This should be interesting and i am not on a thread fest. this actually fits in with other threads. I also am only just reading tis but am impressed wit begnning so thought i'd 'bookmark' it here. also may...maaaay get thru to Cottontop and show up his pointless dream of 'immortaity', which i am claiming is patriarchal anti-Nature dream shared by Luciferianim and in its modern guise, Transhumanism pssssst---they saaaay that Luciferian philosophy is belief of the Illuminati. the same who did the inside jobs '9/11' etc. so this thread is really jusyt goin for it/ fuk all you who go 'oooooo conspiracy theorist conspiracy theorist!!!' shut UP and learn! Luciferianism: The Religion of Apotheosis www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Luciferianism.htm
Ok i've just finished reading the piece. had imagined it as gonna be longer than it was. and i will study it more later. I have had actual communications with its author in thepast and i'm afriad he got all a bit upset and cut off contact when i claimedhis CHRISTIAN belief was also part of same patriarchal root...! which it IS. "All governing precepts of Luciferianism are encompassed be secular humanism. This is made evident by the philosophy's rejection of teistic morality and enthronement of man as his absolute moral authority" So itis clear to me tat this Luciferianism/Transhumanism is aREACTION to the already oppressive theistic hiearchy of theJudeo Christian Chrurch wit 'God' on 'HIS' throne.....! dig? a REEEACTION. later-when they COULD- the MEN thought....hah fuk that for a dose of salts. we --'we' being the gentry--are now enthroned. and have DOMINION over Nature and thew world, just like thew 'god' they rejected. This becomes a secret elitist occult trip for tose in the know, but its more overy philosophy seeps out to te general polulace giving us mechanistic science. which ALSO claims to be superior to Nature, and Indigenous peoples. Shit te times at these forums i've heard 'science' advocates go on about the 'terrible' Indigenous past' when it was 'livin in caves' and 'we all died young' bla bla. point being that the philosophy of modern dominance affects people not even knowing its secret doctrinal originsas article overviews.
put it thisa way. just went and had a look at you thread titles, and have gone insane from ..BOREDOM!!!!!!!
no dude. it aint old. ypu ar coming from a place that is old tho. i agrees wid you on that. listen up. tell you whats old shall i. your dream of immortality is old----the religionists at these forums goingon, and on....and on with their literalism, is old. etc....mechanistic science is old old old. what i am on about is radiCAL. but you obviously are too tired to see it. let me ask you someting personal. this is no waymeant to be bitchy in any way, and you dont have to answer it. i WAS going to try and ask you yesterady when i read you say it in another thread. but you'd pissed me off. You said yyu had a bad thing going with your mama. do you tink tis is why you seeem to be hostile to me going on about patriarchy...? dont just hurry back. think about what i is asking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Sound pretty close to my views, I don't see what is so patriarchal about it. The technology = patriarchy and nature = matriarchy idea sounds like a romatization of neolithic Europeans among radical feminists and eco-luddites resulting from crazy assumptions from crazy philosphers connecting exploitation of nature with subjegation of women (similar in craziness as the supposed "tall buildings = phallus worship = patriarchy" BS), as well as the biased interpretation of Lithuanian-American archeologist Marija Gimbutas, who, IMO, greatly exagerated the supossed "matriarchal" nature of neolithic Europeans. Technology is not anti-nature, it is pro-nature (a position called Technogianism) because it increases the effeciency of resourse exploitation. By the time agriculture became widespread humanity had reached the maximum ecologically sustainable population allowed for hunter gathers, about 10 million, the hunting to extinction of various megafaunal species shows that. Agriculture ment a much smaller amount of land was neccissary to feed the same amount of people, easing the damage on the enviroment untill the period just before the Industrial revolution, when the population of pre-argicultural farming populations reached thier ecological limit, only for that limit to be raised again with industrial scale agriculture. The problem is not technology, it is over-population.
Duendy, I'm not hostile about your beliefs in mother nature or a patriarchal society, but I am tired of hearing about it as an explanation for everything you talk about. I don't care to hear it anymore because I don't buy it. You sound like a broken record. My relationship with my mother is fine. She is a bit of a controlling bitch at times, but she is still my mother, and I don't blame her unduly for being an imperfect human being. In fact, because she is my mother, I tend to cut her more slack than I do most other people for being imperfect.
As i said itis directlybecause of patriarchal va.ues we HAVE over population. And tis homge to technology you are going on with is disastr for Nature. it is the 'heroic' males attempt to out do natural process/Nature. i am not anti-techm i am talking about the mindset which is runnin it! LOOK softlad. we NOW have technology which uses fukin depleted uranium which is POISONING the very fabric of Nature and causing genocide and slow lingering death for young soldiers fighting for the military industrial fukin complex.
so.....hows ya'll eeling about this...? see its not gettin attention....and i wonder why. maybe i shoulda tited it someting like 'Luci's comin to GEt YA!!!...? but i am really curious what you think, positive, negative and maybe. for a start Collins starts his piece quite boldy stating: "Luciferianism constitutes the nucleus of te ruling class religion" are you buying that...? if so, why? how did you become familiar wit this? for me this became more and more apparent to me after particularly the London Bombings/ '7/7', whenre i was triamtaically inspired to start delvng deep into the mire of all tis. whereas before i'd taken all the cpnspiracy theoryabout te 'Illuminati' with a pinch of salt, i inevitably had to face it post that ewvent in my inquiries If you DON't buy this statement---ie, opening sentence of Phillip Collins, why not? dont just come back with cheap ridicule. really tell me why not! i am interested Isn't it important to study myth? do you thikall of that finised in last epoch and pople dont need myth no mo?
