I want to have a serious discussion about my book because I believe it is the greatest and most important organization...

>My ideas are not for cuck academics. They are part of the problem.

Goonan confirmed for redpill.

But seriously, if your views aren't for "cuck academics" but only for some unidentified chosen people, shouldn't that clue you into the short sightedness of your intellectual revolution? If your insights are so amazing, they should be self evident to even the biggest 'cuck'. You see this kind of narrative in the gospel, where Jesus is able to convert prostitutes, murders, tax collectors, all sorts of sinners. If your philosophy can't speak to the worst among humanity (the cuck professors) then how can you ever hope to change the world?

I'd like to think that my ideas could be understood by all, but in reality I've learned that people are really, really, really fucking stupid and this has put me in a pit. I've lost a lot of motivation and don't want to waste any energy or make a fool out of myself pushing the book real hard onto people.

Here are some quick samples:

"We have free will, we are not all powerful, we are not all knowing, and we experience the universe with a biological framework and consciousness. I have discovered that due to this inherent structure of our perceived existence, we
follow two distinct paths. The duality of human nature is this: Every single human feeling, thought, or action at any level of experience or awareness can be categorized under two equally valid but opposite reactions to the absurdity of the universe. Rejection and destruction or acceptance and building."

"Wrath

Our inherent meaningless existence produces mental and physical anguish. Other people or society as a whole can exacerbate anguish
produced by existing. The source of this mental and physical anguish is powerlessness. An individual that feels powerless may reject the conditions that produce the powerlessness and retaliate through wrath as an attempt to gain power. The attempt to gain
power through wrath is either the attempt to supersede the powerlessness by trying to obtain all the power one can get (which indirectly creates destructiveness in the individual and society), or the direct destruction of anything that creates powerlessness.

Wrath is destruction and destruction is power.
Wrath is extreme power and extreme power is destruction."

"Animalistic nature is not limited to violence- it applies to sexuality. A society comprised of people that follow a completely
animalistic sexual nature is destructive. The consequences of following this nature are far-reaching. A hedonistic nature and an
animalistic sexual nature are intertwined, although are not the same thing.

Complete animalistic sexual behavior in men is characterized by the pursuance of having sex with many women with disregard for
choosing a single mate to create a family with.

Complete animalistic sexual behavior in women is characterized by the pursuance of a man or many men for only their high sexual
prowess with disregard for the creation of a strong family due to:
A. The desire for the woman to put off raising a family in this pursuit, which also contributes to a long-term negative effect in the
creation of a family in section C.
B. The unlikelihood that a man with high sexual prowess will settle down and raise a child with the particular woman given the fact
that he has many other options and may be animalistic himself.
C. The elimination of the possibility of raising a strong family with a man who has less sexual prowess than any man the woman has
had sex with before. The reason for this is that a woman will only remain subservient and desire to be with the person who is the top alpha male in her sexual past. The woman is subservient to the feelings and pleasure that the alpha male gave her. A man who remains
in a relationship with a woman in which he has no possibility for becoming the top alpha male in her sexual history is a beta and therefore weaker and inferior to the actual alpha male from the perspective of the woman and her feelings. If the woman disregards her sexual hierarchy and starts a family with a beta male, the partnership is doomed to be weak and they will fail in remaining
together and fail to create strong offspring. The woman may have chosen the beta for his provider status because of her inability to
hold down an alpha male. The beta is a provider of both monetary and emotional support for the woman. The woman is the dominant
person in the relationship with the beta male because she holds the locus of power in the relationship- her sexual feelings and needs
that are not being met."

"The worst thing that comes with the rejection of animalistic behavior and power-seeking is sexual degeneration. In a strong society
there is a strong polarity between the sexes with men being dominant and masculine, and women being submissive and feminine. But of
course with free will, and a society that allows for complete freedom, anything is acceptable. But why should our polar animalistic
nature be retained? Proponents of unrestricted free will ask why is it desired for men to remain men and women to remain women when
these creations can be dismantled and replaced with something else? Why not continue with our society in which more and more men
become feminine and more women become masculine? Why not take it to its conclusion with a new humanity where all women are the
masculine beings and all men are the feminine, or a new humanity comprised of androgynous things?

Our base polar nature should be retained because it is a base guideline to work off of and use as a mental and social anchor, because
it is practical, and most importantly because it is necessary."

"Homosexual men are averse to masculinity, most likely having had bad experiences with overly masculine men or overly harsh women
that subjected the man to fear and powerlessness. Men who are homosexual were likely to be exposed to extremely masculine men
(father) counterparted with an extremely submissive mother in which the child would turn to. This manifests later when the child is
exposed to masculine boys in which the child feels inferior and turns those feelings into sexual submissive feelings towards the
boys rather than trying to be masculine himself. The child then turns to approval from his girl peers, just the same as when he
turned to his mother who would provide comfort from the domineering overly masculine father. Men who are homosexual may also have
had a weak and feminine father in which the child learns and mimics, and never understand the importance of cultivating masculinity.
The homosexual man becomes adverse to the harshness of competing for women and the difficulty in cultivating masculinity. The
homosexual derives pleasure from being submissive to more dominant men, the path of least resistance in grappling with his
inferiority and difficulty. Homosexual men relinquish all self-control. This is why they are likely to be hedonistic and pursue
casual sex. The "gayness" of the homosexual is a lack of understanding that a man must be courageous, have self-control, and that
true happiness does not come from being overly gay and happy all the time to protect from the harshness of existence, but comes from
accomplishment, self-actualization, overcoming, truly connecting with others and so on. Homosexuals artificially pretend that
everything is great and project this pathetic gaiety onto others. In the certain kind of flamboyant gay man these things can be seen
the easiest. These projections and the man's feelings of inferiority, especially regarding masculinity, reflect the man's inability
to grapple with the demands of existence and the cultivation of power."

What do you think of violent criminals?

"The consumer plays a major role in making Conscious Capitalism function. In the end, it is up to the conscious individual to choose
to support either destructive businesses or businesses that strengthen society for all. A sacrifice must be made by the consumer in
the form of paying a higher price in order to support businesses that do not operate destructively. In the end the payoff for
supporting certain businesses (this is where nuance comes in) is far greater than the money saved in supporting a destructive
business and economic system."

"According to the doctrine of modern economics, with economies of scale, large corporations are able to cut costs and sell their products to consumers cheaper. Under the same doctrine, the consumer should buy the cheapest product and support the most efficient
business to save money and in turn support a system that uses resources efficiently. Except common economics and economical thinking
does not consider the larger picture. Unconscious consumers choose to support businesses in the component that is most visible, their ability to produce a product efficiently and cheaply. Yet this ability does not make the certain business the best choice. If a consumer supports the corporate economic structure, they are supporting their own indirect demise. They may get their goods cheaper, but they must also work for cheaper for the same corporations that control the economy. Large corporations are soulless- they have no concept of rejecting destructiveness and choosing building. Individuals become faceless cogs in the corporate machine and are treated that way."

I can go into how they are formed starting from their upbringing, events that may lead them certain ways, and society as a whole influencing them, but in general terms I say they are beings that exist in powerlessness (as all humans do) in which they blindly lash out in order to gain as much power as possible, through either destruction or excessive power seeking. Or they are simply just acting on their own FREE WILL to do whatever the fuck they can humanly possibly do, because WE HAVE FREE WILL. At their core they are exercising their free will because of the powerlessness, innate or not, but they could be acting on their free will just because they can.

"We shape the environment and our environment shapes us. The environment contributes to the aesthetic of physical existence, which influences our aesthetic perception, and mind. Some aesthetics are better than others. Human beings create the aesthetic of cities, buildings, land, and existence. The aesthetic must be created with intelligence and planning. Its construction must get rid of artificiality and distraction. The distraction is a distraction from the fact that we live in a universe in which we do not know everything and are not in absolute control. Artificiality creates this distraction. The environment should not convey that humanity
has taken over Earth, but is rather a part of Earth.

The ideal creation of an environment and infrastructure is one in which our entire concrete/asphalt jungle we call civilization is
undone. How this environment will play out and function in the whole of society can be found in the sections on economics and technology. Technology has completely and seemingly irreversibly changed the infrastructure, aesthetic, and existence of the environment and community. It has completely and seemingly irreversibly annihilated a natural and wonder inspiring environment and life. The industrialization of our world must be undone. Cities must be recreated to be small, functional, intertwined with nature, and conducive to community. Our current environment evokes constriction, isolation, a separation from nature, a separation from one another, excessive industriousness, an acceleration of day-to-day life, confusion, artificiality, and powerlessness. What we physically create and see as our environment reflects our internal selves as a society."

Give me one good reason to give you money

Vague hogwash. Have you seriously ever sat down for a whole day and done research?

*Fart noise*

It's just a whole bunch of oughts and assumptions that all happen to buy into the reactionary viewpoint. Ever wonder why no one was impressed with the last 50 threads?

To start with, have you read the entire book?

This is so wrong it makes me physically sick. And I've made probably 6 threads here over the past 6 months.

>it does not feel good to exist in perpetual powerlessness
But that's how you maintain your empire, user. You sound more weak than powerless.

no offense but I feel like you just tried to regurgitate Freud and the french existentialists...

desu the government should keep an eye on you and your manifesto. Also, it does not sound too groundbreaking.

The only way for people to understand what I have written is to read all 121 pages, which seems ridiculous, but the way I specifically created the book is the reason for this. It builds and builds and builds upon previous foundations of understanding, and it is also so all-encompassing that it is impossible to articulate in less than 121 pages what it is completely about. If you do not understand after 121 pages, you were not ready to read it. Anything less that reading all 121 pages and you have missed a piece of the puzzle and it will be impossible to understand.

idk man you seem like you got a philosophy degree popped 10 Addys and read to much DFW.

I will actually check it out though and get back to you.

Who are your philosophical influences? Also, is there a book you would recommend reading before your own?

respectable.

as rei koz wrote, "NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE CARDINAL."

the greeks senpai

Which ones, specifically?

It is a fucking joke! I have no tangible evidence, you have no way to remove me, I threaten to sue and you threaten to kill. It's a huge fucking joke except the whole lawsuit thing is a real possibility while I'm really not worried about bring assassinated. It's an ironic joke :^)

That was a joke mostly. Honestly I have not yet read his book but am planning on at least looking it over. If I had to hazard a guess I would say that reading post enlightenment philosophy or a brief intellectual history might be worth while?

Thank you.

Here is my Goodreads page: goodreads.com/author/show/16065620.Sean_Goonan

Here are some books that influenced me: thefoundationpress.com/books.html

I would say Beyond Good and Evil is a good philosophy-type book to go through before reading mine, although all paths are different.

His book is only 6 bucks on Amazon. Could be worth it.

don't

Didn't you read the summary? It's not worth it.

kek.
you're a retard, sean. a retard.

Hmm...that taste on Goodreads ain't so bad. Maybe G00nan and I see eye to eye on something after all.

my book is better
suck my balls op
choke on them!

Oh shit. Somebody skipped the existentialists. From the summary it seems like you even overlooked Plato. This is surely very convoluted bait.

Checked.

Give me a break. I invented the existentialists.

strawpoll.me/13183564

G O O N A N
O.O
O...O
N......N
A.........A
N............N

>existence precedes essence
>goonan precedes existence

holy SHIT

who is more alpha

goonan or icycalm

koz

strawpoll.me/13183656

sounds like a bunch of garbled theories from babbys first philosophy