Yes, it's why I refuse to give references when it is clear the person
doesn't want them, give them direction on what book to study to KNOW what
they CLAIM THEY WANT TO KNOW and they don't read them, but instead vampirize
my time asking me over and over again the same question. Or the type that
wants the personal attention on his "problem" and the answer is all too
simple. But they do not just do it, they stall, meander, and want to TALK
ABOUT IT MORE. This is like mental masturbation on YOUR TIME. They want
you to PAY ATTENTION to them, NOTICE that they exist. I let some do this to
see them doing it and then SHOW THEM what they are DOING: true to form,
they often turn ostrich and rationalize their meandering. Some realize what
they are doing. Psychic vampires are explained VERY WELL in the S.B.
already, and Marsh explained it from another direction in his article
"Klippoth versus Loners."
Share what you have with those you like who ARE responsible and who REALLY
want it for self edification or enjoyment: it's easy to tell that kind
apart from the lonely klippoths looking for attention and ASKING for things:
they usually have things of their own to SHARE BACK with you that they
produce from not loneliness, but a full rich heart; they usually have their
OWN JOY OF LIFE and things in common TO share. The psychic black hole has
NOTHING inside to share. Giving things to such a black hole empty person is
like throwing it in the garbage. Fundies would call us "sinners, damned,"
and go back to their Jesus. Others use other words, anything to avoid the
truths.
7. Man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than
those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and
intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all.
Note the quotations Anton LaVey uses. I.e., there is no "divine" spiritual
or intellectual development in man at all. I wonder how many lost sight of
those quotes. LaVey put them in there. Anatomical and neurological
knowledge of man's brain shows that it is just like any other animal's and
there is nothing odd, divine, or strange about it (except for the miswired
brains found by neurology that now tells us WHY some people think up
pipe-dreams no matter what they think of and are NOT ABLE to grasp any kind
of truth, and why others, even when SHOWN what they are doing, are "unable
to know" or anosognosic). Some folks just THINK IN pipe-dreams: they tend
to BE dualists. By that I mean schizoid. Alexithymic. Anosognosic. Man
is exactly like any other animal but few people have grown up freely in xian
society wherein this nature was ALLOWED to bloom or grow naturally and
NORMALLY. They are like damaged people. It's highly visible. They are
unable to get a clue into themselves even when SHOWN. They all try to squirm
out of it or make up excuses no matter how you nail them down. Neurologists
found this too in their schizoid patients and the more schizoid they are,
the more they do this. Another word for what they are is HIGHLY REPRESSED
to the point that they have become their own oppressors. They are their own
INNER enemy: example would be a person who is "an enemy" who tells me he is
going to do a crime or did one and then WORRIES that I'll turn him in! Why
did he tell me? Or a person who claims to have had a war with some enemy
and who never imagines that I might ASK that enemy about it. Then if the
person lied, well, if the enemy never heard of him before, he will surely
know about him NOW! Why did he invent this lie and TELL ME? He is his own
enemy. Normal animals don't tend to do things like that. Rats don't
deliberately catch themselves in traps and, after catching ONE rat, it is
near impossible to catch ANY OTHERS in that same trap.
8. Satan represents all the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical,
mental or emotional gratification.
This is a tricky one. Murder is a sin in xianity, tho with their Onward
Christian Soldiers and Children's Crusades and Inquisition I used to think
that murder was a VIRTUE in Xian religion: like: kill people to hurry them
into the Kingdom or something? Yes, but when you want vengeance, well...it
sure would feel good to beat the bastard gone. Odd that with the occasion of
vengeance they'd want you to turn the other cheek! (Jews have "an eye for
an eye.") Theft is a sin too and hunger is a good incentive to steal food
if you can't get it otherwise. And so forth (sorry, I don't know the other
Xian sins) But now this is also a matter of law, not just religion. So
LaVey didn't mean that. He meant the SO-CALLED sins that have NOTHING TO DO
with the law, like greed, lust and other things he spelled out in the S.B.
in an effort to turn the Christian sins upside down. (Too bad he didn't
know what the original Greek for these things were. Too bad the Christians
don't know it either.) Sure these things, interpreted in street talk as
LaVey did it, sure they feel good. Christians are preeminent joy-killers and
what's insidious about them is that, once they've de-humanized your animal
nature, you tend to perpetuate the repressions against yourself when the
Xian authority is long gone. Or you might delude yourself into getting into
"sexual freedom movements" and preach the CHORE of sex while you never even
get off. Don't think this is just about sex. It's not. These xtoids are
unable to even be aware of naturally FREER PEOPLE all around them that
IGNORE them, yet at the same time, they are VERY aware of them. How can
they not be aware of what they are aware of? Easy: BRAIN DAMAGE from xian
upbringing.
9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept
it in business all these years.
This statement needs revision and update. WHICH CHURCH? Well, this can't
mean the Jewish Temple because they don't have a devil. And it can't mean
Eastern clans or cults or Islam because they don't have this idea either.
Islam tends to use "Great Satan" to mean the U.S.A. It can't really mean
Hindus because almost all the Hindu "deities" are viewed as Devils, more or
less. But it means the christians, their churches.
These 9 statements, in my opinion can't be read in isolation as if they are
split off from each other. They form ONE BIG PICTURE of a thing to grasp.
A KIND of natural animal. The description, except for the last statement
about "churches," applies to every single animal on earth, including worms,
insects, sea life, etc. They don't tend to INVENT pipe dream sick-houses
like churches nor do they set up shops where lies and fantasies can be sold
to pipe-dreamers. But the other statements literally DO apply to every
single living thing on the planet. These statements FLOW INTO each other
and on a very high level they are all like ONE STATEMENT since the fully
liberated person automatically IS all these things and the repressed types
automatically are the ENEMIES of it, despite the "movements" they get into
where they try to deny they are enemies of it. E.g.: The person who can't
even speak from his own heart CAN NOT BE for free speech. It's not
possible.
Where LaVey, on page 16, bottom of page, said: "The DEVIL was much MORE
THAN JUST that (anti xianity, anthropomorphic devil: things LaVey cites as
having happened in the past). Satan represented a dark, HIDDEN FORCE IN
NATURE that was responsible (A CAUSAL AGENT) for the workings of earthly
affairs for which science and religion had no explanation and no control."
He then goes on to explain how he felt it first in small ways, and then
later in more ways. GAMBLERS ON A ROLL know what this feels like. One
might say that he may have conjured up the parking spaces OR, he got "IN
TUNE WITH" this random element and ended up putting himself in the right
place at the right time. That's also called "Following the Tao," by REAL
Taoists (Asians, not Western pipe-dreamers who never understood any of
this). And so Chaos Magicians know what this is. SO? If they know what it
is, and are natural animals, then they are: SATANISTS. No squabble there.
The Ninja have these as one thing too as they HAVE THE SAME doctrines or
KNOWLEDGE I should call it; we have the same animal NATURE.
What LaVey was talking about is NORMAL ANIMAL NATURE which, indeed, the
ENEMY has called "of Satan." Why NOT equate Anton LaVey with Desmond
Morris, then?
All we did was show that science SURELY DOES have an explanation for this
thing Anton LaVey felt, and this HIDDEN FORCE doesn't JUST effect earthly
affairs (that's why we called it COSMOCRATOR). And we named this force:
That Which causes entropy And more. We showed that OH YES, the xians SURELY
DID define this: their scholars described it by telling us WHAT THE DEVIL
DOES IN NATURE as LORD OF THIS WORLD according to their view. They must
have ALSO felt it to be able to have described it SO WELL, and yet they
hardly knew what ANY KIND of force was. They know this force as THE THING
THEY FEEL AT ODDS WITH!! Consider that! They feel at odds with: LIFE!
On a much higher level of "clarity" there is much to say about the
interwovenness of these 9 statements. See "Satano-Communist Statements" at
www.geocities.com/satanicreds/ for a different arrangement and synthesis of
these things.
People misread these statements while other normal healthy types wonder what
they could mean. My reaction to the indulgence one was, "But doesn't
everyone indulge by the very act of DOING whatever it is they are doing?"
E.g., The ascetic INDULGES in self-denial! That's an inner meaning. And
for abstinence I thought it meant that "You might want to rob food from a
store but you 'abstain' because you don't want to get caught and go to
jail." Now, that's an OUTER meaning that a normal animal sees. A normal
animal can not POSSIBLY understand what else abstinence could mean. It
can't mean "I don't want to do that" because you are NOT doing what you DO
NOT want to do: indulging in AVOIDANCE OF what you DO NOT WANT! The animal
ONLY understands "I LIKE, I WANT, I DO," or "I DO NOT LIKE, DO NOT WANT, DO
NOT DO." This is not even something we have to THINK ABOUT: it's so
automatic it is INSTINCT. E.g., food tastes bad? SPIT IT OUT. When you eat
it in order to please another, that is a TYPE of abstinence or
self-effacement that klippoths all do but which animals CAN NOT do and WOULD
NOT do unless they were forced. Then being forced would lead to a desire to
get vengeance, by any means necessary. And so these statements mean a whole
other thing when you REALLY read them in the inner and real sense.
We creative healthy animals tend to TALK creatively. Others take their
FAITH seriously and don't have a creative bone in their dead, stiff bodies.
Xian types often try to create new "mystery" religions with "dark words" for
the concepts. Most of them are inversionist Xians. Devil Worshipers.
The 1966 COS was fond of saying that EVIL was LIVE spelled backwards. True.
If you consider what the CHRISTIANS call evil, it amounts to all the JOYS OF
LIFE. But what IS evil for real as defined by generational satanists (that
is, people really from LHP cultures out there) and which anyone in any
Satanic org would instantly recognize as SERIOUSLY true evil?
EVIL: That which makes you WEAK. 3rd Level Clarity Freemason, Nietzsche.
EVIL: That which seeks to come between the heart and what it loves. 4th
Level Clarity Mason, Goethe, Amelia Lodge
EVIL: That which takes an innocent creature of nature, born with a
wonderment at life and born with perfect instincts, and turns that creature
against itself completely, severing it from its own inborn nature and
instilling in it a malice for everything alive and happy. Then the Dark
Flame of Life which is JOY, inverts and becomes Fear of its own Being and
what their Being is becomes a hopeless mystery they must then seek
infinitely and never have the satisfaction of understanding. Tani
And this IS the TRUE EVIL that Xtoids do because they ARE it.
END POST.
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010817023614...@nso-fr.aol.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>
> >1. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy?
> >2. If yes, what is your opinion of Ms. Rand's philosophy
> >and have you incorporated any of the tenets of Objectivist
> >thought into your life?
>
> 1. Only to the extent of _Atlas Shrugged_ & _The
> Fountainhead_ as primary sources. In secondary
> sources I've looked at various critical essays, which
> only left me all the more convinced that my PS
> impression was, ultimately, accurate.
>
> 2. Although Anton LaVey was a Rand enthusiast, I always
> found her & her ideas - as filtered through the above books -
> extremely repulsive. The words "brittle" and "neurotic"
> come to mind, in the sense of a woman hating her self-
> accused weaknesses *as* a female and thus fantasizing
> absurdly meta-alpha males (who inevitably conquer &
> humble even the strongest whip-mistress females,
> thus reaffirming inevitable female impotence &
> subservience). [A couple of decades later, Rand might
> have been writing _Gor_ novels.]
>
> In short, the whole Ayn Rand "scene" struck me as
> penis-envy-gone-crazy - about as pathetic, ludicrous,
> & ridiculous as men clumping around in dresses & high
> heels and caricaturing what *they* fantasize as
> "extreme" female attitudes & behavior.
>
> To the extent that there is anything to "Objectivism" beyond
> this bizarre sexual overlay - and I am content to let others
> argue endlessly about that, as I have *no* interest in trying
> to jam Cinderella's stepsister's foot into the glass slipper of
> authentic ideology - it is unrealistically callous and cruel,
> like the tantrum of a spoiled brat who insists that everything
> benefit & glorify him, while he cares not a whit for individuals
> weaker or less fortunate than himself, much less society
> generally.
>
> Michael Aquino
>
> * * * * *
> As a postscript: It's not too difficult to see the same kind of
> arrogant narcissism in what I'd call the "underbelly" of
> the old Church of Satan in its earliest years. The theoretical
> ideal Satanist was projected as someone very much like
> Rand's Galt, steamrolling everything in his way to get
> everything he wants. As you may know, for example,
> Anton took the "Nine Satanic Statements" for the
> _Satanic Bible_ from Galt's speech (pages #936-993)
> in _Atlas Shrugged_, even in the same sequence - as
> detailed by Adept George Smith in the June 1987
> _Scroll of Set_:
>
> 1. LaVey: Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
>
> Rand: A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a
> sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of
> others, is giving you death as your standard. By the
> grace of reality and the nature of life, man - every man -
> is an end in himself. He exists for his own sake, and the
> achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral
> purpose. (page 940)
>
> 2. LaVey: Satan represents vital existence instead of
> spiritual pipe dreams.
>
> Rand: My morality, the morality of reason, is contained
> in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice:
> to live. The rest proceeds from these. (page 944)
>
> 3. LaVey: Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead
> of hypocritical self-deceit.
>
> Rand: Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for
> the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish
> virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the
> reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness
> of others. (page 945)
>
> 4. LaVey: Satan represents kindness to those who
> deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
>
> Rand: To withhold your contempt from men's vices
> is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold
> your admiration from their virtues is an act of
> moral embezzlement. (page 946)
>
> 5. LaVey: Satan represents vengeance instead of
> turning the other cheek.
>
> Rand: When a man attempts to deal with me by
> force, I answer him by force. (page 950)
>
> 6. LaVey: Satan represents responsibility to the
> responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
>
> Rand: You have been using fear as your weapon, and
> have been bringing death to man as his punishment
> for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his
> reward for accepting ours. (page 950)
>
> 7. LaVey: Satan represents man as just another animal -
> sometimes better, more often worse than those that
> walk on all-fours - who, because of his "divine spiritual
> and intellectual development", has become the most
> vicious animal of all.
>
> Rand: Damnation is the start of your morality; destruction
> is its purpose, means, and end. Your code begins by
> damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a
> good which it defines as impossible for him to practice.
> It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept
> his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start
> not with a standard of value but with a standard of evil,
> which is himself, by means of which he is then to define
> the good; the good is that which he is not. (page 951)
>
> 8. LaVey: Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as
> they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional
> gratification.
>
> Rand: What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers
> call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired
> when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their
> myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge -
> he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was
> the knowledge of good and evil; he became a moral being.
> He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor; he
> became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience
> desire; he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.
> The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality,
> creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence.
> (page 951)
>
> 9. LaVey: Satan has been the best friend the church has
> ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.
>
> Rand: And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping
> blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help
> of a morality that proclaims that he'll find no solution
> and must seek no fulfillment on Earth. Real existence,
> they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true
> consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent -
> and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that
> his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.
> (page 952)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBO3y7DWRWyNykJwrDEQK7GACghhaWr9wWE2Z5UT0XfAj7xV5tlVgAnRtD
> 2COQx4lHly0Bb6hmE3CwmBAY
> =kVQT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Circe
Dr. Aquino, I have a question as far as curses. Do you believe in the
effectiveness of them as LaVey descibed? Have you ever witnessed direct
results of a curse? Destructive curses I'm referring to here. If so can you
give any details and what makes you think they are or are not effective?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
"Circe" <Ci...@hell.com> wrote:
>... curses. Do you believe in the effectiveness of them
>as LaVey described? Have you ever witnessed direct
>results of a curse?
Yes and yes.
>any details ...
No. A Black Magician would be unwise to discuss such
matters. I will comment only that curses, like other
Black Magical operations, can be either LBM or GBM
as appropriate.
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO38X52RWyNykJwrDEQJFfwCfXviTmzYFVDueO8Ej7DRT4Jzrh98AnA3A
A9zP701+FKqSwSv/XC4Sb8Io
=iN+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dr. Michael A. Aquino
Hash: SHA1
selfmadem...@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote:
>isolationism (or the desire for same) in small
>groups of people ...
Well, I think that's something people have the
prerogative to decide for themselves. Some are
gregarious, hermits, intro/extroverts ...
Michael Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO38ZC2RWyNykJwrDEQItDgCdGfsS1kP8gDzh6gR4uUrkh+29+EUAoJCn
ePyd20HTe8Kwvoct0bphwDec
=rfDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
the artist formerly known as IX Corp
- wolf - <wo...@blazingangles-nospam.com> wrote:
>I didn't say it was based on Dynasty. I said it was a soap opera (that is,
>*like* Dynasty). Try and forget who wrote the messages you reply to, man.
No, it was like Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" which was its literary
antecedent.
Both are miserable, long-winded, contrived, soap-operatic reading.
At least Ayn Rand was marginally inspiring.
-Lupo
"A big influence was Urko from Planet of the Apes. He had that big ass
helmet that was just the baddest-looking hat ever." -Rob Zombie <i...@io.com>
the artist formerly known as IX Corp
Dr. Michael A. Aquino <xe...@aol.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>selfmadem...@volcanomail.com
>(Cindy) wrote:
>
>>It is curious to me that you are adamantly opposed
>>to Rand (is there absolutely *nothing* of value in her
>>philosophy to you? Not even her championing
>>individualism and egoism?
>
>As separately self-concious beings, we all experience
>individualism and egoism; the issue is what you *do*
>with your freedom to decide & act.
>
>Rand essentially says to pursue personal satisfaction
>by any means and at all costs, and in disregard of
>others or the community interest. Thus she never
>matures beyond the child throwing a tantrum to
>get what it impulsively wants, as illustrated by
>the "heroes" in her novels.
Yeah, Hank Rearden was a terrible role model. Anyone who would invent an
ultra-strong form of steel and make zillions of dollars from it is someone
who should not be emulated by any of the "Chosen Race," eh Mikey? Much
better off shaking hiney in front of some spooky altar, right?
>Machiavelli, on the other hand, sought the well-being
>of the community, much in the sense of the ancient
>Greek _polis_. M referred to this as _ordini_: the "good
>order", a general state of well-being that is the aim of
>politics.
*Raises Eyebrow at eyebrows*
Presumably you pulled this from the same orofice which you pulled your
"divine transmissions from Set." And you have a Ph.D. in political
science? Your dissertation committee ought to be shot, or at least given
a stern talking-to.
Machiavelli, in his "Prince," didn't give a pair of foetid dingoes kidneys
for any nebulous senses of well being of the community, neither in the
sense of the ancient Greek Polis, or in the contemporary Florentine
Commune (a much different political entity than a Greek Polis). "The
Prince" was, quite simply, a manual to gain and weild power. Machiavelli's
"Prince" was largely based on the antics of Cesare Borgia, son of Pope
Alexander: and a truely amoral scoundrel.
While Ole Nick may indeed have privately favored a Republican style of
government (in his privately circulated "Discourses on the first 10 books
of Livy"), he sure as shit wasn't yapping about anything along those lines
in "The Prince." In fact, "The Prince" is specifically *not* about
republics: as he said in the third paragraph:
"I WILL leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another
place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to
principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated
above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
...
>M's _virtu_ has nothing in common with Rand's
>emotional selfishness. M emphasizes that _virtu_
>must rather be guided by _necessita_: doing things
>necessary for human purposes ... the use of
>intelligent _virtu_ in the face of _fortuna_. Such
>actions must be undertaken with an eye to
>_occasione_: "historical opportunity", "occasion",
>"the right time" - to the end of _ordini_.
Rubbish: there is no desirable end of "ordini" outlined in "The Prince."
Machiavelli specifically states that the Prince is different from the herd:
'extra-ordini.' "Virtu" in Florentine in fact has a lot to do with what
Rand preaches: "courage, strength, ruthlessness, valor, decisiveness and
merit" are words often used synonymously with "virtu." Not much to do with the
english definition of "virtue" or any nebulous good-guy bullshit about a
'Greek Polis.' It's called "The Prince" for Satan-sakes, not "the
autonomous collective."
As Francis Bacon put it: "We are much beholden to Machiavel and others
that write what men do and not what they ought to do."
As Machiavelli said it:
"One can generally say this about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle,
simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while
you work for their good they are completely yours, offering you their
blood, their property, their lives and their sons . . . when danger
is far away; but when it comes nearer to you they turn away,"
"EVERY one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to
live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has
been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith
of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men
by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word."
"A wise ruler . . . cannot and should not keep his word when such an
observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons
which made him promise are removed. And if men were all good, this rule would
not be good; but since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their
promises to you, you likewise need not keep your promises to them."
"I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast
in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but
unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better
to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you
wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen
that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by
those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a
lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and
with more audacity command her."
-Lupo
"Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi" <i...@fnord.io.com>
Dagon Productions
> godDAMN are you stupid.
>
> I was trashing the bitch long before ANYONE trashed her.
I have to laugh at the "I did it first" rantings of those desperate for
attention.
Pathetic comes to mind here.
-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
in...@dagonproductions.com
People's Commissar
ELSE's opinion, majority or minority.
Sigh, another person who can't read within context?
Big Red F.
TJ
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B7FFEFA...@earthlink.net...
Dagon Productions
Your words betrayed how important it was to you to let everyone know
you did it first... and though it may not be about who did it first "per
se"...
your braggadocio is as I said pathetic.
-Douglas
Circe
"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010817023614...@nso-fr.aol.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
Dr. Aquino, I can certainly see why you don't have any use for Kerry Delf.
It's good that you saw thru her vicious behaviour. She is a trouble maker
and you were wise not to have anything further to do with her. She is such a
loser and she tries to make everyone else hate like she does. I guess the
old saying how misery loves company is certainly true when it comes to her
and her ilk! I can just picture her sad face, never smiling, scouring at the
monitor with her squinty, beady little eyes, pupils all dialated and face a
bright, flushed, tomatoe red, as she types out her evil missives. Tee-Hee.
---------
``How did it get so late so soon?
It's night before it's afternoon.
December is here before it's June.
My goodness how the time has flewn.
How did it get so late so soon?''
-Dr. Seuss
the artist formerly known as IX Corp
>
>"Dr. Michael A. Aquino" <xe...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>It's good that you saw thru her vicious behaviour.
Yes, it was quite vicious how she and her husband ate dinner with me at a
spaghetti joint. And the way they discussed roman antiquities with my
linguist and nuclear physicist friends! Scandalous!
>and you were wise not to have anything further to do with her. She is such a
>loser and she tries to make everyone else hate like she does. I guess the
>old saying how misery loves company is certainly true when it comes to her
>and her ilk! I can just picture her sad face, never smiling, scouring at the
>monitor with her squinty, beady little eyes, pupils all dialated and face a
>bright, flushed, tomatoe red, as she types out her evil missives. Tee-Hee.
You really shouldn't go there, Nance. You're picturing all wrong.
-Lupo
Then those Things ran about
With big bumps, jumps and kicks
And with hops and big thumps
And all kinds of bad tricks.
Circe
> You really shouldn't go there, Nance. You're picturing all wrong.
Did I mention your name anywhere? No! You're such a good scout when it
suits your purpose.
> -Lupo
> Then those Things ran about
> With big bumps, jumps and kicks
> And with hops and big thumps
> And all kinds of bad tricks.
People's Commissar
pathetic. I DID say it - as I said it to you. I DID say that about
major/minor opinions.
I don't give a flying fuck if something I write, when read wholly out of
context in a flame of all things, sounds pathetic. Get a clue. You ego
project braggadocio where there is none. Too bad. I merely stated a fact.
"I was UNAWARE of majority or minority opinions" - obviously, I never
elicited them. I said that. You missed it. Learn to read better before
you get all your feathers ruffled and decide to ego project.
Have a nice day! This convo is over.
TJ
--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!
"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B80C9F3...@earthlink.net...
Kerry Delf
> Dr. Aquino, I can certainly see why you don't have any use for Kerry
> Delf. It's good that you saw thru her vicious behaviour. She is a
> trouble maker and you were wise not to have anything further to do
> with her. She is such a loser and she tries to make everyone else hate
> like she does. I guess the old saying how misery loves company is
> certainly true when it comes to her and her ilk! I can just picture
> her sad face, never smiling, scouring at the monitor with her squinty,
> beady little eyes, pupils all dialated and face a bright, flushed,
> tomatoe red, as she types out her evil missives. Tee-Hee.
Sorry, honey, too many people have met me -- you're not going to get very
far trying to pin your own description on me. :)
> ``How did it get so late so soon?
> It's night before it's afternoon.
> December is here before it's June.
> My goodness how the time has flewn.
> How did it get so late so soon?''
> -Dr. Seuss
Nice to see you figured out the spelling before registering your new
domain name. How embarrassing would *that* have been.
- Kerry Delf
<k...@efn.org>
--
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington
Circe
"Kerry Delf" <k...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.010821...@garcia.efn.org...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Circe wrote:
>
> > Dr. Aquino, I can certainly see why you don't have any use for Kerry
> > Delf. It's good that you saw thru her vicious behaviour. She is a
> > trouble maker and you were wise not to have anything further to do
> > with her. She is such a loser and she tries to make everyone else hate
> > like she does. I guess the old saying how misery loves company is
> > certainly true when it comes to her and her ilk! I can just picture
> > her sad face, never smiling, scouring at the monitor with her squinty,
> > beady little eyes, pupils all dialated and face a bright, flushed,
> > tomatoe red, as she types out her evil missives. Tee-Hee.
>
> Sorry, honey, too many people have met me -- you're not going to get very
> far trying to pin your own description on me. :)
>
>
> > ``How did it get so late so soon?
> > It's night before it's afternoon.
> > December is here before it's June.
> > My goodness how the time has flewn.
> > How did it get so late so soon?''
> > -Dr. Seuss
>
> Nice to see you figured out the spelling before registering your new
> domain name. How embarrassing would *that* have been.
Mind your own business you trouble maker. I've always known how to spell and
quite well I might add. Better than your supposed "Holier than thou"
trailor-trashy self! Go spread your generous shares of hate and discontent
elsewhere my dear. I hate you!
>
> - Kerry Delf
> <k...@efn.org>
>
> --
> "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
> it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
> should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington
>