Loading...

Love vs. Money | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Discussion
Dark Enlightenment
Simple question.

What is more important in life, love or money? 

Are there sociopathic caveats?

In my view money equates to sex which is ultimate is the "goal" of any relationship, at least at the outset.  One covers both.

My reason for this is: Every problem in my life would be fixed with money. Promiscuity and cocaine can cover the rest. 

Ain't it funny how fast that money rights your brain.


The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 7
Share:
T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 7
It's the thing that gets you both: Skillz.
Dark Enlightenment
Ok, where can I acquire said skillz, and do these skillz resolve financial debt obligation?
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 7
PlasmoticJezebel
Broadly speaking: love. Love as-in passion. Passion for many things, or at least something or, failing something, then least importantly someone. Everything else follows. The apathetic, the nihilistic, they live for nothing, will die for nothing, and ultimately deserve nothing.
The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 8
Dark Enlightenment

Equating love to passion seems like Anton and his semantic definition of religion with toy trains.  Sure it fits the criteria, but there is an "essence of" caveat in there, at least to most of society, that warps where everything lands.

While I would consider a rapists passion for raping a "love of raping", and possibly "love of violent dominance" or "love of control", most would scoff at the very idea of love qualifying as anything "evil".   

There is a tendency of most to lump "godly" things with love along preconditioned lines.  

I like to think love can be perfectly epitomized by the conclusion of THIS  delightfully amoral movie.

Love only beats the demon after they kill Heroin Downey Jr, and ESCAPE to a quiet life... unless they get bored and reinvigorate their love of killing people once again. 


Do you see an inherent duality with love and all mentioned contextually equivocal terms? 


Or is it as amoral as a natural born killer? 


Addendum:


*** My reasoning is: there is a concept of "greater good" (read as greater benefit) promoted within all civilized societies, which often times gets corrupted by morality, and leads to an artificial sense of nobility in some form of service to that greater good, however they define it. 


You see it with enlisted personnel. They are seriously doing it for their lord and country to protect that white christian rhetoric, or saying stupid redneck shit like, "Yeehaw, we are going to send Hillary to GITMO". 


That is the retardery that guarded Camp Pendleton on election night.  Serving his ideals and stupid republican convictions. And it's not a fiscal conservatism thing either, fuck welfare, go states rights, but more that they are all such ignorant retards in lifted trucks with big flags hanging off the back.


Good ol' boys can throw down though...

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 8
PlasmoticJezebel

Religion? It's a binding. From religare: meaning to bind. A means of connecting the self and its world as it manifests phenomenologically to its underlying order or business-logic. Everyone's religious. Or a vegetable.


Anyway who cares what most people would scoff at? Most people are idiots. 


Besides, there are kinds of money as well. One could very easily have waxed pedantic about what type of currency or how much of it and so on and such for paragraphs and paragraphs without ever actually answering the question or giving an opinion. 

Dark Enlightenment

Anyway who cares what most people would scoff at? Most people are idiots. 



I can't do it. Their idiots sculpting a world I interact with.  At one point I just laughed, somehow, something changed all that. And now my antinomianism can go fuck itself when Idiocracy is happening 500 years sooner than it should have.

As much as I would like to be above it all, we elected Dwayne Alisando Mt. Dew Herbert Camancho, and that is more sad than funny. It shows a twitter fucked society voting for "Worst Dressed Sentient Being", to use a different reference. 


Sadly, not one of those folk glad Killery lost could answer my goddamn question why 90% of economists were wrong to renounce his fiscal plan... But, "Yeehaw Hilary's going to GITMO!"  

So to your point, I do have a passion, and it has become anything that subverts evangelical christianity, Fox News (Trump's policy maker), and all those sickening "soldier with rifle kneeling by a cross silhouettes", of course by the jesus fish, and assorted anti-abortion stickers. 

I often want to get their attention and say:

"Hey, you know you are not serving and fighting for God, right? Lord tell ya to pack an M-4?" 

It is like the push of the far right is for some type of Christian Sharia Law. I guess the second amendment blinds them to the first.

And I have a fucking love or passion for helping dismantle that and doing everything to make "them" uncomfortable in the process. Fuck the 50's. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 8
T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 8
They're all bat-shit whiners, the conservatives and the liberals. They both need some authority's hand to lick.
Dark Enlightenment
Yeah, I used to say that too.  


Seems silly considering I really do care.  I am sorry it's not sinister window dressing white nationalism bullshit, but the thing in society I don't like is backwater dated values taken outside the backwater dated household.  Fly that rebel flag, drink that moonshine, and pop those oxycontin pills for all I give a fuck.  (Those are all statistic backed valid assertions). It's the God Is Not Dead shit I can't abide. That shit gets spurred on by the many giant auditorium video-link sermons and the growing number of obscene mega-churches, depicting their sick little militancy in selected artwork. And subsequently breeding close-minded christian jihadists to covert as many people as possible. 


This was the bulk of what elected Macho Camancho. 


They can even protest Planned Parenthood all you want, but do you need to slash the OBGYN's tires?


There is a militancy within one side of this bicameral fuckfest that I cant help but fighting for my own personal satisfaction.


The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 8
PlasmoticJezebel
All of this is television drama. You're getting angry at a deliberately distorted and carefully crafted portrayal of a world that looks nothing at all like what's actually happening down the street or in your own back-yard or___ that addresses what's being taken out of your own back-pocket while you're too busy shaking your fists at some damn-travesty or other to notice.


It's easier to blame the stupid than to consider that people far, far smarter and more capable than you are fucking you silly and from quadrants it has not yet nor ever will even occur to you to look.


These evangelical Christians - they know what they're doing. You're not going to clue them onto anything they haven't already digested years ago. As if a child could shock their parents by forcing them to confront the undeniable truth that Santa isn't real. They've calculated their own immunity from exposure well in advance - as have all Bob Larsons, Pat Robertsons, Michael Aquinos, and Ellsworth Tooheys of the world.

Dark Enlightenment
I never said it had to be something that is prudent to do.


You can say I bought into it, I fucking love it.  


I dont like private media, vice presidents who put God above service to the country (there is a difference) and all the other shit sculpting the agenda of my country's president, and all those who like that push back to the 50's.


And when did satanism become Generation X and you can only like the president if its ironic or some other apathetic or cynical reason? Despite it really is some sort of poetry, somewhere. 


I get it, yes the liberal melted down, and I just shook my head in amazement. I didn't vote, because I live in California, but it still confounded me.


  I personally do not buy this "you cant care about politics with your satanism" bullshit, but that is just me.

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 8
PlasmoticJezebel
The Satanism of the internet is basically a cacophony (a rapidly diminishing one in recent years, but a cacophony all the same) of people just sorting-it out. Plenty of poles to run face first into and divots of the symbol-is-not-a-sign variety to watch self and others trip-over while attempting to pass-off a semblance of thematic consistency as authoritative bedrock.


There's the whole "Satan rebelled against God - God is government - therefor to be as Satan is to be anti-government" a just-barely-more-refined outcropping of the adolescent "Satan was a rebel" observation. 

An observation that doesn't have the circumspection necessary to consider asking "According to what authority on the subject did Satan rebel against God?" or "what are the implications of accepting said authority as an authority on the matter to begin with?" - the elephant in the room is that one is left denouncing Christianity while at the same time deferring to its unerring authority on matters where doing so supports one's take on a given interpretation.


The whole thing is noisy and error prone from the outset. Then there's the whole Satan is evil, the ultimate bad guy, and is thus against any semblance of law and order. Which is also the same esegesis Christians sort of arrive at despite there being nothing to support that assumption in their own texts. It's just this nebulous and widely assumed misconception that just sort of "is" somehow -  like, for example, how black dicks are just bigger and everyone knows that. Except, on the whole, they actually aren't and it's weird we'd even think that having actually seen or dealt with, on average, 0 or less black penises in real life. In this way Satan's inherent evilness is a lot like black dick's intrinsic thickness. 


Then the whole sinister or sinistral or left-hand path rat's nest. Vague associations of criminality and evil: law as-in law and as-in Torah. That whole annoying depth to the whole 10 commandments thing. 


There's a few tangents along those lines that kind-of-sort of make sense and stand up ok-ish if you don't kick the tires too hard. 


The problem with it, though, is that it's all way too contrived, cerebral, and bass-ackwards. The type of appalling and lawless deeds that warrant the descriptor of Satanic in this sense come from a place of purely visceral human depravity for which all other words and mealy mouthed meanderings and pontifications fail. Crimes against humanity orders of magnitude. 

T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 9
Yes but we've been here before, Satan wasn't that in the bible, he was just a guy tempting people to take the material world and forego their faith in god. That's really all, unless you want to cite where Satan goes Caligula on people. The real mass killing psycho in those stories, was god himself. Satan doesn't have shit on god in body counts.

Crimes against humanity are not even Satanic, they are just human beings being asshole human beings. End of story.

As for politics, the fact is, you're on the mark. The whole thing is contrived as means to turn everybody against everybody. I don't even think our government has as much control as corporate does.

I think DE is right, too. The conservative people have lost their fucking minds and want to take their agenda to the same old bat-shit-fucking-crazy-O level of stupidity that they always have. People have gone politically fucking insane, again, retard levels. Everyone wants a dick in their ass.
PlasmoticJezebel
Hardly the end of story. Words mean things. 


Definition of satanic
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of Satan or satanismsatanic pridesatanic rites
2: characterized by extreme cruelty or viciousness

again, it's just what the word means... and part of its initial appeal. There's just not enough not rhetoric in the world to blot that out. 


True, the way I look at it is a modality of rejecting (without out-right denying - a subtle but important nuance) the spiritual in favor of corporeal. The real over the ideal. Matter over mind. Power over wisdom. etc, etc - but even though I can make a pretty solid case for this way of looking at it, the word is still going to have these other only tangentially-related meanings that no one gets to just sweep under the carpet when it doesn't service the point they wish to push *cough cough * TST 

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 9
T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 9
I would take dictionary definitions with some salt, words and language change a lot. You are well read, so you yourself must know that the dictionary version has little to nothing to with the original text. I mean, what are we going to go by, the origin or a shifty modern day categorization?

*Exactly the point, give up abstract ideas in favor of reality, accepting its harshness, and the harshness one must own and wield in response to it. In doing so, you master your own life, eventually moving up in the world in which ever direction you seek, more or less. This is also to be taken lightly, since it is also ideal, but, it is the goal, and at least a tangible one. The only exception really, is that reality isn't always what you expect and you may find yourself going many different directions or winding up completely different from where you intended, for better or worse.

The only reason Satan is Satan in the bible is because he urges people to go against god's almighty authority, and move yourself away from it. That is really all Satan is in the bible. That dictionary definition seems ironic, like it was written by some angsty Fourteen year old slasher movie dark-lord-baphomet-worshipping douche. Probably christian, too.
The Forum post is edited by T.Volt Aug 9
PlasmoticJezebel
It's the dictionary. It's what the word means. If you're going to attempt to communicate ideas, you have to contend with this often inconvenient fact that people aren't mind readers and when the meaning of a word is ever unclear to the point where it requires further elucidation, they're going to go with the dictionary. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. If they couldn't do that, communication would not be possible.


I mean, if come at you saying something like "approximately means precisely" or "satan represents compassion" or some other such nonsense I should quite well expect to be told in no uncertain terms to go fuck myself. Why? Because words mean things. 


Not to mention, the origin of the word satanic is perfectly consistent with what's there in the dictionary today. Adversary. As-in what one could expect to find on a battle field opposed to, say, "rival" as-in what one could expect to find on the opposite side of a volley ball net.


As to what that adversary is opposed to, this all calls for speculation, in my mind is the possibility that man is created in the image of the divine (in the Platonic sense of the word) or can become something more exalted than just mere animal. 


It is quite possible that if a man is to raise himself above the status of mere animal, it must first confront the grim reality that he is one, and all that comes with it. Which it seems LaVey was pointing at. 

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 9
T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 9

"they're going to go with the dictionary. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do."


Sure, up front. Thing is, words do change quite often, and definitions also change depending on the dictionary you read, or if an official consensus update is applied, or changed, so will the definition. Seems reasonable if the reader is ignorant to the above information. Call it mis-directed information. The bible and dictionary are two different sources. Likely, there are some people who can't rationalize which source is more accurate. Also does not change the fact, one describes in great detail, while, realistically, the other, mis-represents. One is the origin, the other is not. Apples to raisins.


I should also mention, that the same applies to all the types of Christ-insanity out there. Original scrolls did and do exist, supposedly. There is, in reality, an origin for this stuff and it changes to the will of people and their interests in changing said things. The constant to remember, is that Satan goes against the flock by choosing to view what people worship, as an adversary to himself, and to tempt those who ever question authority, to do the same.


In our time, the same context and rules apply. Abstract ideals are upheld and defended, while any and all scrutiny of it is shunned or demonized. Being realistic isn't what most people want, and would rather worship their ideals than see what is and cast away what isn't.

The Forum post is edited by T.Volt Aug 9
PlasmoticJezebel
Satan in the bible is to satanic in the dictionary as Visigoths is to gothic. 


There's nothing terribly contentious about any of this. You can feel free to use the word gothic to convey a meaning only loosely related the Gemanic tribe without troubling this much over it. Words changing meaning does not, however, give one cause to question if the dictionary is accurate. Its always a "both and" scenario and never an "either or". I mean, when is the dictionary ever wrong? 
You can't just go like "well I use the word in a totally different and contentious way, and that alone should be enough to invalidate all the baggage that comes with it" - that sort of nutty thinking accounts for about 90% of the pointless conversations that crop around surrounding this S word: dude has an idea that some word he's got a fetish for should mean something. It doesn't mean exactly that (or in some cases, not even anything remotely close to that), so instead of picking another word like any person playing with a full sack of marbles would, dude creates a blog, writes a book, or founds a temple!


And this is perversely fascinating. 

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 9
T.Volt
T.Volt Aug 9

If people can't be bothered to understand the source material, that's not my fault, or anyone else who would. It also doesn't mean I can't explain it to someone either. Fact is, the dictionary definition is way off base, probably confusing the context of the word sadism. Satanic relates to Satan, a fictional character of the bible. His behavior therein has little to nothing to do with sadism as much as say, temptation. I wouldn't even say deceit. Guy seems pretty up front about what his views are, and what he wants. Another fact, one person can be right while thousands are wrong. Dictionaries are not immune to mistakes. I will say in this case, yes, the dictionary, (which one btw, there are many) is wrong. If I compare this definition to source material it is either off base or completely wrong.

The whole idea behind sadistic Satanic worshipers, in my guess *yes, a guess, but prove me wrong, since we're going to play this game* is that after a horrifying crusade of torture and murder, people feared the church, which spent it's time demonizing anyone who believed anything outside christianity.

Fun fact, Vlad The Impaler was no more a blood drinking maniac than Charles Manson was a psychopath. More or less. A lot more people died by his sword and his command than anyone died by Manson's, but much of his brutality was pure fiction, made up by opposing countries who tried to demonize his country and name (what both really have in common, neither was a goody-little-shitbag, but not as horrible as people have been led to believe either) Shit gets made up, officialized, consumed and re-produced that has nothing to do with actual events.


Fake News anyone?

The Forum post is edited by T.Volt Aug 9
PlasmoticJezebel
The fact is you employ a nonstandard definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Happens all the time. Dope. Ill. Sick. Cool. Whack. Bananas. etc. But no one is out there suggesting something as crazy as the dictionary is "way off base" just because these words have come to be commonly accepted as meaning something other than what's in there in certain contexts. 


The operative phrase here is commonly accepted. Satanism - with its insistence on using "satanic" to describe nearly anything and the kitchen sink - even in its heyday was always fringe; by definition the antithesis of anything common or acceptable. Nowadays it's a conversation whose global reach probably consists of maybe a few hundred people. And those few hundred people haven't exactly reached a consensus on what the hell they even mean by it either. "This" is a far way off from challenging the dictionary, is what I'm saying.


And you have to understand too, the gap between the appearance of the word Satan in the bible and satanic in English is one of 2,000 years and several languages. The 1600s C.E is when the word satanic comes about. The book of Job was 600s B.C.E


They didn't just sprout-up right next to each other, and these 2000 years aren't just digits on a screen either. There's 700 years of rich history and mythic evolution between the satan of Job and of the one of the epistles - and that's still nearly a millennia shy of the first crusade.  Just stop and think for a moment how much transpired in all of Christendom between 76 and the 1600s. That's a very, very, very long time for attitudes and preconceptions to change and myths to morph.


To expect a language which happily affords one the ability to drive in a parkway and park in a driveway to hold so rigidly to a word's origin betrays a tenuous grasp or flat-out denial as to how any of this language actually works. It's messy and idiosyncratic but as with anything else in this world: that a thing is the way it is for incomprehensible or arbitrary reasons does not make it any less so.


Even if how the Yukatan got its name is true, it hasn't lead anyone to question what to call it.

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 9
Pages: 1 2 »
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.