Loading...

"Privilege" | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
AK Mod
AK Oct 26
Noun: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."


With this in mind, I am to believe, somehow, that I am granted special rights, advantages, or immunity based solely upon me being white. White privilege. Where was "white privilege" hiding when the Irish began immigrating to America? What do you even mean by "white"? And how is it that I cannot be at least amused if not somewhat offended at someone painting race with such a broad-brush as "white", while at the same time advocating for manufactured and patently absurd levels of granularity in terms of gender expression? 


I would also ask which rights, or advantages are these specifically? Who is the issuing-authority? And why are these supposed rights not granted across-the-board to all white people without exception, then? Is it that those white people who also live in appalling poverty did something to get their white privileges revoked? Who revoked Tiny Tim's white privilege? the same applies for "Male privilege" 


Am I to believe that simply being male and white is, in and of itself, a privilege? This does not compute. It has always been my understanding since at least pre-school that 1) privileges are earned and 2) privileges can be taken away. My gender was certainly not earned, neither was my race, nor can either be taken away. That's just "how god made me" - blame him!


Additionally, it might seem as a privilege to be white in a predominantly white society, but just see how far it gets you in Japan or Mexico (seriously, go try it). It's not such a "privilege" then. Not at all.


Finally, assuming that a person enjoys specific advantages solely because they are white is, itself, a racist assumption. 


So please, spare me this "privilege" garbage. In fact, go fuck yourself with that noise. I'm not buying it, and I don't feel in the least bit guilty or as if I owe anyone anything on account of my race or gender. Everyone has their own cross to bear, and their own hand of cards to play. Some people just suck at life and prancing about assuming that the game is rigged for or against certain people on account of their race and or gender is certainly not helping anyone's odds of success. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 26
Share:
Baphomets
Baphomets Oct 26
100%.
Dark Enlightenment
What is something used by government sychophants (nomian apologists) to argue some bullshit about the wonders of the applicable society.
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Oct 26
T. Volt
T. Volt Oct 31
The majority of these people are college students, whining about male/white privilege. If they are gullible enough to believe everything their professors say, then the blame is on the students, as far as I'm concerned. At this point in time, the realization that most people don't want anything to do with their ideas is hitting home, and it hasn't quite set in yet. Its going to. Come the 2020 elections, it will sink in. People aren't going to tolerate it.
The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Oct 31
AK Mod
AK Nov 2
@TV indeed. Not to mention the obvious: it is simultaneously 


1) an ironic, if not self-loathing, sentiment for anyone who is "privileged" enough to be attending college in the first place to be holding. 


and


2) an arrogant over-simplification of the complexities at hand. Those who personally have not yet proven themselves capable of living on their own - making a living in the world as-is rather than studying in the sheltered environment that is university - presume to know how to fix a social system which they themselves are not yet even a fully functioning member of. 


When they say "race" or "gender" I hear "class", because I know that's what they really mean to say - it's a class thing; except that they know full-well that correcting against proletariat vs bourgeoisie gets you Pol Pot and killing fields. That's never worked. So it is framed as a gender or race issue, and maybe suckers will buy-into their own mandatory concessions and death sentences willingly. 


Of course: "these are just college kids" comes to mind. But on the other hand, the idea of universities - especially state-funded universities - indoctrinating the global elite is not a small matter at all; and for obvious reasons.

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 2
T. Volt
T. Volt Nov 2

I have a working theory on why this social-engineering is being done, specifically targeted at males. Realize this is only a theory, and up for debate. I don't make any factual claim, even on the stats, as they are always changing and never set in stone.


Most guys, and that includes many of the people here and everywhere in society, just aren't men. Not even the buff guys who go to the gym. That type: an overgrown doofus, not much else.


Being a man is physical but also mental, and spiritual. Most guys aren't reaching manhood, and I have a few points on that matter:


A thing to consider in development is chemistry. I could write a lot about this, and probably will. Just a theory of mine, to be clear: Most boys are not exposed to high testosterone levels at a young age. They may also need oestrogen too, but ultimately, to grow into a man, a young boy needs a father around. A father is someone you should half resent. Let's be clear, there are dads, like the Pleasantville type with the dorky glasses and comb over, throwing the ball to his kid: "Great game son!", then there are fathers, stern, hard working, and sometimes smell like cigarette smoke and whisky, or they dress nice but retain that stone like personality. Not many fathers these days. They've been replaced with hopeless single mothers and "dads".


This lack of fatherhood has led to a new rise in pussy culture, or you might referr to them as faggots, or metrosexuals. Whatever. Skinny, douchy, worthless retards. See, its easy to reject the father in the household. At a young age a boy might seek the mother for comfort, because father always reminds them of future struggle and responsibility, while mommy reminds them of acceptance, forgiveness, and overall no hardship. The father comes home, and the kids are often happy, because the father means something to them if he's a good one, so it goes both ways. I'm just speaking on general terms here.


What women have done is destroyed the future of family and father-rearing authority. The courts coupled with a few decades of spoiled minded women, have completely ruined any chance at a future of family stability. There are many problems, such as no fault divorce, corrupt courts, but also families themselves aren't perfect to begin with. Drug abuse, alcohol, and even screen time create a neglectful and abusive environment. These problems have been around even before the internet. Television has divided family time into small cubes for some generations now, far as I'm concerned.


Stats show time and again that single fathers rear children with greater skill sets and personal confidence needed in order to develop into a self-sufficient adult. What we have with this weakling generation, are douche bags who never had a father figure to show them how to be men. They have not developed into men. They are physically, psychologically and emotionally weak. They never grew out of their child-brain, like they never lost their baby fat, never developed any real muscle, in mind or body.


So. Here is the weakling generation, not prepared to see the world as it is, not prepared to leave mommy's ever-safe bosom.


Why would institutions declare masculinity toxic? A weak society is a weak society, and let's face it, the people who get things done are men.


*Some points about women: Women have had 100+ years to vote, access to education and the work force, and they have virtually nothing to show for it. It seems all they focus on is more gripe, even if it has no factual basis. Constantly complaining and demanding more and more, no matter how good they have it. There is a phrase for that behaviour, its called being "spoiled-rotten." Generation after generation women are raised and socially re-enforced to believe that they can and even should, get away with whatever nasty behaviour suits their fancy. This is backfiring. Men have decided, myself included, to limit our interaction with most women, and only speak to a select few, others, none at all. The power of men is that in spite of challenge, we figure out what we need to do to get the job done. Even in spite of sex-drive, men are saying no to women, because they know its what they need in order to survive without complications.


So if men are the ones who get the job done, they are the ones who have to be controlled. Pit women against men, and you have men's sexuality oppressed. Sexually oppressed men naturally revert to the behaviours of alcoholism and depression, and fill their time with non-stop work. See the film Taxi Driver, its a great example of this condition. This is the condition of most, if not all men in our society. Sexual oppression has been used through history to direct people's social behaviour. Look into it.


Since guys aren't maturing into real men, women find most guys completely un attractive. The successful men who do marry, wind up in shitty divorce situations that ruin their entire life. This is neither rare nor exaggerated. It is the truth.


Let's look at some stats. Now mind you, its just a theory, I have no evidence that this is in fact, the case. I only say these things in light of this attack on masculinity itself, how institutions, schools, media and the workplace all pay money to have seminars about reducing toxic masculinity, with absolutely no mention of negative female behaviour.


We have roughly 55 million or so armed citizens. Most of them are male. Most gun owners have 4-8 guns. This does not include unregistered guns, nor does it include how many are available on the market. If you want to domesticate an armed population, then there is one reliable option: Take out the backbone.


You take away the will to fight, you won't have one. You can put a gun in front of a total bitch and he'll get on his knees. You cross a real man the wrong way, he'll take you with his bare hands.


So, having a weak population of metrosexual, compliant, shitty, stupid, whiny, effeminate weakling faggots, pretty much ensures your dominate control. It is a well known tactic, if you want to defeat a group, defeat the one who everyone relies on. To do this to an entire society, all you have to do,


is remove the father from the majority of households.


*Should also note: The convenience of living, with technology that makes life so much easier, may very well be the real culprit here, and this is actually most likely the case. No one needs to chop wood to keep their house warm, no one has to daily care for the growing food, or hunt for it. No one has to do 90 percent of what we had to do even 70 years ago. We as human beings are made to keep ourselves pre-occupied with many tasks every day, and I'm not talking about the gym. I'm talking about daily work that needs to be done to survive. We've come to a point that our lives are so convenient, we don't have to do that anymore. We are also becoming more socially isolated, less time working with people in person in real life/death situations. This crusade against masculinity could just be from of an undeveloped culture who fear responsibility, or it could be some kind of social engineering agenda. I think its most likely, a little of both.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Nov 2
AK Mod
AK Nov 2

This is a hypothesis that is worth fleshing-out, as there is some intuitive consistency to it that I by-in large agree with.


One thing that I would be compelled to reconcile this against is that, generally speaking, those who grow up without a father in the home are more likely to run a muck and join a gang: the upper echelon of which serves as surrogate fathers – and, especially when your money isn't right, disciplinarians.

It is an open-ended point worth considering that the absence of a father can result, at least indirectly, in the adaption of hyper-masculine behavior; perhaps to such an extent that one finds oneself feeding the prison industrial complex – as is the near-inevitable outcome of the life-style.


*The point is a lack of a father can have the extreme opposite affect.


There's a chemical angle, too: one worth paying attention to, perhaps in favor of the hypothesis of systemic feminization of the male populace is the decriminalization of marijuana; which has well-documented testosterone reducing affects. I have yet to encounter a violent pot-head in the real world. They talk and theorize and philosophize with the best of them – and quite vigorously – but are as docile as silly putty elsewhere with a knife to the face.


Birth control “possibly” encourages women to seek-out “bigger brother”, kind, considerate, compassionate types, rather than the traditionally masculine / assertive. This might rightly shape behavior. 


Both points, for however flawed they may be, point to the reality that human behavior is more of an endocrine thing than the intellectual thing we'd perhaps like to think it is.


To your points with regard to the rejection of the father from the household: You are definitely on to something there. I think that is “key” - but – for example, in my situation – I haven't talked to the guy since I was 7. He's a sociopath. Manipulative, promiscuous, prone to drug abuse, violent, just not a “good apple”. The not-good-apple became a tree, and the apple did not fall far from said tree, in my case - but at least I'm "aware of it" - I have these impulses, which I "sometimes" act upon, but mostly resist and go "no, because look at where it got him!". It's a struggle, but c'est la vie - such is evolution. Zeus vs cronus. athena vs zeus - and so on. It's written, I think, within our DNA itself. That's how, I suspect, revealed religions work: when a program becomes aware of its own programming. Such as is adequately explained in a myriad of myths, if you think about it. 


Anyway, back to the topic at hand: the moms got tired of the BS, and booted the guy.


From there, there are two paths, I think:


One – you end up “bitch made”. Your mom raises you and you sort of acquire all the attributes that go along with that.


Two – you sort of gravitate to some other older male role models. These can range from those equally as dysfunctional as the one they are replacing - typically the slightly older bad influence, or the complete opposite of the one they are replacing – typically a coach or a sensei. Sometimes both. You can sort of see how this follows the same “arc” as Star Wars or, say, Gilgamesh and Enkidu.


The same archetypal pattern brought up in the “horned god” Wikipedia entry:


Sherry Salman considers the image of the Horned God in Jungian terms, as an archetypal protector and mediator of the outside world to the objective psyche. In her theory the male psyche's 'Horned God' frequently compensates for inadequate fathering.


When first encountered, the figure is a dangerous, 'hairy chthonic wildman' possessed of kindness and intelligence. If repressed, later in life The Horned God appears as the lord of the Otherworld, or Hades. If split off entirely, he leads to violence, substance abuse and sexual perversion. When integrated he gives the male an ego 'in possession of its own destructiveness' and for the female psyche gives an effective animus relating to both the physical body and the psyche.


In considering the Horned God as a symbol recurring in women's literature, Richard Sugg suggests the Horned God represents the 'natural Eros', a masculine lover subjugating the social-conformist nature of the female shadow, thus encompassing a combination of the shadow and animus. One such example is Heathcliff from Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights. Sugg goes on to note that female characters who are paired with this character usually end up socially ostracised, or worse – in an inverted ending to the male hero-story”


And there's a lot to this that is worth mulling over and digesting – especially the “the male psyche's 'Horned God' frequently compensates for inadequate fathering.” This may very well be closer to a painful truth than most are willing to confront, though important to note: as necessity is the mother of invention, sometimes the compensation results in an even rounder wheel so-to-speak. 




If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about god?


Beyond that, there's not a lot that you're postulating that I disagree with. It resonates.


For a wildly off-base example: consider pink floyd's “the wall” the motifs of the over-bearing mother, one that re-occurs through out both Freud and Jung's work.


One side left totally out in the rain on this, too, is that because men are more prone to analysis and dissecting how things work, we have a pretty decent insight into the male psyche. Women still remain a mystery – and quite possibly because all intellectual observations are wildly offensive to their sensibilities because they point-to the idea that their behavior is entirely regulated by hormonal functions that they are not, themselves, entirely in control of. It's pure enocrinological materialism, which makes sense since the root “matter” means mother, hence material (and probably hence the nude altars) - mother nature. Primordial chaos. The amniotic abzu or engurru, the dark womb, the flood, etc. 


*pater – pattern. (not an exact match, but I think not entirely worth dismissing. Purusha / prakriti) ordered and the orderer. The feminine chaos of the material and the masculine faculty of pattern-finding. This could well delve into prelingual circuits of meaning and psychic cohesion that would make for one terrible trip on a head full of acid.


For as worried as I may be that you hypothesis is correct insofar as the pussification of the population, there's probably “more” to this than one might suspect.


To your point, oh sure, we have many armed citizens – how many can say they've actually shot or stabbed someone? No weapons in the world will do anyone any amount of good if they evaluate every life as equal and worth saving. Without the ability to say, without hesitation, “my life is worth more than someone else's” or “I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6” - you won't fight back. Perhaps this is what either some puppeteers behind the scenes – some CIA equivalent operating here in the US – want. Perhaps it is some emergent outcome of collective systemics that we have yet to fully understand. Perhaps it is a death wish – a collective death drive - what happens when there are no final frontiers to cross, no ultimate enemy to defeat. The whole purpose of the holy grail. Without that sort of open-ended quest for that which is most valuable, we (perhaps) as a species, implode. 


Maybe happiness just isn't enough. Maybe it's the pursuit. The frontiers to conquer. The enemies to defeat. That "We are more in love with the desire than the desired" frame of reference that for failing the former - lacking the "thing to pursue" or "raison d'etre" maybe the system - any system - turns on itself automatically as surely as in the case of individual depression as too a sort of sickness of "society" itself.


(again with the lysosome)


A lot can be done with this general premise you've stated and fleshed-out across sociological, mythological, and psychological angles - which I have no doubt will further amplify your suppositions. 



The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 2
T. Volt
T. Volt Nov 2
I think its a good point to note about environment, as you said, some get into gangs and become violent. This is an indoctrination process. As men we have a lot of capacity to fill in our development. I think having a well developed father figure sets the standard for the children at a young age, and a great deal of our perception is formed in  very early age, say before 5 or 6. By that short time, many aspects of your world view and personal reactions are formed. The bar is set. Children absorb a lot more than first meets the eye, more than we even remember, but our childhood memories are some of the most powerful emotional driving factors to how we form as people in later life. A father can be around for the "small" years, and mark a lasting brand on a child's personality development, especially on sons. A father is scary in younger years, then after 6, they are often seen as the a good guy, then the bad guy again during the child's teenage years (the same is true for mother daughter relationships, just invert the mother/father for son/daughter). When the father can show his adolescent son more about the world, son becomes more open minded and ready to learn, and the masculinity of his father is carried on. Passing the torch, so to speak. Every relationship has its ups and downs, each one a process of further indoctrination.

Without a masculine father, one living in a dangerous environment will seek the gang tribe, if the family tribe doesn't exist. Developing males will seek a new father figure that best represents a successful man of his environment. People who can't see how the world works, how people work, look for answers to these mysteries. Others living in more relaxed environments, well, they turn to mush. Weed isn't my favourite thing, just for the reason you stated, but in contrast, there may be violent gang members who do frequent the stuff. I think it is something that develops from reactionary behaviour at a young age, environment and types of people one is exposed to from the start.

The nature of women is only hard to understand for men who have limited interaction with them. Their nature is in all actuality, quite out in the open. Raw. They need men to survive. On great emotional an physical levels, they need a relationship, as they are by default, dependent creatures. Men and women both need each other for more than reproduction alone, but for emotional and physical ones. That's another monster post for another day. Overall, I've met a few who get by on their own, but only a small number. Most are quite demanding, and in the face of challenge, women over-charge their standards for men. Challenge a woman with 3, and she demands 30. It is no wonder women are getting more insecure in the face of greater opportunity, as it entails more responsibility. As fragile dependant creatures, they are quite opposed to this new set of social expectations. Recent problems with women in the workforce come to mind. Birth control has given opportunity for women to have authority over which man gets to raise a child. By default women have the courts on their sides, which is very suspicious. They can use no fault to divorce any man, any time it seems. Ultimately women need men, and men are opting out. If men don't marry, women don't have any playing cards. This is a great concern for the traditional minded, but is the only other option besides all out rebellion.

It is true that many gun owners do not ever hurt so much as even a fly, which in the face of those who'd see them disarmed, is quite, disheartening. Yet many other people, such as gang members, or those in violent neighbourhoods in general, shoot them quite often. Yet in spite of this fact, deaths related to guns are on the lower end of the spectrum of cause. Heart disease is the main culprit in this particular data set.

Overall, there does seem to be a sort of implosion going on, and to my earlier point, we just weren't made to be this comfortable. Its new to our species, and I doubt we are physically wired for this kind of inactivity. People, women included, need some challenge. It becomes a purpose in life. The tribe, be it family, community, business, religious, or otherwise, is a core of our survival. Human tribalism drives our efforts to grow and survive. When an empire thrives, the first thing it does after filling its belly, is to seek a new plane to conquer, a new battle to forge. It seems quite daunting and de-humanizing, but its really not, as this is our monkey nature. Having a tribe in and of itself isn't a "bad" thing, that just depends on who those people are and what they do and how resourceful they are, and if they fit your personal interest.

The personal is another key to solve this mystery. As time goes, one can choose to be quite happy, or quite miserable with their life. Sometimes you just need to jump out there and see if the grass is really greener. Having done so, one can make judgement on experience, which is life's great gift, after all. This is a personal struggle, to essentially expose yourself to possible failure, or to admit that most of your personal aspirations are just too unrealistic, or to accept that your life is actually pretty good, or bad. This varies from person to person, and cannot be solved with any particular social formula.


God had no father. It is in this image that as mankind, we build, and we destroy. The horned god, the wild-man, the devil-man, the beast, it is a representation of man's inner fire, to feel a rush in any challenge, to hunger, to fear, to fight, to embrace all of these desires, even fear, to wield it, master it, to become it. To become our urges. We put emotions into our ideas, and those become our idolized mechanisms of pursuit. The horned god is a part of man's natural wiring. It is in our DNA and cannot be terminated, it will find a way to break free. As long as man is alive, this beast rages on.


What ignites my curiosity these days, is in this time of stagnated finality whether or not the door to human progress is closed, or if there is in fact a chance to re-open it, to re-indoctrinate.
The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Nov 2
AK Mod
AK Nov 3

With regards to the impact of a father figure on the son, what you had stated seems mostly true – though there are examples where they set such an obviously terrible example that one can only take away from him what not to do. i.e. a child whose father has only been in the picture intermittently due to various prison sentences and parole violations can make out for themselves the damage that lifestyle causes for them and choose an entirely opposite path; in which case father becomes role-model for what not to do. That same child's brother may make of it something else – a pattern of behavior to emulate.


How that works? man, I've seen it first-hand and repeated over a number of instances, yet I am still at loss for so much as a hypothesis. In one case it was twins! Same age, same situation – one became a career criminal, the other went on to teach at a school for troubled children – a Christian one, no less. Whatever that case, that two of the same genetic make-up and same familial circumstances can go in wildly different directions makes determinism a pretty shaky proposition. Perhaps their need for identity prompted opposite behaviors? The idea of “if he's Cain, then I'll be Able (or vice versa) and that's how they'll be able to tell us apart” Who can really say for sure?


This is not to say that personal anecdotes does a thesis make, but they are compelling none-the-less. The cool thing about human behavior, is that it's multi-factored and adaptive. Computers are easy to predict. People___ not so much.


It is true that if a child is not properly socialized by the age of 4-5, they're pretty likely to be a societal problem the whole of their lives. The whole “does not play well with others” slogan, is actually more of a deficiency than a thing-to-be-proud of. Most – if not all - of the routines involved with living or functioning within a civilization is a game; or at least game-like. You'll even find those who are most expressed in their vehemence against societal norms still take the time to express this sentiment to an audience of others – as if seeking our others to play their game with.


It's the ones who don't desire validation at all – the far extreme antisocial - that are most alarming. These are those you never hear from – they're out there just doing what they do for who knows why?


Some high risk factors include


- parental history of antisocial behaviors

- parental alcohol and drug abuse

- chaotic and unstable home life

- absence of good parenting skills

- use of coercive and corporal punishment

- parental disruption due to divorce , death, or other separation

- parental psychiatric disorders, especially maternal depression


because the parents are sort of the blue-print for authority and structure (or vice versa) and we mostly learn through observation and mimicry, they indirectly inform you of how arbitrary structures of law and order are to be regarded and dealt with. By four or five, you basically got the message and, to your point, that sticks.


As to the nature of women. I don't pretend to know. They're not a completely alien species, of course, and I'm not putting them on a pedestal either. In fact, I'm usually more of a hit with the women than the men, mainly because with a dude I can basically size-you up pretty quickly – it's not hard for me assess if one is pretty cool, a complete offy, shady as fuck, or possibly shady but not in a malicious way.

And I tend to treat them accordingly. Women. They vary, a lot. You have your damsels in distress who never fart – nothing is ever their fault – not ever! The are neurotic types who would not be worth putting up with were it not for their kegel muscles. And then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have your Babaylans for example: Heylia James of Weeds is a good example – 


you see a lot of that in the darker ethnicities. They're more stand-up people than some dudes you know. You almost never can tell, so I approach them as a sort of “black box” - 0 by way of assumptions, and I poke and prod and of coax assuming I don't actually know what's going under there (as they say, often times when you go turning up stones, you find worms) I'm not privy to their inner workings, but I do know they're just wired differently than I can empathize with.


Whatever the case I take an “I'm not woman – I have no idea what it's like, I don't pretend to have you figured out at all” approach. And just let it play out for a few months, after which you'll catch their particular “vibe” and extrapolate how it's going to play-out for the next 1-3-5-7-10 years, and decide if it's worth pursuing on a case by case basis. They're all neurotic, some just to more live-with-able extents than others, and some neurotic in exactly the right ways... but idiosyncratic enough for me to put the broad-brush down.


As to the implosion going on. Or better stated “there seeming to be an implosion going on” this brings up another point worth considering: that maybe it just seems that way due to the way the media tends to magnify issues. It's almost as if we live in two worlds: the world as seen from our backyards, and the world as portrayed on social media.


This whole “privilege” thing is something I encounter speaking with my more well-to-do SJW counterparts who just so happen to not only live nowhere near where I live, but would not drive here if their lives depended upon it.


*I live here because it's cheaper and I am used to it. If you're going to rent, then at least rent cheap.


From my backyard – it's a non-issue. The only questions that come up are:


“where you from?”

“you good?”

“you got 50 cents?”

“where my money at?”


I reckon that someone come up around here petitioning people to call them xir, they might at best find themselves minus a wallet, and possibly a pint or two of blood. It's a type of ethos that only flies in cyber-space.


As it turns out, what I can see from my backyard is a solid representation of the world as-is. This includes the stabbings and the shootings. The rest happens in front of camera or on campuses – both of which are poor excuses for real life.


It is also possible we're making mountains out of mole hills - protesting it only draws attention to a non-issue.


God sort of does but does not have a father. This changes depending on if you're speaking literally / materially or figuratively / spiritually (in the platonic sense of the word).


Figuratively – it's a recursive and asymptotic idea: man made god made man made god


public static void main()

{

int man = god(0);

}



public int god(man as int)

{

man = god(man++);

}



^this will eventually over-flow the stack, but the gist is recursion.


One fart smucker referred to “it” as “next” except that “next” points to the general asymptotic progression of things towards “betterment”


The satanic, however, is the stack over-flowing. Where the ideal can no longer impose upon the real due to systemic limitations. Where said limits are encountered is where we find what is real. It is very much an acknowledgment of limit and form - sufficient to reject or stymie the ideal that is "betterment".

The Forum post is edited by AK Nov 3
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.