Are you sure you aren't a Nihilist? Test yourself.

So we all here talk about nihilism this and nihilism that, but I think I might be able to point out the potential nihilism within us all.

Nihilism is a hatred and rejection of nature, yes?

I'm going to now illustrate a hypothetical scenario to test the Overman within you. So let's begin.


Imagine that you have a son or daughter. You love your child very much. You would do anything for this child of yours. One night, an intruder breaks into your home. He goes into the room where your child sleeps and begins to rape your child. Subsequently, he sadistically tortures your child until death. Let's imagine that the intruder is later apprehended by the police and some time later in the future, taken to court for prosecution. Would you harbor resentment for this intruder that raped and tortured your child? Would you try to get revenge on this individual even though his actions were pre-determined by nature itself? If yes, then you would be considered a nihilist ( anti-nature ) as the intruder only acted in accordance with his true nature. If you wouldn't harbor resentment or try to avenge your self, then you embrace life and nature.

His actions were pre-determined by nature?
Like, he had no choice??

Why would taking revenge be anti-nature?
That could very well be the nature of that individual in question.

What a gross misunderstanding of what nihilism is.

If we use your example, then the intruder acting according to his nature, would produce a natural reaction in me, no?

If a woman is promiscuous, because it is in her nature to be so, then me wanting to kill him and beat the shit out of her, is also natural.
If she is naturally inclined to fuck around, so as to sample different genes, every seven, or so, years, then why is it prohibited to rape her, or to force her to submit to your sexual inclinations?

I never said a pedophile was unnatural, only that he is a product of a sexual mutation which is unfit and only enjoys safety within manmade environments.
Everything is natural: eating shit, enjoying a golden shower, fucking cows.

Now, why would that naturally occurring mutation not face a natural reaction to it?

Do ya get it yet?

Feminization is about showing preference, even supporting, one natural inclination, but showing intolerance and prohibiting another.
If female sexuality is to be permitted, even helped by technologies which make her sexual behaviors with no consequences, then why are male sexual responses, evolved over time, not also permitted?

if a pedophile or someone who enjoys fucking animals is to be pitied and even accepted, or if some male who likes taking it in the rectum is perfectly normal, then why is my inclination to kick his face in, or to manipulate weakness and feminine stupidity, not allowed?

Anfang wrote: " His actions were pre-determined by nature?
Like, he had no choice??

Why would taking revenge be anti-nature?
That could very well be the nature of that individual in question."


This intruder is a natural born " sociopath " as Western psychologists would put it. Not only this, but this killer is free from slave morality ( self-denial practices ) so he freely allows his sociopathic nature to be expressed. His actions are heavily influenced by his genes.

If one would harbor resentment towards this intruder for what he did, then they would be harboring resentment for nature as this guy is the manifestation of his genes. He, essentially, can't be anything other than what he is: a Killer.


To Satyr, Nihilism itself could be considered " natural " if we want to get, really, technical about it as nihilism occurs in nature. What I mean by "anti-nature" is that the individual who's child was raped and killed holds resentment toward the killer as if the killer could be anything other than what he is: a sadistic killer. This resentment is based in some notion that the Killer could have been otherwise or that the killer should have rejected his nature and not killed. It's akin to an MRA who harbors resentment towards some female because she manipulated him and played mind-games with him.

Primal Rage wrote:

To Satyr, Nihilism itself could be considered " natural " if we want to get, really, technical about it as nihilism occurs in nature. What I mean by "anti-nature" is that the individual who's child was raped and killed holds resentment toward the killer as if the killer could be anything other than what he is: a sadistic killer. This resentment is based in some notion that the Killer could have been otherwise or that the killer should have rejected his nature and not killed. It's akin to an MRA who harbors resentment towards some female because she manipulated him and played mind-games with him.

I've offered you my definition distinguishing artificial from natural environments.
It is about how human desires, ideals, intervene upon natural, outside human desires ideals, processes, to such a degree that they begin determining the fate of a population more than the preexisting processes.
It is nihilistic in that it opposes nature and natural processes, it does not simply adjust or nudge them to achieve an advantage.  

Saying that homosexuality is natural because it is the natural byproduct of heterosexual reproduction, fails to explain why it is then protected from equally natural consequences.
Saying that retardation is also a natural byproduct of reproduction does not explain why it should be allowed to reproduce, protecting it from equally natural corrections.

Yes, a pedophile is also a natural mutations, a sexual deviation, but then so is killing a pedophile to protect your child, no?

The MRA's can do as they wish. In fact them "turning their backs" is in my favor.
What I combat is when these turds go on-line, or come in public arenas to spread their sickness as a new health.
Then it is also natural for me to correct them. If they were to stay home masturbating and playing fantasy role-playing games until they dies, I would not give a shit, just as I do not care about the millions who go to Christian churches ever weekend to proclaim their fate to an invisible God.
But you come in public, to test your views, and to spread them, then that's where you will find Satyr lurking.

Daydream, believe in whatever, but if you go public with it, prepare for the repercussions.

Satyr wrote: "Yes, a pedophile is also a natural mutations, a sexual deviation, but then so is killing a pedophile to protect your child, no?"


Protecting your child ( in of itself ) doesn't require resentment; it could be a mere action or reaction that doesn't require any sentiment. But once the feelings of resentment and vengeance come in, then it becomes nihilistic.

Primal Rage wrote:

Satyr wrote: "Yes, a pedophile is also a natural mutations, a sexual deviation, but then so is killing a pedophile to protect your child, no?"


Protecting your child ( in of itself )  doesn't require resentment; it could be a mere action or reaction that doesn't require any sentiment. But once the feelings of resentment and vengeance come in, then it becomes nihilistic.

No, emotion is not unnatural either.
Uncontrolled, emotion directing reason, may or may not lead to nihilism.

I could just as well cleanse this earth of dirt without feeling a thing, as I would by using passion not to direct my definition of filth but my cleansing of it.
Emotion, in and of itself, does not contradict reality.

Nihilism is a rejection, a desire to usurp, reality.
The brain inebriated by emotion may, or it may not, help in this.
Mostly it does, since emotionally brains, being ordering tools, confront reality which is increasing in chaos.

Only reason, masculine order, can harness this emotional reaction, this feminine passion, and direct it.
Who said I denounced emotion?

I think you misunderstood me; not all emotions are nihilistic. I specified that feelings of resentment and vengeance, in this context, were anti-nature.

Protecting your child is not inherently anti-nature. Hell, even if you defended your child with an adrenaline rush, that isn't anti-nature either. My hypothetical story was more contexual. Later on, after one discovers that the intruder was a born sociopath, does one still harbor resentment for what the killer did even though his actions were highly influenced by his genes AKA nature? Or does one acknowledge the killers nature and cope with it via acceptance, i.e., acceptance of nature?

Satyr wrote:

...then why is my inclination to kick his face in, or to manipulate weakness and feminine stupidity, not allowed?

Because that sounds like something which could potentially aim beyond basic hedonistic goals. It would lead to disharmony - the emergence of "tribes within the big tribe".

Primal Rage wrote:

Later on, after one discovers that the intruder was a born sociopath, does one still harbor resentment for what the killer did even though his actions were highly influenced by his genes AKA nature? Or does one acknowledge the killers nature and cope with it via acceptance, i.e., acceptance of nature?

One can accept that the other person is a sociopath and still take revenge.

Anfang wrote: " One can accept that the other person is a sociopath and still take revenge."


But would your revenge not be based in some sort of notion of justice? " Why did you have to kill my child?! why!?" You could have controlled yourself! You could have sought help and changed!".

Why not just adapt to the situation and cope? Taking revenge is what Nihilists do, e.g., MRA, Feminists, Christians, etc. They take revenge against nature as if nature could or ought to be otherwise.

Primal Rage wrote:

I think you misunderstood me; not all emotions are nihilistic. I specified that feelings of resentment and vengeance, in this context, were anti-nature.

Protecting your child is not inherently anti-nature. Hell, even if you defended your child with an adrenaline rush, that isn't anti-nature either. My hypothetical story was more contexual. Later on, after one discovers that the intruder was a born sociopath, does one still harbor resentment for what the killer did even though his actions were highly influenced by his genes AKA nature? Or does one acknowledge the killers nature and cope with it via acceptance, i.e., acceptance of nature?

And you misunderstood me. All emotions are natural, including resentment and vengeance.
Being controlled by them may or may not result in nihilistic excuses.

If, for you, nihilism is not feeling hatred toward a man who rapes your child, then I'll have no place in your emotionless, utopia.
I'm about balance, produced by reason controlling nature, not a rejection of nature.

I would not kick a fags as just for being a fag.
I would kick his ass if he threatened me and my own.

I do not excuse another for what he is either.
Saying that the other was retarded is not a defense.
If a retard does a retarded thing, then he too faces the consequences of being what he is.
Accountability is accepting the consequences of what you are, and the past that made you as you are.

Sure, you are born with a high libido and you can;t control it, so you try to fuck my child or my mate....and?
My reaction of kicking your ass until you cannot have sex again, is also in my nature.

The balance of action reaction is reached through empathy.
What would I do if I were in his place and someone raped my child?
If the other is a coward, then raping his child or his wife is perfectly okay by me.

Primal Rage wrote:

Anfang wrote: " One can accept that the other person is a sociopath and still take revenge."


But would your revenge not be based in some sort of notion of justice? " Why did you have to kill my child?! why!?" You could have controlled yourself! You could have sought help and changed!".

Why not just adapt to the situation and cope? Taking revenge is what Nihilists do, e.g., MRA, Feminists, Christians, etc. They take revenge against nature as if nature could or ought to be otherwise.

No, nihilism is not about revenge or not revenge.
It is about justifying an act, a behavior, by using anti-nature standards.

Homosexuality is a normally occurring mutation, so it is natural.
But it is also unfit.
Making it into a new norm, a new fitness, allowing it to adopt and to raise children which it cannot have, or promoting it as something to emulate, is not natural, it is manmade.

I would not kill someone born a retard, but if his form of retardation results in him doing harm to me and mine, then being a retard is not an excuse either.
The advantage, in nature, of NOT being born a retard, is that you will not do things which may jeopardize your life.
If you protect that so that being born a retard or not being one is the same, then you propagate retardation.

Satyr, this is just a mental exercise. I understand that it is inflammatory. And trust me, I would have the same reaction as you towards the killer. But I'm trying to be honest and put my emotions to the side to see whether or not this story leads to nihilism or not.

Satyr wrote: " No, nihilism is not about revenge or not revenge.
It is about justifying an act, a behavior, by using anti-nature standards."

Revenge is an act, and in this context, would not the one taking revenge be doing so on the justification that the Killer could have been otherwise? It's like taking revenge on a rock that fell from a building and killed a loved one. The rock had no say in the matter. Likewise, the killer didn't have much say as his actions were determined by his genes ( nature ). What's the point in feeling resentment and taking vengeance after the matter?

When an animal attacks a village killing and eating one member, the men go after it, knowing that if they don't it will strike again.

When someone slaps you on the head, and claims its a joke, if you do not correct him, he will, eventually kick you in the nuts and laugh about it.

Yes, it's logical to defend the tribe from the animal and it also would be logical to push the loved one out of the way if they saw the rock falling from the building. But my story is about after the event has already occurred. Would you feel resentment and plan to take revenge against the killer if the event of your child being killed occurred 1 year ago? This is not about whether you would defend your child the moment the intruder was raping and torturing; it's about after the event has already occurred and nothing can be done to save.

"Homosexuality is a normally occurring mutation, so it is natural.
But it is also unfit.
Making it into a new norm, a new fitness, allowing it to adopt and to raise children which it cannot have, or promoting it as something to emulate, is not natural, it is manmade. " - Satyr

When is something unfit?

Could you also say the same about a factory? It produces something to improve society, but it pollutes the environment. Some might see the factory as unfit and want to blow it up.

[I don't know how to use quote function if someone could help me out.]

Unfit is an evolutionary term defining an organism or a mutation which cannot replicate itself or contradicts its own reproduction.

Primal Rage wrote:

But would your revenge not be based in some sort of notion of justice? " Why did you have to kill my child?! why!?" You could have controlled yourself! You could have sought help and changed!".

Why not just adapt to the situation and cope? Taking revenge is what Nihilists do, e.g., MRA, Feminists, Christians, etc. They take revenge against nature as if nature could or ought to be otherwise.

I don't have to ask myself not a single question to desire and exact revenge. That's not required. Revenge is also not about changing someone else's nature.

Let's turn your words around and use them against you.
Feminists and MRAs adapt and cope with the modern artificial environment, the "situation".

Nihilism is the denial of nature, of our own nature, the nature of anyone else or the environment.
Revenge has nothing to do with wanting to change nature.


***
Haegar is on one of his viking raids. When he returns home to his village it's burned down to the ground. Time to cope and adapt. What you gonna do... ?...That's life. He knows that Sven and his men destroyed their homes but... it's too late for revenge.

A few years earlier, Sven sold Haegar and his men a book. In that book Sven argued that to become a really strong and awesome viking, one has to repress thoughts and feelings of revenge.

Haegar represses his natural inclinations to exact revenge because Sven told him that revenge is nihilistic. Sven is a confident man and so Haegar believes him. He knew about Haegar's desire to be awesome and strong and so that's the way how he packaged and sold his half-truths.
***

Anfang, the quotations were just an example of how one would, probably, think when taking revenge. And I don't mean to insinuate that revenge is about changing another. That was part of the quotation of what might run through someone's mind. I'm not into repressing desires and impulses, but rather dominating them- mastering them. If one shouldn't dominate his feelings of revenge and resentment, then bashing MRAs for resenting female nature and not coping and adapting to society is nonsensical. I'm just pointing out possible hypocrisy. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Primal, you're forgetting about the personal value that nature gives to everyone and how they identify with that value within their own natural family.

For some reason, you're transferring that personal individual value onto an objective standard that is somewhere beyond nature.

PR really wants to understand, but is just too much of a beginner at philosophy. If PR would leave this forum, then five years later, if we were both still alive and he wished to join an exclusive forum of mine, I would likely welcome him. I can't say the same about most other ignorant fools I meet online.

But, what are we do with him now? I believe he could read every word that Satyr has posted online several times in several months of intensive study and he would still be lost. He would need at least two years of silent study of some of the great works before there would be much more to communicating with him than amusement.  I know he's not my problem, maybe he's even tolerated better than I am here at kts (but, for very different reasons), but it's sad. It's the difference to me between seeing a random animal stuck in a trap in the woods and seeing a wild cat or wolf.

Nihilism is not simply a a resistance to another expressing their own "nature". Repressing your own "nature" in deference to another's is itself nihilistic in that it is self-denial.

A child is the continuance of the self, therefore wishing to preserve it's life, or in this case avenge it, is yes-saying. If you were nihilistic you would not have a child or would not care what happened to it.
A nihilist like Schopenhauer or Cioran in this case would say that life is only suffering and that it is better to not subject a new life to it.

In christian nihilism there is the premise that when the world hurts you, you must turn the other cheek, accept what has been done to you and not resist it.... in some sort of shaming ritual directed at the other.
You are proposing here that this is in fact not nihilistic but the reverse, overlooking what your Ragnar Redbeard guy himself said on this subject.

We do not simply say Yes to everything in the world and submit to every current that pushes us here or there. We have our own desires and our own Will to effect these desires upon the world. We have an ordering, creative instinct to shape the world according to our Will.
You are saying that this ordering, or re-ordering is nihilistic because it seeks to escape the "natural" state that the world is in by moving towards an ideal. I'd say it was a self-effacing, self-suppression, self denial and an abnegation of your own Will to Power.

If someone offends you, offend them more. If someone hurts you, kill them. If someone kills one of your own, kill him and everyone he knows. Up the stakes, make it cost the other too much to offend you.

Or, you can turn the other cheek and feel it getting struck, like a good christian.

Primal Rage wrote:

If one shouldn't dominate his feelings of revenge and resentment, then bashing MRAs for resenting female nature and not coping and adapting to society is nonsensical. I'm just pointing out possible hypocrisy. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Dominating isn't about denying. It's about guiding, leading - first, oneself.

Resenting nature often goes hand in hand with resenting a part of oneself.
If you take the sociopath example - If you desire revenge and you accept that the other person is a sociopath then you also accept that there is something inside you which wants to kill that sociopath.

I believe that the MRA is filled with lots of men who have become disillusioned. Women are cruel. Either she loves you or you are nothing to her *. And that's evil in their eyes, they resent women for being women. Of course, also men have something feminine inside themselves (as women have something masculine). How much is depending on the individual.

They resent that feminine aspect in themselves, because it's also about vulnerability and in the case of a man, there aren't many maidens in shining armour to catch them if they fall. So they pout. "If I can't be like that then you shouldn't be allowed to have that either!" What they are missing is the thought that, that perceived injustice, which is nature, could be their inspiration to become stronger.

* - "Men, love of truth. Women, truth of love."

Ultimately they become bitchy themselves, and use the same tactics and strategies as feminists - rendered unaware of their motivations because they deny and resent part of themselves. That part doesn't go away though - it just usurps the ruler and becomes the leader from within the shadows.

The key here is not the usage of feminine tactics or not. But how well the know themselves.

Let's try this, and keep in mind I'm not directing this to PR, but to everyone else:

A nihilist contemplates the offence itself (the nature of "morality" and "evil" and how they relate to the particular offense he has dealt with), the non-nihilist contemplates what can be done about the offender himself.

Or

A nihilist hears several statements of complete idiocy and contemplates the idiocy itself. A non-nihilist hears several statements of complete idiocy and contemplates what can be done about the idiot himself.

Hence my non-nihilistic initial response to this thread.

Let me just clarify that I do NOT advocate just accepting what some sociopath did to your child and moving on as if nothing happened. I would take revenge and be furious! But in this hypothetical scenario, I am more or less playing Devil's advocate to see where things go. Yes, Apaosha, I subscribe to Ragnar Redbeard's philosophy and would destroy any intruder who did such a thing to my child even if what he did already occurred years ago.

As, prior mentioned, I wanted to see where this scenario would lead to, i.e., nihilism or not. It was an  exercise that wasn't directed at any specific individual, but for us all ( yes, even me ).

Anfang wrote:" If you desire revenge and you accept that the other person is a sociopath then you also accept that there is something inside you which wants to kill that sociopath."

Yes, but the sociopath wants to kill for a different reason: mere enjoyment of watching people suffer.
You and I would want to kill him because he wronged us via killing our hypothetical child. Sociopathy and the desire to kill are not synonymous. Sociopaths lack empathy. But this sort of logic could justify a MRA's revenge against females by shaming them, hell, even by raping and killing them because they played mind games with him and used him. " You mentally abuse me and I physically abuse you!" the MRA says. I'm kind of trying to understand if our shaming of the MRA's is justifiable and not bound in hypocrisy.

Primal Rage wrote:

Yes, but the sociopath wants to kill for a different reason: mere enjoyment of watching people suffer.

There will be a part in me which wants to kill. And that part isn't all rational, far from it. That part wants to be appeased in some form. So it is a kind of enjoyment.

Another example - If a bee stings me then I will not hunt down the hive and destroy it. That would be quite over the top. If I saw someone do that then I'd think to myself that that person lacks something, compared to me. A part which would not want to do that is obviously missing in that other person. And it's besides the point whether that part is 'good' or 'bad', it's just about discrimination.

about empathy -
Empathy is only the capability to estimate the feeling state of someone else, to put yourself in his/her shoes, as accurately as possible. If that makes you feel compassion or something else is a whole different story. Most psychopathic people have strong empathic capabilities.

Empathy is a commonality between the sinner, the saint and the scapegoat.

Is it not better for your own mental health, to do something about this unhappy situation. Both action and inaction are in one form or another a result. One should either take action or let it slide. Is it not better to live in the present, not the past or the future. To take action one has to take into account all of the consequences before doing so and also to do nothing and not be able to let go of it, results in a festering, which slowly builds and one is consumed with hatred, which in turn allows no happiness for this individual. No immediate happiness. The balanced man lives a simple existence, the revengeful man allows injuries to build up inside him, I think it is better to resolve it one way or another, but resolve it immediately. If you take action make it studied, deliberate and if this is not possible, let it go and move on. One can see the damage it does of harbouring resentment, it consumes and destroys.

Canterbury wrote:

Quote :

PR really wants to understand, but is just too much of a beginner at philosophy. If PR would leave this forum, then five years later, if we were both still alive and he wished to join an exclusive forum of mine,...........LOL

“The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer.”

I am very much interested in what PR has to say and would advise him to endeavour to keep his individuality.