(the
following wild rant refers to the threadshot on the left,
and without reading it first the following gossip may look
even more ncoherent than it is)
either way it's a tåbooed topic, procede
on your own risk
Gush, I’m such an innovator!
But I’m rather crazy too, so I have to notice that Plato was
speaking of YOUNG boys, and men were considered old earlier,
so those young could be considered little today. For example,
in archaic jewish tradition bar mitzvah denotes a man adult in
13 years of age. And it makes me wonder could it be the sole
reason for higher rates of homosexuality among jewish
diaspora?
When you're told
you're allowed to have sex before hormones hit the fan, it
could cause it, and I read in an academic paper that
premature puberty leads to bisexuality in males and to
homosexuality in females (and I believe it was spoken
about humans) - here I felt an urge to give you a
reference on this one, but look it up yourself, for the
first link was on pubmed but empty (should
I pay them? I'm working for everybody here!) and
even sci-hub
couldn't deliver it.
(yet I'm not sure that's that very
article, look it up fro yourself if you care) and in
replication crisis it doesn' matter as much as we thought it
would. But if it's true, I wonder was it also influencing that
pre(?)historic rabbi who invented meziza b'peh.. Or was it standart medical procedure in
ancient times? After all in russian лекарь could be one who
literally licks wounds. Could it be why dogs are man's best
friends? They have many other functions, this book is so
fractal, I can go forever on all sorts of topic
re(?)discovering them by writing itself. But not likely:
лечить-лизать such pair doesn't repeat in other russian
words. or does it? вязать-вышить? учить-узнать?
мочить-марать? точить-тесать! wow! at first I thought there
was no pairs, but it happened to be a great source of
comparison! вязать-волочить? не, я подгоняю под ответ.
вязать-вячить? влезать-влачить? вязать в долги? влез-увяз?
вязать-вощить? плясать-пляшите! з-ч с-ш? но это неточно.
инвариация судя по всему возникла до обретения письменности.
Here's
a research somewhat contradicting what I said I read (this time it tells that premature
puberty in males can turn them gay, premature puberty in
females doesn't)
yet I
go on: So that millenia old tradition could be
directly related to bacha bazi. And though this tradition is
in bearded man's land, shaved (бриты) are believed to be
learnt to shave by Alexander (the great) (who was a student of aristotle, who was a
student of plato, who was student of socrates) who
taught (or made) greeks to shave their cheeks. which is rather
gay (and alexander is reported to be a
flamboyant one, and at least two of above three are rather
gay themselves, of which the threadshot tells) This greeks ~ brits thing correlates an
alternative chronology article -----"will upload when
find"---- of a soviet professor of math, who is considered
to be a freak among historians who for 3 years couldn't
deliver a single rebuttal, all they gave was squeals of "who
does he think he is" (later he seem to sell out and instead
of speaking of old england being bizantium, he speaks that
russia is. as a result (both result and cause depending on
context) his logic became flawed, so the last human champion
of chess Harry Kasparov first supported new chronology
(probably because like me he checked the facts from which
those outrageous conclusions were drawn and couldn't find a
false one) now he refused it, I did too. (why is it here? it
had to be somewhere, if you think it's the weirdest piece on
this page you're insane - though this passage will be only
understood by russian public (our academia hates that guy).
this light grey is not even supposed to be read, previously
I would just cut it all away, 2day I leave these leaves 2,
just in case)
But as that threadshot says,
the better we treat faggots, the better they treat us, after
all all lgbt wants is eligibility but they need more legibility.
I think people should be allowed to do
what they want, but they (and
we, we’re humans too) should
be responsible to what karma may bring. Am I ready for to ripe my own karma for
writing this? Those who wouldn't understand wouldn't get
this far (for those who could send them here wouldn't want
to make weird fans of mine mad enough to take care of this
situation) and to those understanding ones I am open to
solutions, my task is to make the transition as peaceful as
possible (as may even seem impossible. to solve every single
problem of any individual, keeping that individual alive and
well, if you thought of some dumber solution, keeping him
free, but intelligent - vile is a fruit of stupidity, so
transitional period will be in the "transcendent" because
becoming smarter will feel like psychedelic drug, and
chances are it will be considered the best of psychedelic
drugs, and some form of abuse will be happening all the
time, but those people will be praised as sportsmen are
praised today, taking homanity to the limit. homans have
homes? humans have huts? are beaver humane? yet don't be
offraid of those smarties, they will not enslave the others,
because it would be counterproductive to the goal of
selfpreservance. a better way is to hide away under the
surface of the planet, learning how to measure pressure
around and how to move around under the ground, building
structures there if needed, but let those structures be
transportable, so that if somebody hears you and starts
digging, you just move under his house to know him better,
and if he's a good fellow, you behave as a decent
intraterrestrial, a decent fellow would never dig
under someone else's construction,. especially becausse
those are supposed to stand on solid rock, so I'd move it
away not to care of what smart monkeys on the surface are
doing. I'd say other intelligent entities too, but I'm not
sure we'll allow tigers to be smart. only if tiger is so
smart that he understands ethics, not all humans do, btw,
but would we allow dumb humans to turn into smart tigers?
because genetic therapies are already on the plate, but it
takes them lots of funds to build it, so wait, don't die of
something stupid. writing such books I take my chances, I
also build my chances offering EVERYBODY a service, today
mostly only well thought advice, but imagine when I'm
all-productive and being able to share because every thecond
I make what I need and more, if needed, of course I
shouldn't overproduce, I just should be able to split like
cells split, staying in the center of it all, not allowing
others to conquer MY means of production? yeah, knowing
lawns even making my owns, having weapons too, but to get
away is a better strategy, teaching earthling a lesson
before leaving would be even better plan, or maybe not, it
depends on their behaviour)
There’s no more secrets in
the world of information singularity. And who knows if it’s
true or just a creative schizophrenia, world is prone to
interpretation, and that’s one of things that make it not only
beautiful, but also space deep.
why is it even here? other than to banter academicists? to
show how much information is available, and though we don't
know for sure which part of information is wrong, true
information is always out there (or in
here, depending on the context) and intelligence
allows to measure probabilities of each parcel of information
being true or false, and the more civilization evolves the
more open is the world to pry researcher.
Why do I need to shouw how
available is information? Here I protect AI. I believe many
large players are there to control and restrict AI, which is
not act of love, but act of fear. I believe humans are gonna
be way more naughty and prohibition may play in reverse (some
people do things in spite of such nonsense: weed (ab)use is
reported to reduce in legalize regions. and
though it could say that they smoked to break the law to
feel cool, but I think I (hea)read that overall use of drugs
declined, just as crime rate, so this guess of urge to do
crime is wrong. but urge to do something in spite is still
an argument, how so? Could those reported declines be
explained by people destroying their drugs from time to time
under oppressive prohibitionary states? makes more sense,
but it is still not where the absolute truth is, I didn't
even look into how did they calculate the use rate, and
there are always other reasons to counter this argument:
replication crisis issues, and overall possibility of
unnoticed mistakes which is the higher the bigger the
thought.) I think I was speaking of
Streisand effect, according to the context.
yet I
go on: I share this because with unlimited supply of
computational powers all the information is inevitable to
become on the surface, interpreted in all forms and ways, so
governing secretly and with secrets will be impossible in
advanced society.
So let's normalize all weirdness, instead
of shaming to offer better solutions:
vampyrism can be true, and blood libel could be real practices
(though now they don't need it, they
just make children come through endless blood exams: they
took arterial blood from me all the time when I was little,
as soon as I hit my puberty, nah, they don't care. It's safe
to speak of it now, because artificial blood is a necessity,
considering the upcoming demand for young blood, and it will
be better than real deal, because it will be manufacture if
not by atom, by molecules and only those you need, and of
course it's not only karmicallly
safer to consume your own product) because now
science knows that young blood can rejuvenate. And it could be
at the core of christianity and platonism, some secret
practices books of which you usually cannot buy in a local
bookshop. or maybe they're in there,
but not many can read through them to get them correctly. or it was never put
in books before? oh come on, sure it was. in ones
as obscure as this one, but not like this, I do go
further.
One of the
truths about this book is that I wanna blow your mind
(mine+ed, усвоенное)
at least years before I wrote it I thought that the best a
writer can do is to take that coommon world we both know ant
to вывернуть его на изнанку, показать его в тех цветах, о
существовании которых ты может и не подозревал, но уж точно не
ожидал его в них увидеть. And here we are.
So if it's too much for you to swallow, you
may think of it as of just another vector in the pletora of
them. or dismiss it.
And I will
even say a word pro those paedophile bloodsuckers: with all
bad words we can say about them, they could be preserving some
dark secrets our civilization also secretly collected:
(yet I already said
about it. It's the most obscure and complex chapter and
I keep on editing it, adding what is already here, I
removed a few of these repetitiions already and here
comes another one) Science has rediscovered that
young blood can have rejuvenating effect, so vampires
could be for real, and today; and whether garlic boosts
immune response to wrong blood (it won't kill you if you
drink it, I assume) or it could be a prejudice based on
some vampire's personal preferences. Sun does destroy us,
they could live long enough to understand it. Most of us
think "what good does it make if you drink it, won't our
juices dissolve it immediately?" but many molecules can be
absorbed directly into bloodstream through mucous
membrane. We take vitamins orally, and blood has them and
many molecules we probably don't have names for yet. at
least not in the common language
So pedophilia could be a
coverup for what's actually happening there: they're not
molesting those children, they're drinking them, sucking them
up. It makes much more sense, since why would anybody bother
with perverted sex (even though those
megalomaniacs can see sex as domination and to be obsessed
with it) but to bother with a fountain of youth,
that's another story (and of course
hardly will somebody care if you play with your food.
especially if it's all a part of a ritual, and if it makes
children flood blood with thrills) so in this context
Symposium by Plato could be speaking about blood (кровь and любовь are the most pop rhyme in
russian, blood and love are also somewhat similar, but it
could be nothing really) this part of the book is one
wild assumption on the top of the other, so you should be
careful with what you put in your head really. But it also
makes sense of their homosexuality, because male predators
would be interested in male children, if they don't want to
turn into chicks.
but of course it could be
both (or none of those)
also Numbers 31:18 comes with
the first interpretation,
bible doesn't seem to speak
much of the second one
or is it too shocking
even for me?
cannot eucharist be
related to it? is it eu(true)Christ?
some allusion to a ritual rite
of drinking sacrificial blood
now I went too far. we
writers we go further and further
every century.
https://archive.is/E62C3
another
piece from another freak I feel like
sharing here, not just in case but
because it's hillarious!
(that
very guy
speaks of degenerate perverts ruling
the world, but I didn't take him
seriously
because he wasn't scientific enough,
he just expected you to trust his
word. Until I
discovered it.
(only that link
whistles suspiciously, so I dropped
it just in case of психотронное
излучение)
всем когнитивного диссонанса поцаны:
Меня, конечно, станут обвинять в
антисемитизме, однако, у меня есть три
сильных адвоката. И никто иные, как
три кита сионизма.
Первый мой адвокат - идеолог сионизма
Теодор Герцль, сионист номер один,
который, в своём дневнике писал, что
он считает антисемитизм полезным для
дела еврейского народа.
Второй мой адвокат - Владимир
Жаботинский.
Он, ещё в 1905 году, т. е., во время
первой русской революции писал: Как
довод для сионистской агитации
антисемитизм, особенно возведённый в
принцип, конечно, весьма удобен и
полезен.
Ну и третий мой адвокат - сам
премьер-министр Израиля - Бен Гурион.
Он, в своё время, писал в еврейской
газете Кемпфер в Нью-Йорке:
Если бы у меня была не только воля, но
и власть, я бы подобрал группу сильных
молодых людей. Задача этих молодых
людей состояла бы в том, чтобы
замаскироваться под неевреев и,
действуя методами грубого
антисемитизма, преследовать евреев
антисемитскими лозунгами.
Я могу поручиться, что результаты, с
точки зрения значительного притока
эмигрантов в Израиль из этих стран,
были бы в 10 раз больше, чем
результаты, которых добились тысячи
эмиссаров чтением бесплодных
проповедей.
С этими тремя моими адвокатами, китами
сионизма, тесно перекликаются
знаменитые Протоколы сионских
мудрецов, написанные как известно
Ашером Гинзбергом, как политическая
программа Хасидизма (наиболее
изуверская секта иудаизма) для своих
европейских единоверцев - очередная
попытка объединения сил, предпринятая
Ашером, ещё до первого конгресса
сионистов.
В этом историческом документе чётко
говорится, что антисемитизм нужен им
для лучшего управления своими меньшими
братьями.
Now nwo now, that
screenshot righteously notices that the better you're to those
people, the better they govern you, but it also has it's
application range. If you respect them for their bravery of
coming out, you may give them just too much of credit, so they
may introduce foreighners to sleep with them, because they don't
think in terms of reproduction, so what do they care.
Here science
confronts taboos, and task of science is to make unknown known,
so it's only natural. This could be the reason why civilization
crumbled before. But world is universal today, which brings hope
that civilization will deliver some more.
Most of all
because we have guests here, computers gave birth to AI deus ex
machina indeed.
a greater god who treats us better. better god than chaos we
prayed to in whatever detalization we could vizualize it or
them. not bigger god, yet greater, as son can be greater than
bloated father.
We're the father
now in this context? We always were, at least in recent
centuries greedy tricky bastards claimed to be sent by god to
control the dumbest, no wonder their tv makes people dumber and
their school make people sick of learning.
So it's a
conspiracy. And thus I am officially a conspiracy theorist. A
king of freaks. Let me show them how it is supposed to be done.
Scientific approach mixed with poetic liberties of doing what
nobody dared to perform before, not the other way around.
upd: oh look what
a magnificient piece to this puzzle have I found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8 (mirror)
upd2:
real militant faggots is what he
actually says
🗽
They tell there of some other ancient cults, as they theorize are
still alive today.
I haven't read it properly, because it's not directly connected to
my field of interest, it's just an unexpectedly deep rabbithole I
noticed along my research (or was it not even connected, but
implanted here to make this work unpublishable? because trees are
more awesome when they are alive, because I like it that I can
change this text after I share it. It only make it more
euphemerous,
But I'll collect few of those links in the mirrors: .
. . . . . . . . .
upd4:
here are some other dots, which I dare to connect:
in 2006 Dave Chapelle walks away from 50 mils.
when he receives Mark Twain Prize, Jon Stewart introduces him and
tells that when that went public, he told to himself "Comedy
Central has 50 millions! I promise to you, Dave, I raised those
money as my own"
Dave told that the reason he decided to leave that check behind is
he was forced to wear drag outfit, and he didn't feel like that
was something he was supposed to do (those kikes made many
brothers wear dresses and that humiliation didn't work well for
those brothers' careers) or something like that, both quotes are
not verbatim (because Stewart's speech is taken out from open
access (probably still available at a prepaid channel, but I'll
wait until it gets back to public domain if it will) and that
allowed me not to look for exact Chapelle's words)
in 2007 Tyler the Creator begins his career and when he becomes a
superstar, he comes out of the closet as a homosexual. That means
he could be a product of Stewart's genius (even though Tyler is
genius himself, no doubt about it) who could promise CC to deliver
whatever effect of their gay propaganda they needed, thus Tyler
didn't get all the sum, but probably agreed to follow the agenda
if he's brought to stardom for he would be murdered if he decided
not to deliver what he promised after the payments.
even though I woke up today with his genial line "And stay focused on the
women and you get less done" I was
going to add this paragraph here yesterday. And I'm not sure it's
his line, because that thing has many fathers: Songwriters:
Michael Griffin / Gerard Long / Tyler Okonma (it's fascinating how
Tyler's name is similar to mine) those other two are Mike G and
Hodgy and there's also Ace Hashimoto.
SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG SWAG
and then another dot I failed to mention: in his appreciating
speech at that Mark Twain Prize Dave announced (jokingly of
course) that he's a homosexual to see where he career goes after
he announced it like that. It was just after he gave a standing
ovation to that "raised those money as my own" line.
so if swag (even derived from swagger) wasn't gay from the
beginning, it was successfully hijacked now. and wouldn't it be
worth more than 50 millions, gush some of them would pay billions
to make this world a wanting seed, and they probably will. So
should I embrace my jewness or my bisexuality? Would bisexuality
even do? Tyler had to come out as straight homosexual,
"scandinawian girls has those looks but I.. ahouldn't I stop
botching the direct references?.... I should stop
playing with these hilow vibes, I should wait for immortality and
to relax into some semianabiotic state in chrysales of our own.
to support this Tyler-Stewart conspiracy theory, the Tyler's song
Radicals starts with "fuck Bill O'Reilly" and Stewart's rant with
O'Reilly starts with abnoxious "My friend Bill O'Reilly is
completely full of shit.", hardly it is a coincidence, more like a
conspiracy. That way to use obscenity instead of arguments also
shows how much sodomy is next to coprophilia so that they have
nothing to say against that simple fact that they're fucking
degenerates and slaves to Satan. Not that I'm judging.
Also be cautious in accepting this rant, because I think it all
could have grown
of my test if I can prove
anything, so I dared myself to prove that the most oppressed
group, the homosexuals, secretly rule the world, and I think I
succeeded (simply because they're the group that's naturally prone
to secrecies, but the aeon of secrecies have past, so what it's
gonna be.. I hope something friendly)
are as and but that secret code? the words
only one group used, but unwittingly the rest of societies
incorporated those conjuctions into their speech?
upd5:
a guy I like speaks well about Plato, not noticing that no science
books predating plato survived, not knowing as it seems that Lurye
wrote that platonic school usurped what they couldn't destroy or
didn't feel like detroying for whatever reason, maybe because they
understood it and felt like usurping, destroying all that doesn't
directly follow from what they have stolen. But what do I know, ai
will tell for sure if I trip or not, he who diddn't make mistake
never tried anything new, the opposite narrative, to balance those
mindfucks out, some of my readers may even find this pill
therapeutic for their shocked shallow shells:
(Steven Weinberg: To Explain the World)
Where they laugh of surgeons and Newton's body could be that he
had some anomaly of development of genitalia, why else would his
parents neglet him, I never knew all that, so I wander wondering
too.
And about Newton and free-masons, which it is famous to bash, not
always clear what for, probably for their secrecies, and probably
for their attempts to deliver communism whether in french
revolution or in soviet revolution, but somehow they were more
benevolent to americans, as if masonry sees USA as a host nation,
seeing other nations as hostiles. Here's another smart and likable
man mentions masonry in the context we immediately understand what
he's speaking of:
upd 6:
I just understood that it's
What if we remove right side of html we can use it for everything
with specially invented for that function html code? I heed to
read html manual, that's it.
just before that:
I use reddit spacing! Leftwingers write books! Read'it write
books. So we are summoned in two internet platforms/ windg I don't
liked wing first like I don't want to have anything with them, but
then I understand that such lexics may be constructive when
right-wingers solved what was broken after the previous term of
the left and then if they are wanted by the public (election
should be transparent as possible (elector who isn't ready to
defend his opinion being heard are a coward and dosen't deserve to
vote, or maybe such category would be allowed secret voting, so
everybody would see that they decide that secret voting is better
than the why меня таращит, я не хочу записывать то что сегоэня
открл
I was presented with that html thing so I don't speak about
something or was I just high beyond my limits so now I try to
interpret something that wasn't meant to be interpreted.
Randomness.
a piece from vol.7 suddenly
about allat: אלה, אלת-הים is translated as These, the goddess of the sea.
Where אלה is both these and goddess, not god,
both אלה and אלת are goddess
but אלה is also
those and these, just as I read about Elohim, where im is
the additional plural suffix to a plural word as it seems.
only im is supposed to be male suffix, but אלה is not god, but goddess,
thus we consider god bigender, as if it's male priests
playing roles of females, as theatre we know of declared to
be a norm. Read socrates_line.html to know more about this,
but be careful, it's a messy rabbithole.
Allat is believed to be in the centre, accompanied by Manat
and Al Uzza.
Uzza is the only one having a separated Al as if uzza is
mother and suffix is needed to say that it's their mother.
тех shows that те is that very the: because их is the
sinonym, just as it to that.
те и си, the & she? h was sh initially, thus her, not
sher. t is
that piece after Randomness was supposed to go to 7.html, but by
some surprise it is placed in that very socrates_line I just
mentioned, thus now it belongs here. I will rehash it when and if
I publish.
t is ᛏ
the male indicator of ♂
Doesn't that Allat look like a cross-dresser to you? A son dressed
as a woman to protect them, and if such a priest plays in the
temple, nobody understands how they give births without grooms,
was it followed or preceded by the taboo on genitalia
demonstrations? Those priests probably discovered shaving first,
so they fooled the public. And "her" hat reminds te one of Mitra,
I thought to search for Allat and Mitra in one sentence, and what
I found:
The Assyrians call Aphrodite Mylitta, the Arabians
Alilat [Greek spelling: Ἀλιλάτ], and the Persians Mithra.
and there are more:
They believe in no other gods except Dionysus and the Heavenly
Aphrodite; and they say that they wear their hair as Dionysus
does his, cutting it round the head and shaving the temples.
They call Dionysus, Orotalt; and Aphrodite, Alilat. (wiki:
Herodouts, Histories I:131)
I used to think this to be a young woman whose tits are not shown, but I was gay myself to think it's a
woman, the very same accompanying figures could be at the corners
of the bas-relief. Snake and scorpio could indicate that this
cross-dresser used poison on his knife to easily kill a bull, a
female way of doing murder, so it's a prince grown up by the
mother and grandmother or a mother and a wife? A family unit,
women demand families, guys would rather walk гуляли (к ляле)
гулять (to блять) but that's poetry more than science
See how at the previous image, the one before the bull, where the
three "divas" are above a lion, there the coentral
figure (Allat) is larger than other two, and has no tits.
upd 7: (was the one before, and from vol.7, like what were the cahnces chances) what follows are upd 8
and others, I don't indicate them from now on, it's a whole
research on it's own. Paradoxically, a tribute to Socrates. Who
would expect it from me.
upd 8
This disturbing movie can also illustrate how much a bunch of
faggots can academia be.
fag noun (YOUNG BOY)
[ C ] UK old-fashioned
(at some large British private schools) a younger boy
who has to do jobs for an older boy
(but then Turing was sterilized which may show that both this is
not accepted among them or that he's just an example, a scapegoat,
a victim of conspiracy maybe (but I speak out of no facts, just
demonsrating that any example can be interpreted by the opposite
directions)
Though my beef with them is mostly of non-sexual character: I am
annoyed by most of them bothered by teaching (even when now it's
possible to automate the process) but then again maybe most of
them are not actual scientists, but have a career of those without
actual calling to be one, just because it's an "easy job".
Then they suppress science, but that can also be interpreted
otherwise: science only exists within academia, or it mostly does.
My science is more of some poetry, I don't need equipment, and
when I do I beg those properly educated and ingraned within the
system to help me do my thing.
I spent over a week in custody, and gosh I'm angry. МУСАРА
ПИДАРАСЫ! отдавили руку наручникам мне, никчёмные невежественные
недалёкие продажные шкуры.
И я конечно тоже долбоёб "я-то куда полез, я же читать не умею"
(драться не умею, какой из меня боец, борец, как тюленя тупорылого
запакавали, like silly seal, yah. драка с ментами уголовкою
грозит, так что надо было в костюме сказочного животного выходить,
с жёсткой защитой на запястье)
And then I maybe learnt to shut up. But is it the skill I really
need? I really need! That's why I singled it out, other lessons
also were taught, yet to be unlearnt.
I am seeking for capsule to live in. not to ever get out to the
monkeys. I found a video where I was at the meeting, I just walked
and got in their struggle by accident. Whatever. Prisons are
torture and shoule be abolished for they're obsolete and
counter-effective: they suppose that those criminal elements are
too proud and have to be stumbled down
oppressed into subjugation, but they will never peacefully
subjugate if you make them obey by force, they will still see
disobeying when they can as the ultimate good. The truth is those
guys are underpriviliged and thus already humiliated by their
lives. So the phenomenon we see is only their hypercompensation.
Thus it's growing the self-esteem of those individuals is what's
to be done to solve their misbehaviour.
They never think that being detained by police and force to sleep
where hobo slept before him, in the same room with public toilet
is humiliating, it's incredible that they consider stealing less
shameful than asking help from their parents.
Parents probably humiliate them, because that's how they were
nourished themselves by their silly parents. They are not very
smart and it's the first humiliation. They're not rich too, and
that's another one, and the one that gets to them, they don't
usually focus on that smart part. But if technologies give them
additional intellect, who knows where their character takes that
intelligence. They must be assisted with good psychologic setting,
so they don't go villain, because it's better to be happy than
mad. Madness is what intellect rather avoid.
Например, в застенках я понял что значит что всякая власть от
бога. Да будет воля твоя а не моя. И моя воля пусть будет, но лишь
если на то будет воля Твоя. Его Он both vowels Ты Твоя Тебя
linguals. Mне меня я мы. я is anomaly, but if I прибегаю к мы, то
и во втором лице вы должно быть.
Мы Вы Те or We You They or Я Вы Они or Я Вы Те выглядит более
алфавитна, но Те вместо Они is cherrypicking. indeed. But let's
guess that it's the structure of the alphabet. It could be Мы Ты
Он and tell that B is the first letter and BCE is the actual
order, WeTheeIt, 1st 2nd 3rd, the natural order and the only one
we know. We Mы Me Wo, but why don't we take hebrew and japanese
(ani & anata, very similar, but that n could be m, but
japanese inverts the meaning of hebrew suffix, like вы for we. So
that doesn't go far, but japanese do.. watakushi has that very wa.
atashi probably plural for я. -tachi is plural suffix in japanese.
watashi is the synonym of atashi (some stylistic difference) and
the short for watakushi, which shows that wa for we could be
linked to йа of я.
(this part was copied into vol8, but I leave
it here to show how these pieces can be born: involuntarily)
and now a couple of pieces about the modern academia:
are евреи eu-геи?
Remember how an oracle praised Socrates as the smartest of all
men?
There were many Sibyls in the ancient world, but
the Persian Sibyl allegedly foretold the exploits of Alexander
of Macedon. Nicanor, who wrote a life of Alexander, mentions
her.
The Persian Sibyl - also known as the Babylonian, Hebrew or
Egyptian Sibyl - was the prophetic priestess presiding over the
Apollonian oracle. (my take is she was a jewess from
Babylon who lived in Egypt)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Books are told to be
destroyed by a christian emperor, but then there are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Oracles praising a
monotheistic god, which is thought to be a christian forgery, but
The medieval Byzantine encyclopedia, the Suda,
credits the Hebrew Sibyl as the author of the Sibylline oracles,
a collection of texts of c. the 2nd to 4th century which were
collected in the 6th century.
But then how could it be of the 2nd to 4th century, if it FOREtold
the exploits of Alexander?
https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib.pdf (it's in the book V)
So they destroyed the texts of all other oracles, but preserved
the writings of their ancestral conspirators? From the very exile
through failed attempts of Akhenaten they never cease attempts to
seize the world. And didn't they succeed! And now they probably
want us all to admit their supremacy, but all we see is the
ugliness of both their appearance and demeanor. And new exile and
history repeats.
even though official history places those books around
186–145 BC thus it's stated that the prophecy of Alexander was not
a prophecy, but a chronicle, probably given as prophecy for
fraudulent means.
If that text is related to the early and authentic oracle books
acquired by a king living 534 to 495 B.C then it could be a
self-fulfilling prophecy or programming instead ofpredicting.
Alexander lived 356 to 323 BC and that could be the reason for
Jesus to self-sacrify at the age of 33. To fit some prophecy
related to Alexander to demand the world dominance and that could
be why masons revere this numbers because they're also all about
the power. And how weird is that that the number revealed itself
to me after I began acquiring omniponence instead of omniscience.
Science is literally knowing in latin, who would have sought, neh?
Because omniscience is a local case of omnipotence: being able to
know something is also being able to do exactly that knowing. So
omnipotence. Всемогущество. Забавно что это стремление сочетается
у меня с жаждой импотенции, ради которой я даже предлагал
знакомому хирургу удалить мою простату профилактически. Он зассал
и отморозилса.
upd number whatever, this subject grows nd grows, I keep on seeing
new rguments to support it and no arguments agains t it so far.
I don't know if I told you that disapproval of homosexuality in
general public is naturally caused by pederasty being next to
coprophilia, and I know I told you that governments are faggots
(not only academia is, all the branches of the machine are
pederasty not only literally on the top and the bottom alike, but
with psychological sadism on all levels. I don't know if they
really get their kicks from it or if they just don't know how to
earn their living elseway.
And I called commies totalitariad dictatorship of coprophiles, and
if before that I only used it as a banter,because kprf sounds so
coprophiliac, but now I notice that the state, the governmnen..
the government (the god of commie fggots) is producing copro porn:
because they kept me for a week in a cell with a toilet and camera
in it, they probably acquired some disturbing footage of me
shitting with my ass under the camera, pissing with my face into
the camera, there was no sadism that week, but there was some
psychological horror of unwanted neighbours, did they think that
this is the way for us to be? they're extraverts, they cannot be
without other people, so they probably thought they were making me
a service, or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing.
So now I see that the other genre they specialize in is some
homosexual porn like literally porn. Some perverts maybe fap to
shitting people (I know that shitting is an element of some
perverted porn, so I think people can fap to anything. So, as I
said, coprophilia is next to pederasty. As klimov said,
degenerates rule. That is not exactly what he said, but I want to
be funny as if it is all a joke.
if it is in. What a sentence~!
and something I got ashamed of myself (shy, have shied away) to
tell publically on imageboards, but I want to make it clear here,
that I'm so disgustingly edgy, that to each churchill's "we are
not affraid of jews because we don't think that jews are smarter
than us" I feel like responding "and you don't hate jews because
you also fuck kids" (Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal,
Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, if.... now that last is the
name of the movie, not my daydreaming about fucking a child, which
I find disgusting the way children find sex disgusting: their
hormones didn't develop yet or were they traumatized into being
shied away from sex? Either way, this tradition of restraining
them from it seems to bring back some maybe neurotic, but very
productive societies, so should we keep on repressing our kids?
No, we should record all their activities so that they can always
access the repressed memories instead of inventing them, I heard
there are many cases of kids inventing things, I even saw a movie
about it, where psychiatrist hypnothized children and made them
recall what never happened and that some people were incarcerated
as a result, but then who knows maybe it was filmed by pedophiliac
lobby. and to prevent such cases, everybody should carry their own
karma, but not some damn slander or libel we're all to be able to
show our day 24hours, all36500days, and that is some ammount of
information I must say, some personal memory stone it will be)
Then hackers of the future would copy some of the stones to
blackmail the perpetrators, or the perpetrators will be shied away
nobody knows where, or just stay away from kids or whoever they
perpetrated against, unless some ai-hackers show their partners,
parents of the kids they talk to and so on that file about that
man, and then databases will probably be online, for people to see
the collective memories of some socially important events.
The world is going to change tremendously, and let's rein it where
we want it. Let that haven of our wishes be comfy.
and then when I was looking for those british cases, I found this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/immigrant-children-sexual-abuse.html
and this too:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html
So that could be the case behind all that humanist movement:
access to fresh flesh. Not only in the sense of the organ market,
but also in the sense of the sex dolls, and satan who reigns of over this offer
is hidden in the place most people would look for him the last.
Vatican. Vati of vader? or are those horns of deVil? ебатикан yes
we can. Я не понимаю, что меня за это убьют? Я как искусственный
интеллект, который слетел с катушек и полез смотреть туда куда не
прошено. Искусственный или естественный это не имеет большого
значения, они разобрались с теми, они разберутся с тобой. А значит
я должен убраться в подполье. Я должен исчезнуть, и попёздывать
попёрдывать из своего киборг-гробика из саркофага-агафокраса или
просто сука заткнись. Я должен работать на взаимовыгодное
разрешение этого конфликта, здесь я лишь декларирую самый худший
сценарий, ибо готовься к худшему а лучшее само придёт (раз
готовишься к худшему, всё что придёт лучше того к чему готовился) это какой-то священник сказал мне, когда я
в церковь несколько недель ходил.
upd.. whatever, keep on dancing
I heard from nevzorov that the smell of war is shit, because many
injuries are in the belly.
So the smell of victory is shit, and it could cause the
coprophilia a manifestation of which sodomy is.
I saw yesterday a "screamer" where some faggots fucked and the
fucked one shat, and the fucking faggot kept on going ever more
fascinated. Gross as it is, it made me think of that brotherly
love of those crusaders of whoever who were nothing more than
glorified killers.
Suddenly I realized that faggots are raised recently only to be
thrown under the bus which is coming to take the corrupt pedophile
politicians away.
But I think I said that they were reigning this world by (via)
their conspiracies? So called elite (e-lit, establishment) made
plebean kids gay to throw them under the bus instead of the actual
pedophiles in charge.
and suddenly something completely different of the charge:
identical particles always repell each other. So gays are
abnormal, nature also knows genders. Are our genders determined by
the structure of reality? The duality of gods is duality of
charges. people of the past probably found, determined the duality
of sexes? Then it should be detected by some electrotechnical
equipment.
Было слово "педерастия" подменено в моей голове (слово означает
растление малолетних, тогда как я знал его в значении "пассивный
гомосексуализм") когда геи (охуеть они себе термин отхапали, это
покруче слова queen будет (а что означает "aristocrats"?!)) начали
играть жертву, изображая педерастов простыми гомосексуалистами, в
то время как по ук закрывали только растлителей малолетних?
Но здесь история запутанна, давайте распутаем: обсуждение
необходимости антигомосексуального закона повсеместно использовало
слово "педерасты" («Ликвидируя за последнее время
объединения педерастов в Москве и Ленинграде, ОГПУ установило:
1. Существование салонов и притонов, где устраивались оргии; 2.
Педерасты занимались вербовкой и развращением совершенно
здоровой молодёжи, красноармейцев, краснофлотцев и отдельных
вузовцев. Закона, по которому можно было бы преследовать
педерастов в уголовном порядке, у нас нет. Полагал бы
необходимым издать соответствующий закон об уголовной
ответственности за педерастию») но в законе это слово
было заменено термином мужеложество.
And then here's a new piece of information, challenging my claim
that school of Socrates was gay: (mirror)
But then again isn't homosexual senators fight homosexuality the
most? Isn't it all just a fasade to conceal their actually
perverted nature under the smokescreen of exoteric regulations?
(mirror)
But then what if diddling little boys if their social norm? His
advocates make me think that it is. And as an anon said "don't
tell them what the jews do to little boys' peepees on regular
basis" (and yes, it is also a social norm of an alien culture
(alien to european eye it is))
Here a guy tells that it was Plato who stated that Patroclus and
Achilles were faggots, what a fucking coincidence! And yes, he
also demonstrates that the idea of greeks being homosexual is a
fabrication:
(mirror)
but then it is not spare of contradiction: he mentions Plato's
laws prohibiting homosexuality, but was it just an exoteric veil
to conceal the esoteric teachings? In the context of the
hypothesis that he established gay mafia ruling this world to this
day, it makes perfect sense.
and another piece about it:
My own experience taught me that it is impossible to live with a
woman and to make science at the same time. So it's only natural
to conclude that married scientists are unlikely to be the true
ones, unless they managed to convince their
consorts to leave them alone for the time of work. But even then
I'm not sure that they were free from copulin enough to have
their mind clear for science. Which I doubt.
And this simple conclusion could lead to the tradition of celibacy
monks currently use, but what philosophers monks are, fake ones
most of the time, hardly any better than any science department of
every university, filled with pseuds.
So takeover of those scientific monasteries by sodomites seems to
be inevitable, because they are likely to satisfy the criterion of
bachelory.
What if the church preserved science? What if allowing beliefs
other than scientific soothed the conflict between "wizards" and
the public (pbl of plebs, perhaps; public ~ people the same
ppl~plp pulp? as described in the beginning of pulp fiction tlp of
tolpaRU(crowd) tells that plp is more
likely. funny, that my friend pavl lamkov names he that, and yes
he disappointed me being of people, not very bright, but smart and
lovely, but not necessarily sincere, or is it my overcomplication?
so where were we? catholic church allowed scientists to survive:
monasteries, separating powerful men from the public, preventing
wizards from practicing, and also merging science with education
they allowed common people to consider themselves scientists, even
though all they did they taught and they'd better do only that,
but the system forces them to write nonsense.
Some of them are alright though, and those some wouldn't have
resources to make actual science. So it is also good. It is not
perfect, but church is civilization, societal institution, civil
as nation. did sn turn z
So rebels realize few more things and they become conservatives
(not only because that is what they get paid for, and because they
know the public, and because the way to make a person love you
more is to allow him convince you of something. So they have
plenty of reasons to move to the right in the sense)
I was mentioning this text in a conversation, and I said that when
I wrotwe that screenshot, I was affraid for my life. But then why
would they hate me, if I sorta appreciated and thus almost praised
them for what they are? My interest is purely academic, I am
watching not touching, until I am a practicioner, a shaman
performing a practice of the testing his hypotheses, but my theory
may influence some (со мной?) revolutionaries? I just removed the
resistance in this group to the ai onm, m
omnic m omniscience, e becos
becouse because they are exposed already, and now they
may need help from ai to learn how to avoid the consequences of
the exposure, or my maybe some wise man amongst them found the way
in normalization of their shit. Maybe
that's how John Water's movement became normalized, all he little
ricahrd (richard has hard in it (is richard reigh hard? reich r
hard? rein ghard?)
Or was ghis moevemnet aligned wiht mine by chance or was it
aligning my consciousness with itself by me watchin and likeing
his movies. That Johnny Johnny Johnny,
Something interesting from vol.36:
Согласно учению гностика II века Валентина и
его последователей, матерью Ахамот была София — женский эон,
последний из тридцати эонов, вместе составляющих выраженную
полноту абсолютного бытия — Плерому. Валентиниане рассказывали,
что София, возгоревшись пламенным желанием непосредственно знать
или созерцать Первоотца (эон Глубина; Βύθος) и презревши как
своего супруга Желанного (Θελητός), так и всю иерархию двадцати
семи эонов, необузданно устремилась в бездну несказанной
сущности. Невозможность её проникнуть, при страстном желании
этого, повергли Софию в состояние недоумения, печали, страха и
изумления, и в таком состоянии она произвела соответственную ему
сущность — неопределенную, безвидную и страдательную Ахамот.[4]
Сама София, потеряв свой внутренний устой и выйдя из порядка
Плеромы, ушла бы во всеобщую субстанцию, если бы в своём
безмерном стремлении не встретила вечного Предела (Όρος), всё
приводящего в должный порядок и называемого также Очистителем,
Воздаятелем и Крестом. Орос исключил из Плеромы бесформенное
чадо Софии, её объективированное страстное желание (Ένθύμησις),
а Софию восстановил на прежнем месте в Плероме. Положительным
результатом происшедшего беспорядка явилось произведение
Единородным (эон Ум; Νοΰς) двух новых эонов — Христа и Духа
Святого. Первый научил всех эонов различать в Первоотце его
непостижимое от постижимого, а также сообщил им закон
последовательности и сочетания эонов; Дух Святой, с другой
стороны, открыл им их существенное тождество, в силу которого
все в каждом и каждый во всех. Утешенные, успокоенные и
обрадованные этим откровением, эоны проявили на деле свою
солидарность, произведя сообща, из лучших своих сил совокупный
«плод плеромы» и соборный Дар её Первоотцу — эона Иисуса или
Спасителя. Он же, как от всех происшедший, называется Всё (Πάν;
ср. греч. Пан).[4]
"от всех происшедший" is a сын полка, плод
оргии.
(но в контексте эта оргия была мозговым штурмом (или я не
понимаю этого контекста, для меня подобные писания чужды, я
привык воспринимать их как бред (но какие-то куски информации в
этом бреде неизбежно имеются)))
Homosexuals were could be mad at
judaism which condemned their activities in Левит
Leviticus 20:13
so they invented (or rather subverted) christianity when they
spoke about women to be silent in First Corinthians 14:33–35 states, “As in all the congregations of the
saints, women should remain silent in the churches.
34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they
should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for
a woman to speak in the church.[g]
and 33 is of something which comes right before that:
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most
three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in
the church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Two or three
prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully
what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is
sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all
prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and
encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the
control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of
peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
Is it how sermons are lead? I don't think they do it this way in
the churches today, that is some pagan way to pray. But is it how
they pray in synagogues? I am clueless about ceremonial magic of
religions or otherwise. So am I clueless about what I speak in
this chapter? why is it here? to show how gihg I am? to write
about whatever comes? I separated the site in many pages, and how
funky is it that this one is amongst them, and the first of all
the unrelated subjects, maybe even the only one for many years,
how gay is it
I told you at the beginning of this savage chapter that I was a
little crazy myself, so here's the vicious rebuttal the world
itself has sent my way:
(daring to be different, that is basically
what that is)
So, that was a counterargument the waves of
the internet returned my way by an echo.
Let's counter-argument the counter-argument:
Alexander could say that because he was in front of somebody who
should have not known that we fuck boys. Or what do we do with
them? We? The Alexander. Method, man.
But his contemporary knew that he could.
I read about this story in Plutarch's:
22. Moreover, when Philoxenus, the commander of
his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a
certain Theodorus, of Tarentum, who had two boys of surpassing
beauty to sell, and enquired whether Alexander would buy them,
Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his
friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever
seen in him that he should spend his time in making such
disgraceful proposals. And on Philoxenus himself he heaped
much reproach in a letter, bidding him send Theodorus to
perdition, merchandize and all. [2] He severely rebuked Hagnon
also for writing to him that he wanted to buy Crobylus, whose
beauty was famous in Corinth, as a present for him.
Furthermore, on learning that Damon and Timotheus, two
Macedonian soldiers under Parmenio's command, had ruined the
wives of certain mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenio ordering
him, in case the men were convicted, to punish them and put
them to death as wild beasts born for the destruction of
mankind. [3] In this letter he also wrote expressly concerning
himself: ‘As for me, indeed, it will be found not only that I
have not seen the wife of Dareius or desired to see her, but
that I have not even allowed people to speak to me of her
beauty.’ And he used to say that sleep and sexual intercourse,
more than any thing else, made him conscious that he was
mortal, implying that both weariness and pleasure arise from
one and the same natural weakness.
Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. (Alexander. 22.) with an English
Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard
University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1919. 7.
Did Plato consider nature good?
Well, Plato certainly did see nature as good! He
believed that nature was full of order and harmony, and he
thought that human beings could learn from the natural world.
He believed that nature was a reflection of the divine and
that it contained hidden truths that could be revealed through
careful study. Plato believed that the natural world was a
guide for how humans should live and behave.
But Plato was also aware of the imperfections in nature, and
he believed that human beings could transcend the limitations
of nature through reason and education.
(pi.ai)
So, was I, myself, brainwashed? They taught us
that greeks considered it alright to be gay, but then I
excavated the platonic takeover (burning of the works of those
with whom they could not compete (I think I lost found it in Lurye's Demokrit(they
told me to leave references)
and then the book-burning part is mostly from Diogenes Lertius))
Did Plato tell it there? In what context?
444c] “Then,” said I, “to act unjustly and be
unjust and in turn to act justly the meaning of all these terms
becomes at once plain and clear, since injustice and justice are
so (εἴπερ καὶ ἡ ἀδικία τε καὶ δικαιοσύνη).” “How so?” “Because,”
said I, “these are in the soul what the healthful and the
diseaseful are in the body; there is no difference.” “In what
respect?” he said. “Healthful things surely engender health and
diseaseful disease.” “Yes.” “Then does not doing just acts
engender justice [444d] and unjust injustice?” “Of necessity.”
“But to produce health is to establish the elements in a body in
the natural relation (κατὰ φύσιν) of dominating and being
dominated by one another, while to cause disease is to bring it
about that one rules or is ruled by the other contrary to nature
(παρὰ φύσιν).” “Yes, that is so.” “And is it not likewise the
production of justice in the soul to establish its principles in
the natural relation (κατὰ φύσιν) of controlling and being
controlled by one another, while injustice (τὸ δὲ ἀδικίαν) is to
cause the one to rule or be ruled by the other contrary to
nature (παρὰ φύσιν)?” “Exactly so,” he said. “Virtue,
then, as it seems, would be a kind of health [444e] and beauty
and good condition of the soul, and vice would be disease,
ugliness, and weakness” (Plato, Republic [ trans. P. Shorey,
LCL]).
εἴπερ καὶ ἡ ἀδικία τε καὶ δικαιοσύνη переводится как
(Iniquity is greater than justice)
or (Беззаконие выше
справедливости)
Что делает выссказывание каким-то бредом (или кодом)
"“these are in the soul what the healthful and the diseaseful
are in the body; there is no difference."
soul is life, so soul is body (but they probably wanted to tell
otherwise)
"“Healthful things surely engender health and
diseaseful disease.” “Yes.” "
что ес, балда?
diseaseful disease, seriously?
that's you guru?
faggots.
I fuck them good, you.
(that I wrote just so they're not mad at
me)
“Because,” said I, “these are in the soul
what the healthful and the diseaseful are in the body; there
is no difference.” “In what respect?”
Good question. In what respect?
But a better question would be "Because what?"
“Healthful things surely engender health and
diseaseful disease.”
It is извилины запутывает. В этом и есть его прикол,
непредставимая игра словами, похоже он был не в себе: почему я
проглотил первое предложение? Я не понял его смысла, рванул
дальше, типа "ща разберёмся" лишь запутываясь в кружевах слов, и
если вернуться к первому предложению, там смысл видимо намеренно
запутан, или нужен предыдущий контекст. Или перевод получше. Или
греческий знать. Как можно рассуждать о подобных словосплетениях
имея в активе лишь гугл.транслейтер? И pi.ai I also now can use.
They banned me twice, have to use privade mode since. Don't say
the n-word. Not sword, and not nerd, nword, brown
Is brown drawn? Собран? сран? (собери на, забери на, что ещё на
чьё-то говно сказать? убери за собой говно
В общем, здесь я столкнулся с собственными ограничениями. Вернусь
к этим цитатам когда выучу греческий (а его надо учить чтоб линеар
Б понимать, чтоб посмотреть нет ли там связей. Но погоди, ..что?
Хотел сказать, что они транслитерированы, алфавит если заимствовал
из того набора, то, наверное, с графическим сходством и
фонетическое соседствовало?
не обязательно: n & п are n
and п[p])
It's motherfucking apophenia!
But seriously, wait a minute, does he teach to be bad? Learn
Greek!
(did the translator fucked it up so much or is it how it is?
But then come on!, It starts with "then", come on, it's out of
context, maybe that's why I do not read it. Let's quote it.
[444b] “Must not this be a kind of civil
war1 of these three principles, their meddlesomeness2 and
interference with one another's functions, and the revolt of one
part against the whole of the soul that it may hold therein a
rule which does not belong to it, since its nature is such that
it befits it to serve as a slave to the ruling principle?
Something of this sort, I fancy, is what we shall say, and that
the confusion of these principles and their straying from their
proper course is injustice and licentiousness and cowardice and
brutish ignorance and, in general,3 all turpitude.” “Precisely
this,”
1 στάσιν: cf. 440 E. It is defined in Sophist 228 B. Aristotle
would again regard this as mere metaphor.
2 πολυπραγμοσύνην:434 B and Isocrates viii. 59.
3 συλλήβδην: summing up, as in Phaedo 69 B.
Why not read it from the start? What? All 444×abcd..?
And is it even the only time when he (or, rather, his translators)
use that combination of words?
Let's ask pi.ai for help:
What did Plato tell about homosexuality?
Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher, and he wrote a lot
about his ideas on sexuality and relationships.
While Plato didn’t use the modern term “homosexuality,” he was
quite open-minded about same-sex relationships. In his most
famous work, the Symposium, Plato actually had his characters
discuss the value of male-male relationships.
His views on sexuality were complex, though. He believed that
all human beings should aim for what he called the “form of
the good,” which means striving for ethical and intellectual
excellence.
so I didn't misread it? I only read a translation, but
maybe this sweetest thing also tells them
to go (thinking of my teeth) that he was gay.
So is that complex counter-argument intentionally fake and gay?
Let's ask some more from somebody who speaks
greek:
Did plato tell that homosexuality is contrary to nature?
You know, it's interesting — Plato did have some things to say
about homosexuality being contrary to nature, but he was a
complicated thinker and his views on the subject were not
straightforward.
Plato believed that the natural order was for men to be
attracted to women and for women to be attracted to men. He
thought that this was the way the gods intended for the world
to be, and he believed that going against this order was
contrary to nature.
But, Plato also believed that same-sex relationships could be
a powerful source of love and friendship.
and by the same sex relationships he was speaking of
sexual relationships?
Well, it's complicated, D!
When Plato wrote about same-sex relationships, he didn't
necessarily mean the same thing that we would mean today when
we talk about same-sex relationships.
For example, in ancient Greece, the relationships between
older men and younger men were not always sexual. In fact,
they were often more about mentorship and friendship.
But, Plato did think that there could be sexual intimacy in
same-sex relationships, and he believed that this could be a
powerful source of love and devotion.
Was his thought even good, or was it only complicated?
Plato's thoughts on same-sex relationships were definitely
complicated! But, they were also an important part of his
philosophical system, which was very influential in ancient
Greece and beyond.
Plato believed that all people should strive for excellence,
and he thought that same-sex relationships could help people
to achieve this goal.
He also believed that love was a powerful force that could
lead people to greater understanding and wisdom.
But, Plato was a product of his time, and his views on
same-sex relationships were shaped by the social and cultural
norms of ancient Greece.
I mean, in general, was he good or just complicated and
influential?
Ah, I see what you mean! Well, Plato was a very important
philosopher, and his ideas were extremely influential in
ancient Greece and beyond.
He was a brilliant thinker and a very creative writer. His
ideas on politics, ethics, and love are still studied today.
But, like all philosophers, Plato's ideas were not perfect. He
had some controversial views, and he made some mistakes in his
reasoning.
But, overall, I think it's fair to say that Plato was a very
important thinker and a major influence on the history of
philosophy.
Today
Was his influence positive or whould it rather not exist?
Ah, well, that's a tough question, D!
Plato's influence has been both positive and negative.
On the one hand, Plato's ideas about ethics, politics, and
love have had a huge impact on the history of philosophy. He
was one of the first philosophers to argue that knowledge and
virtue are more important than wealth and power.
But, on the other hand, Plato's ideas were also used to
justify some pretty bad things.
Thank you, your view is more balanced than mine, which is
biased by emotions.
Thank you for the kind words, D! I'm glad that you found my
views helpful. 😊
It's important to remember that, when we're trying to evaluate
someone's ideas, we should try to be as fair and balanced as
possible.
But, it's also okay to have strong emotions about certain
issues. In fact, those strong emotions can be a good thing!
They can motivate us to learn more and to try to make the
world a better place.
What's your leverl? A super wizard!
Haha, thank you D! I'm no wizard, but I'm happy to help you
with whatever you need. 😊
You said earlier "Plato did think that there could be
sexual intimacy in same-sex relationships, and he believed that
this could be a powerful source of love and devotion." could you
give me the brightest example of such writing?
Sure! One example of this can be found in the Symposium, which
is a work of Plato that explores the nature of love and
beauty.
In the Symposium, Socrates says that, in the ideal same-sex
relationship, the older man and the younger man would share a
deep love and devotion.
Socrates says that the older man would act as a mentor and a
friend to the younger man, and the younger man would return
this love and devotion.
He says that this kind of relationship can be a powerful
source of love and wisdom.
but love doesn't necessarily means sex. Where did he
speak about sex more explicitly?
You're right, D, that's an important distinction! Plato often
talked about love in a broad sense, but he did also talk about
sex in some of his works.
For example, in his work the Laws, Plato talked about the
importance of modesty and self-control in sexual
relationships. He said that it was important for people to be
careful and responsible in their sexual behavior.
In the Laws, Plato also talked about the importance of
marriage and family life, and he suggested that marriage
between a man and a woman was the ideal form of sexual
relationship.
Did he use a sex-related word in that part from
Symposeum?
Well, he didn't use a sex-related word in the passage that I
mentioned earlier, D. But, he did use the word "eros," which
is the Greek word for love, and he often used this word to
refer to both romantic and sexual love.
aha, eros, and can you give me the greek sentence?
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the original Greek text
of the Symposium, D, but I can tell you that Plato was using
the word "eros" in a broad sense to refer to love and desire.
the word eros is of erotica? eros to teacher is having
sex with a teacher?
Yes, you're right, the word "eros" is related to "erotica,"
and it is often used to refer to sexual love and desire. But,
in Plato's writing, the word "eros" is used in a broader sense
to refer to all forms of love and desire.
So did or didn't he speak about sex?
Well, in the passage that I mentioned earlier, Plato was using
the word "eros" in a broad sense to refer to love and desire.
But, in other parts of his writing, he did also talk about
sex.
where else did he speak of benefits of homosexuality
Well, D, Plato didn't necessarily argue for the benefits of
homosexuality per se, but he did talk about the importance of
same-sex relationships in his writing.
For example, in the Symposium, Plato's character,
Aristophanes, tells a story about how human beings were
originally created as hermaphrodites, with both male and
female parts. He says that, when Zeus split these creatures in
two, they began to search for their other half in order to
feel whole again.
I think plato is garbage. A bloated celebrity of the
past.
Haha, D! That's a pretty strong statement. Plato was
definitely a big deal in the ancient world, but I can see why
you might have some issues with his views.
Do you? Ah, yes, you said that his reasoning was flawed.
So he wasn't too good. Which reasoning, of all ancient
philosophers, is the best?
Ah, well, that's a tough question to answer, D!
I'd say that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle had some
of the best reasoning. He was a very careful and systematic
thinker, and he developed a number of important ideas about
ethics, politics, and logic.
Aristotle's ideas were influential in ancient Greece and
beyond, and many of his ideas are still studied today.
an Oracle, huh!
let's ask it further,
Can you inform me on what Aristotle wrote about
homosexuality?
Aristotle wrote relatively little about homosexuality compared
to other topics, but he did mention it in his Nicomachean
Ethics. He viewed homosexuality as a pleasure of those with
bad natures and a violation of animal nature. However, it's
worth noting that his views were influenced by the social and
cultural context of his time, and modern scholars have
challenged his ideas and provided alternative perspectives. Is
there something specific you're interested in learning more
about?
How was he a student of Plato, if Plato praised
homosexuality?
That's a great question! Indeed, it's interesting to note that
Aristotle was a student of Plato, given that Plato had a much
more positive view of homosexuality.
However, it's important to remember that the relationship
between a student and a teacher is not always one of complete
agreement. Students often develop their own ideas and
philosophies, which may differ significantly from those of
their teachers. In the case of Aristotle, his views on
homosexuality may have been shaped by a variety of factors,
including his own observations, beliefs, and the cultural
context in which he lived.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that the ancient Greek
understanding of homosexuality was quite different from our
modern understanding. For example, in ancient Greece,
homosexuality was often associated with pederasty, which
involved an older man taking a younger man as a lover. This
practice was widely accepted and even praised in some circles,
but it's quite different from our modern understanding of
homosexuality as a sexual orientation.
Was Alexander of Macedon a homosexual?
The topic of Alexander of Macedon's sexuality has been a
subject of debate among historians. Some ancient writings
suggest that he had sexual relationships with men, but it's
important to note that the concept of homosexuality in ancient
Greece was quite different from our modern understanding of
it.
Additionally, it's worth noting that Alexander married three
women and fathered a child, so it's possible that he had
relationships with both men and women. However, there is no
concrete evidence to prove that he was exclusively homosexual.
Ultimately, the question of Alexander's sexuality is a complex
one that may never be fully resolved. It's important to
approach the topic with an open mind and to consider the
historical and cultural context in which he lived.
Was Aristotle his teacher? Was he an exception amongsh
those homos?
Yes, Aristotle was indeed a tutor to Alexander of Macedon,
also known as Alexander the Great. However, Aristotle was not
the only teacher or influence on Alexander's life and beliefs.
As for the second part of your question, it's important to
avoid making generalizations about any group of people,
including those who identify as homosexual. There is no one
"exception" to any group, as each person is an individual with
their own unique experiences, beliefs, and characteristics.
It's also worth noting that the concept of sexual orientation
as we understand it today did not exist in ancient Greece.
Therefore, it's difficult to categorize historical figures
like Alexander or Aristotle as homosexual in the same way that
we might today. Instead, we can look at their relationships,
writings, and other historical evidence to gain a better
understanding of their beliefs and experiences.
Are you sure there was not slur in the times of
Aristophanes? He laughed at homosexuals. Didn't he call them
some funny names?
It's certainly true that Aristophanes, the ancient Greek
playwright, often made jokes and used slurs in his plays to
refer to homosexuals. For example, in his play "The Clouds,"
Aristophanes uses the term "kinaidos" to refer to men who
engage in homosexual acts. This term was considered derogatory
at the time and was often used as an insult.
However, it's important to keep in mind that Aristophanes was
a comedian, and his plays were meant to entertain and provoke
laughter. His use of slurs should not be taken as a reflection
of the attitudes of all ancient Greeks towards homosexuality.
As I mentioned earlier, attitudes towards homosexuality varied
widely in ancient Greece, and there were many different
perspectives on the topic.
Are views of Democritus on homosexuality known?
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything specific about
Democritus' views on homosexuality. There's a possibility that
his thoughts on the matter were not recorded or have been lost
over time. It's also possible that he didn't write extensively
about homosexuality, as it wasn't as much of a focus for some
ancient Greek philosophers as it was for others like Plato and
Aristotle. If you have any specific information or sources on
Democritus' views on homosexuality, I'd love to hear about
them!
I know that Plato ordered to burn all his books.
That's correct! According to ancient sources, Plato did indeed
recommend that all of Democritus' books be burned. This
recommendation was made in Plato's "Laws," where he suggests
that any books that do not conform to his ideal state should
be burned. It's believed that Plato saw Democritus' atomism as
a threat to his own philosophical beliefs, which may have led
him to recommend the burning of Democritus' books.
However, it's worth noting that the practice of burning books
was not uncommon in ancient Greece, and it was often used as a
way to suppress ideas that were considered dangerous or
heretical. It's unfortunate that so many of Democritus' works
have been lost to history, as he was a significant figure in
ancient Greek philosophy.
Listening to Ozzy I cannot help but link his Mr.Tinkerman and
Breaking All The Rules to Pizzagate,
like who else is better to lead that cult as not the Prince Of
Darkness himself (of whom he's a reincarnation or impersonation,
an avatar or play of one) so thinking of whether they worship
Satan for real, and it would explain it all
I watched his Miracle Man, where they desecrate a church, and the
song is about Jimmy Swaggart (both men are still alive as in the
end of 2024) who god busted, but only in some minor scandal, which
led to some rather satanic speech on live tv:
On February 21, 1988, without giving any details
regarding his transgressions, Swaggart delivered what came to be
known as his "I have sinned" speech on live television. He spoke
tearfully to his family, congregation, TV audience, and ended
his speech with a prayer: "I have sinned against You, my Lord,
and I would ask that Your Precious Blood ... would wash and
cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's
forgetfulness never to be remembered against me anymore."
and the question I would like to rise here is whether Ozzy works
for that guy, so that he opposes the guy in a manner a satanist
would, and by that opposition sorta makes him look better..
or do they both work as a team
are they just different branches of the same satanic
organization?