happy people disgust me

a reply to: introspectionist

I am sort of a misanthropist too, but if society was different I probably wouldn't feel that way.
I don't hate people directly but what makes them be that way.

I would feel bad and guilty If I was happy, when all around me there is injustice, suffering and misery...
It's like enjoying the misfortune of the others
That's why I mainly dislike constantly happy people

But Burzum Makes me happy.... in a mysterious evil way
so stick to that, or whatever makes you feel better and reliefs your anger
Happyness in life is subjective, so what makes those annoying people unhappy, may have the opposite effect on you and vice versa.

I really hope you'll find the strength and overcome your issues.

originally posted by: introspectionist
Every day I see them. They make up a vast majority of people. People that aren't suffering much. Everywhere happy shallow people. So meaningless. They disgust me.

What about people that project happiness as much as possible to the point of saccharine, vomit-inducing goodwill, but are cripplingly miserable on the inside?

Just curious if I disgust you, or I get a free pass?

If you can't be happy within yourself, hopefully you'll at least learn to enjoy other peoples' happiness without malice or envy. Try it, for there is love all about you. Just grab on and let it take you for a whirl.

originally posted by: introspectionist
a reply to: WhiteAlice
The Jews, to quote The Believer, invented the atom bomb, communism, and infantile sexuality. Yet, and exactly for the same reason, they are a light unto the nations and the indigenous people in Papua New Guinea aren't.

You lost me there... Given the same opportunities and education all nations of the world have the same potential.
No matter where you are born, and what nationality you are. There are no inferior or superior people.

A nation that self claims to be the ''light upon nations'' as their god intended, only adds to their arrogance.
When those words were written, the so called ''light upon nations'' were naive superstitious nomad dessert people, who compared to the advanced nations of that time (Egyptians , Greeks, Babylonians,etc) were as indigenous as today's New Guinea.

originally posted by: introspectionist
Every day I see them. They make up a vast majority of people. People that aren't suffering much. Everywhere happy shallow people. So meaningless. They disgust me.

Call me shallow but......

Your post actually made me happy. Thanks!

originally posted by: beezzer

Who says you can't search for truth with friends?

Beez I feel the exact same way as you.

When I have a bunch of my friends over, and they leave their iphone's and andriod's about, I immediately search for incriminating truths in their lives.

a reply to: Realtruth

lol.... your so funny!

I agree with Beezer though... with some of my best friends we just sit around visiting and philosophizing til the wee hours of the morning on a good topic!

originally posted by: introspectionist
Every day I see them. They make up a vast majority of people. People that aren't suffering much. Everywhere happy shallow people. So meaningless. They disgust me.

its just people for me,

However I am agent of the matrix, whats your excuse?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I didn't intend there to be any ad hominems. As for any of the things you have said about me, you are entitled to your opinion. And as for Huxley we have different opinions and ideas about him, and I stated some of mine, although not all.

originally posted by: introspectionist
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I didn't intend there to be any ad hominems. As for any of the things you have said about me, you are entitled to your opinion. And as for Huxley we have different opinions and ideas about him, and I stated some of mine, although not all.

Avoid making "you" statements and perhaps next time, someone won't perceive ad hominems. I find your opinion on mind control to be both naive and fundamentally deplorable both on an impersonal and personal level. You avow disbelief in democracy and claim that it's the fault of stupid people when it was the intellectual elite that structured what it was that those very people in those "stupid masses" were taught. People in this country are taught by rote and authoritarian principles--not logic or reason. The latter is saved for those students deemed to be the "intellectual elite". We have Russell's duality in this country and if you want fault those stupid masses, then fault the masters who determined that those masses could be swept to and fro by the art of persuasion. It's our great failing in this country that we listened to glorified elitists as to who should learn what and trust me, Huxley is ALL OVER that crap. Both of them.

You hate the present state of today and people? Blame the Huxleys. Try digging harder as right now, your ignorance in these subjects is staggering. They DID influence a whole lot in this country, particularly in education.

a reply to: introspectionist

Im guessing when you show up though, the happiness level goes down. Right? Why should we care about your disgust? You know what kind of people disgust me? They type that feel it's necessary to tell others how they feel. You're disgusted? Who the hell cares? You're probably just a disgusting person. Stay inside. Your neighbors will appreciate it.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I said you because I was referring to when you said a lot of scornful things about Huxley. I said they keep their ideas concealed because of those attitudes that you showed and have shown in almost every post. Nothing ad hominem about that, just go back and read your own posts.

You have said a lot of stuff about me in this thread, I haven't said one word about you.

a reply to: TownCryer

This is the rant forum. Don't want to read? Don't click.

originally posted by: introspectionist
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I said you because I was referring to when you said a lot of scornful things about Huxley. I said they keep their ideas concealed because of those attitudes that you showed and have shown in almost every post. Nothing ad hominem about that, just go back and read your own posts.

You have said a lot of stuff about me in this thread, I haven't said one word about you.

That's why I said "almost smells like a series of ad hominems". You were referencing that individuals like Huxley and those who wish to control the masses via mind control as being "greater minds". That is pretty much a straight up insult. It could be read as saying that my mind isn't great enough to understand, ergo they have to hide. I'm a "lesser mind" in opposition to these supposed "greater minds". That could be one interpretation of your statements. However, I'll point out again that I used "almost smells like a series of ad hominems". The usage of "almost smells like" in combination with giving an alternative "terribly presumptuous" is actually an induction of the principle of charity.

Now instead of trying to construct strawmen, why don't you actually respond to that which is the argument against the application of mind control by "greater minds" against "lesser minds". I'll requote myself here so you don't have to review:

You avow disbelief in democracy and claim that it's the fault of stupid people when it was the intellectual elite that structured what it was that those very people in those "stupid masses" were taught. People in this country are taught by rote and authoritarian principles--not logic or reason. The latter is saved for those students deemed to be the "intellectual elite". We have Russell's duality in this country and if you want fault those stupid masses, then fault the masters who determined that those masses could be swept to and fro by the art of persuasion. It's our great failing in this country that we listened to glorified elitists as to who should learn what and trust me, Huxley is ALL OVER that crap. Both of them.

You hate the present state of today and people? Blame the Huxleys. Try digging harder as right now, your ignorance in these subjects is staggering. They DID influence a whole lot in this country, particularly in education.

I am awaiting your counter argument.

Here's one more question for you to answer in regards to mind control:

Would you be agreeable to having yourself be subject to mind control if it were determined to be necessary by greater minds?

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
But Burzum Makes me happy.... in a mysterious evil way

Varg approves of this message.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: introspectionist
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I said you because I was referring to when you said a lot of scornful things about Huxley. I said they keep their ideas concealed because of those attitudes that you showed and have shown in almost every post. Nothing ad hominem about that, just go back and read your own posts.

You have said a lot of stuff about me in this thread, I haven't said one word about you.

That's why I said "almost smells like a series of ad hominems". You were referencing that individuals like Huxley and those who wish to control the masses via mind control as being "greater minds". That is pretty much a straight up insult. It could be read as saying that my mind isn't great enough to understand, ergo they have to hide. I'm a "lesser mind" in opposition to these supposed "greater minds". That could be one interpretation of your statements. However, I'll point out again that I used "almost smells like a series of ad hominems". The usage of "almost smells like" in combination with giving an alternative "terribly presumptuous" is actually an induction of the principle of charity.

Now instead of trying to construct strawmen, why don't you actually respond to that which is the argument against the application of mind control by "greater minds" against "lesser minds". I'll requote myself here so you don't have to review:

You avow disbelief in democracy and claim that it's the fault of stupid people when it was the intellectual elite that structured what it was that those very people in those "stupid masses" were taught. People in this country are taught by rote and authoritarian principles--not logic or reason. The latter is saved for those students deemed to be the "intellectual elite". We have Russell's duality in this country and if you want fault those stupid masses, then fault the masters who determined that those masses could be swept to and fro by the art of persuasion. It's our great failing in this country that we listened to glorified elitists as to who should learn what and trust me, Huxley is ALL OVER that crap. Both of them.

You hate the present state of today and people? Blame the Huxleys. Try digging harder as right now, your ignorance in these subjects is staggering. They DID influence a whole lot in this country, particularly in education.

I am awaiting your counter argument.

I stated my argument earlier, "people will do what they think is right, even if they do something they wouldn't do, had they had greater minds".

Besides, had they had greater minds, they shouldn't do the same, because then they'd have a different role in humanity.

Civilization cannot exist without hierarchy. And personally I believe civilization cannot exist without deception and concealment of truth either.

I didn't say it was the fault of stupid people that democracy is faulty. But I do think that the notion of democracy that most people have is pure illusion. It never existed in reality and never will. And as for the education bit. You could be sad about the state of things, but at the end of the day it's probably more or less a necessity. You cannot have the whole population informed enough to make important political decisions.

I believe there might be such a thing as freedom. But I think it's in another dimension. I think the physical plane is just one plane of many in existence and that it exists for the correction of sin. When you have corrected your sins you are released.

I think that Huxley didn't tell everybody about everything he thought and/or some of his thoughts have been concealed by others. I think that all the ideas he supported were only a means to an end, not an end in itself. I think he believed in a multidimensional reality too and that those ideas would speed up the process of evolution, making the biggest amount of people correct their sins in the shortest amount of time, and therefore lead to freedom beyond the physical plane. However, he, like many others, saw that the development we see is inevitable and people are unable to be changed in any significant ways. And therefore he was a supporter of the same ideas that he sarcastically wrote about. I see it as a dystopian kind of realism that is at the core still optimism in the sense that it's spiritual. That's the same way I think. I am an optimist in the sense that I believe in God, but a pessimist regarding the jolly worshipers of the Demiurge.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Would you be agreeable to having yourself be subject to mind control if it were determined to be necessary by greater minds?

Yes. There's no option. It is inevitable. Our entire information landscape is controlled, and thus our minds. By law of nature minds greater in certain departments will have more power, nothing to do about it, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way. The day it isn't like that we're not living in the physical plane anymore.

Here's a quote from an interview about mind control. The only part I disagree with is what he seems to imply when he says "we have to find our way back to viewing reality as it is". I agree with that but in a more general sense.

It's not widely known, but The Cold War was lost, the West lost The Cold War, culturally. It won it geopolitically, when the Soviet Union collapsed from 1989 through to the early nineties. We won that sort of objective geopolitical level of Cold War but we lost the cultural Cold War. And the reason we don't talk about it is that those who would be talking about it are the children of the victors. It's a message that is met with a blank stare. People just don't know what to make of it. And it's difficult because we are all influenced by that defeat. But the thing is our houses are not heard, our daily routines are not heard. What's heard is our minds, our consciousnesses. So the way we look at the world, the prison through which we view reality and society, has been altered. And we carry that prison around with us. So we're caged, as Max Faber called it, we're caged by mere concepts. But these are powerful concepts. We lost the cultural Cold War and somehow we have to find ourselves, we have to find our way back to viewing reality as it is. It's really interesting, so you can see that this question you asked leads to profound questions about how we think.

source: www.redicecreations.com...

I think Marxism, Zionism, feminism and most of Huxley's ideas serve one and the same purpose, a spiritual purpose. I have written about it before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have compared it to meditation. When you meditate you have things in the subconscious emerge into the conscious. Fears in the subconscious remain in existence whereas if they are held in the conscious for prolonged times they evaporate. I believe things like this and politics are connected. Politics serves to make people's minds expose their inner hidden layers so that they can be corrected.

Here's an interesting video that might be some food for thought regarding mind control:

People who are disgusted, make me happy...



Å99

originally posted by: introspectionist
I stated my argument earlier, "people will do what they think is right, even if they do something they wouldn't do, had they had greater minds".

Besides, had they had greater minds, they shouldn't do the same, because then they'd have a different role in humanity.

Civilization cannot exist without hierarchy. And personally I believe civilization cannot exist without deception and concealment of truth either.

Not disagreement in regards to some level of hierarchy existing. Even in the Navajo, which was a culture without a single leader, a level of hierarchy was maintained through a variety of individuals--the matriarchs of families/clans (familial leadership), the medicine men (spiritual leadership), and, in times of war, those warriors with substantial prowess (military leadership). However, each one of these individuals were essentially selected by the whole or "earned" their place at the top after proving their mettle in one way or the other. You could have a medicine man that came from a long and respected line of medicine men and if that person acted for their own personal benefit (greed), then they would be shunned. I'd say that while some level of hierarchy is demanded and natural within society, it is infinitely more efficient and beneficial when those individuals actually earn their own positions of respect by proving their worth to the society overall.

Not everyone in positions of power in modern society do what is right and there are considerable road blocks within this and many other countries that basically block any sort of natural hierarchy. It's rather like voting--it's not necessarily voting for the best individual to fulfill the position, it seems to often be voting for the perceived lesser of two evils.

I didn't say it was the fault of stupid people that democracy is faulty. But I do think that the notion of democracy that most people have is pure illusion. It never existed in reality and never will. And as for the education bit. You could be sad about the state of things, but at the end of the day it's probably more or less a necessity. You cannot have the whole population informed enough to make important political decisions.

This is where I substantially disagree. Even Huxley observed in a lecture at Berkeley that that percentage of individuals who were highly prone and without tools to guard themselves against the art of persuasion could be a country's greatest weakness. So while Huxley was a total eugenics snob, he was concerned that eventually some outside entity would grasp onto the minds and hearts of these people to take the country down from within.

I believe there might be such a thing as freedom. But I think it's in another dimension. I think the physical plane is just one plane of many in existence and that it exists for the correction of sin. When you have corrected your sins you are released.

Whatever floats your boat.

I think that Huxley didn't tell everybody about everything he thought and/or some of his thoughts have been concealed by others. I think that all the ideas he supported were only a means to an end, not an end in itself. I think he believed in a multidimensional reality too and that those ideas would speed up the process of evolution, making the biggest amount of people correct their sins in the shortest amount of time, and therefore lead to freedom beyond the physical plane.

It depends on what you mean by multidimensional reality. Both of the Huxleys were interested in the phenomena of epiphany and the predilection of individuals who would remark that when they wrote or drew a masterpiece, that they did not know from whence it came. They were part of the group that wanted to find a way to have unfettered and controlled access to what was frequently seen as the reality underlying reality. This sub-reality was called by many names from the numinous element to being akin to the Aztec smoking mirror. Hence his tendency towards utilizing psychedelic drugs.

The only other possibly related concept was the awareness that time moved at a different pace inside the mind. Rather like how when you are dreaming, it may seem that the dream has lasted for hours when only minutes have passed. Both Huxleys wanted access to that and thought it could, via post-hypnotic induction, create high speed super geniuses.

Yes. There's no option. It is inevitable. Our entire information landscape is controlled, and thus our minds. By law of nature minds greater in certain departments will have more power, nothing to do about it, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way. The day it isn't like that we're not living in the physical plane anymore.

If our world was being played out in its natural context, there would not be quite so much tumult within it. As I pointed out earlier, the mechanisms for the natural gravitation towards power/control have been thoroughly skewed. As far as information being controlled, of course, it is; however, plenty still slips through the cracks. Information is like water in that way--you can build up a dam to block it in, but it's still going to find a way to move beyond the scope of the dam.

As per the Cold War thing, I find that very humorous and would love to know what the author used to measure this "geopolitical loss". The absolute root, however, of the Cold War was a "system" war. The Revolutions of 1848 and the eventual fall of Russia and transformation into the USSR was absolutely terrifying for industrialists. Many of the countries that were Communist at one time ended up rejecting that system soon after the USSR fell. I was in the USSR before it fell and after seeing lines stretch for blocks because of a toilet paper shortage, I can honestly say that Communism fell because it was a logistical nightmare. People need their TP, shampoo, and soap. The government was failing to provide items for basic hygiene....

I have compared it to meditation. When you meditate you have things in the subconscious emerge into the conscious. Fears in the subconscious remain in existence whereas if they are held in the conscious for prolonged times they evaporate. I believe things like this and politics are connected. Politics serves to make people's minds expose their inner hidden layers so that they can be corrected.

Okay then. I'd argue that politics serves to prey upon the subconscious minds of people to appeal to, at times, the basest of human traits. It's not an auto-corrector but something that instead tends towards the subjective arguments.

Here's an interesting video that might be some food for thought regarding mind control

I am very well versed in the subjects and arguments for mind control for personal reasons. I know it's deplorable. You will never convince me that it is a good thing.

originally posted by: introspectionist
To me it feels like there is something very perverted, unspiritual, about being happy. Hatred is purity. Kind of like winter in the arctic is pure and white whereas the tropics is a cesspool of poisonous insects, dirt, viruses and foul smell. I feel the same about being alone vs being around others. Whatever I do with others feels perverted.

Ahh...okay. This kid's got a messed up outlook on life and now wants to be recognized as a special snowflake for it.

If that's how you truly feel about other people's enjoyment of life and ability to move passed their suffering, because everyone suffers at some point or another, then you are probably one foot into that whole "Mass-shooting-wannabe-who-hopes-he'll-finally-be-recognized-as-something-other-than-a-loser-camp" and you genuinely concern me.

PS. I'd avoid any references to sin or religion in relation to either of the Huxleys. Both were atheists and very anti-religion. Aldous' intentions was to liberate the world from some of the concepts of sin, including sexuality. Orgy porgy and all that.

It is man's intelligence that makes him so often behave more stupidly than the beasts. ... Man is impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic. Thus, no animal is clever enough, when there is a drought, to imagine that the rain is being withheld by evil spirits, or as punishment for its transgressions. Therefore you never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. No horse, for example would kill one of its foals to make the wind change direction. Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough. Aldous Huxley, Texts and Pretexts