Sign in to follow this  
Mskied

Greatings from the White Brotherhood

Recommended Posts

Are your posts 'good'  ?

 

 

good
/ɡʊd/
 
adjective
 
  1. 1.
    to be desired or approved of.
     
    •  
  2. 2.
    having the required qualities; of a high standard
     
     
    We are  still waiting to hear why    'white '  is the   " highest form of an ideal " .   ? 
     
    No answer seems to indicate there is no known reason , known by you .   So with no answer it must be assumed it is yet another  racial judgement that has roots that are  established so deep in the psyche  that their origins are unknown .
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White is purity in form.  No Caucasian is white, its a lazy signifier of skin tone.

 

Do What Thou Wilt, refine your strength, conquer weakness.  Lead by strength, guide to strength, expose weakness.  Or, simply become strong and let them struggle under your hoof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mskied said:

White is purity in form.  No Caucasian is white, its a lazy signifier of skin tone.

 

Do What Thou Wilt, refine your strength, conquer weakness.  Lead by strength, guide to strength, expose weakness.  Or, simply become strong and let them struggle under your hoof.

 

Care to explain what seems to be an act of violence?

 

My LED flashlight which emits a whiter light must qualify as perfection.

 

 

 

 

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them struggle under your hoof, meaning, strengthen yourself and force them to conquer your dominance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mskied said:

Let them struggle under your hoof, meaning, strengthen yourself and force them to conquer your dominance


With violence? You ranting here makes no sense!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My belief is that he doesn’t want a PPJ because it would focus his rants there and people wouldn’t find him or read him. 
 

From going on the “What made you laugh?” thread to say that nothing is funny to going here to post his musings, he wants people to read his posts—whether they want to or not.

 

Yet when asked simple questions, he avoids direct answers and refuses to acknowledge that his understanding of material cited or questions poised is dubious, then calls others trolls or childish.

 

In another world that might be fine, but in a time where misinformation and disinformation is spreading while being fanned by the flames of alienation and resentment, it is not a good idea for his posts to be anywhere but a PPJ and away from public searches.

 

...not that anyone would want to look his rants up though...

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Earl Grey is about as forgiving as the Devil.  Apparently a man cant have an opinion, be misinformed, have his own perspective, share his thoughts, or write musings of art about metaphysical thoughts.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ralis said:


With violence? You ranting here makes no sense!

They can use violence or whatever means they want to conquer your dominance.  It depends if you are willing to fight them off or submit.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mskied said:

Wow Earl Grey is about as forgiving as the Devil.  Apparently a man cant have an opinion, be misinformed, have his own perspective, share his thoughts, or write musings of art about metaphysical thoughts.  


And you are as thin-skinned to feedback and unwilling to recognize the consequences of your actions. Cause and effect, not eye for an eye, old chap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old arguments, stuck mind, not letting a man evolve.  See you in the history books.  TO INFINITY, AND BEYOND!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mskied said:

old arguments, stuck mind, not letting a man evolve. 

Same behavior, same rationalization, and I am not responsible for another man's evolution (or lack thereof).

 

7 minutes ago, Mskied said:

See you in the history books.

"History shall remember me greatly because I write it" said Winston Churchill.

 

7 minutes ago, Mskied said:

TO INFINITY, AND BEYOND!

 

WORLD WILL LIVE. WORLDS WILL DIE. NOTHING WILL REMAIN THE SAME. CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mskied said:

They can use violence or whatever means they want to conquer your dominance.  It depends if you are willing to fight them off or submit.


Your narrative is based on Spencer’s Social Darwinist ideology which is erroneously based on survival of the fittest which is contrary to the evolution of the group based on altruism. The former was a misinterpretation of Darwin while the latter is based on scientific research by E.O. Wilson and other researchers. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ralis said:


With violence? You ranting here makes no sense!

 

Told ya   :)

 

have dominance and then force them to conquer your dominance .

 

Maybe its an SM session ?    :huh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mskied said:

Wow Earl Grey is about as forgiving as the Devil.  Apparently a man cant have an opinion, be misinformed, have his own perspective, share his thoughts, or write musings of art about metaphysical thoughts.  

 

You can and that is exactly what a PPJ is for !

 

This part of the forum is about discussion, and that means answering questions and giving feedback on what you write and what others ask you about .

 

Or go make a youtube, and say whatever you want .

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Earl Grey said:

Same behavior, same rationalization, and I am not responsible for another man's evolution (or lack thereof).

No, youre not responsible for it, but your actions don't allow me to become it and it only pollutes my growth and the ability to witness that I am evolving.  By smearing me based on old observations and arguments you clutter my new observations.  I don't need to be reminded that I made a mistake that I have since rectified, that's on you.  Try to witness to each statement as a new observation and asses it from there rather than holding a grudge for what is basically a simple misunderstanding.

"History shall remember me greatly because I write it" said Winston Churchill.

 

 

WORLD WILL LIVE. WORLDS WILL DIE. NOTHING WILL REMAIN THE SAME. CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS!

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, ralis said:


Your narrative is based on Spencer’s Social Darwinist ideology which is erroneously based on survival of the fittest which is contrary to the evolution of the group based on altruism. The former was a misinterpretation of Darwin while the latter is based on scientific research by E.O. Wilson and other researchers. 

 

Youre ignoring my first set of ideas which was entirely altruistic.  I included the final observation to say that this too is an option, and that perhaps we should consider that it is an option that we are actually using rather than the first option, which was to find strength and Good and teach others how to become it- something that I see a lot of people online thinking they are doing but failing miserably.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

You can and that is exactly what a PPJ is for !

 

This part of the forum is about discussion, and that means answering questions and giving feedback on what you write and what others ask you about . - and I am doing just that.  You people are not even interested in my statements all youre doing is criticizing a past argument that we got into about my knowledge about systems and the presentation of my ideas, which do not need to be influenced by anyone but my own observations.  As people that have read from other sources other than their own observations, since you want to correct me on this, perhaps you should 1. keep in mind that I know nothing about it and 2. educate me on how to conform with the ideas of these thinkers.

 

Or go make a youtube, and say whatever you want .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mskied said:

No, youre not responsible for it, but your actions don't allow me to become it and it only pollutes my growth and the ability to witness that I am evolving.  By smearing me based on old observations and arguments you clutter my new observations.  I don't need to be reminded that I made a mistake that I have since rectified, that's on you.  Try to witness to each statement as a new observation and asses it from there rather than holding a grudge for what is basically a simple misunderstanding.


Oh, MY actions? This is like saying that because someone disagrees with you, you aren’t able to do anything. If you were a 21st century teen then I’d see why you can’t function if someone disagrees or points out your foolishness, but you’re in your late 40s, sir.

 

Grow a spine or some Will that you quote yet have a dubious interpretation of, lad! I didn’t hold you back, you are using us as a convenient scapegoat to justify your unwillingness to recognize you’re still in the same pattern. 

 

I don't "pollute your growth" by my comments, I'm just witnessing what's going on, which is that you're posting nonsense that is hard to follow and when questioned by others or how it's pointed out that you're best off in a PPJ, you shrink away into a corner as though my opinion of what you write invalidates it. What I'm saying is that you're posting nonsense and not engaging in dialogue or taking feedback, so you might as well have a PPJ instead.

 

I am not "smearing you based on old observations and arguments", I'm responding to the fact that you're still spewing the same nonsense. So you might think you've stopped making mistakes, but in the eyes of us, it's no different today than it was a couple months ago. Your responses to three of us here show you're just not interested in getting your head out of the ground.

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mskied said:
9 hours ago, ralis said:


Your narrative is based on Spencer’s Social Darwinist ideology which is erroneously based on survival of the fittest which is contrary to the evolution of the group based on altruism. The former was a misinterpretation of Darwin while the latter is based on scientific research by E.O. Wilson and other researchers. 

 

Youre ignoring my first set of ideas which was entirely altruistic.  I included the final observation to say that this too is an option, and that perhaps we should consider that it is an option that we are actually using rather than the first option, which was to find strength and Good and teach others how to become it- something that I see a lot of people online thinking they are doing but failing miserably.

 

 

Responding to me within the quotation box is improper form and confusing to anyone reading this. Further, if you want to evolve, then evolve with Strunk and White!

 

https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2WMRA6R3WYEXW&keywords=strunk+%26+white's+%26quotthe+element+of+syle&qid=1572360092&s=books&sprefix=Strunk%2Caps%2C225&sr=1-1

 

I have noticed that you allude to Aleister Crowley in part of your narrative. I have read a good portion of Crowley's writings and Crowley was far beyond where you pretend to be.

 

 

Edited by ralis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mskied

 

Trick or treat. :lol: Have a fun Halloween going door to door in white robes.:lol:

 

74424032_10218630997821863_7210484164171

 

 

Edited by ralis
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ralis said:

I have noticed that you allude to Aleister Crowley in part of your narrative. I have read a good portion of Crowley's writings and Crowley was far beyond where you pretend to be.

 

That was what started the exchange the past couple months with him. He misquoted Crowley, he was told that he missed the point by Nungali, then when I asked him what he meant and told him that even I didn't read Crowley in such a manner as he interpreted, he acted defensive and then started making straw man arguments with us for things we never said. 

 

No openness to feedback. No willingness to back up what was said by him. No appreciation for people who have studied formally pointing out that he is making things up and not understanding what was said. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is Crowley, and there is Magick, and there is Thelema, and there is the Book of the Law.  The initial argument was about my interpretation of the Book of the Law, the instructions for reading thereof being that you read it once and burn it, developing your interpretation of it on a once through.  Crowley recommends not talking about the Law of Do What Thou Wilt, saying that those that do become a center of pestilence.  Then there is his own comments on it.  I gave my interpretation of this Law and everyone threw eggs.  

 

Then there is Crowley and what he recommends Magick be used for, which I said was used to manipulate others, which was again disputed.  In Magick in Theory and Practice, it is plainly written that when you apply a necessary force onto an object (or person) you can transmute them into something that they are capable of being made into, and I consider this to be manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mskied said:

There is Crowley, and there is Magick, and there is Thelema, and there is the Book of the Law.  The initial argument was about my interpretation of the Book of the Law, the instructions for reading thereof being that you read it once and burn it, developing your interpretation of it on a once through.  Crowley recommends not talking about the Law of Do What Thou Wilt, saying that those that do become a center of pestilence.  Then there is his own comments on it.  I gave my interpretation of this Law and everyone threw eggs.  

 

Then there is Crowley and what he recommends Magick be used for, which I said was used to manipulate others, which was again disputed.  In Magick in Theory and Practice, it is plainly written that when you apply a necessary force onto an object (or person) you can transmute them into something that they are capable of being made into, and I consider this to be manipulation.


Since Crowley recommends not discussing with anyone, then why are you openly stating your interpretation here? 

Edited by ralis
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this