This is the greatest and most important organization of thought in the history of the human species

This is the greatest and most important organization of thought in the history of the human species.

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump

What's it's deal?

synopsis?

From the website

Contents:
Preface- Understanding the necessity of working with subjectivity.

Introduction- The Question: Should I continue to exist? Basis of philosophical thought in creating an existence that allows humanity to thrive.

Section 1: Welcome to Not Nothing- The duality of human nature- rejection and destruction, or acceptance and building given the
inherent structure of existence which is- "We have free will, we are not all powerful, we are not all knowing, and we experience the
universe with a biological framework and consciousness."

Section 2: Destruction and Building- Cultivating power, facing powerlessness. Path of destruction involves a lack of self-control,
courage, wonder, and/or humor, with the person succumbing to powerlessness through either wrath, depression, madness, hedonism, or
ignorance due to the lack. Path of building involves self-control, courage, wonder, and a sense of humor.

Section 3: Power, Biology and Society- Maintaining a strong society (and individual) through a balancing of the pursuance of our
animalistic nature completely with a complete rejection, and a balancing of the desire to obtain all-power and the desire to relinquish
all power from oneself. A society comprised of men and women pursuing an animalistic/hedonistic sexual nature will crumble. The polar
nature of masculinity in men and femininity in women must be upheld.

Section 4: A World Completely Off the Mark- Application of the philosophy into the areas of Government, Politics, Economics,
Agriculture, Environment, Science, Crime and Punishment, Mental Illness, The Media/Entertainment/TV/Internet/Porn/Advertising, Lack of
Freedom/Technology/Overpopulation/Overcomplication/Globalism, and The Exploration of Outer Space. Focus is in creating a society in
which people feel the most power, connection with one another, and connection with the universe.

It sounds like /pol the book but less funny.

Pol isn't funny, it is detrimental. Section 3 of the book is very similar to pol but is far more valuable than anything here, it drives deep to the core of the issues, as does the entire book.

Would you mind elaborating on it? How it describes the current status quo, the ideal, and how they fundamentally differ?

It's impossible to explain in a short window because the book covers all areas of the construction of society and multiple levels of understanding of human nature and interaction, but it basically boils down to that people now act destructively towards life as a whole because we do not understand our own human nature (which the book explains perfectly, all having to do with power/powerlessness and free will), and we do not and cannot experience both power and/or wonder any longer due to all of the destructiveness of society (forgetting about nature, our economy is a runaway train in multiple ways, too heavy of a reliance on technology, men and women are against each other, the family unit has been annihilated)

Fuck you Sean. Nobody wants your commie book. Fuck off to reddit you cunt, I reported you last night and I'm doing it again.

It also heavily goes into masculinity, and how it has been destroyed and must be brought back, and how men must strive for a "balanced masculinity" (must not be overly animalistic and power-hungry, but must also retain an animalistic nature and must strive for power, and have self-respect and stoicism. It goes into the sexual realm heavily in terms of man/woman relations. (Promiscuity, hedonism, how women are ruined and men must fight for scraps. No long term thinking in terms of choosing a man or woman to love and start a family with.)

How do you know that you've covered every aspect? How can you be so sure you haven't overlooked something major and that your argument has no weaknesses? I'm gonna read since I already have the PDF but I'm curious.

It all sounds spot-on, but you're not going to get the thread going if everyone has to read an entire book before they can give any relevant reply. I'll check it out, but you'd do well boiling it down to a few points to discuss or grabbing some concise excerpts of it.

Link to PDF?

Because I start at the very core of human nature- our innate relationship with power, meaninglessness, and free will. We exist as beings that are not all-powerful, with no objective purpose, and I say we have the free will to think and act on these two points (It is completely obvious tome that we have some form of free will that I explain in the book) The duality of human nature is that people can act either destructively or constructively given these core tenets, and I can boil down actions to the two paths because some things either lead to the cessation of life or the continuation of life, and as the two paths become more complex, they become easier to understand and identify.

How do you know thats where you should be starting? And how do you know thats the core of human nature? I'm not trying to be a cunt, I'm just asking because I've been working on something similar to what you seem to have created for the last year and I disagree with your starting points. Again, I haven't read it but I plan to.

Thank you for the interest, and you are right. It is difficult for me to boil it down to things because then the message does not have any weight or substance, and it is so all-encompassing that I cannot explain everything so quickly. I wrote the book and I can't even pin down exactly what it is all about but I know how important the concepts are, and I know how revolutionary they are.

Make sure you get the most up to date pdf because I edited it a few times.

www.thefoundationpress.com

What are your starting points so I can see where you are coming from.

Thanks but you didn't answer the question

I'd love to answer that for you right now but I can't. I'm just about to finish school and I'll need a few more months to flesh it out. Maybe I'll contact you when I have something worth sharing. What's your educational background btw?

T. Soon to be MD

I know because I know. I'm not perfect and I'm not God, but I know I've touched upon something deep. I quit college in my senior year. My major was economics. Yes, contact me any time. I'd love to talk with someone about these sort of things.

Dude I know the feel. Almost quit myself but I've got too much invested now. I'll hit you up in a few months cause this is something really important to me.

I'm not gonna get through it all before it 404's, but the talk at the beginning about powerlessness, and different ways of approaching it reminded me of something I listened to. It was an interview with a former navy seal, I think, who'd written a book on leadership. He had this idea of extreme ownership that he'd always get back to. Basically assuming full responsibility over everything, if a team member is underperforming you need to bring him up to par, and if all fails get rid of him. Accepting whatever circumstances and trying to work your way around them. Seemingly discarding the dichotomy of externalities and internalities, the whole process of blame shifting and responsibility in favor of what you can and cannot affect. That it doesn't matter if it's him or you who's underperforming, if you can do something about it you should. I think that's something people get caught up in, if you see someone saying it's not his problem or his responsibility, he's always doing so to defend not doing what he could.

It seems a healthy approach to life, at least on an individual level. Not digging your heels in and moaning about what you deserve and whose fault it is but taking ownership of everything. This is how things are, this is what I've got to work with. You're fat? Maybe do something about it instead of whining about beauty standards and affirming that you too deserve love. You married a whore? Throw her out and get on with your life instead of delving into spite for her failure at upholding her end of the bargain, or the man for "corrupting" her. You're a dumbass trying to get through college? Study like a motherfucker, don't start lobbying against grades(they seriously did here). Accept what you can't change, and fix what you can. It seems a good way of doing away with self-pity and spite. I think a large part of the shift towards positive liberties last century was just an extension of people refusing the responsibility of their own lives.

bump

Sounds pretty similar to National Socialism.

Adding on to this great post. Power is not obtained solely by the individual, but through the collective creation of society and existence by everyone. It is one thing to be a stoic philosopher and isolate yourself from the world and think that you will be happy and powerful by yourself. It is not going to happen no matter how much you push the idea of it. Collective organization and cooperation is needed for the betterment of all. It begins with personal responsibility, but extends to cooperation, though it becomes nuanced as others may inflict powerlessness upon yourself, something that you may truly have no control over.

That's a surface tier ideology. There may be strands of alignment, but it doesn't come close to the depth or breadth of what I have.

I'd be wary making any such statements. It was an actual party politic, driven by a sizable group of very smart men and enacted on the level of a nation. A similar synthesis too, which they were very insistent on it being. Third position, remember?
I don't mean to isolate yourself, but you're the one who'll be stuck living your life so it's up to you to sort that shit out. You're much better off carving out a home in the world as it is than demanding the whole damn thing be remade in your image. I don't think that "I deserve this and that, someone owes me so one of you motherfuckers better cough it up" is a better unifying principle.
>society
>betterment of all
I think universalism is a big mistake here. It's not natural, doesn't fit our instincts. That's not how we, our societies, or ideas evolved.
nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/

> I'd be wary making any such statements
This is what I was talking about. Human nature isn't quite so simple. It has an amazing ability for not knowing what it doesn't know (unknown unknowns - see NNTaleb for more on that). I applaud the effort because this is no small feat but some humility is in order

Of course I haven't figured out everything. I start and end the book by speaking about the impossibility of objectivity or absolute Truth, talk about the feeling of wonder when faced with the unknown, and say that anything I say should be discarded whenever it proves to be false. I call my ideas a temporary subjective foundation for humanity to survive and actualize it's potential in terms of bringing power and happiness to people.

Im gonna try to read it but just know some of this sounds like you're talking out your ass.

I am talking out of my ass here on pol. In the book it may seem in some sections that I am talking out of my ass but look beneath the surface.

Damn I just did it again.