Colohoax confirmed

The stories seemed to be [orchestrated] by far-right parties and organisations and I wanted to try to find some way to help organise this – maybe find patterns and give people a tool to look up these stories [when] they were being confronted with new ones.” …

The debunked cases marked on the map range from thefts and assaults to manslaughter – but one of the most common topics is rape …

One week in, Hoaxmap has featured some 240 incidents, mainly from Germany but also Austria and Switzerland.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/debunks-false-rumours-refugee-crimes-160216153329110.html

http://hoaxmap.org/

I told you so.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Colohoax confirmed

  1. Magnus Anderson says:

    Absolutism is a belief that there is a single direction of development that everyone should adopt. It is a belief in the rank of directions, with many directions being inferior, and thus inadequate, and one direction being superior, and thus adequate.

    Absolutism, however, makes no claim whether such a rank of directions is determined on the subjective or objective ground. It is, however, almost always accompanied by a belief that one’s rank is objectively, and not subjectively, determined. However, such a belief need not be true.

    With this in mind, it is possible for absolutism to be subjective. Thus, absolutism can either be objective or subjective, albeit not in belief — for in belief it is always objective — but only in practice.

    Before I proceed to give a clear definition of objective and subjective modes of judgment, I will provide an example of subjectively established hierarchy of directions.

    It will be a very basic example. Let’s say we have a man claiming that the best way to live our lives is by trying to make everyone commit suicide. Let all other possible lifestyles be said to be inferior. You may ask for reasons, but there aren’t really any reasons. The only reason is “because he says so”. Randomly. Out of nowhere. Nonetheless, he can go on and use various tools at his disposal — such as, for example, science — in order to rationalize his opinion, which is to say, to make it appear as if it was objectively determined.

    The subjectivity of such an opinion reveals itself in the fact that it is grounded in nothing but whim. One can, in fact, change such an opinion at any point in time, by grounding it in a different whim. And whims being many, rather than one, it becomes apparent that subjectivism, whether absolutist or relativist, is fundamentally relativistic.

    Objective judgment is any judgment that ranks options using an absolute reference point. It starts with many options, and then by comparing them in relation to an absolute reference point, it ends up with one. (This is an information processing strategy known as “bottom-up”.)

    Subjective judgment, on the other hand, is a judgment that ranks options using a relative reference point. It starts with an arbitrarily chosen option — considered relative by people who are honest (relativists) and absolute by people who are dishonest (subjective absolutists) — and then seeks as many reasons as possible that can justify it. Such a choice, then, becomes a reference point for judgment of all subsequent choices. (This is an information processing strategy known as “top-down”.)

    Basically, objective judgment is what happens when one is free to choose, whereas subjective judgment is what happens when on is forced to choose.

    (As you can see, I use the terms objective and subjective in EPISTEMIC sense, not in ONTIC sense.)

    There is only one absolute reference point, and that absolute reference point is purity of feelings, otherwise known as quality. (Quality, however, must not be confused with pleasure.)

    There is another dimension to subjectivism. Subjectivism can either be introverted or extraverted.

    In introverted subjectivism, the relative reference point is internal. An introverted subjectivist aims to preserve his own corrupted feelings. We can also say that an introverted subjectivist is a subjectivist who creates rules based on how he feels, and who, in certain cases but not always, proceeds to impose such rules onto everyone else.

    In extraverted subjectivism, the relative reference point is external. An extraverted subjectivist aims to preserve foreign feelings, whether they are corrupt or not, organic or inorganic. In effect, he corrupts his own feelings by adopting foreign feelings wholesale. We can also say that an extraverted subjectivist is a subjectivist who obeys rules.

    Many positions that are nowadays considered objectivist are in actuality subjectivist.

    Ayn Rand’s position, described as “objectivism”, is in actuality subjectivism. Her position is better described as “rational self-interest”. The word “self-interest” implies subjectivism, whereas the word “rational” implies objectivism in a very limited sense, as a means to preserve subjectivism.

    Sam Harris says that “morality is objective” in the sense that “science can answer moral questions”. He appears to be promotimg objectivism, but in reality, he is promoting extraverted subjectivism. What he is saying is “I will try to enforce my own — actually, not even my own — subjective feelings onto you by appealing to a false authority that is science. You will obey, not me, but science, and by obeying science, you will be obeying me. You will feel proud of your objectivity, safe from the knowledge that it is no objectivity at all.”

    Science cannot be an authority because science is not a living being — it is without feelings. Science can at best be used to purify one’s feelings, which implies it is a means, and not an authority. This applies to laws in general. (Refer to my comment on deontology for further info.)

    Among rightists, we have subjectivists who are either honest or dishonest about their relativism.

    Honest subjectivists admit that their absolutism is limited only to their own people. Outside of their own people, their absolutism does not apply. In other words, there is no better/worse when it comes to different cultures. Every culture should strive to preserve itself, which is to say, should develop in its own direction. Better/worse only applies within cultures, which is to say, to people of the same nature (e.g. ethnicity.)

    Dishonest subjectivists, on the other hand, may or may not allow foreign cultures to preserve themselves, but in any case they believe in hierarchy. They either consider their own culture to be superior (most often the case) or some other culture to be superior (rarely the case.) In both cases, their value judgments are fundamentally subjective, though they can appear to be objective, either due to rationalizations, or due to excessive extraversion/open-mindedness.

  2. AS says:

    @Magnus

    “Which means exactly what?”

    Which means that when you ascribe properties to “Aryans” that have nothing to do with how we (etymologically accurately) use the term, and cannot be derived from our evolutionary model (how does farming select against neuroticism more strongly than hunting/herding do?), you are behaving no fundamentally differently than when Racist Right tells us “Aryan=White”.

    “That you do not consider that one of the things that separate you from other people is the ability to manage difficult feelings?”

    Indeed I do not. In my estimation, Jews are typically by far the most adept at managing difficult feelings. They apply the same adeptness to “managing” (ie. manipulating) the difficult feelings of most non-Jews to Jewish advantage. Aryans are least susceptible to Jewish manipulation, but only because NOBODY can manage our difficult feelings, including not only Jews but also ourselves.

    “It is a conventional wisdom that narcissistic standards are defined by a parent who has been internalized in the form of fear.”

    A movement such as Aryanism whose aim is to introduce a new worldview can be expected to challenge many “conventional wisdoms”.

    “People who are dominated by fear are not capable of the idea of “enough”. This applies to narcissists, who fear the voice of their critical parents popping up in their minds at any time. They never really feel “good enough”.”

    How can they be incapable of the idea of “enough” when the idea of “not being good enough” is intellectually impossible without the idea of “enough” as a building block?

    “Let’s take another kind of neurosis: do anorexics understand the concept of “enough”? Anorexics are never slim enough . . .”

    Some anorexics are satisfied once they reach certain pre-defined body measurements (ie. application of the concept of “enough”). As for anorexics who are never satisfied, their mindset is “I could be slimmer still!” (ie. indefinite progress ie. REJECTION of the concept of “enough”).

    “And what about people who, motivated by the belief that they are “not good looking enough”, end up taking too many plastic surgeries?”

    Do they have a fixed ideal of beauty in their minds and only wish to reach this fixed ideal via plastic surgery (ie. application of “enough”), or does flawless acquisition of each requested look via plastic surgery devalue that very look in their minds and hence lead them to seek out yet another one (ie. rejection of “enough”)?

    “That’s the conventional use of the term.”

    So Narcissus could not abandon his reflection because he thought his reflection was not beautiful enough?????

    “Absolutism, however, makes no claim whether such a rank of directions is determined on the subjective or objective ground. It is, however, almost always accompanied by a belief that one’s rank is objectively, and not subjectively, determined.”

    We believe it is subjectively determined. (And that this is a good thing.)

    “Thus, absolutism can either be objective or subjective, albeit not in belief — for in belief it is always objective — but only in practice.”

    I repeat: in our belief, it is subjective. Therefore your claim that it is in belief always objective is false.

    “The subjectivity of such an opinion reveals itself in the fact that it is grounded in nothing but whim. One can, in fact, change such an opinion at any point in time, by grounding it in a different whim. And whims being many, rather than one, it becomes apparent that subjectivism, whether absolutist or relativist, is fundamentally relativistic.”

    Your argument that the changeability of such an opinion discredits it is based on a false premise, namely “whims being many, rather than one”. A subjective absolutist by definition has one whim only. Otherwise, he would remember believing Whim1 to be absolute while being possessed by Whim1, and now believing Whim2 to be absolute while being possessed by Whim2, which would cast doubt in his own mind on the absoluteness of both, so that he would no longer be a subjective absolutist.

    “Objective judgment is any judgment that ranks options using an absolute reference point.”
    “Subjective judgment, on the other hand, is a judgment that ranks options using a relative reference point.”

    You yourself stated in an earlier comment (2016/5/10 3:38PM) :

    “Absolutism is a belief that value judgments have an absolute reference point.
    Relativism is a belief that value judgments have a relative reference point.”

    You also stated in the same comment:

    “I make a distinction between objective/subjective and absolute/relative”

    So please do so. When you make statements such as:

    “subjectivism, whether absolutist or relativist, is fundamentally relativistic”

    you are doing the opposite of what you say you do.

  3. Handschar says:

    @AS

    [Quote] [...] In my estimation, Jews are typically by far the most adept at managing difficult feelings. They apply the same adeptness to “managing” (ie. manipulating) the difficult feelings of most non-Jews to Jewish advantage. Aryans are least susceptible to Jewish manipulation, but only because NOBODY can manage our difficult feelings, including not only Jews but also ourselves. [End quote]

    “How is it possible that suffering that is neither my own nor of my concern should immediately affect me as though it were my own, and with such force that is moves me to action?” Arthur Schopenhauer

  4. @Handschar – Nice quote! That really captures it well. Aryan blood is stirred to passionate action before even the rational mind could kick in to try to rationalise why we shouldn’t be involved to bring justice.

  5. Magnus Anderson says:

    I wanted to do an in-depth analysis, but it’s taking too much of my time. So I decided I will just write a quick comparison between subjectivism and objectivism. More at another point in time.

    *

    SUBJECTIVISM is the negative theory of truth according to which there is no objective reality. The idea is that we do not have direct access to reality. Hence, it is often said that we do not sense, but fantasize (but not necessarily in the conscious way that we normally mean by the word fantasize.)

    This is based on the assumption that mental functions are purely interpretative (i.e. representational.) It is no doubt based on the observation that brain is physically confined within the skull and out of direct contact with its physical surroundings. Hence, it is treated as a sandbox of randomly generated mental constructs that are said to persist, not because they are real, but quite simply because they randomly persist (a higher level interpretation would be that they persist because they were reinforced by natural selection.) This culminates with Baudrillard’s claim that “the simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth — it is the truth which conceals that there is none” which is merely a different phrasing of “the truth is there is no truth” which means that everything we perceive is a mental construct.

    Quantum Mechanics interpretations that make a claim that there are no laws to the universe, meaning that, patterns are epistemic (fictional) rather than ontic (real), are in line with this way of thinking.

    Subjectivism has origins in Heraclitus and his concept of flux which embodies the idea that ultimate reality is change. This is in contrast to Plato who thought that the ultimate reality is substance.

    Subjectivism is quite simply “might is right” raised to the level of ontology. Nietzsche calls it “will to power”.

    Heraclitus, Protagoras, Nietzsche and Baudrillard were all subjectivists.

    *

    OBJECTIVISM is the positive theory of truth according to which there IS objective reality. The idea is that we have direct access to reality which is why it is believed that we do not fantasize, but sense.

    It is grounded in the concept of immediate knowledge which rejects the assumption that mental functions are purely interpretative. The main characteristic of immediate knowledge is that it is absolutely true. In other words, it cannot be false.

    Objectivism, unlike subjectivism, makes a clear distinction between immediate and mediate senses. Mediate senses, otherwise known as representational senses, are senses that sense the workings of other senses. What we normally mean by thinking, for example, is a mediate sense because its purpose is in actuality talking — to represent the process of acquisition of immediate knowledge for the purpose of communication. People normally think that thinking works through words, but this is wrong. Words are merely the end process of representation of immediate knowledge, knowledge that we have acquired through immediate senses. Thinking qua immediate sensing is more akin to intuition, but is not intuition because intuition is normally taken to be interpretative (i.e. enumerating all the possible ways in which reality can be, rather than sensing what reality is.) Nonetheless, what is interesting about intuition, and what relates it to immediate sensing, is two things: one, that intuition is word-less; and two, that upon acquiring insight one simply knows without being able to explain how he knows. This is characteristic of immediate sensing.

    The question now becomes: because immediate knowledge is absolutely true, how do people end up being wrong?

    And the answer is: through interference from the outside. Interference increases sensory load, and when this sensory load becomes sensory overload, also known as confusion, one is at risk of explosion. Mistakes occur only as a consequence of explosion.

    Hence why my epistemology can be summed up as:

    “There is no mistake other than that of exploded confusion.”

    Hence the two forces: the force of implosion, represented by vortex symbols (e.g. swastika); and the force of explosion, represented by star symbols (e.g. Star of David, Vergina Sun, etc.)

    Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Hitler were all objectivists.

    *

    One of the things that has corrupted everyone’s connection to immediate senses is the need for justification. People have lost the ability to distinguish between SENSING and JUSTIFYING. They no longer know that there is a very important distinction between the two.

    Sensing is about seeing reality as it is. Justifying, on the other hand, is about convincing others that you are seeing reality as it is.

    Knowledge is NOT justified true belief. Knowledge is simply immediate knowledge.

    First, saying that knowledge is a “true belief”, which is to say, that knowledge is a belief that depicts reality as it is, does not say much, because the main question remains unanswered, it being how do we depict reality as it is. The only answer is: through immediate knowledge. Hence, “true belief” should be replaced with immediate knowledge. Thus we get: knowledge is justified immediate knowledge.

    Second, in order to remain knowledge, knowledge need not be justified. The only condition is for it to be immediate knowledge. Justification is useful, but justification is NOT a requirement.

    For example, if I witness a flying saucer, then that would be true no matter how incapable I am of convincing others.

    The need for justification is often a burden placed on us from without. It is a sign of other people being BOTHERED by what we see and thus MOTIVATED to prove that we are wrong by demanding that we justify ourselves before we are allowed to take our immediate knowledge for truth.

    Socrates seems to have been part of the problem. He went around Athens infecting everyone with doubt until everyone lost connection to immediate senses.

    Science continues this Socratic tradition by demanding that method of inquiry be formalized so that everyone can make use of it. In this way, sensing becomes reduced to MEDIATE sensing. The purpose of this is manifold, one being to reduce social disagreements.

    Scientists, thus, are subjectivists, not objectivists. They may be MATERIAL OBJECTIVISTS, but material objectivism in itself is a form of subjectivism.

    *

    Because subjectivists believe everything is a fantasy, they suffer from bad conscience (or original sin.) Thus, they need to prove themselves, which is why they hold competition in high regard. Fantasizing can only be justified under the pressure of natural selection.

    Hence, they take anti-Neolithic stance, seeing settled lifestyle, and peace in general, as something undesirable, something that merely promotes laziness.

    They are the true nihilists as they believe that life is fundamentally meaningless. (They will, however, spin this around to make it look as if we are nihilists.)

  6. Magnus Anderson says:

    “We believe it is subjectively determined. (And that this is a good thing.)”

    I am of the firm opinion that you have absolutely no clue what subjectivism is and are merely adopting the term because scientists have taken the term objectivism for themselves.

    Plato wasn’t a subjectivist. He was an objectivist who thought that Forms are objectively real. He didn’t think that Forms are merely subjective (i.e. mental constructs.)

    You are confusing two very different dichotomies: that of autonomy/heteronomy and that of objectivism/subjectivism.

    When you say “subjectively determined” what you mean is “autonomously determined”.

    It’s interesting to note that only objectivists are autonomous.

    ———
    You said:
    “”"”"”"”"

    You also stated in the same comment:

    “I make a distinction between objective/subjective and absolute/relative”

    So please do so. When you make statements such as:

    “subjectivism, whether absolutist or relativist, is fundamentally relativistic”

    you are doing the opposite of what you say you do.

    “”"”"”"”
    ——–

    These are trivial mistakes. You are accusing me of not understanding other people’s lies. I don’t care if I don’t understand other people’s lies. What I care about is truth, and what is truth is that objectivism is inseparable from absolutism just as subjectivism is inseparable from relativism. THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO IS PURELY MENTAL AND PRACTICALLY USELESS. These are lies created in order to confuse. Whoever subscribes to absolutism must also subscribe to objectivism. The fact they can mentally separate these concepts PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    “I repeat: in our belief, it is subjective. Therefore your claim that it is in belief always objective is false.”

    Yes, I am wrong, but only because beliefs are mental constructs that can be created in any sort of way. These are trivial mistakes.

    “So Narcissus could not abandon his reflection because he thought his reflection was not beautiful enough?????”

    You are not talking to me. You are talking to hallucinations.

    “Jews are typically by far the most adept at managing difficult feelings.”

    Depends on what you mean by “managing difficult feelings”.

  7. Magnus Anderson says:

    AS,

    “In my estimation, Jews are typically by far the most adept at managing difficult feelings. They apply the same adeptness to “managing” (ie. manipulating) the difficult feelings of most non-Jews to Jewish advantage. Aryans are least susceptible to Jewish manipulation, but only because NOBODY can manage our difficult feelings, including not only Jews but also ourselves.”

    I am afraid — really afraid — that you’re doing nothing here but subscribing to the popular interpretation of why we behave the way we behave. The popular interpretation is that we behave the way we behave because we find it difficult to manage our feelings.

    I am an HSP:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person

    As an HSP, I am easily overwhelemed. I feel too much. I can easily absorb other people’s feelings and I can sense the subtlest of vibes in the environment. There’s just too much going on. And because there’s too much going on, it appears, and only appears, that I am less adept at managing my feelings.

    But the very fact that I can feel so much is a proof, not of my inability to manage my feelings, but of my ability to manage them. For if I were unable to manage them, I would have exploded them, and by exploding them, I would have felt nothing but pleasure. In plain terms, I would have become desensitized.

    In order to determine who among the two is the stronger one you have to take into account the forces they are wrestling with. If you skip this step and simply assume that they are wrestling with forces of equal intensity, you will end up with skewed results. And that’s what happens when other people try to interpret us: they assume that we’re wrestling with the same force they are wrestling with. And because the forces they are wrestling with are non-existent ones — because they have deflected them — they assume that we’re simply weak. (How can they fail to deal with such literally non-existent forces? They must be very weak!)

    It is HSP’s who are better at managing difficult feelings, not non-HSP’s.

    The fact that HSP’s can at times be explosive proves nothing, for their explosions are shallow, laughable compared to those of non-HSP’s.

    The fact that HSP’s can explode at times when noone else does is not a proof of their inability to manage difficult feelings, but a proof of other people’s inability not to explode difficult feelings.

    Reality is something that FLOWS INTO US. Reality is NOT something that we FETCH using biological or technological tools, let alone something that we CREATE. Reality REVEALS itself to us and we either ACCEPT it or we REJECT it (by exploding/deflecting it.) This is known as “immaculate perception” (which Nietzsche calls “mere fiction” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.)

    This means that suffering of others FLOWS into people whether they want it or not. This means that empathy is not a biological tool that only those who possess it can use to fetch reality of other people’s suffering. There is no such a thing as “fetching” on spiritual level. Fetching is purely materialistic concept. On spiritual level, things simply flow in, and the function of spirit is merely to maintain this flow by protecting against explosion. (Note also that spiritual concepts of explosion and implosion are DISTINCT from those of material realm. For example, spiritual implosion can lead to material explosion.)

    Nikola Tesla, who subscribed to Aether Theorie, famously said:
    “There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.”

    He was close, but not close enough. He had a considerable materialistic bent that lead him to proclaim that universe is one giant machine (wrong) and to embrace behaviorism (again, wrong, because behaviorism is the very evil we have to fight against.)

    Perhaps, it is better to state the following:
    “There is no energy in spirit other than that received from the environment.”

    This is supposed to reflect the fact that spirit is not energy (materialism, instinct), nor something that creates energy (“magic stick” concept of will), but that which maintains the flow of energy coming from without (the true meaning of the concept of will.)

    Tesla rejected the first, but apparently subscribed to the second, which is still materialistic, but not as materialistic as the former. Hence, he subscribed to tabula rasa. Nonetheless, though he made a mistake, he was still pretty close.

    Spirit is not tabula rasa. It is similar to it in the sense that spirit is at its purest at birth. We are born with it, just as it is said that we are born tabula rasa. And it changes with time, just as is it said that tabula rasa changes. But spirit is originally perfect which means that any further changes to it are merely regressive, which is different from tabula rasa which is considered originally imperfect and in need of indefinite improvement. Spirit is also not made out of tabula (slate) and pen (used to write on the slate.) There is, quite simply, no such a thing as slate (material world is NOT a slate.) There is nothing to write on, whether blank or not. Nothing to erase either. There is also nothing to write with either. True will is not a pen. True will merely maintains the flow. It does not insert new stuff into this flow.

    Nietzsche said that “free will”, by which he meant magic will, was invented by priests to make people submissive by making them too responsible for their choices. And he was right: the purpose of magic will is to make people too open-minded such that others can insert their own ideas into them with the aim to force them to abandon their immediate knowledge in favor of inserted mediate knowledge. Nonetheless, Nietzsche, because he knew nothing about true will, ended up endorsing instinct, of which he spoke in terms of strong and weak wills. These terms — strong and weak wills — is not representative of true will for several reasons. There is only one will. There are no multiple wills. And will is either pure (free) or it is impure (unfree.) Nietzsche wants us to believe that there are multiple wills and that they can gain strength indefinitely. This is, clearly, not true will, but instinct. In WTP, he goes on to proclaim that there is no such a thing as will, that will is merely a metaphor for a stable hierarchy of drives, which reveals that he is not speaking of will, but of instincts.

    In iconography, instinct (centrifugal explosion, pure materialism, right) is represented by star symbols (e.g. Star of David, Vergina Sun, Union Jack, American flag, etc), magic will (centripetal explosion, tabula rasa materialism, false left) is represented by Earth symbols (e.g. United Nations flag), and true will (centripetal implosion, true left) is represented by vortex symbols (e.g. swastika.)

    All of this is important because it is necessary not to be distracted by lies that will makes us believe that there is no spiritual distinction between us and our enemies.

    If you believe that the sole distinction between the two forces — the force of good and the force of evil — is merely the fact that the force of good possesses certain biological tools (e.g. empathy) that the force of evil does not, you are already succumbing to what the force of evil wants you to believe: that there is no spiritual distinction at all.

    Possession is a materialistic concept. There is no such a thing as possession on spiritual level.

    Do you subscribe to theory of evolution? Do you think that these biological tools such as empathy are a product of generations of random changes that were naturally culled?

    This is materialism. That’s what they want us to believe. That empathy is just a tool, randomly evolved but naturally selected, that allows us to feel other living being’s feelings, and that this tool can either be present in an individual or not, and that the distinction between us and them is merely that of THEM NOT POSSESSING THESE TOOLS.

    This is how they TRIVIALIZE their own behavior such that we can no longer do what comes naturally to us to do to them.

    There is a difference between someone who is NOT SENSING and someone who is sensing but is DEFLECTING what he’s sensing. And that’s my main point. Those who have to deflect that which they sense are poor at managing their feelings, even if they appear not to be so.

    Batman’s Joker is the embodiment of the force of explosion.

  8. Magnus Anderson says:

    What I am going to do now is I am going to show an example of someone confusing the distinction between immediate knowledge and mediate knowledge. I will also show the consequences that follow from such a confusion. This someone will be none other than our very own AS. The extent to which this is a mistake on his part is unknown to me, for he’s a strategic thinker, and strategic thinkers are not concerned with describing reality as it is as much as they are concerned with using whatever words they can in order to inspire people into action. Their words tend to be metaphorical (lateral) rather than analytical (literal), and this is fine, so as long they understand this. But it can become a problem, and we’ll see how in a moment.

    In an effort to redefine violence such that it no longer means “physical damage”, which itself is a consequence of confusion between immediate knowledge (spontaneous sense of violence) and mediate knowledge (what is thought to be violence), he ends up defining violence as “lack of consent”. In doing so, he manages to make the definition more accurate, but he fails to make it absolutely accurate. In fact, he creates new problems.

    Violence is NOT lack of consent. Rather, lack of consent is an expression of mediate knowledge of violence that would occur in the case that the proposed action takes place. The emphasis is on “mediate knowledge”. This means that lack of consent is an expression of what one THINKS would happen, and not an expression of what WILL happen. It can be an expression of what WILL happen, but only indirectly, under the condition that what one thinks is what will happen (which means that mediate knowledge is reflecting immediate knowledge, rather than simply floating in the air.) What this means is that lack of consent does not necessarily signify violence.

    More important than that is the reverse case where consent does not signify non-violence. Just because someone consents does not mean that we will not violate him. This is why the immediate sense of how our actions are going to impact others is more important than the mediate sense of communication. In fact, it should be our preferred mode of interacting with the world. There should ideally be no need to ask others for consent. There should be no need for verbal communication at all. Everything should be IMMEDIATE. We hold immediacy in extremely high regard. Unfortunately, because we cannot always immediately sense, we are offered, and we often use, the alternative option of verbal communication. This is fine, so as long as we do not forget that verbal communication is merely a crutch, and not a preferred mode of interaction.

    To take consent for granted, thus, would be one of the negative consequences of such a definition of violence. But there is another one.

    If violence means lack of consent, then whenever we interact with someone (or something) without first obtaining their consent we are violating them (or it.)

    This forbids immediacy. No spontaneous interaction is allowed with anything. We must, in all cases, ask for consent before we engage in interaction. Either that, or we have to permit violence in certain cases, which brings its own set of problems. Ultimately, this either paralyzes us, as it forces us to stop using our own body because we didn’t ask for its consent, or it forces us to suffer from bad conscience as a consequence of our “necessary violence”.

    The problem is that consent is something that exists within MATERIAL REALM, whereas violence is something that exists within SPIRITUAL REALM. Without understanding the difference between the two, and without understanding THE ANATOMY OF SPIRIT, it is impossible to logically represent violence with absolute accuracy.

    There is no violence in the material, just as there is no sound in the visible, no touch in the fragrant, and no beauty in the cold. These are separate realms.

    Scientists are trying to gaslight consciousness out of existence by attempting to reduce it to material — to what they call brain. But there is no consciousness in material and there can never be. Material realm is LIMITED to material realm. Asking for consciousness in material realm is like asking for sound in the visible.

  9. RP says:

    @AS
    “(Higher-calibre Aryans torture themselves not even because they initiated violence, but merely because they failed to stop as much initiated violence (by others) as they wished they could have.)”

    After failing to deliver on my promises to contribute to the movement, I am seriously considering this option.

  10. Nottelling says:

    Like , the problem is u guys MISDEFINE violence. I can tell u are mostly jains and Buddhists because they have a twisted view of violence. Actually , all religions have twisted toxic world views , but I don’t want to go off on too many tangents. Violence is NOT causing physical damage. It is violating someone’s basic rights. This is why veganism is wrong, and even ur vehement anti tribalism. Certain creatures have less rights than others. And affection for ur own kind is not wrong in itself. Who do u love more, ur mother, or the neighbors mother ? Also, u contradict yourselves. Like u claim that milking a cow is violence but u supported the genocide of the Russian people. Also , u claim the material world is evil , and that life is evil, but u oppose killing animals. Why? If the material world really is evil, then aren’t I doing the chicken a favor when I kill and eat it ? Aren’t I liberating it’s soul from material existence ?
    Also, there’s other things that I don’t get

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>