Miscellaneous, Condensed Posts From Erik

I'm going to use this thread to post quick snippets of edifying information about any topic I deem interesting.


Free-will is the position that there is a meta-physical agency which is not determined by nature, i.e., the past. It is a manifestation of the nihilistic collective-unconscious that seeks to be free from the influence of past due to feelings of being wronged by natural selection.

Most meta-physicalists or immaterialists display clear signs of an abhorrence towards nature, reality; their philosophical position attempts to invert reality into unreality. They claim that matter is not even real - that it is an illusion from the mind - that things are, really, immaterial or empty. Their hatred for physicality displays their hyper-feminine mentality; they view the universe as being fluid, spirit, immaterial ( feminine qualities ) whereas physicalism is more masculine ( solidity, hard, physical ). These retards wish the universe to be one giant cesspool of hyper-feminity. Typical of the modern nihilist that has been feminized.

The belief that people are pre-determined into certain social castes, e.g., warrior, king, etc and that there is no way possible for people to ever be promoted or demoted from these positions is what I like to call Hereditary Aristocracysm. This theory was popularized by the economic nobility of the past as a way to secure their social positions without concern of being thrown to the side by other ambitious individuals that seek their positions. If you can convince the lower classes that they were destined absolutely to be of a lower caste - that it's impossible for them to be something greater, then you can successfully inhibit competition and insurrection. " Remain just as you are!" they say. But in reality, people aren't already born as, say, warriors. Yes, people are born with certain potentials that may incline them more towards certain ways of life, but it isn't so absolute or linear. People can start out as slaves and then become masters, conquerors. People can be born into royalty and then be de-throned into slavery. Social dynamics are more flux-like as opposed to the fixed social structure that extreme aristocrats proclaim as true absolutely.

Yes Plato was very feminine, nihilistic and retarded... Btw Daniel Dennet offers evidence for free will in line with evolutionary theory.

What would you like to be, primal?

Femininity is physical, tangible. A woman does not need to work or prove her feminity - she already is, inherently, a woman. Her feminine worth is based on her physical appearance. She does not need to be brave, confident, and so on. She just IS.

Masculinity is immaterial, abstract, idealistic. A man has to prove his manhood, he has to become a man. He must show that he is brave, confident, strong, etc. He must perform and overcome as opposed to his female counterpart who just needs to be.

God, the unconditioned, pure being - is a woman

The universe, the flux, the becoming - is a man.

In nature, in the wild, a man is not bound by any statute laws or artificial morality; he can love, slay, build, and conquer as he so pleaseth. The very nature of the wilderness increases his hardihood and anatomy; the struggle for existence promotes hypertrophy. The farther away man is from nature, the farther away he is from his own manhood. The city is an artificial environment - the antithesis of the wilderness; there are multiplicities of " Thou shalts " that he must take into account or else he ends up in a cage. Most of the time, these cities are not in agreement with his primal manhood. He has to, as it were, become tame, submissive, emasculated. The city leads to the atrophy of manhood. Nature is a woman that enjoys when her lover dominates her, that permits it - the City is a jaded, domineering woman that has her partner bound in submission.

Interesting thing to note: In the countries, rugged masculinity is still valued; males still like to engage in hunting, hard work, and general rough activities. Effeminacy is seriously frowned upon. In the city, males are obsessed with, traditionally, feminine activities, e.g., shopping for clothes and shoes, looking pretty ( Metrosexuality ), etc. The typical metrosexual city-boy doesn't take into regard the idea of manliness. He just cares about superficialities and decadence.

You always hear this talk about love, how we should love the world, humanity, etc. Love for all is promoted, universal love. This is an indication of the hyper-femininity of the modern ethos. The feminization process at its finest - originally brought into effect by our dear Lord Jesus ( that effeminate Jew swinging from a cross ). Love is good, no doubt, but it has been stretched to ridiculous extremes: Cosmic harlotry - indiscriminate love for anyone. Love becomes meaningless and dull when it's given to all. When it is reserved for the select few that, actually, deserve it - its potency is great.

A major cause for White-weakness is the ridiculous emphasis on remaining ' classy' and ' civil '. Civility in its proper place is not an inherently negative thing, but when stretched too far, it causes a race to lose its ferocity. White-males, in comparison with Hispanic and Black males, are colossal weaklings and cowards; they have lost touch with their savage side due to excessive civility and sheltering in luxurious environments. Many latinos and other races of color grow up in hostile and rough environments - they have to remain strong and street-wise to survive. This pressure placed on them causes them to be more mentally tough, more fierce. With many Whites, as prior mentioned, they live in luxurious environments, sheltered. There is no demand for them to grow - they have it easy. This sheltering assists in their degeneration.

Memes are the favorite weapons of the modern nihilists to use in the eternal battle against nature. And they have been very successful in many contexts; religions and other forms of ideology have been gravely influential in manipulating human thought and behavior. The memetic war is subtle, it isn't as conspicuous as, say, physical combat on the front lines, but there is a war being waged. A war for the control of the human mind. The best way to go about this is to get them from an early age when they are most vulnerable and malleable. Humans are not complete blank slates, we do have potentials for certain behaviors, etc. But at the same time, the mind of a child is like a sponge; ready to absorb the world. What the child experiences in his or her earlier years has a very significant impact on how he or she will turn out to be in the future. The psycho-sexual development of the child is what the memetic impregnators love to attack the most, in my opinion; sexuality is a powerful force. If one can associate ideas, images, memes with sexualism and expose the concoction to the child during the psycho-sexual development, then the memetic impregnator will most often be successful in their machiavellian plans even if the desired outcome is antithetical to the genes. Take for example, this growing phenomena in the pornography scene called " Femdom " which is basically the sexual pathology characterized by a male desiring to be dominated and humiliated by a female - hence the name " Femdom ", i.e., female domination. Now what political ideology would be largely responsible for this? Feminism. Femdom and feminism are equivalent, except in femdom the benevolent pretenses are completely stripped. If you want to see the true nature of feminism, look no further than to the 'Femdom' pornography phenomena. It is, generally, characteristic of males to want to be dominant, to defend their masculine honor. But thanks to cleverly devised schemes from feministic thinkers, a memetic war has been waged to emasculate the male population - to not only emasculate them, but to make them enjoy and relish their emasculation, to embrace it - Nihilistic inversion of nature at its finest.

To elaborate more on how feminists have used memes, images, etc to invert male sexuality during psychosexual development, I will list some examples:

1. Show a boy or man being kicked in the testicles by a female

2. show a boy being bossed around by his girlfriend

3. show a sexy " You go girl " beat up boys

Notice how certain images are associated with sexualism? They become intermingled. As prior mentioned, it is imperative that these memes and images be shown during psycho-sexual development, so the schemers need to place an emphasis on inserting things of this nature into kid movies.

Art as nihilism happens when a soul loathes the real world so much that he or she seeks to escape it through fantastical drawings and paintings. Art to this individual is like a drug. He can create a reality that is more appealing to his senses. He is like a God in his realm of pure fantasy. The other kind of art is the reverse of nihilism - it is an overflowing of the plenitude of life, of pure awe of the cosmos. This form of art is inspired by the sublimity of existence.

The reason I'm writing about this is because some of you here have misconstrued notions of what my, actual, thoughts are on Whites, race, etc. So I'm going to clarify my position so people can, clearly, understand. First, I'm NOT anti-White, a race denier, or a racial egalitarian. I do believe all races are different - some are more intelligent, some are more athletic, so on and so forth. I am, actually, a race-realist. But I'm not a racial-collectivist; I don't, really, care if people of my race are becoming the minority. I don't identify with an entire race. Just imagine this akin to how Satyr views the MRAs and MGTOW. Yes, Satyr is a man. But does that mean he has some moral obligation to care for an entire gender just because he is of that gender too? No, so it's the same sort of thing for myself. I am of the White-race, but I don't feel obligated to be some messianic figure for them. Does this mean that I hate White people? No; I simply am more specific about those I care for.

So I had a dream last night, a dream that would inspire this post of mine. In the dream, I was with the perfect woman - the woman of my dreams ; ) She looked like a goddess. And it felt like I had been with her for some time, but the love I had for her was so intense, a feeling of pure love - that I would do anything for this woman. I know, I know - It was a dream. But still, It was an experience. And it just makes me think of how potent love is for man, how it motivates him to improve. Men will do all sorts of crazy shit just to win the admiration of a female. We go to war, fight, innovate, etc and largely due to the desire for female companionship. This dream of mine also altered how I view women in general. I've had some bad experiences with females in the past when I was very naive and I sort of projected those experiences unto females in general which led to me being somewhat misogynistic. But with this new awareness, it's hard not to be appreciative towards the feminine gender; they make us men strong!

"The Hero’s Journey of Self-transformation:
Models of Higher Development from Mythology"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Claiming the treasure is often presented as a mystical
marriage. “The meeting with the goddess (who is incarnate in
every woman) is the final test of the talent of the hero to win the
boon of love.”44 The hero has passed through the initiation,
discovered the object of his search, and is now ready to take it
for his own. “Woman, in the picture language of mythology,
represents the totality of what can be known. The hero is the one
who comes to know. As he progresses in the slow initiation
which is life, the form of the goddess undergoes for him a series
of transformations: she can never be greater than himself, though
she can always promise more than he is yet capable of
comprehending. She lures, she guides, she bids him burst his
fetters. And if he can match her import, the two, the knower and
the known, will be released from every limitation.”45 If he can
match her is, of course, a very big if. To claim the treasure
requires the hero not only to be worthy, but to prove his worth.
The guardians of the treasure “dare release it only to the duly
proven. But the gods may be oversevere, overcautious, in which
case the hero must trick them of their treasure. Such was the case
with Prometheus. When in this mood even the highest gods
appear as malignant, life-hoarding ogres, and the hero who
deceives, slays, or appeases them is honored as the savior of the
world."

Primal wrote:

But with this new awareness, it's hard not to be appreciative towards the feminine gender; they make us men strong!

You may don't want to go all Icarus on them.
And if you do anyway then you should be prepared to get it all done during a short flight.

Anfang wrote:

Primal wrote:

But with this new awareness, it's hard not to be appreciative towards the feminine gender; they make us men strong!

You may don't want to go all Icarus on them.
And if you do anyway then you should be prepared to get it all done during a short flight.

I know women are not exactly snow-white. And I'm not returning to my naive, romantic-idealist framework. I'm just more appreciative of females now ( from an intellectual standpoint ), I suppose.

Primal Rage wrote:

My thoughts on Caucasions and White-Nationalism

The reason I'm writing about this is because some of you here have misconstrued notions of what my, actual, thoughts are on Whites, race, etc. So I'm going to clarify my position so people can, clearly, understand. First, I'm NOT anti-White, a race denier, or a racial egalitarian. I do believe all races are different - some are more intelligent, some are more athletic, so on and so forth. I am, actually, a race-realist. But I'm not a racial-collectivist; I don't, really, care if people of my race are becoming the minority. I don't identify with an entire race. Just imagine this akin to how Satyr views the MRAs and MGTOW. Yes, Satyr is a man. But does that mean he has some moral obligation to care for an entire gender just because he is of that gender too? No, so it's the same sort of thing for myself. I am of the White-race, but I don't feel obligated to be some messianic figure for them. Does this mean that I hate White people? No; I simply am more specific about those I care for.

I don't believe Elitism is Indifference; one doesn't identify with trash, and *so one bestows on them a nobler function, a purpose, a place to fit them in and ennoble them in a higher function than trash. This is not messianism, but an artist's pride, a value-giver's pride. Skinheads knowing nothing more than heil h. are truer expressions of genetic current than those self-hating "whiggers" [as Satyr termed them] who want to dissolve away.

Elitism is not Indifference to Trash; it is gaining for Yourself and for Your expression, all the eyes, ears, hands, you can raise for Your purpose.
It is pure Self-ishness.
Not to spare anyone in one's path.

I also think the word-play is redundant. Race-realism Is acknowledging Racial Unity - no such thing as race-collectivism.

A Race-realist accepts and Affirms the highs And the lows - both ends of the spectrum that demarcate it as a distinct Race. Distinctions are sqaured off at the borders, the edges, the either extremes.. from which the racial "norm" emerges.

Primal Rage wrote:

On Women and Love ( eros )

So I had a dream last night, a dream that would inspire this post of mine. In the dream, I was with the perfect woman - the woman of my dreams ; ) She looked like a goddess. And it felt like I had been with her for some time, but the love I had for her was so intense, a feeling of pure love - that I would do anything for this woman. I know, I know - It was a dream. But still, It was an experience. And it just makes me think of how potent love is for man, how it motivates him to improve. Men will do all sorts of crazy shit just to win the admiration of a female. We go to war, fight, innovate, etc and largely due to the desire for female companionship. This dream of mine also altered how I view women in general. I've had some bad experiences with females in the past when I was very naive and I sort of projected those experiences unto females in general which led to me being somewhat misogynistic. But with this new awareness, it's hard not to be appreciative towards the feminine gender; they make us men strong!

Your mother is beautiful, a meg ryan kind of beauty.
Find inspiration from her without idealizing,, strength is from the roots.

Also, no point in complaining about "evil females" when its You who leaves yourself vulnerable expecting saviours; I'm all for Honesty and the vulnerability that it entails, opening yourself up, buttttttt there's that saying, its only among the strong, that a virtue doesn't deteriorate into a vice, and goodness into a weakness. And No One can give you your strength for you.
Be strong, and then seek your saviour - this is not a paradox.

Anfang wrote:

Primal wrote:

But with this new awareness, it's hard not to be appreciative towards the feminine gender; they make us men strong!

You may don't want to go all Icarus on them.
And if you do anyway then you should be prepared to get it all done during a short flight.

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] includes all sorts of things.

I like this part:

Quote :

"The Unpaid Sins and Cunning of A Father Who Falsely Holds Himself Out as Experienced Guide, Gives His Son No Authentic Power to Choose to Be Different or Opposed to His Father, Thereby Binding The Son Into A Small World of Unquestioning Obediance… Even When Logic Alone Would Press for Inquiries at Depth
Previously, Daedelus had murdered a young craftsman whom he envied. His victim was a truly inventive soul whom Daedelus feared would be seen as a greater master builder than he himself. He threw the young inventor from a tower to his death. The stories go that Daedelus then lied about his bald crime, saying the young man simply tripped all by himself and thus fell to his death.
But as in the affairs of mere modern humans too, there was an unimpeachable eye-witness who saw it all and who cried out the truth. Thus, Daedelus, caught in his grave falsehood, fled. He hid, exiled in more ways than one, in a prison of his own deceits.
Yet, still allying with evil, Daedelus next empowered the enchanted wife of King Minos into an unholy alliance with a sub-human creature. From this, the queen brought forth a beast-man in the form of a monster who raged overland, plaguing the innocent populace.
Daedelus next, playing double agent, built a maze that restrained this beast-man, the minotaur. Daedelus played both ends against the middle: secretly enabling the creation of a monster, and then publicly holding himself out as ‘the one’ who contained the monster, all the while pretending to be a great champion of the people after all.
Sometimes the tempests and travails of the ancient world seem to leak into present time, don’t they?…
Daedelus’ very name means ‘artificer’ the maker of artifice in order to expedite, to trick, or deceive others …
That he displayed no remorse or sorrow for taking a life, or fracturing the lives of many others, or enabling a beast that murdered many people: That he had no regret for disrupting a kingdom, nor for leading others astray… thereby the blood debt of the father Daedelus, went unpaid.
If One Were To Look For The Causes of Those Who Fall From The Sky, First Look To Who Has Fathered Them
Look for who has fathered the son in self-interested, incompetent, or non-vigilant ways; those fathers who think of unleashing mightiness rather than teaching mightiness and its ethics, those fathers who have no clear self boundary about ‘what is enough.’
Thus, it is not that Icarus only naively flew too close to the sun and thus fell. No, it was far more that Icarus inherited his father’s unpaid blood debt… and in the dark of some kind of pre-human psychology, there is thus a requirement: someone has to pay this debt of blood…or else force someone else to pay it
Thus, Icarus thereafter, misled and negligently unprepared by his father about the many perils of flying either too low or too high, the young Icarus paid his father’s old blood debt with his own life. He paid by never awakening from his own naiveté. The blinders he wore, were such soft ones."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lyssa wrote:

Also, no point in complaining about "evil females" when its You who leaves yourself vulnerable expecting saviours;

It's natural that Primal had bad experiences with women. That's to be expected from the overwhelming majority of males growing up in today's western societies. If women are portrayed in a way which is very flattering yet far from any resemblance of truth then bad experiences and adapting to them seems the obvious way to go - unless there is some other, more realistic guidance in their life.
That's not necessarily a psychological complex but just plain misinformation which needs to be corrected via better information and or first hand experiences.


And about the father - There is one father figure whose shadow falls over many many children. All within its ideological grasp. An impersonal father figure in form of a set of ideas, raising the children with the help of all the cogs within the machinery.

Edit - Oh, and I always liked swimming, water and watching fire in a fireplace.

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Also, no point in complaining about "evil females" when its You who leaves yourself vulnerable expecting saviours;

If women are portrayed in a way which is very flattering yet far from any resemblance of truth then bad experiences and adapting to them seems the obvious way to go - unless there is some other, more realistic guidance in their life.
That's not necessarily a psychological complex but just plain misinformation which needs to be corrected via better information and or first hand experiences.

I posted the Icarus Complex in general and not wrt. Primal, because you mentioned the mythology as if it were a simple detail of getting burnt for flying too close to the sun, and so I wanted to say, its not the only detail, there are
many aspects associated with it, its a 'complex'. And like you said, first guidance usually falls on the father, but with the Icarus myth, we see, if the father itself leaves a 'blood-debt' onto the son, then the child gets burnt.

Quote :

Edit - Oh, and I always liked swimming, water and watching fire in a fireplace.

Was that a self-mirth moment?

I see.
The Daedalus story was something new to me, besides the Icarus flying instructions part. That made me think.

Lyssa wrote:

Was that a self-mirth moment?

Could be...
The word would be fitting. Now I have an idea what it could mean.

Sublime: of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe.

What causes us to perceive things as sublime? Essentially everything that the human animal finds to be awesome are things that have the potential to inflict grave damage or cause some other extreme negative feeling, e.g., Lions are considered to be one of the most majestic animals in the animal kingdom, but if you were to be chased by one, the sensation of horror would be overwhelming. Another example: The universe. Many if not most people find the Universe, the cosmos to be the most sublime of all perceptions; the grandeur, the size, the boundlessness, the power of the Universe has the tendency to make people feel supremely insignificant in comparison ( reminds of us of our inevitable death and nihilism ), thus it has the contrasting effect to instill feelings of pure sublimity - that is if the human can somehow detach himself from the negativity  - from feeling immediately threatened. This explains why people are drawn to fights, horror movies, God, villains, and other potential dangers of supreme might; they are not being threatened themselves, so a sense of relief is present which then leads to the feelings of awe and amazement.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So this post will be a semi-rant, but brutally honest. Speaking from personal experience, I'm used to hearing people talk about how our actions should be centered around the betterment of humanity, society, and so on - that we should be good law abiding citizens, vigilant in service to the state. But at the root of this mentality is a falsity, a myth. It's the myth of humanity or ' the divine good', that is to say, that society is set up in order to benefit everybody, that everyone in society is good natured and viewed as equal, and that society is, fundamentally, a benevolent force. This, of course, is bullshit. Sure, there are pretenses of civility and ' humanity ', but it is extremely superficial. Beneath the surface, people are nasty, cruel, schemers, and power-hungry. The struggle for existence is still in effect in society, but it's just less bloody and barbaric. The competitive spirit remains the same, though. It takes on the form of social-climbing, accumulation of material possessions in order to flaunt social-status, classism, etc. In a more primitive setting, people would just kill, enslave, rape, and pillage in order to establish their dominance. So, basically, it's a war against all - an organized free-for-all. People in society are still trying to establish dominance over each other - their methods are simply more subtle and refined. The government itself, so highly praised by feeble-minded political morons, is a meta-physical tyrant. It never was a force for ' good ' or for the people ( the herd ); it is an elaborate set up cunningly invented by power-hungry, conspiring individuals. It's, really, not that hard to peak through the veneer of these slimy politicians who use tickling words to win over the admiration of the masses. Just like the priest, the politician promises the weak a future utopia - empty promises....lies. Centering your actions around the betterment of society and government is, essentially, equivalent to centering your actions around a draconian slave-master from ancient times. Why would any self-respecting person do that?

Primal Rage wrote:

Society is a cosmic joke...

I'm used to hearing people talk about how our actions should be centered around the betterment of humanity, society, and so on - that we should be good law abiding citizens, vigilant in service to the state. But at the root of this mentality is a falsity, a myth. It's the myth of humanity or ' the divine good', that is to say, that society is set up in order to benefit everybody, that everyone in society is good natured and viewed as equal, and that society is, fundamentally, a benevolent force. This, of course, is bullshit. Sure, there are pretenses of civility and ' humanity ', but it is extremely superficial. Beneath the surface, people are nasty, cruel, schemers, and power-hungry. The struggle for existence is still in effect in society, but it's just less bloody and barbaric..... Centering your actions around the betterment of society and government is, essentially, equivalent to centering your actions around a draconian slave-master from ancient times. Why would any self-respecting person do that?

To answer the question; a person would centre their actions around an other (whether it be an individual, a community, an environment, a piece of art, etc) if they felt that they themselves were not the sole bearer of value in the universe. Only if you think you are the sole bearer of value under the stars do you act as if you are. To recognize anything else would lead you to act on it, and thus act to preserve the value you see around you.

To value only yourself is the philosophy of a petulant child. Supreme blindness. To value some element of things around you, and to act to preserve it, or grow it, etc... that's acting for the betterment of others; call it society, or community. It's not an apology for whatever is bad about society, which you certainly shouldn't value. But if you act to change that, you're acting for the betterment of others.

Practically speaking, one danger applies to egoists. You can only value yourself solely for so long, until you start to notice something that should be patently obvious, almost no matter who you are (not just you): Some other people are more talented than you, more perceptive, more insightful, are more finely calibrated, are more intelligent, and just generally better than you. There's two paths an egoist could tread at that point. On one, they just start to dis-value themselves. (They'll recognize that they weren't as valuable as they thought they were. Leading to nihilism, perhaps). On the other, they cease being egoists.

My advice would be to cease being an egoist. But the moment you cease being an egoist, then centering your actions around the betterment of others (community, society, etc) isn't what you say it is... a cosmic joke. Did I make any sense?

I don't value myself soley; I do value some other people and things. But I, primarily, value myself. Within the context of my post, I was speaking about the absurdity of centering one's actions around a sort of abstracted Slave-Master -  an exploitative, deceptive system.

I acknowledge that there are people superior to me in every aspect, but that doesn't inhibit me from being egoistic. Only some megalomaniacal fool would think there is no possibility of anyone existing out there who has superior qualities than him.

I understood you, Mo. But your claim is straightforwardly false.

Primal Rage wrote:

I don't value myself soley; I do value some other people and things. But I, primarily, value myself. Within the context of my post, I was speaking about the absurdity of centering one's actions around a sort of abstracted Slave-Master -  an exploitative, deceptive system.

I understood you, Mo. But your claim is straightforwardly false.

Society just is other people. If you value some other people, then the only question is how wide you draw the boundary of the society you care about. You don't have to care about everyone, but that doesn't make everyone a cosmic joke.

It is odd that you have a problem with some draconian master overlord... whether it is god, or a political elite. --And at the same time you want to be the draconian master overlord. So your only real issue with the political system (or any overlord) is that you are not at the top of it---which isn't really an issue with the system itself. Does that make sense?

Quote :

I acknowledge that there are people superior to me in every aspect, but that doesn't inhibit me from being egoistic. Only some megalomaniacal fool would think there is no possibility of anyone existing out there who has superior qualities than him.

An egoist is someone who acts as if only he has value. If you recognize that other people possess qualities that you value about yourself, perhaps even more than you do, why act and speak as if they don't? IOW, why be an egoist?

The cosmic joke that I was referring to, really, was the myth of ' the divine good ' or ' humanity' and that society is not such a benevolent force as many think it to be.

Yes, I value masterly qualities when they suit myself, but when they are used against me, then I, of course, do not. It's situational. Just imagine it akin to how a boxer likes to indulge in aggression; he likes to land punches on his opponents, but he dislikes when the favor is returned. Seems natural, no?

Everyone, really, is an egoist; our genes are selfish. I'm sure you have been through this philosophical lecture before # Ayn Rand # Altruism is Selfishness for the weak # Dawkins

Primal Rage wrote:

Yes, I value masterly qualities when they suit myself, but when they are used against me, then I, of course, do not. It's situational. Just imagine it akin to how a boxer likes to indulge in aggression; he likes to land punches on his opponents, but he dislikes when the favor is returned. Seems natural, no?

You don't have to like being punched in the face, obviously, but you can't turn around and say that the boxer shouldn't have punched you. ---Or that whatever his skills are, they are actually bad things. To call 'evil' (or even just 'bad' or 'wrong') everything that works against you is the defining trait of a slave morality. Conversely, the master morality is one that affirms the qualities it finds in itself, simply because they are their own.

If you only value courage when it works for you and is not being used against you, then you don't really value courage as much as you value more the safety and comfort of yourself. If you only value some skill when it is good for you and not being used against you, then you don't really value that skill, you value the safety and comfort of yourself.

Main point: It's odd to hate on draconian master overlords... when they are simultaneously your fucking role models, and represent everything you wish for yourself.

Primal Rage wrote:

Social Refinement/Civility and Sheltering as Cause of White-Weakness

A major cause for White-weakness is the ridiculous emphasis on remaining ' classy' and ' civil '. Civility in its proper place is not an inherently negative thing, but when stretched too far, it causes a race to lose its ferocity. White-males, in comparison with Hispanic and Black males, are colossal weaklings and cowards; they have lost touch with their savage side due to excessive civility and sheltering in luxurious environments. Many latinos and other races of color grow up in hostile and rough environments - they have to remain strong and street-wise to survive. This pressure placed on them causes them to be more mentally tough, more fierce. With many Whites, as prior mentioned, they live in luxurious environments, sheltered. There is no demand for them to grow - they have it easy. This sheltering assists in their degeneration.

My ancestors are mostly of the early English immigrants to America, most of whom migrated west. That separates me from most ties to the old English nobility. I assume that is why I find it relatively difficult to focus inwardly, towards becoming refined. My disposition has always been towards ambition of a seemingly broader scope; after all, my ancestors were ones to challenge geographical frontiers. I've no doubt they were part of many conflicts, but likely paling in comparison to most Hispanics' ancestors who settled the more hostile southern regions of the New World.

You've said elsewhere you're from a low-income neighborhood and are known as a fighter. I've known many Hispanics like this, and while I don't want to be presumptuous, from what I've observed it seems likely that despite the intellectual separation you have from most of them, you still have their general framework of character, outlook and disposition.

It's also worth noting that those whose ancestors came to the New World, during, or not long after, the early modern period in Europe, are actually likely less disconnected from all the great quality that came from it. People on frontiers have a way of memetically and even genetically becoming somewhat of a remnant of their origins, while those who stay behind often change into something very different.

This disassembling of individuals into quantified qualities. Strength, intelligence and so on and then to argue about the value of those qualities reminds me of parents arguing with their daughter about a suitor.

Parents: But he's intelligent. He's healthy, strong,.....
Daughter: But I don't want him!
Parents: But don't you value intelligence?
Daughter: Sure, I do...
Parents: Well, then what's the problem? He has many valuable qualities.