Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Have you heard of the herdsman hiding between the sheep?
The herdsman in sheep's clothing.

Anfang wrote:

Have you heard of the herdsman hiding between the sheep?
The herdsman in sheep's clothing.

I've heard of and heard this lone Traveler amid the all too many: in his silient blows and deflective smiles; in his protracted nights of fixed and shifty gazes; in his understanding and immutable drive to construct atop its ruins.
Sure, he can be heard, by the unheard, this overladen Lightness: who is kissed by the Sun, not burned; who is illuminated by the Stars, not exposed; who is charitable to the Earth, not cheapened.
Listen, to this unextinguishable Fire: his Winds circulate and uplift; his Waters mobilize and drown; his Air oxygenates and suffocates.

When a stupid cunt is rejected, and she cant take it like a mature adult because she is dis/eased, she'll tell you how cruel the world is.

This is a cunt's and modern's and a feminist's meaning of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and how special, and uniquely INTJ they are. How 'elite' and 'discriminating' and more than 'human' they are.

It takes a very sick body in need of that much amount of self/deceit.

"Iran is more China's "friend"."

Yeah, and China is the U.S.'s landlord (or symbiotic fuck buddy), so them lil yellow capitalists might be more willing to play arms dealer than Russia (Putin)....cuz, really, how often does the rent king get called out by the renters, even when the rent king is a jackass?

#

"Russia cannot openly challenge the U.S....not yet."

Agreed. but, assuming Putin did wanna give the U.S. the finger (by way of selling an atomic to the Iranians), it would be covert, under the table...the U.S. would of course know about it, but would the 'leaders' wanna go public and begin another round of saber rattling?

If it happened under the current administration, I'm thinkin' it would never see the light of day.

Under the next administration: it's any one's guess.

It's all academic right now...not nearly enough info available for me to feed my conspiracy gland.

#

"You saw in Ukraine what happened when they took back what was rightfully theirs."

As I recall (which isn't much) that was a great exercise in saber rattling...the public show of who has the brassier pair. If Iran approaches some one to buy an atomic, it seems to me they'd be very quiet about it...the major players would know but I'm thinkin' they be hush-hush (to save face, to preserve the 'integrity' of the deal', to not admit 'er, we spent months and money working up this agreement and *gulp* the Iranians are doing naughty things anyway...').

Too much 'legacy' tied up in the deal.

And if Iran actually used the atomic, well, all parties could claim ignorance (an unbelievable ignorance, but crazy folks [citizens] often go with the lie just to [help] keep the boat upright).

On being selfish versus selfless

Before the first man claimed to be selfless all acts were self-ish.

I find selfish-selfless to be a mind-destroying dichotomy and even worse when selfless is being made into a virtue it becomes self-destructive.
Imagine, what is the most selfless act? - I'd say the act where you derive the least benefit from. Where you get nothing in return. Because if you do it's not really selfless, it is then in part selfish.
Suddenly helping some starving Inuit* is better than helping your neighbor because he might return the favor.

Second approach, if you make being self-less about not being calculating, suddenly it's good to not be aware of ones' social environment. To not be conscious about ones' interaction with other people. Or simply put, to not discriminate in any way.


*We all know they won't starve because they calculatingly kill and eat seals, those selfish bastards from the North. But a selfless (read careless, unaware) Bantu on the other hand...

All is selfish, because all actions, choices, are expressions of self.

The identifier is what makes morons believe they are selfless.
When they've lost themselves in the herd, and call themselves American, or Marxists, or Humanitarians, or the Christian God, they've transferred their identity to an abstraction, and within it they hide.

Transference/Imprinting is what hormones do to make parental risks possible within natural selection where self-preservation has ingrained itself in the organism as an automatic fight/flight response.
It also bonds infant to mother...symbiosis.
Modern nihilists have taken this and made it an ideal that erases ego, following the Judeo-Christian path through Marxism to secular humanism.

It's very telling and ironic how the actors and actresses interact with each other behind the curtains.

They say Life is the greatest drama in the cosmos.

It's an archaic truth how language is deceptive.

Even Shakespeare and all his contrived Lords and maidens knew this, or did they...?

Well, the audience surely knows.

A feigned reverence and submissiveness...humorous in style...even behind the scenes, ay, even more affected than under the bright lights.

Actions speak louder than words they say.

But the show must go on, it must...

Well, I wish I had more time to chat, but I have to go box up some books from that great English playwright.

What more can the facade say about that obscure thing called Truth?

It's a funny thing how it manages to worm its way out from all that suffocation and pretension.

The thing about laughter, about comedy, is that it often springs up from a strong feeling of discomfiture - the awkwardness of realizing how forced, how...fake...the lip-service is.

Silliness, play-ing around is used a means of alleviating the awkward tension.

It's not rare for laughter to shatter the mask.

If robots were sentient, they would be in a constant state of hysteric laughter.

Like a physically inferior man hides behind weapons to compensate for his physical inferiority, so does a mentally inferior man hides behind his physicality, to compensate for his mental inferiority.

This is why it is the weakest who will be the first one to resort to using weapons, and the stupidest the first one to resort to physical conflict.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Like a physically inferior man hides behind weapons to compensate for his physical inferiority, so does a mentally inferior man hides behind his physicality, to compensate for his mental inferiority.

This is why it is the weakest who will be the first one to resort to using weapons, and the stupidest the first one to resort to physical conflict.

Indeed.

In breaking news some black girl garnered a beat down because she sat on someone's big mac. A commentator said that she "feels sorry for her."

With all pity, it is a stipulation by which an indeterminate diffusion of deference is superimposed. Meaning, the "feeling sorry for" is actuated as a selfish act to which end the uncomfortable feelings are resultant of relegation to the pitied.

In other-other words, it is a competition of victimization.

Now, it is imperative here to comparitively include the relationship to empathy...

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Like a physically inferior man hides behind weapons to compensate for his physical inferiority, so does a mentally inferior man hides behind his physicality, to compensate for his mental inferiority.

This is why it is the weakest who will be the first one to resort to using weapons, and the stupidest the first one to resort to physical conflict.

It's cute how people can't even pose in pictures with weapons, without people casting aspersions about compensation.

Sometimes it's best, when dealing with the dogs, to pepper their minds with words, let them connect the dots.

It's akin to churning a wind-up toy; all of the movements are pre-destined. You don't even need to apply much effort; they are configured to destroy themselves with obsessive thoughts. Their patterns become recognizable with mechanical precision and you can manipulate them, whenever you so please, from there.

The hallmark of the narcissist: an inability to tolerate competition.

Whenever I come across one, this stands out like a sore thumb.

Also, they are very solipsistic; they speak at you, not to you.
When you speak to them, it's like your words ricochet off them.

Nightmare wrote:

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Like a physically inferior man hides behind weapons to compensate for his physical inferiority, so does a mentally inferior man hides behind his physicality, to compensate for his mental inferiority.

This is why it is the weakest who will be the first one to resort to using weapons, and the stupidest the first one to resort to physical conflict.

It's cute how people can't even pose in pictures with weapons, without people casting aspersions about compensation.

It wasn't directed at you, the world doesn't revolve around you, narcissist.

If you must know, I remembered an old thread of my and summed up the post linked below and further juxtaposed it with the weapons bit:

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

D/P

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Like a physically inferior man hides behind weapons to compensate for his physical inferiority, so does a mentally inferior man hides behind his physicality, to compensate for his mental inferiority.

This is why it is the weakest who will be the first one to resort to using weapons, and the stupidest the first one to resort to physical conflict.

Self-flattering, cowardly nonsense.

Does a physically inferior man hide behind his mind to compensate for his physical inferiority?

Physical prowess has been one of the hallmarks of masculinity for thousands of years.
It wasn't too long ago that men were expected to hunt/gather and go to war, fight in close-quarter combat with...weapons...

You mentioned already that you think fighting is infantile.

You exposed yourself with that one, friendo.

Trust me, if I wanted to mock you, I would have done it directly. I was talking about actual conflict, I see nothing wrong taking pictures of yourself with some item you admire.

If you talked shit about how you were a tough guy and threatened some unarmed people with that sword, I openly say this, that post would have been directed at you.

EDIT: as a response to your new post, I'm not sure if 'infantile' is the word I used, but I will stand by this: martial arts isn't too useful IMO. It requires too much time and dedication, yet one punch from the back, or the the neck, or the balls or some other weak spot, or the guy has a weapon, or there is more than 1, or thousand other, REAL LIFE situations, you know, outside the ring and the rules, and your advantage you trained so hard to attain, is gone in a second.

At least if I get beat up, I'll know I haven't trained, so I will think that I deserved it and know that I spent my time doing something else, perhaps more productive.
To get beat by somebody after I trained for years because they had an easy advantage... that would be irritating and discouraging.

Early afternoon today, I buried, before it became excess carrion, an unfortunate Crow underneath the overladen canopy of tree blossoms, where the Sun could afford not to penetrate: have I ever seen such seraphic Death saturated with Life.

Morons think that if a rule has exceptions it is wrong, when completely the opposite happens. Every generalisation must have its exceptions. If there are whites dumber than negros they think negros arent dumber on average...

My colleague who giveth me piss about smoking:
What carest ye of my health: nothing is selfless; all has a proviso. Is it because I smelleth of cigarettes? My cynic, it is but a dayest or two before you've hadeth your last chancest with me.
"In other words, mind my own biz?"
Aye, if that is what carest ye not. Let this Passerby roveth and forgetest of his byway.

Earlier this [yesterday] afternoon I had just lit a ciggie and then heard glass bottles breaking. I proceed to where I knew it was emanating: a grex of teenagers on bikes were on the schoolyard of the elementary school which is adjacent to my house. Out of imprudence, I scale the wall and jump far enough to clear the secondary chainlink fence into the sand of the playground and sprint after them. As I turn the corner on the far end, they were tossing their bikes over the deadbolted entrance, where one of the herd got caught up in the fence. Just as I approached he freed himself. After I hopped the same fence I began to chase them, and this carried on for about two miles until I gassed and walked to finish the remainder of my cig.
It is only now that I'm laughing at my failure to catch them, which was the whole point.

Arbiter Of Change wrote:

I will stand by this: martial arts isn't too useful IMO. It requires too much time and dedication, yet one punch from the back, or the the neck, or the balls or some other weak spot, or the guy has a weapon, or there is more than 1, or thousand other, REAL LIFE situations, you know, outside the ring and the rules, and your advantage you trained so hard to attain, is gone in a second.

At least if I get beat up, I'll know I haven't trained, so I will think that I deserved it and know that I spent my time doing something else, perhaps more productive.
To get beat by somebody after I trained for years because they had an easy advantage... that would be irritating and discouraging.

Yeah, there is a possibility that someone has an unfair advantage in a fight, a knife, a gun, or whatever. However, that's a poor excuse for not strengthening yourself, not advancing. A foolish way to think, even.

With that line of thinking, what's the point of doing anything at all, if there's a possibility an 'unfair' situation springs about...?

There's a reason men have a drive to increase their physical ability, and that had to do with, and has an effect on interrelations between theirselves and other men and women. Gun or no gun. You get me? There are other advantages to strength, even if, modern technology, can obliterate us at any second, with ease.

There's also the genetic aspect to take into account. If you let your body stagnate (this also applies to cultivating superficial strength, i.e. strength with little or no application, such as bodybuilding) this has effects on future generations. Breeding men, who cannot, or have no confidence in fending for theirselves, thus adopting twisted values and depending on their protector, and why? All because you extrapolated one possibility out of many, that life might be 'unfair'. All because you could not determine the value of cultivating your own physical power outside the current culture's boundaries.

Also, I'd like to question this idea of the 'dumb brute', apparently, for the resentful, those with great physical prowess, are making up for mental inferiority.

That's exactly what the (physically AND mentally)  weak would say, once they find themselves helpless, being dominated by stronger men.

Actually, the physically inferior, are more likely to be mentally inferior: they are more likely to twist reality, preferring to imagine the bully, or whoever dominates him in any subtle or in-subtle way, as a insecure retard, or whatever.

Imagine constantly being physically dominated by others... If we say someone is physically inferior, we can expect him to behave as other physically inferior organisms impulsively behave in interactions or confrontations with beasts (narcissism, and faith in the State may twist this scenario to a degree), with a stress response.

The stronger male does not even have to intend, or have any motive to be offensive, animals measure each other up at first glance, whether consciously or not, intuiting who can kick who's ass (although for strongly domesticated animals, this instinct seems to breed itself out, ever seen a chihuahua take the offensive against a German shepherd?) This response, effects thinking processes, and this is why, the physically inferior are likely, as a result of emotional responses, be mentally inferior, particularly in the time frame he interacts with a stronger male.

Ultimately, it depends on both of the males physical and mental capabilities measured up against one another.

The mental is also an aspect of the physical, as they are intrinsically linked. To reject the value of physical strength, precisely with with the particular sort of reasoning quoted above, is actually an indication of mental weakness.... Physical inactivity is an indication of mental inferiority. That's the same as saying, approaching physical ideals in the appropriate manner, is a reflection of mental superiority (e.g. martial arts as opposed to bodybuilding). Not to mention, the need to maintain physical health for good mental health, which all ties in to the point I am making.

Now you might say cultivating physical strength is not the same as maintaining physical health, but in a way, it is, the difference lies in the rate toward the ideal, reflecting the importance placed on it. You might also think that there is a difference between those who exercise to maintain mental health, and those who emphasize physical discipline in the correct manner (e.g. martial arts NOT bodybuilding)... Since the mental is a part of the physical, approaching physical ideals (again, in the correct manner) is also an approach to mental ideals, to know this part of yourself and your opponent, and to grow, drawing on these traditions.

Martial arts is another way of understanding the world, a physical AND mental discipline. Bodybuilding on the other hand, disconnects the mental from the physical, it is a shallow discipline, with shallow goals.

On the other hand, the physically superior, are generally, less apt to be put in positions where resentment or emotionally driven delusions may arise. They're also less feminine as a result of their strength, not requiring to get on everyone's good side, to slyly protect itself.

In my experience, those who appear physically inapt, are generally the ones who over-think, and twist everything around.


I apologize for the length of this post, please move it to an appropriate thread if required.

Stalagmites, you made some incorrect assumptions and misinterpreted what I said.

I think martial arts aren't worth it, because I found something which is more fitting and better for me considering the goals I am trying to achieve. If I want to protect myself, I'll carry around some sort of weapon, it's much easier and more efficient in that aspect.

I regret not doing martial arts more (I did them for 1-2 years) earlier in my life, when I was a child/early teen, when it was still too early for me to do resistance training. But now, it simply isn't a priority anymore because I don't gain in any RELEVANT to me, way.

Not because I find physical exercise itself pointless, on the contrary - I do resistance training, stretching and cardio. My goal is aesthetics - a lean, fit, functional, healthy body.

Usually however, along with martial arts one has to incorporate at least some resistance training in his regime if he intends to do martial arts seriously, because without muscle you can't pack much of a punch. It would take too much time for too little gain, an advantage that can too easily be offset is no relevant advantage. You're Bruce Lee one moment, the next you're crying like a bitch with pepper spray in your eyes, blinded, completely helpless compared to the opponent, thinking how you should have brought a pepper spray too, or a gun, instead of kung-fu

I consider the self-proclaimed mystics and monks of all kinds nothing more than delusional clowns, so I am not buying into the, supposed, intellectual aspects of martial arts. It is nothing more intellectual than bodybuilding. Have you ever tried bodybuilding? If you want to do it yourself, seriously, you need a VERY strict and disciplined mind, and also knowledgeable on what kind of foods are good for you, when, why etc. You have to know a lot about nutrition, what exercises to do, proper form etc. Just like in martial arts you have to know the weak spots on human body, preferred ways to do movements etc.

I don't do bodybuilding myself, my exercise regime is somewhat different, but I know some people that do, just like I know people who do martial arts, and I respect both because both require tremendous discipline and effort.
But also, both of them are relatively easy to grasp even for an average person, so I think you're trying to insert intellectualism where there is almost none.

Stalagmites wrote:

Also, I'd like to question this idea of the 'dumb brute', apparently, for the resentful, those with great physical prowess, are making up for mental inferiority.

No, I never made that connection. What I did say, is that people who are dumber are more likely to resort to physical conflict, especially if they are being mentally dominated by a superior mind. The dumber one mustn't necessarily be stronger, or bigger. They just realize that they have better chances defending against the other by physical means, than mental.

You sound emotionally hurt, as if I involved emotions in my judgment - I consider it a matter of stating reality, nothing else.

I value a sincere exploration of reality over my own ego, so I would not attack a person, no matter how physically inferior they are to me, merely because they exposed some uncomfortable truth to me.
Yet if I found out I am being manipulated by one more intelligent than me, but physically weaker, I would use my physical superiority as an advantage, and dominate them if the opportunity arises.
But I am no exception to the other part - if somebody was physically stronger than me, I would use some other means to defeat them.

Everybody will always try to justify and put it forward as some sort of the 'fairest' rule the kind of conflict suited to them the best. A swordfigther will insist of a non-swordfighter to a duel with swords, a MMA fighter will insist of a boxer to a MMA fight, a boxer will insist that pure boxing is more fair, the one who is physically stronger than the other will insist that 1 on 1 is more fair, the one who has more friends will insist that using the advantage of having more friends is more fair, etc.
As if reality itself cares, and has restrictions and rules, and all those clowns think their opinion is the perfect reflection of it.

Reality, the objective world itself is a filter of what's superior and inferior, NOT bullshit human subjective opinions

I remember watching a lecture on Baudrillard and this aphorism was mentioned:

" There is nothing more real than war ".

If you, really, contemplate upon this, you realize how profound it is.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me, when a woman misinterprets my civility for intimacy. Just because I smile and am friendly with you, that doesn't mean I'm sexually attracted to you. I'm just going to start to be cold and rude to these needy little girls, because I'm getting tired of them deluding themselves into thinking there is some sort of chemistry between us and pestering me with obsessive behavior. Please, leave me the fuck alone, when I'm working, ok? Thanks.

My, aren't you the popular one.
I'm sure you don't even approach with any taunting stimuli yourself.

Sooner or later the pestered scape goat, as the easy and resented target of indignation and ridicule and improverishment, acknowledges this virulence: not because it's irresolute about its immunity, but rather wherefore! there's no other recourse.