The Zoomer Remnant: Can They Recover? But How?

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Zoomers, I know you're busy.

You've got e-celeb drama.
You're making TikTok videos.
You're styling your perm.




But you must realize things now are a lot worse than they seem.




The issue is whether or not you'll exist as a species. Soon you'll need to rally your people.



The only thing masking your erasure is that Boomers are alive in body, though useless in mind.
The Boomers are majority white, the normal demographic of our former country.
But their time is running out. And they're clueless.


The crux of the problem is this:

There’s nothing any Whites can do without a change in either:
1) our understanding of Being, or
2) our understanding of what a human being is.

Anything we debate, argue or attempt gets hijacked by our customary understanding of these 2 fundamental ideas playing themselves out. They work on autopilot underneath your understanding, effecting the way you make sense of the world.

The first of these topics is esoteric. So we'll skip for now.

The second is accessible and should be innate - you already have an concept of what a human being is given to you by our culture at large. Ask yourself what that is? The essence of man, or what distinguishes him from animals. Make a note.

Now that concept needs to change.


The way to make that change is to explore this guy's work-
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=DF04F303DABC33F61E59056A970332B3

Understand what he believes unique to humans, the essence of what it means to be human. No more and no less.
How far removed is this from what you noted above?


Only after you've done this, the next step is to tune in to the political problem solving among Boomers and early GenX.
These are the people running your political structures and will be for the next several decades.

At some point, you'll need to challenge these people. It won't be like a TV commercial, the taste of a new generation. It will be an intellectual debate. You'll need to clear house. Which means you'll need a solid case.

Listen now for when and where their arguments reference - argue from, or argue towards - our current and customary concept of man.
You will supersede their arguments by altering this reference point, according to the understanding and proof you develop from the book above.

@PotstickerSwatstika, king of the Zoomers, you must rally your people.

I know you can do it.


God speed.
 
Last edited:

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Thank you for making this restrained, digestible, preemptive call to action.

Sure, the young dissident RW culture war is cannibalistic right now. The mainstream news is pretty darn stagnant, so I think the present drama arc is serving some kind of pruning, filtering or polarizing purpose in the meantime... but the next wave of outward aimed (pro)action is fast approaching.

I’m waiting for the next true Mission/Purpose/Goal to begin actualizing before I put my full energy back into things... but we’re already on the verge of August - which will become 2023 - which will become 2024 before we know it.

Things will begin falling into place shortly and hopefully many of these petty distractions will serve their purpose to attract more hearts and minds (and eyeballs and superchats) before they (justifiably) fall by the wayside as we march on the enemy.



Also... that is the first time in history that I have been mistaken for a Zoomer and quite frankly, it’s half flattering in a way. I thought everyone knew that I’m a straight up Millenial, dyed in the wool, but my generation does tend to have the mercurial ability to straddle lines, dip back and forth between and empathize with the upstarts who are clearly building off of the culture we sacrificed everything to create.

There’s about to be a mini-flood of Zoomers splashing onto the forum - heads full of steam, photo rolls full of deep fried memes - and they’re the ones who will need to be initiated into the understanding that there is in fact a much higher calling behind this whole thing. A much deeper purpose behind the shitpoasts.
 

ItsAlwaysSomething

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Sure, the young dissident RW culture war is cannibalistic right now. The mainstream news is pretty darn stagnant, so I think the present drama arc is serving some kind of pruning, filtering or polarizing purpose in the meantime... but the next wave of outward aimed (pro)action is fast approaching.
I'm skeptical that they can ever pull themselves out of the endless spiral of e-drama. The only "right wingers" still allowed on the mainstream Internet are just dramacows and it's like catnip for these kids. None of these embarrassing faggot livestreamers that they follow have any useful insights. They're nothing but shit flingers and that's what their dipshit audience loves to see.
 

Freedom Monk

Truth and Liberty above all else!
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
Also... that is the first time in history that I have been mistaken for a Zoomer and quite frankly, it’s half flattering in a way. I thought everyone knew that I’m a straight up Millenial, dyed in the wool
Lol same.

In my depression thread I made awhile ago now, people where assuming that I was "young" but I'm a millennial in my early thirties and just a bit younger than Andrew. Time flies so fast when your not keeping an eye on it.

I am completely alienated from this "zoomer" generation and from what I have observed they are making all the same mistakes that my generation are making, just with smartphones in their hands while doing so. How fake and ghey are these young ones now? I can't make an honest assessment.
 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
I'm skeptical that they can ever pull themselves out of the endless spiral of e-drama.
I chose to express the more optimistic angle, but yes, I fully understand and continue to meditate on the other direction as well.
The only "right wingers" still allowed on the mainstream Internet are just dramacows and it's like catnip for these kids.
And that’s exactly why I have been able to foster a bit of optimism since the launch of cozy.tv

It’s success has proven that β€˜create your own X’ can actually work and organically grow based on the daily hard work of the creators.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
My time runs out and clueless.
youth is wasted on the young, so sad.

The only mooks that DID SOMETHING thr last 100 years was jews.

I'd repent(metanoia) and walk in the Word , there is no other way out.
 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
How fake and ghey are these young ones now? I can't make an honest assessment.
This is a big question that deserves an honest, in-depth answer that I can’t give at this time.
 

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
I’m a straight up Millenial

Never say this out loud again. They need to believe you're one of them if you're to lead them. I think you can do it.


RW culture war is cannibalistic
drama arc
petty distractions

next wave of outward aimed (pro)action
true Mission/Purpose/Goal
a much higher calling

On this dichotomy of high and low, purposeful vs purposeless action-

I'm trying to steer people towards a conceptual understanding that will validate both. A way of understanding social interaction and what its function actually is. This is needed so that you can find where the value lies in behaviors that are persistent, perhaps even natural, like drama circling.

It is also needed so that you can understand what you want to retain from the social cliques of those you don't agree with. There is something happening within circles with which you don't agree, but yet you want to retain. How about that?

This changes the way you approach them, from conquest and trying to break them apart or deny them (which doesn't work), to grasping what they are doing naturally which is useful for you, which you want to retain, and that you want to encourage.

People don't quite grasp the scale of what we need to accomplish. You cannot do it within this understanding of "my group is going to conquer all". This tiny brain idea is ridiculous when considering scale, and just leaves you looking for the next target, which just means more drama. YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO WORK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE. Including those you don't agree with, even those you oppose. The gold standard is that your position strengthens AS your enemy advances theirs (as they see it). This is called drafting their effort to your effect. Work your opponent into a double bind.

I'm trying to introduce this thinking to others which, from years of reading of posts, I know they do not currently have. So the dichotomy between useless and useful behaviors breaks down, allowing you to appreciate social units and how you want to steer them.

Plus I'm skeptical of any problem solving - regardless of intent, or that it be purposeful - at the present moment, in the absence of this understanding. So diagnosing this question is probably a waste of time:

How fake and ghey are these young ones now?

So we break the topic down into 2 parts. One is philosophical, fun but tough to grasp. It's not new information, but rather understanding what you already know in a different way.

The easier part is straight up new information. The guys work above is probably best way to get it.
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
People don't quite grasp the scale of what we need to accomplish. You cannot do it within this understanding of "my group is going to conquer all". This tiny brain idea is ridiculous when considering scale, and just leaves you looking for the next target, which just means more drama. YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO WORK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE. Including those you don't agree with, even those you oppose. The gold standard is that your position strengthens AS your enemy advances theirs (as they see it). This is called drafting their effort to your effect. Work your opponent into a double bind.
This is very similar to what the Jews did through the vehicle of their Kabbalah from roughly the early 15th to the late 18th Centuries. To be sure, Jews are still using the same vehicle today in fact, among others, however the damage is already done as we know. Now, for them, it's mainly just about reiteration and reification of energies which are already proliferating perpetually.

Man, I should do a longer effort-post on this subject, because it's fascinating to me at least, because in many ways it's the same sort of mass-reconfiguration in thought that Whites need to produce today in order to steer our own ship into the proper direction. The only difference really was that back then Jews were in the extreme minority obviously, and they were working this magic- quite literally magic in its truest sense- upon the majority of the Euro world. We- as in all Euros- would in contrast still be a relative majority today. Although the historicism works a lot better here if you realize that /we/ are the ones now embarking on a project parallel to what the Jews successfully already managed.

The Kabbalah was like their vehicle for mass-change essentially, and Jews embedded it into our European world, and then they used the resulting synthesis in order to manipulate various Euros to unconsciously work against their own collective self-interest in ways that Euros couldn't imagine. This rupture and its eventual equilibrium then produced a distinct typography within European religion and culture, and thus this template is the one still being reinforced and reproduced constantly currently in order to ensure that Jews still stay in power. It's self-perpetuating now- unless or until /we/ intervene at some point.

Jews didn't change our thought through violence or even direct confrontation with our ancestors back then. Rather, as your post above relates, the Jews used our own paradigms against us in many ways by first inserting hundreds, maybe thousands of small deviations into our own thought intellectually and religiously. The first obvious example of these smaller "deviations" as I call them being inserted into our dominant paradigm was in the domain of religion.

Jews witnessed during the era of Wycliffe, Erasmus, More and other Humanists in Europe that our own religious open-mindedness and skepticism could easily provide them an opportunity for breach basically. Earlier on, Jews were involved (although not dominant or essential) in creating all that original religious doubt and skepticism about our orthodoxy in the first place. But once the doubt was present already, Jews came onto the scene much more directly and started inserting their own Kabbalistic typography into Renaissance Christianity- and the rest was really history.

This process started in Italy and Spain where Jewish Conversos who had only recently "converted" to Christianity began introducing distinctly Jewish understandings of Christianity into the larger intellectual and religious milieu of the time. And it took two or three generations to bare fruit originally, but what had started in the beginning as Christian scholars and intellectuals like Pico della Mirandola in Italy and Johannes Reuchlin in Germany delving into so-called "Christian" Kabbalism within a century led to the European Courts of Queen Elizabeth of England and the Emperor Rudolf II of Habsburg Germany and others being so enamored with this new re-framing that each systematically upended many centuries of previous European orthodoxy in favor of foreign influence- giving Jewish Power in its purest philosophical form an official State backing that Judaism itself had never encountered previous in all Euro history.

They changed the way we viewed our own history and religion through the vehicle of Kabbalah. And then these initial changes forced top-down by the rulers mentioned above (and others) would have long-term implications- consequences in the future which we are still living through today unfortunately- once they were externalized to the masses. Jews really didn't overpower us physically or militarily anywhere here, there wasn't even any "debate" whatsoever let alone violent confrontation, and confrontation itself has not really been a major tool in the Jew toolbox throughout early modern history. No, Jews conquered us mentally and intellectually by first finding proxies within our own in-group to perpetuate ideas favorable to them for them- acting as a future force-multiplier. Thus they were successful at overcoming that unique problem in "scale" that your highlighted post above is concerned with. And @FreddieMiles you'd enjoy this book below for its "system-central" analysis and conclusion(s), which I have only briefly tried to convey in this comment to the best of my ability.

1658451872741.png

Like I said these consequences were immense for Europe and its diasporas, and the negative effects still ongoing. But the bottom line here is that Jews understood (or at least seemed to) that they had to work through rather than directly against our own systems in order to eventually get to the point where their own in-group could overtake us decidedly. They worked through the processes and paradigms already in place like a virus reproducing using our own cells against us. And within relatively short time, so-called "Christian" Kabbalah would lead to the revival of Hebrew scholarship at all major universities in Europe and the primacy of the Old Testament in some forms of Protestantism- causing eventually a Judaizing mass-phenomenon throughout society that was once again acting as a future force-multiplier for Jewish goals and ambitions- such as Jewish Readmission into England and, later on, Jewish Emancipation throughout Europe in general. This new understanding would come in handy for Jews later on during their British-sponsored Zionist project too.

In England, the change was personified by intellectuals like Thomas Brightman, John Selden, John Milton, James Harrington, John Toland, and even John Locke eventually- among hundreds of others. These intellectuals and religious authorities would look to the past and to the future now armed with the understanding that the so-called "Restoration of the Jews" was now central to their own civilization and their own sense of being. This material restoration of the Jews, however, was an idea of the Kabbalah- not of traditional, historical Christian exegesis of the Bible and/or its millenarian eschatology. Overall, the earlier introduction of the Kabbalah into Christian intellectual circles facilitated this re-centering of the Old Testament with its Jew exclusivity and its focus on the Jews of the present day in fulfilling future prophecy. The Old Testament replaced the New Testament in primacy in certain Protestant circles, and thus "restoring" and then "converting" the Jews became central to Europe's very survival and future.

1658452666919.png

Only after this initial new status-quo was set up did Sephardic Jews recently arrived in Western Europe in the form of Spinoza and Orobio de Castro and Uriel da Costa come along to articulate the Radical Enlightenment, which is viewed by certain intellectual historians today merely as a continuation of what had already happened atop the foundation of Confessionalization and "Christian" Kabbalah in the previous centuries. The former could certainly not have happened absent the latter. But the interesting aspect out of it all to me is the minimal work that Jews themselves engaged in to get European society to the point where it was originally introduced to Spinoza's new revolutionary praxis. Because quantifiably, Jews did relatively little whatsoever to get our ancestors there initially.

The work was all done primarily by these 16th Century Humanists like Pico and Reuchlin studying under literal rabbis and the official State-sponsored power that those ideas generated in Europe in anticipation of these 17th Century Anglo intellectuals and religious authorities mentioned above. The Jews and their proto-Masonic allies built the Revolutionary or Enlightenment era upon the foundation that these Jew-enamored Humanists created and normalized earlier- but remember these thinkers were appropriating Jewish ideas ripped straight out of the Kabbalah originally!

The Jews- through Kabbalah- just embedded the seeds of their own future victory right into the fabric of our original cultural orthodoxy- and then they just waited. Now certainly, here, Jews encouraged and instructed these original "Christian" Kabbalists in Hebrew, Jews financed and enticed them otherwise universally, and Jews reproduced and spread their writings via their global diaspora throughout Europe and the New World, but still the heavy lifting was done earlier by our own European ancestors- they were the popular celebrities and power-players of the time who could demand large audiences and global attention. And they were cultivating the seeds of a brand new universalist philosophy eventually called Enlightenment that would be the undoing of our entire civilization!
 
Last edited:

Trilobite

rebel monk
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
People are not swayed by words because they are too stupid to understand.

Symbols are where the true power lies. Words are less than symbols which are less than ideas.

Be cognizant of this hierarchy. My town has zoning laws dictating the type of siding on a person's house. For no practical reason. The sides of houses are large and visible from the roadside usually. Whatever is visible attracts attention.
 

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Symbols are where the true power lies. Words are less than symbols which are less than ideas.
They're all ideas, bro. Words and symbols are just signifiers of ideas.
 

Yang Wen-Li

Thousand Year Galactic Anime Reich
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
what's the cutoff year for millenial/zoomer?
 

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
They're all ideas, bro. Words and symbols are just signifiers of ideas.
But what he means is that the speed of understanding ideas through symbols travels a lot faster into mans lizard brain than do trying to philosophize that same idea through mere words alone.

The key here is to make your ideas as easy to understand as possible.

imaplement.jpg
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
But what he means is that the speed of understanding ideas through symbols travels a lot faster into mans lizard brain than do trying to philosophize that same idea through mere words alone.

The key here is to make your ideas as easy to understand as possible.

View attachment 110864
Some ideas, however, are too complicated and nuanced to convey through simple symbolism and/or art.

I agree, however, that Freddie needs to potentially simplify and demystify the idea(s) that he regularly talks about on here, because there's a percentage of people even on this forum- i.e. educated people- who can't communicate back and forth with him due to the technicality and universality of some terminology.
 
Last edited:

Jay

You Must Trust Yourself, Trust Your Own Strength
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
This is very similar to what the Jews did through the vehicle of their Kabbalah from roughly the early 15th to the late 18th Centuries. To be sure, Jews are still using the same vehicle today in fact, among others, however the damage is already done as we know. Now, for them, it's mainly just about reiteration and reification of energies which are already proliferating perpetually.

Man, I should do a longer effort-post on this subject, because it's fascinating to me at least, because in many ways it's the same sort of mass-reconfiguration in thought that Whites need to produce today in order to steer our own ship into the proper direction. The only difference really was that back then Jews were in the extreme minority obviously, and they were working this magic- quite literally magic in its truest sense- upon the majority of the Euro world. We- as in all Euros- would in contrast still be a relative majority today. Although the historicism works a lot better here if you realize that /we/ are the ones now embarking on a project parallel to what the Jews successfully already managed.

The Kabbalah was like their vehicle for mass-change essentially, and Jews embedded it into our European world, and then they used the resulting synthesis in order to manipulate various Euros to unconsciously work against their own collective self-interest in ways that Euros couldn't imagine. This rupture and its eventual equilibrium then produced a distinct typography within European religion and culture, and thus this template is the one still being reinforced and reproduced constantly currently in order to ensure that Jews still stay in power. It's self-perpetuating now- unless or until /we/ intervene at some point.

Jews didn't change our thought through violence or even direct confrontation with our ancestors back then. Rather, as your post above relates, the Jews used our own paradigms against us in many ways by first inserting hundreds, maybe thousands of small deviations into our own thought intellectually and religiously. The first obvious example of these smaller "deviations" as I call them being inserted into our dominant paradigm was in the domain of religion.

Jews witnessed during the era of Wycliffe, Erasmus, More and other Humanists in Europe that our own religious open-mindedness and skepticism could easily provide them an opportunity for breach basically. Earlier on, Jews were involved (although not dominant or essential) in creating all that original religious doubt and skepticism about our orthodoxy in the first place. But once the doubt was present already, Jews came onto the scene much more directly and started inserting their own Kabbalistic typography into Renaissance Christianity- and the rest was really history.

This process started in Italy and Spain where Jewish Conversos who had only recently "converted" to Christianity began introducing distinctly Jewish understandings of Christianity into the larger intellectual and religious milieu of the time. And it took two or three generations to bare fruit originally, but what had started in the beginning as Christian scholars and intellectuals like Pico della Mirandola in Italy and Johannes Reuchlin in Germany delving into so-called "Christian" Kabbalism within a century led to the European Courts of Queen Elizabeth of England and the Emperor Rudolf II of Habsburg Germany and others being so enamored with this new re-framing that each systematically upended many centuries of previous European orthodoxy in favor of foreign influence- giving Jewish Power in its purest philosophical form an official State backing that Judaism itself had never encountered previous in all Euro history.

They changed the way we viewed our own history and religion through the vehicle of Kabbalah. And then these initial changes forced top-down by the rulers mentioned above (and others) would have long-term implications- consequences in the future which we are still living through today unfortunately- once they were externalized to the masses. Jews really didn't overpower us physically or militarily anywhere here, there wasn't even any "debate" whatsoever let alone violent confrontation, and confrontation itself has not really been a major tool in the Jew toolbox throughout early modern history. No, Jews conquered us mentally and intellectually by first finding proxies within our own in-group to perpetuate ideas favorable to them for them- acting as a future force-multiplier. Thus they were successful at overcoming that unique problem in "scale" that your highlighted post above is concerned with. And @FreddieMiles you'd enjoy this book below for its "system-central" analysis and conclusion(s), which I have only briefly tried to convey in this comment to the best of my ability.

View attachment 110576

Like I said these consequences were immense for Europe and its diasporas, and the negative effects still ongoing. But the bottom line here is that Jews understood (or at least seemed to) that they had to work through rather than directly against our own systems in order to eventually get to the point where their own in-group could overtake us decidedly. They worked through the processes and paradigms already in place like a virus reproducing using our own cells against us. And within relatively short time, so-called "Christian" Kabbalah would lead to the revival of Hebrew scholarship at all major universities in Europe and the primacy of the Old Testament in some forms of Protestantism- causing eventually a Judaizing mass-phenomenon throughout society that was once again acting as a future force-multiplier for Jewish goals and ambitions- such as Jewish Readmission into England and, later on, Jewish Emancipation throughout Europe in general. This new understanding would come in handy for Jews later on during their British-sponsored Zionist project too.

In England, the change was personified by intellectuals like Thomas Brightman, John Selden, John Milton, James Harrington, John Toland, and even John Locke eventually- among hundreds of others. These intellectuals and religious authorities would look to the past and to the future now armed with the understanding that the so-called "Restoration of the Jews" was now central to their own civilization and their own sense of being. This material restoration of the Jews, however, was an idea of the Kabbalah- not of traditional, historical Christian exegesis of the Bible and/or its millenarian eschatology. Overall, the earlier introduction of the Kabbalah into Christian intellectual circles facilitated this re-centering of the Old Testament with its Jew exclusivity and its focus on the Jews of the present day in fulfilling future prophecy. The Old Testament replaced the New Testament in primacy in certain Protestant circles, and thus "restoring" and then "converting" the Jews became central to Europe's very survival and future.

View attachment 110582

Only after this initial new status-quo was set up did Sephardic Jews recently arrived in Western Europe in the form of Spinoza and Orobio de Castro and Uriel da Costa come along to articulate the Radical Enlightenment, which is viewed by certain intellectual historians today merely as a continuation of what had already happened atop the foundation of Confessionalization and "Christian" Kabbalah in the previous centuries. The former could certainly not have happened absent the latter. But the interesting aspect out of it all to me is the minimal work that Jews themselves engaged in to get European society to the point where it was originally introduced to Spinoza's new revolutionary praxis. Because quantifiably, Jews did relatively little whatsoever to get our ancestors there initially.

The work was all done primarily by these 16th Century Humanists like Pico and Reuchlin studying under literal rabbis and the official State-sponsored power that those ideas generated in Europe in anticipation of these 17th Century Anglo intellectuals and religious authorities mentioned above. The Jews and their proto-Masonic allies built the Revolutionary or Enlightenment era upon the foundation that these Jew-enamored Humanists created and normalized earlier- but remember these thinkers were appropriating Jewish ideas ripped straight out of the Kabbalah originally!

The Jews- through Kabbalah- just embedded the seeds of their own future victory right into the fabric of our original cultural orthodoxy- and then they just waited. Now certainly, here, Jews encouraged and instructed these original "Christian" Kabbalists in Hebrew, Jews financed and enticed them otherwise universally, and Jews reproduced and spread their writings via their global diaspora throughout Europe and the New World, but still the heavy lifting was done earlier by our own European ancestors- they were the popular celebrities and power-players of the time who could demand large audiences and global attention. And they were cultivating the seeds of a brand new universalist philosophy eventually called Enlightenment that would be the undoing of our entire civilization!
It's older and worse then anyone i have seen on here post about it, so far. Your closer with this post then any other i have seen on here to getting to the core of their methods in a way most will understand it.

I can't even go into half it with out starting a war on here or possibly being banned,
it would trigger many of the Christians and even a fair amount of Pagans.

Basically they have been working on our spiritual/cultural Folk ways since before the Axial age, before 300 BC at least. As for before then i can only speculate since i can not confirm it(yet) from a direct connection, but my gut and other "stuff" say it is so.
They have had their fingers in far eastern Religions and philosophy too, since their beginnings.

They are clever at mixing truth with just enough lie to do the job they intended it to do, bend your energies to their use.
So long as our folk spirit is not chained to their Kabbalah or any other alien spiritual enslavement, that's mainly what matters in practical terms.

The hero's journey(the Folk):
"Do not grieve, wise warrior! It is better for each man That he avenge his friend than to mourn him much. Each of us must accept the end of life here in this worldβ€”so we must work while we can to earn fame before death."
Beowulf

We have a monster to slay.
 
Last edited:

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
But what he means is that the speed of understanding ideas through symbols travels a lot faster into mans lizard brain than do trying to philosophize that same idea through mere words alone.

I understand your point. I just think you're mistaken on a larger level.

The perspective you speak from assumes a "natural" ability to read the world.
In this perspective, representation - image or text - is something additional to the "natural" and direct experience of the world.

Your point (along with @Trilobite) is to simplify the processing of these "extra" modes. Text or image may represent the natural world for the sake of communication, but are both otherwise things fundamentally outside of or additional to the "natural" world. So slim those down. And the easier of the two is image.

"Philosophy" in your perspective is something yet additional again - a specialist discourse further complexifying text representations. It's a text based practice, something done by a certain clique of people, per their own intellectual interests.
So in this specialization, it's much more removed from a "natural" engagement with the world, which is simply innate to man.

This is what I take to be your perspective from our convos across a few different threads.


Now, my disagreement is first that we do not have a "natural" ability to read the world. There is no such thing. Our reading of the world (or physical reality) is *always* mediated through something else.
We don't access the physical world directly, we access it through something else. This other "thing" is a social-collective construct, which we'll broadly define in most basic terms as the "aggregate sum of our cultural ways".

Our ideas are inside this aggregate sum. What our ideas mean - the meaning of each idea - is inside this aggregate sum. Our language is inside this aggregate sum. Text is built off this language, and accordingly also inside. Images or representations are pointing to things inside this aggregate sum.

Basically, there's a ball of immaterial cognitive "stuff" that we've accumulated collectively *through which* we access the physical world.

(Now we can nitpick this and say "what do you mean?? I can access the physical world by myself just by touching it, hurr durr".
True. But this isn't significant. You need to reach into this social-collective ball of stuff to get access to what anything "means".
This is to say your individual self is your lowest, most basic self. Instinct, hormones, chemicals, material substances - in different degrees, but general and universal to all mankind. Your collective self is your higher self, of distinction and difference among humans because it's where you access "culture", values, meaning, etc, which in aggregate are this ball of accumulated stuff, social in origin.)

So- The first part of my argument is we access the world not directly, but through this "ball" off aggregate stuff.
This is actually what's "natural". And because it's natural, it's unseen. That is the subtle part. It is perfectly natural to look past this mediating layer, to not see it, and to assume you're accessing the physical world directly.

In this perspective, "philosophy" becomes the explicit act of examining what is natural to overlook. Examining the ball. It is a "specialist" activity, true. From your perspective, this specialist activity is over in a corner, not really essential, and only complicates the project at hand.

However, my argument - and the point of the thread per the text I bolded in first post - is we have a customary way of processing the world. It's called our culture or tradition. Developing this definition: it is an historical, anthropological, collective construct. It is of us. It is not dispassionate, nor external. It is not a material feature of the universe. It is of us.

And it has certain ways of working. It is a particular system of making sense of the world. It is our mediating layer, and as such, is unseen. Looked through, as we look out towards the world.
It's deterministic in how we understand whatever we feed into it. It's unseen. These traits together reflect a kind of autopilot.

The purpose of going back to the philosophical - or examining what is unseen and assumed - is because its outcomes are producing crisis.

"Philosophy" is not the answer, in itself. Hyper awareness isn't the answer. The philosophical examination is only in regards to design, of assumptions unseen and on autopilot.

Once you understand and perhaps change design, it's quite natural to go back to unseen looking out towards the world, occurring as if on autopilot. But perhaps under different design, producing different outcomes.

As it relates to "the movement" - we have people looking at "the facts", pointing to "the facts", and frustrated that the bulk of population doesn't arrive at same conclusions. But after this failure point - and for some - we have a bunch of totally erroneous thinking: "masses don't matter", "people do what they're told", "we're going to force / bully them", "an extreme event will kick off XYZ", etc etc. It's all delusional horseshit.
The mistake is that the people in "the movement" are not first considering this "ball" thing which mediates all of our understanding of the physical world. The people inside "the movement" are overlooking it just as the population at large does.

In reality, what the people in "the movement" should be concerned with is this mediating layer and how it works. They should be acting in relation to it, not necessarily "the people at large" or "the facts" which lie beyond it. This is, in fact, how you access the people at large.

Moreover, there are attributes within our ball, our aggregate assumptions of how we grasp the world, that are themselves the cause of "the masses not waking up". The failure is embedded within certain attributes of our intellectual tradition (which is why crisis is acute in every single Western European nation). To begin to unravel this above, I simplify-
1) You will hear references to "the essence of man", what it means to be human, operating below the arguments which constitute our ruling dispensation.
2) Within this thread, I link to a book that challenges this fixed definition. Our traditional definition is philosophical and universal, handed down to us from those intellectual practices. The book is research based and "scientific". What is notable is that rather than dry empiricism of genetic measurement, the book seeks to model the processes by which we generate this "ball" of understanding, and takes this attribute to be characteristic of what it means to be human.

This is a very simple and direct way to start.

I don't have any argument against "images being a more direct reference than text". But this isn't a significant point in comparison to what I'd like to examine.

@Trilobite made distinction and hierarchy between words, symbols, ideas, in this order. He used the word "less" which is ambiguous.
If he meant "less time to process", then perhaps yeah (and this was your point). But this isn't really what I'm after in this thread.
If he meant "less overall in essence" - a stacking hierarchy where "words" have the least essence, "symbols" have more, and "ideas" have greatest essence - then I'd disagree. "Essence" would be the wrong common metric. The essence of each is different. The common metric is probably variation along an axis of particular to general.


I will take both of you up on your point of expedited communications via images and point you towards this post, that presents above discussion using images.


simplify and demystify the idea(s)
Me: We need to consider our most fundamental ways of grasping reality. Here's a hypothetical alternative.
Rejectors: Seems like a bunch of words. I'll only consider hypotheticals to the degree they fit into my present fundamental worldview.

Bruh.
 
Last edited:

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
I understand your point. I just think you're mistaken on a larger level.

The perspective you speak from assumes a "natural" ability to read the world.
In this perspective, representation - image or text - is something additional to the "natural" and direct experience of the world.

Your point (along with @Trilobite) is to simplify the processing of these "extra" modes. Text or image may represent the natural world for the sake of communication, but are both otherwise things fundamentally outside of or additional to the "natural" world. So slim those down. And the easier of the two is image.

"Philosophy" in your perspective is something yet additional again - a specialist discourse further complexifying text representations. It's a text based practice, something done by a certain clique of people, per their own intellectual interests.
So in this specialization, it's much more removed from a "natural" engagement with the world, which is simply innate to man.

This is what I take to be your perspective from our convos across a few different threads.
Somewhat yes this is almost how I see Philosophy.



Now, my disagreement is first that we do not have a "natural" ability to read the world. There is no such thing. Our reading of the world (or physical reality) is *always* mediated through something else. We don't access the physical world directly, we access it through something else. This other "thing" is a social-collective construct, which we'll broadly define in most basic terms as the "aggregate sum of our cultural ways".
A mans natural ability to read the world is always based on their frame of reference. You can call it the "aggregate sum", or the frame of reference. Men are always referencing things in their mind to determine a choice. What man references in their mind is always that aggregate sum.



Our ideas are inside this aggregate sum. What our ideas mean - the meaning of each idea - is inside this aggregate sum. Our language is inside this aggregate sum. Text is built off this language, and accordingly also inside. Images or representations are pointing to things inside this aggregate sum.

Basically, there's a ball of immaterial cognitive "stuff" that we've accumulated collectively *through which* we access the physical world.
Right, but this aggregate sum (frame of reference) is always limited by access.


(Now we can nitpick this and say "what do you mean?? I can access the physical world by myself just by touching it, hurr durr".
True. But this isn't significant. You need to reach into this social-collective ball of stuff to get access to what anything "means".
This is to say your individual self is your lowest, most basic self. Instinct, hormones, chemicals, material substances - in different degrees, but general and universal to all mankind. Your collective self is your higher self, of distinction and difference among humans because it's where you access "culture", values, meaning, etc, which in aggregate are this ball of accumulated stuff, social in origin.)

Right, when a man processes the world he sees with his eyes or sense of touch it will always be going back to his own personal frame of reference or this sum total of which includes all that you just said.


So- The first part of my argument is we access the world not directly, but through this "ball" off aggregate stuff.
This is actually what's "natural". And because it's natural, it's unseen. That is the subtle part. It is perfectly natural to look past this mediating layer, to not see it, and to assume you're accessing the physical world directly.
Right, but to tap into this on an individual or mass level you have to reference information that people understand initially off the bat. It has to resonate with everyone so that they can connect the pieces on their own. Basically you must reference a piece of information that your audience already has stored in their brain so that you can connect it to the information you want to implant in theirs so that they can understand your message.

In this perspective, "philosophy" becomes the explicit act of examining what is natural to overlook. Examining the ball. It is a "specialist" activity, true. From your perspective, this specialist activity is over in a corner, not really essential, and only complicates the project at hand.
Philosophy doesn't have to complicate the project. It just needs to resonate with your intended target audience.

However, my argument - and the point of the thread per the text I bolded in first post - is we have a customary way of processing the world. It's called our culture or tradition. Developing this definition: it is an historical, anthropological, collective construct. It is of us. It is not dispassionate, nor external. It is not a material feature of the universe. It is of us.
Today our culture and tradition is a garbled Jew mess and the big question is putting all the categories of our true historical culture/tradition into an aggregate sum which people can then reference in their own minds which in turn will help the masses of the target audience agree with each other on a societal/spiritual level.

And it has certain ways of working. It is a particular system of making sense of the world. It is our mediating layer, and as such, is unseen. Looked through, as we look out towards the world.
It's deterministic in how we understand whatever we feed into it. It's unseen. These traits together reflect a kind of autopilot.

The purpose of going back to the philosophical - or examining what is unseen and assumed - is because its outcomes are producing crisis.

"Philosophy" is not the answer, in itself. Hyper awareness isn't the answer. The philosophical examination is only in regards to design, of assumptions unseen and on autopilot.

Once you understand and perhaps change design, it's quite natural to go back to unseen looking out towards the world, occurring as if on autopilot. But perhaps under different design, producing different outcomes.
Yes, we must resonate with the target audience's initial frame of reference. From there we can start to help them understand.

As it relates to "the movement" - we have people looking at "the facts", pointing to "the facts", and frustrated that the bulk of population doesn't arrive at same conclusions. But after this failure point - and for some - we have a bunch of totally erroneous thinking: "masses don't matter", "people do what they're told", "we're going to force / bully them", "an extreme event will kick off XYZ", etc etc. It's all delusional horseshit.
The mistake is that the people in "the movement" are not first considering this "ball" thing which mediates all of our understanding of the physical world. The people inside "the movement" are overlooking it just as the population at large does.
The main failure point is that the masses have no frame of reference towards our ideas. The masses "ball thing" frame of reference does not include information necessary for them to understand our points. Their frame of reference is also guarded and protected by false information and also by feminine appeal to authority or social consensus. So even if they know what they are doing is wrong, or see facts contrary to what they've been told they will immediately hook onto Authority/Social consensus. And we don't currently hold social consensus. The masses/NPC man always follows the path of least resistance. They always appeal to social hierarchy as it appears at face value.

In reality, what the people in "the movement" should be concerned with is this mediating layer and how it works. They should be acting in relation to it, not necessarily "the people at large" or "the facts" which lie beyond it. This is, in fact, how you access the people at large.
Yes, and in simple terms you call this creating a frame of reference that your target audience understands so that they can react to it favorably.

Moreover, there are attributes within our ball, our aggregate assumptions of how we grasp the world, that are themselves the cause of "the masses not waking up". The failure is embedded within certain attributes of our intellectual tradition (which is why crisis is acute in every single Western European nation). To begin to unravel this above, I simplify-
1) You will hear references to "the essence of man", what it means to be human, operating below the arguments which constitute our ruling dispensation.
2) Within this thread, I link to a book that challenges this fixed definition. Our traditional definition is philosophical and universal, handed down to us from those intellectual practices. The book is research based and "scientific". What is notable is that rather than dry empiricism of genetic measurement, the book seeks to model the processes by which we generate this "ball" of understanding, and takes this attribute to be characteristic of what it means to be human.

This is a very simple and direct way to start.
It's a simple way for us to start, but not necessarily the masses who we are trying to reach. There is more work on our end to be done.

I don't have any argument against "images being a more direct reference than text". But this isn't a significant point in comparison to what I'd like to examine.

@Trilobite made distinction and hierarchy between words, symbols, ideas, in this order. He used the word "less" which is ambiguous.
If he meant "less time to process", then perhaps yeah (and this was your point). But this isn't really what I'm after in this thread.
If he meant "less overall in essence" - a stacking hierarchy where "words" have the least essence, "symbols" have more, and "ideas" have greatest essence - then I'd disagree. "Essence" would be the wrong common metric. The essence of each is different. The common metric is probably variation along an axis of particular to general.


I will take both of you up on your point of expedited communications via images and point you towards this post, that presents above discussion using images.




Me: We need to consider our most fundamental ways of grasping reality. Here's a hypothetical alternative.
Rejectors: Seems like a bunch of words. I'll only consider hypotheticals to the degree they fit into my present fundamental worldview.

Bruh.

Using symbols and using words both have their place and time. I do not disagree with what you are trying to say.

My main point will always first be how to resonate with our target audience.
 

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Somewhat yes this is almost how I see Philosophy.

A mans natural ability to read the world is always based on their frame of reference. You can call it the "aggregate sum", or the frame of reference. Men are always referencing things in their mind to determine a choice. What man references in their mind is always that aggregate sum.

Right, but this aggregate sum (frame of reference) is always limited by access.

Right, when a man processes the world he sees with his eyes or sense of touch it will always be going back to his own personal frame of reference or this sum total of which includes all that you just said.

Right, but to tap into this on an individual or mass level you have to reference information that people understand initially off the bat. It has to resonate with everyone so that they can connect the pieces on their own. Basically you must reference a piece of information that your audience already has stored in their brain so that you can connect it to the information you want to implant in theirs so that they can understand your message.

Philosophy doesn't have to complicate the project. It just needs to resonate with your intended target audience.

Today our culture and tradition is a garbled Jew mess and the big question is putting all the categories of our true historical culture/tradition into an aggregate sum which people can then reference in their own minds which in turn will help the masses of the target audience agree with each other on a societal/spiritual level.

Yes, we must resonate with the target audience's initial frame of reference. From there we can start to help them understand.

The main failure point is that the masses have no frame of reference towards our ideas. The masses "ball thing" frame of reference does not include information necessary for them to understand our points. Their frame of reference is also guarded and protected by false information and also by feminine appeal to authority or social consensus. So even if they know what they are doing is wrong, or see facts contrary to what they've been told they will immediately hook onto Authority/Social consensus. And we don't currently hold social consensus. The masses/NPC man always follows the path of least resistance. They always appeal to social hierarchy as it appears at face value.

Yes, and in simple terms you call this creating a frame of reference that your target audience understands so that they can react to it favorably.

It's a simple way for us to start, but not necessarily the masses who we are trying to reach. There is more work on our end to be done.

Using symbols and using words both have their place and time. I do not disagree with what you are trying to say.

My main point will always first be how to resonate with our target audience.

This topic came up again in another thread.

Despite the agreement above, the main difference between our perspectives is that you take as necessary, or "given", external "facts" (we can say).

So the aggregate "ball of references" (as we're terming it above) fundamentally refers to something else, something out in the world.

This shows up in some of the language you use - you say "reference information that people understand initially off the bat".
"The categories of our true historical culture/tradition" - the word "true" refers to something greater than impression.
There's a question of "seeing facts".
There's a question of access - or you say "limited by access".

What I'm saying is we are inside of a loop. A social loop looping back on itself where its outputs create the inputs of later iterations.

There isn't necessarily a stable or "true" object on the outside. The nature of the outside world - or reality - is infinite flux without division, in either time or between bodies.

We creates the divisions within this flux through the creation of concepts which "bracket" the flux into divisions we deem important, per our culture or collective experience. The "creation of concepts" is a social activity - more than one mind mutually designating a "bracket" (or division within the flux) as important and intelligible, and therefore shared, and thereafter named - given language. We then use the language to mutually refer back to the same thing, the same concept.

Because this is all shared, social activity, we can "forget" that we're self-creating our objects of the world, pulling them out from infinite flow beyond us.

Because this is socially done - more than one mind recognizes more or less the same "bracket", the utility, need or significance of the same bracket - the concepts thereby created are categorically shared. And because we broadly share the same concepts, we can say they are real to us.

When you start comparing between cultures - or groups of people who have run these social processes among themselves but are separated on a collective level - you get different concepts. What is assumed "real" in each world differs.


The significance of the differences within our perspectives in this debate informs our different diagnoses of problems, and thus different ways forward.

I say there is never a problem of access. I'm not concerned with what's outside. Moreover, anything that is "inside" - any concepts within the mind - are always shared. They originate in social interaction, of shared experience of the world. By this stack, there is no one ever outside or beyond or without access to some collective construct.

To have a "mind" (which is the content and different than the material brain organ) is to be part of some social unit. Whether that's in the moment socializing between one another, collectively designating what's important via what occupies our shared attention. Or across time, where you "inherit" and use the outcomes of prior social moments, done by others, the conclusions of which - the concepts, their language and interrelations - are passed or taught to you.

Also you diagnose problems with "feminine appeal to authority" or "social consensus".

From my perspective, "social consensus" is the fundamental building block of "intelligibility", which is what something is when we understand it to have "meaning" (ie: so everything - everything defined for us). Social consensus isn't this "disciplining" thing. It's a pre-cognitive moment when "more than one mind" affirms shared sensation, shared recognition, shared "bracketing" of what is flowing outside ourselves infinitely. This shared "isolate" then becomes "cognitive" and generally named, given form and a way to reference that form.

"Appeal to authority" is actually "individualism" within this social process. Individuals because of their different capacities, behaviors, power of presence, exert uneven influence within a group ("more than one mind") when that group is pre-cognitively recognizing shared sensation.

When a group of people accomplish this collective task of "bracketing" their experience of external world, and create concepts which when broadly shared is "culture", they are well served to extend these forms forward through space and time. This is done only through preserving consensus and through designating authority.

You see jewish confusion as obscuring or hiding something which exists outside, as "fact", as fundamental independent existence.

I see jewish confusion as inter-social hijacking and perversion of the otherwise social interactive processes natural to groups of men.
As men, we are vulnerable because our culture - the "Western tradition" - posits the realism of external physical and metaphysical entities. This sentiment is embedded in your thinking, within assumptions below your thoughts, as a Western man.

It is natural for any in-group to posit their creations as "real". They are "real" to all members.

It is unique to the "Western tradition" to posit our creations are "real to all men, and all time". We call these concepts universals. All of our thought is rationalized in relation to them. This is what it means to be "Western" in culture. People can acquire the worldview despite not possessing "western" genetics.
 
Last edited:

Metochan

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
I chose to express the more optimistic angle, but yes, I fully understand and continue to meditate on the other direction as well.

And that’s exactly why I have been able to foster a bit of optimism since the launch of cozy.tv

It’s success has proven that β€˜create your own X’ can actually work and organically grow based on the daily hard work of the creators.
Cozy.tv and odysee.com are the two biggest censor-free platforms out there. Same with Telegram and Signal. Alt-tech is rising and becoming more popular. In 2018 after Charlottesville it was Gab, Wrongthink, PewTube, Vidme and Bitchute that were competing but all of them eventually cucked or cancelled out. And they were comparably small to now. Element (formerly riot.im) is shit, same with MeWe and Mastodon. RocketChat is fucking dead and a pain in the ass to use. Eventually it wouldn't be until this year when alt-tech actually started seeing successes. But even then it's just those platforms I mentioned. DLive/DTube can, does and will censor you, so that one should be avoided. Vimeo the same. Pretty soon we're gonna have to improvise further and make our gmail and google search alternatives that promote redpilled results and filter out cuckshit as the new search engine. And you can keep going from there. The reason Bitchute got cucked was because it's too small and too open to bribery. Most people left that platform because it's completely shit. Same with archive.org which also routinely cucks.
 
Top