Modern people have no strength, courage, conviction, higher virtue, honor, real identity, purpose/meaning, heritage etc. They have nothing they would fight for - or more importantly build towards.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
a) HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.]...partial (species; special) form (life) represents the resistance within whole flow (inception towards death).
b) suggested "trust" represents the tool for domesticating free will of choice, hence utilizing the family to train the child to obey (trust) suggested information. Starting with the name (a brand for the cattle); followed by reasoning (agreement vs disagreement) based on wanting vs not wanting suggested information; followed by counting (ignoring "one" self for counting other "ones" as two; three; four etc.); followed by spell-craft (words over sound); followed by sending them into the chain of command under representative authority of others for education and so on.
Author (process of dying) generating authorized (living)...reasoning about true vs false authority tempts one to ignore that.
a) look at the track record of humanity...does any of it imply good leadership?
b) leading cause (inception towards death)...resisting effect (life).
Might want to read the constitution, retard.
Such an obvious fucking fed.
When the Constitution was ratified, there were free blacks in all 13 states. Nothing prevented them from being citizens, in fact, they were.
They just didn't want any more non-whites, unless they were picking cotton that is.
Fairly poorly, I agree.
Fed
Walks like a…
Talks like a…
Probably a…
Fed
CONSTITUTE (to set) -TION (through action)...action (process of dying) setting reactions (living)....reading what others suggest tempts one to ignore the perceivable constitution of ones existence.
To fight for something, you must love it. To love something you must respect it. To respect something you must have at least some knowledge of it.
Men don’t respect women anymore. Why would we? They’re all whores now. Women don’t respect men anymore. Why would they? Most of us refuse to take our proper place in society. Neither of us respect children. How could we? They’ve been made too expensive to have, and our broken homes gave us no example to love.
In short, yes.
The relationship that always gets mysteriously left out in these explanatory theories is the relationship men have with each other. That was the first line of defense that fell and it fell hard. Men are supposed to police each other, hold each other accountable, hold each other to high standards. Men didn't used to tolerate other men being disrespectful (let alone abusive or predatory) towards women or children. This was the first social norm to be taken down, so that instead western men would build camaraderie around their moral failures. Mind your own business, everyone is guilty anyway. This is what started the domino effect. More and more women became deeply unhappy and stressed in their marriages, less and less women felt safe or secure. This allowed the steps that followed in tptb destroying the family. Things will never get fixed unless western men can take responsibility again, but too many are still seduced by the narrative that "then one day, for no reason at all, women were willing to consider the government as an alternative spouse".
Grandma and grandpa teach the kids while mom tends them and dad works to sustain. That is passed down along with all other gains and this becomes a LEGACY that allows independence from a controller.
Note how certain families make their children into power-players on a board, each representing a 'need' of the built dynasty. The covens reflect this in recruitment of lawyers, doctors, policemen, etc. to form a sovereign independent base.
Your clan vs their plan for the Klan.
That's the issue...suggested progressivism, hence the few pointing the finger at some fictitious outcomes, while the many marching headlong into self destruction by ignoring the perceivable origin.
Living within the process of dying implies the need to resist origin...not fighting forwards or building towards outcomes. Fighting against tempts one to ignore sustenance of self, while the want to build tempts one to ignore the need to shelter.
They want you loving material things more. Money, possessions. Then you're indebted and servile. Until corrupted.
Love is a meaningless concept, it is emphatuation, greed, servitude, sometimes an energy. Often it is reliance on somebody for something they cannot provided and ignore or choose to will when desired. It is trust, it is hope, until faithless, but how if loved. Because it is only what you love. An ocean of fickle fancy and folly. A pet loves more than humans because it is a bond not broken unless by bad ownership, it is bound by an unspoken bond, your duty towards it. But you didn't want to love a dog? A pet, because most do. Does a dance and turns tricks wagging its butt, following you about. No. You wanted agreement and devotion. The same as a child until it finds its own loves.
Topically there is strength without love. Because strength does not love. It is stronger than love. Duty and service and commitment do not mean love but can often be expressed as acts of instead of simple professionalism. Professionalism lacking by the ignorant who are not dilligent and are undutiful. Again courage isn't love it is commitment, a duty to achieve and prevail.
What's love. Seriously? A word often meaning something else. I'm sure you expressed desire while quoting another's musings. They expressed something, it wasn't love, in seeking the adoration of others who provided them with platitude.
Families are too independent minded, value focused.
It’s harder to brainwash someone who has a strong family because they’ll gravitate toward whatever values they were raised with.
Now the state wants to raise your kids and impose values. Kinda hard to avoid when both parents are at work and the kid is spending most of their time with teachers, who have to push a centralized curriculum… or students, who are overtly influenced by social media.
Verse 42 (does this cover Life, the Universe, and Everything?)
Aka the way gives birth to each one.
Aka one gives "miscarriage" to suggested dualism (reasoning)
Aka reasoning gives miscarriage to counting, hence accumulating things to reason about exponentially.
Father; mother; child doesn't represent three "together", but the perpetuation of oneself through another one (family "unit"), hence intercourse for off-spring. The inception of the child is being carried towards being born into apartheid, hence being set free (will of choice) from the bond with the mother. Raising the child implies letting go off dependency by growing independence...once again setting apart.
This is retarded dude.
Link a verse of the tao te ching (the book of taoism) which comes even close to what you just said
So nothing from the tao te ching? Oy vey
“Taoist sexual books” = nothing to do with taoism, unless you think that Dan Brown novels about Jesus’ offspring are “christian sexual books”
You’re referencing shit written literally over 1,000 years after the founding of taoism. That’s retarded.
That’s like saying tranny Baptist pastors in 2023 invalidates the New Testament.
Hey man, I’ve likewise enjoyed much of what I’ve seen you post, if my comments have come accros as rude, it’s only because, idk, it “hurts” to see someone who can otherwise come to rational and interesting conclusions coming to such a faulty one in this case.
I know exactly what you’re talking about in terms of the rank selfishness we can observe in some aspects of modern chinese culture, but I think it actually comes from a source which is in opposition to taoism, namely confucianism (made worse by the depravation endured under communism). Here are a few paragraphs which I think should help explain what I mean:
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-difference-between-daoism-and-confucianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi
Honestly, I see where you’re coming from, I just think you’ve set your targets on the wrong thing.
Please, give the tao te ching a glance when you’ve got a minute. I guarantee, the last thing you’ll find is justification for selfishness:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Tao_Te_Ching
Since there is no defined canon of Taoism, it's not the case that later commentaries do not undermine or alter the meaning of the original work.
Taoism, as an experiential philosophy, actively rejects the unquestioned validity of any “commentary” or later work. Thus, unlike with papal edicts, the “official story” can’t change, because there is no official story. That’s the point.
Besides, to which Unassailable Christian Canon do you refer? The Catholic (including the diadeche)? The Mormon? The Ethiopian?
The Ethiopians got it right, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
"Lao Tzu I don't mean no disrespect, but you need to fill your bowl with some shit that makes some sense."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_RO-jL-90
I am not referring specifically to any religion, only that certain religions, or denominations, have defined canon. Because Taoism doesn't, any later commentary can have as almost much authoritative weight as the original. Or depending on how someone is introduced to the practice of Taoism, great experiential influence.
(And the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe you don't know this, confirmed the translations from the Septuagint and thus Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but that's another story.)
Maybe you don’t know, but the DSS contain the book of Enoch, which is only included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon.
I guess they were right and everyone else was wrong huh? That’s how canons work right? Lmfao
Wrong.
Taoism = Tao Te Ching
A single book.
If I said “taoism is about monkeys with unicorn horns”, that doesn’t mean anything and only a fucking retard would say “well I guess the lack of a canon and official body makes THAT TRUE”