Lately, I've been seeing more and more how a person's ideologies,
politics, and intellectual knowledge are just window dressings and
outer trapping for their character and feelings. (This is nothing new,
straight from Mao too by the way). How a person dresses up what they
know from their carnal experience and feelings doesn't really mean
much; it's just an intellectual framework for explaining and
rationalizing feelings and experiences. E.g., Tani said in her last
post how she is rare as a Durga who is atheist and comletely
materialistic. But how much does it really matter whether she
logically explains her abilities with materialist explanations, or
calls them something Buddhist or even explains it with Christianity?
E.g., the Christos.
This goes back to the old discussion of why people adopt certain
ideologies. I.e., that they are expressions of their inner beings.
People can also both share an intellectual framework and have very
different INNER beings and understandings of that ideology. E.g., two
people can call themselves Marxists with very different carnal grasps
of what they are describing. This all ultimately goes back to
neurology anyway.
Why do some people believe Goldhagen (or their own understanding of
it), and some condemn his thesis and book as rubbish? Why do some
people think that the US is an imperialistic country, and some people
think it is the do-gooder savior of the world? Well, of course they
have lots of fancy books and facts and statistics and sources to back
them up, but the fact is that there exist books and figures to justify
ANYTHING. People selectively believe certain facts to believe. So in a
sense MIm3 was right long ago, that people DO embody a truth, because
that truth is the CHILD of their bodily experience through life. Why
do some people think that Stalin was a petty power-mad dictatorial
tyrant, and some people think he was a despotic (meaning no-bullshit
hard-core against incompetants and other Enemies of the People) guy
who served the People to make Communism? Well, personally, I think
more like the latter because in books I read on him, LITTLE THINGS tip
me off; I can RELATE to them, i.e., to my REAL feelings and
experiences! THAT'S why. THAT'S why these Western people can ONLY
understand things in the framework of their own pretaloka shithole
experience. They can NOT comprehend that Stalin killed those people
for anything OTHER than sheer male disease-type power-madness, because
that is the only behavior they KNOW. Of course, they are not AWARE
that their ideas are based on real experience (they have emphatically
denied it to me), and thus think it's some "pure logic" or "universal
spiritual truth." MORONS. That's why convincing them otherwise is a
waste of time. The Black ex-Marxist Thomas Sowell noted how these
western people either saw the USSR as Utopia or Hell. I think these
Westerners are RIGHT to hate Stalinism, since they would PERISH under
it. Of course, these intellectual waste-products that whine and wail
about the USSR are all unaware people who cannot simply say "OUR KIND
perished under Stalin", and instead preach about universal injustice,
etc. STUPID shit.
Look at what different people have made with Satanism. LaVey defined
Satanic in a very unusual and novel way relating to his own inner
experience living in America as a Gypsy etc, and wrote a book about
it. Then mostly white Americans read that book, usually due to a
tantrum against themselves and their own inner confusion, and made
their own thing out of the COS (e.g., the Hobbesian stuff). Then Tani
et al come out with their Dark Doctrine (which existed in LaVey's
writings, but very subtly and quietly) and redefine Satanism as
something INNERLY specific. SOME in COS circles saw this and
consequently related that to themselves and their own experiences. So
these things are all "Satanism", but all very different. It's wierd
(and wonderful) for me to think of what I call "Satanic", and how
EASTERN and DARK it is, and yet how it relates directly back to many
things LaVey said all along.
