Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

By enshrining competition as a virtue, capitalist society has made compatriots of those who push you down for their own advantage—those one would rightfully call rival, enemy or nemesis.

By enshrining competition as a virtue, capitalist society has made rivals of those one would rightfully call compatriots.

The game is rigged...unlike in nature.
The offspring of the dominant will inherit this status and not earn it.
The system ensures that no radical social mobility occurs, it invents the middle-class to prevent the older divisions resulting in revolution, and then employs brain-washing to make individuality (divide and weaken) a virtue of me-me, and ambition relative to popular appreciation (fame & fortune), creating minds that associate popularity, selling self, evidence of personal quality.
In contrast to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the ariston is not determined by man relating to nature but man relating, seducing, exploiting adhering to the tastes of other men - humanity.
To be popular means to be good, and money is the code measuring your value.
Selling yourself, being useful, to the many, becomes a virtue all have access to - principle of prostitution.

One must convince as many as possible that he offers a utility they need, by connecting utility to their human nature, which is then denied existence (man is too complex to be understood).
This makes him a conduit they must pay to use.

For example owning a sportscar is a reflection of a male's sexual and social potency - his penis externalized - its price kept artificially high to make it inaccessible to 99% of the population.
Rare, exhibiting the implied uniqueness of the one who owns it.
The tool of automobile, connected to sex and reproductive options. Anyone can buy one if he pays his dues to the system - earning through service he acquires the symbolism of dominant male, though he may be less than fit in every other way.

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

Order is not law but power, and power is aberration. For Nietzsche, for Freud, and then for Bataille, this is the background against which desire is to be thought. The mega-motor." [Landa, The Thirst for Annihilation]

Can we not infinitely imagine in regress the basest of all of nature to use as a standard against which to see order? Is an oxygen atom not orderly against a vacuum or an ingot of gold orderly against the ocean?

The basest unity we measure ourselves against is a symptom of our consciousness. Consciousness, being about seeing differences in the present, enable more elaborate future projections/probabilities. The more differences accounted for in the present, the more concentration, refinement, of your will may take place as a projected order(ing), enabling one which endures longer. For "elites", they measure themselves against the whole nature of the human animal so they may come closer to ascending it. 

What does the modern measure themselves against? Magazines, pop-culture, glitz and glamour fed to them to keep them sensational - all senses, in the immediate. All flashy and elaborate without substance - awe inspiring (giving the impression of significance) like fireworks during InDependence Day. Consumer drones, hedonism, etc. The basest of order is those fleeting memes and flashes of light and stardom. They're not above cows, blinded by positive reinforcing messages as the bovine would when it sees a lush field.

But how does this relate to nihilism? The abyss - is it not an imagined absolute nil? To try and fight against this monstrosity would drive a man to nihilistic passion - which what may be called the modern Marxist's affliction, reducing all identifiers of self to the basest of orders they can perceive. They see themselves as allies with even an oxygen atom - perhaps even ignoring mustard gas and any other toxic substance. No doubt, I'd expect them to treat neurotoxins as if they appreciated it for how it provides a contrast to their pleasure-seeking.

On that last note about neurotoxin, I'm reminded of a deity from fictional lore WH40k, Slaanesh. God of hedonism:

1d4chan wrote:

Lechery, gluttony, extreme masochism, and the likes, are the pleasures his/her/it's followers partake in because Slaanesh's credo is to experience everything to the fullest. This basically means: why settle for one loving wife to have sex with you when you can have a hive world of loving concubines to satiate your desires? Or why eat one disgustingly expensive luxury meal when you could eat a Paradise world's supply of the stuff? Why just resort to cutting yourself to feel the pleasure of pain when you could be chopping off lumps of your flesh to heighten the sensation of pain? [ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]

The lore of the sci-fi WH40k universe is interesting. I'm only loosely acquainted with it, however.

Procrastination is the result of one refusing to cut their losses. They refuse to cut their loss on the time or opportunity of which they prefer to perform over another aim: whatever it is they are procrastinating.

Opportunities are limited, of course. What is constantly being measured during procrastination is what behavior is most suitable at the moment to increase opportunity. With access to something like the Internet, procrastination becomes easy. Gratification is instant and opportunities are perceived as boundless.

Whatever it is being procrastinated is likely perceived as mediocre or bland. Some say it is a result of being too easy, not challenging enough, that procrastination takes place. Usually, this is the case. However, not in the sense intuited. While a project may be difficult, it will still be procrastinated if fundamentally the person sees their time has a potentially better pay off elsewhere. That is, it will be procrastinated if it is not challenging to their specific interests, but is only (as a task) more difficult.

In a sense, the more comfortable the individual is, the more sensitive he can allow himself to be. Arrogance is a consequence of fragility. A degree of arrogance is involved in every choice made, cutting off other potential actions (such as that project) in favor of something perceived to be more rewarding.

What makes procrastination a "refusal to cut these losses"? It is the nature of its enactment. Procrastinators do not simply choose to enter the "dark playground", or their distracting activity. They fret and have anxiety the whole time they are procrastinating, usually to the point of staying up late or otherwise having ill health effects. This is because they know they should be doing something else, the whole time they're fucking around doing something they perceive as more rewarding. They will usually tell themselves "Oh, I will start in a couple minutes/hours" and when that time comes they felt the reward or perceive the pay off to be closer/more immediate with the playing activity than with their promise. A justification comes, like "After this video" or "I have to finish the series, maybe there's an unexpected but helpful reward at the end."

Most of these procrastinators think that if they can try to convince themselves that the activity they perceive as rewarding is not so rewarding, they'll be able to cease the procrastination. While this may be true, usually they're unsuccessful. The reason is: there are reasons that they perceive the play activity as more rewarding than the work activity. Reasons they're probably not even aware of - such as entertainment videos which are set up to be addictive or attention grabbing. Also, deeper anxieties can come into play, that they're afraid of facing when they're not distracted.

So how do you choose to do that project if you're a procrastinator? You choose it. You cut your losses of the opportunities that passed you by, or you panic to get it done. So long as you're holding on to old anxieties (which are likely very real) you're going to find much more resistance to being responsible with your time. If you can do something about the anxiety but it's too large for you right now, then procrastinate that one anxiety. Free up your time to address the anxiety/project that you need done now. That means making a judgment call - a very real and final one - on what anxiety is most pressing to you. If you do not allow yourself to procrastinate the larger anxieties, they will not go away. They will remain with every other anxiety you concern yourself with.

However, will that not increase the severity with which you assign the play activity? By decreasing the work activity's importance, do you not give more influence to that of play? If you allow "play" into the calculation, yes. However, notice... now you're thinking rationally and asking good questions. What for? To know more so you may better come to a decision on the right course of action. With that same mind, look at your decision between play or work. Which one is the correct course of action for you?

One is habit, the other is new. Yes, new. Is that not exciting?

Of course, I used "mind-tricks" in the latter half of this exposition. If you want solid evidence for what is the superior course of action, that's your business. I simply got carried away with my own thoughts. I wanted to explore how the solution to procrastination might be the cutting of your losses and what the cutting of your losses actually meant. In either case, play or work, you lose real opportunity. The question is, which one is worth losing?

Indecision can be seen in terms of one's self being split and fighting for control. Indecision can be avoided in most cases by actively making evaluations before one is stressed to act overtly. Basically, the difference between coming to a conclusion before stress and being indecisive during stress is that of a slow battle which may be seen more in terms of posturing than violence and a fast violent battle, where even the winner comes out weaker.

When one half wants to do something and the other half doesn't, then the passive half is at a disadvantage. His goal is inactivity itself and so will never be finished as long as the other half's goal is activity. So if the stress is already there, to avoid the damage of indecision it's just a matter of the active half waiting until it's most strong at the moment and the other half weak. Basically, not even to fight but just to overrun and move right past the other half when he's caught off guard. Whether this method makes the issue come to a conclusion faster or slower depends on the situation. In dire times one side must put everything on the line in order to overcome the other half, leaving both sides with injuries that will last long after the ordeal is over (internal stress, and the health effects that it provokes, such as chest pain, ulcers, difficulty sleeping and general emotional disorders), but if the situation is less dire, the actual battle may take longer than simply waiting would.

Slaughtz wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

Order is not law but power, and power is aberration. For Nietzsche, for Freud, and then for Bataille, this is the background against which desire is to be thought. The mega-motor." [Landa, The Thirst for Annihilation]

Can we not infinitely imagine in regress the basest of all of nature to use as a standard against which to see order? Is an oxygen atom not orderly against a vacuum or an ingot of gold orderly against the ocean?

The basest unity we measure ourselves against is a symptom of our consciousness. Consciousness, being about seeing differences in the present, enable more elaborate future projections/probabilities. The more differences accounted for in the present, the more concentration, refinement, of your will may take place as a projected order(ing), enabling one which endures longer. For "elites", they measure themselves against the whole nature of the human animal so they may come closer to ascending it. 

What does the modern measure themselves against? Magazines, pop-culture, glitz and glamour fed to them to keep them sensational - all senses, in the immediate. All flashy and elaborate without substance - awe inspiring (giving the impression of significance) like fireworks during InDependence Day. Consumer drones, hedonism, etc. The basest of order is those fleeting memes and flashes of light and stardom. They're not above cows, blinded by positive reinforcing messages as the bovine would when it sees a lush field.

But how does this relate to nihilism? The abyss - is it not an imagined absolute nil? To try and fight against this monstrosity would drive a man to nihilistic passion - which what may be called the modern Marxist's affliction, reducing all identifiers of self to the basest of orders they can perceive. They see themselves as allies with even an oxygen atom - perhaps even ignoring mustard gas and any other toxic substance. No doubt, I'd expect them to treat neurotoxins as if they appreciated it for how it provides a contrast to their pleasure-seeking.

Yes, its against a homogenous background distinctions and pattern differentiations can be made. In the absence of god, the value you create [WTP] clearly expose you for what you are. Its in the sense of maximum freedom, the assertion of one's spirit, demarcations of the quality of each morality, each ideal betrays itself.

Reality consists of an upper limit and a lower limit.

The lower limit helps you assess the state of a society for example based on its most diseased members, the utter low of the majority, the lcd, the prevalent rule that has become the norm.

The upper limit helps you assess health based on the highest standards that have been attained, the exception, the peak value of the highest ideal attained.

The best objectivity takes both limits into account when making a value judgement. Because it isn't enough to see what kind of worms find refuge in a place, but also be able to understand the upper bar of the highest creature that interdependently adapts itself there and overturns it to its favour.
Objectivity must keep sight of what kind of exceptions are nourished by what kind of rule?

Great post, Slaughtz

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

I think it merits its own thread, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Many other great posts have also been 'lost' in this thread.

100% of humans, animals, and organisms were infants and newborns at some point.
80% made it to childhood.
70% made it to adolescence.
60% made it to early adulthood.
50% made it to maturity and adulthood.
20% made it to late adulthood.
10% made it to the elderly age.

Now apply this formula to maturity and ideas. If most of the modern world remains stunted and infantile in growth, then so too will their conceptions of "Love" or "Hate". So when the average Modern says 'Love' or 'Hate' then these are not mature uses and analyses of the words, they are the infantile uses. They have no wisdom, no great knowledge. The Modern uses "love and hate" as a child would.

The Modern doesn't receive his/her cookie of the day, and he enrages with "Hate". You're a "Hater!" for not agreeing with everything he says. Again, what the Modern knows of "Hate" is infantile, like a child. She doesn't realize nor recognize any mature form of love and hate. She will probably never reach that mature or heightened state of wisdom.

She will never understand "deep love" or "deep hate". People are surprised my crimes, rape, murder. Because people are surprised by deeper hatred and contempt that builds, over a lifetime. When you realize and accept that Moderns operate from the infantile conception of love and hate, then you can make better sense of their rationale, their motivations, and their accusations.

For them, "love" is being patted on the head and being called a good boy or girl, like a pet animal.
For them, "hate" is being deprived of their cookies and milk, and seething vengeance over the want for a cookie.

Lyssa wrote:

Yes, its against a homogenous background distinctions and pattern differentiations can be made. In the absence of god, the value you create [WTP] clearly expose you for what you are. Its in the sense of maximum freedom, the assertion of one's spirit, demarcations of the quality of each morality, each ideal betrays itself.

Reality consists of an upper limit and a lower limit.

The lower limit helps you assess the state of a society for example based on its most diseased members, the utter low of the majority, the lcd, the prevalent rule that has become the norm.

The upper limit helps you assess health based on the highest standards that have been attained, the exception, the peak value of the highest ideal attained.

The best objectivity takes both limits into account when making a value judgement. Because it isn't enough to see what kind of worms find refuge in a place, but also be able to understand the upper bar of the highest creature that interdependently adapts itself there and overturns it to its favour.
Objectivity must keep sight of what kind of exceptions are nourished by what kind of rule?

Whatever your lower limit is, is the determinant of the quality of your consciousness. All who participate in quantitative strategies must make compromises in quality of consciousness, distinction. If you are to identify as a human, an animal, a plant or a rock... as the animal, you would see no significant differences between cow and human. That is a very rough example of what I was saying.

I did not think of an upper limit, perhaps because I like to imagine myself participating there.
I try to contain my gasconading but it appears, from my own incredulity toward your own exposition, that I let it slip through unintentionally. 

But yes, if one is to imagine there being a lower there must be a higher of which they compare to. The higher appears to be ignored by the modern, which tells me they have the same illness as your own exposition revealed about myself. They are the upper limit to themselves.

What nourishes more for the upper exceptions compared to the lower exceptions? The average will nourish from the lower and the higher from the average, and so on. Which, makes it occur to me how communism is the inverting of this natural order. To each according to need, from each according to ability. Somehow, to make the lower be nourished off the higher. Flipping of the ratios between the shedding of excess ("kindness/selflessness") and nourishing the self. A disease, truly, to make the host sickly.

AutSider wrote:

Great post, Slaughtz

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

I think it merits its own thread, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Many other great posts have also been 'lost' in this thread.

Thanks. It would fit under a thread titled "Modern Diseases", "Procrastination" or perhaps even Satyr's thread on Nihilism's signs and symptoms. I just hadn't fleshed out the idea as completely as I had wanted at the time to make a thread and I still haven't, but I wouldn't object to it being moved into its own, either.

There is a hesitancy that comes with the forum being qualitatively minded over quantitatively that I hesitate about cluttering the forum with new threads.

Procrastination is an interesting subject to me, since I am still doing it, despite my exposition on it. There's concepts such as "living for today" and nihilistic dismissal of future consequence and how modernity not only enables but encourages it. That is just a cultural analysis, though. The real issue comes down to the individual and their courage. When it becomes too much to bear, they'd prefer avoiding responsibility, knowing it might break them (their ego). Avoiding or putting off trauma so that they might find a solution elsewhere before it happens. When in panic mode (right before the due completion of the work/project), they don't seem to see the irony that the project didn't break them at all but yet they continue to fret the same way over future projects.

Honestly, if there is no threat to their livelihood, they are not going to take it seriously enough to work on it. When their life is not threatened (I can just be a bum or work at McDonald's), when they're sheltered, why bother? The only thing that was making it as good as death was when people were discriminating - they saw the poor as lazy or unfit, they saw the uneducated or uncultured as too socially inept - a sexual death sentence.

For "men", though, I think the costs are becoming too high. They would rather be poor than lose themselves/their sanity. You see rich white guys kill themselves over the smallest of hiccups in their life... the smallest stress. For example, the man who killed himself over a crushed phonel They maintain a fragile balance. Without outlets or perspectives for meaning behind their sacrifices, they aren't going to be able to make those sacrifices without having that same fragile balancing act. This is the result of not knowing yourself, your history - no perspective on what you're bleeding for, dying for... you need to reserve more "me" time.. hah. Most of it is, of course, just not wanting to pay the costs associated with preserving yourself into the future.. yourself with the past that made you and the things/tastes you hold dear. You don't want to take the losses. Which is why to solve procrastination, you need to cut your losses... no shortcuts.

I always though the term 'cut your loses' was related to attempting to forget about past situations one perceived as mistakes, so as to better act in the future. Ideally where this idea is useful is if one is in a fight for many things one values greatly, even survival, then loses much during the fight, but not all, one will need to delay the stress and energy use of regret until the danger is past. And then where this idea is often used poorly, to no benefit, is during situations such as gambling, where one 'cuts his loses' (my definition) in order to be able to enjoy gambling what ever he has left. Or it's used poorly during broader life situations where one tries to fool oneself into thinking that he'll never have to deal with the stress and energy use of regret, but can just magically 'move on'.

According to a search engine it means, "abandon an enterprise or course of action that is clearly going to be unprofitable or unsuccessful before one suffers too much loss or harm."

I now realize that is what you meant, Slaughtz, the mistake was mine. Though with a stretch my way and the normal way of defining it are very similar. In my way, one may cut his loses (the term used in the normal way) regarding spending one's time on regret, so as to continue with what one was otherwise doing, even if that course of action was unwise.

I put some of my responses to Slaughtz's writings in my thread.

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

There are things, certain actions, certain media which make it enticing to 'procrastinate'. Are there also other actions, a different kind of music, art, which is moving people away from procrastination?
Perhaps.

A man loves what he truly owns, and owns whole. If he only owns part of something, a piece of it, then he cannot love it fully.

Females are naturally cannibalistic. On lower rungs of evolution, a female will either take resources from a male indirectly (accepting food given to her) or indirectly, simply eating and consuming the male and taking all the resources for herself.

Higher up on the evolutionary scale, this appears as human animals "kissing" each other. Kissing is an act mimicking consumption, eating, devouring another. Females devour the male, symbolically. When a female accepts a man's kiss, she accepts his sacrifice unto her. And when a male desires to kiss a female, again metaphorically and symbolically, this is his "self-sacrifice". He offers himself, as a sacrifice of resources, to a woman.

Kissing mimicks the act of cannibalism that is more commonly and routinely found in lower evolved organisms, insects, plans, and bacteria, where the females act as the "K-type" agency, consuming their own body in order to survive a time of resource scarcity.

A similar metaphor and analogy would be how the human body "burns its own fat" to create muscle. This is another form of the body "eating itself", cells consuming its own flesh.

After a female loses her virginity, she can never be fully owned by another male. The first male a woman gives herself to, in this Modern era, symbolically "owns her" forever. She cannot lose her virginity twice. And so, she loses part of her natural self, whole self, and complete worth. Each sex act, and each new male, devalues her. She loses sexual value over time.

With a virgin, you can build a skyscrape, a tower, a castle, anything your heart desires. But with a slut, a promiscuous woman, you can build an apartment, a small house, a mud hut. Something small, limited, and ugly. Nothing grand or magnificent can come from a promiscuous woman.

However reality often focuses men to "settle" for second best. Reality will dictate, to seed a lower woman when higher women are out of reach, or simply, non existent.

Terrorists terrorise because when they look into themselves they see that terror would work on them.
To fight terrorists requires to terrorise them. That's also why any dictator in the Middle East needs to terrorise its own population when required to maintain order. Comparably, this tactic wouldn't work as well in the West.

To fight a shitlib you have to take the moral high ground away from them. That's how they attack and they do so because it's their own weakness.

Æon wrote:

The condition of the Modern is misery, sadness, and despair.  Negative emotions.  You can observe how Moderns are obsessed with finding "joy" and "happiness" in life.  Why are the obsessed with "being happy" all the time?  24 hours a day?  Why does the Modern need joy in his/her life, except, to balance some skewed or diseased state of emotions?  To me, personally, an individual seeking "happiness/joy" all the time in life, through drugs, hedonism, narcotics, television, information stimulation, is Depressed.  Internally sad, seeks external happiness.

Maybe manic-depressive because I don't think socially incapacitated person can even seek external happiness.

Mostly it's just these people who are not completely happy with their lives, but they don't know why so they try to fill the void, boredom....And there are people with dull jobs who have become tired of their lives.

And I do not really understand what is "sadness", maybe it's just people have so high expectations that they become to believe that their lives are miserable.

Who more would have as their interest having you believe that everything meaningful about you is a social construct than those participants in an institution which have the most power to structure the social aspects of your society?

Those who say to raise the common man first, to raise all before the self - they reject the male seed, which was borne with ability to impregnate all women and create men under him.

You may resent these "men", who tell you to spite yourself. Especially those whom you held in confidence. What other intent do you know intuitively which makes you resentful toward them than that they work to level you down and tell you that from the nourishing blood of your flesh, you raise yourself and everyone else with you? [They may instead criticize not to level you down but to show you where not to build up] Indeed, your own blood does make you float, but its ocean exists only after you have been dismembered.

The raising of other is, as Satyr has said, to shed excess. A part of this excess is also having no worthy opponent to fight, and raising one yourself. A balancing act, where one must be careful not to lower themselves such that a victory over them advanced nothing. [A similar appeal to the Warriors of Europe today? That the Jew says to raise the black man, or the
Muslim, so you may fight it.]

The priest tells his congregation that all man is guilty of not bringing about heaven on earth.
The congregation feels guilty but they are less guilty than the man on the street who didn't attend church so they preach to him about man's guilt.
And so you arrange the pyramid of guilty men and you bind them all together via narcissism, the beautiful soul.
We all deserve heaven on earth and we are all guilty of not living up to the ideal society.
We all are ideal souls suited for that heaven on earth, if only we would work hard enough to make it all good, to make everybody good.

And they won't have it any other way, they can't have it any other way.

Why would they feel/be guilty for not bringing heaven on earth, does not their god say ''my kingdom is not of this world.'', we've other kingdoms to rule.

The priest is not necessarily teaching in an old-style Christian church.
He could also be a priest on Twitter bemoaning the injustices of modern bigoted society.

Few have seen that, at the bottom of knowledge, all philosophy, all culture, all weltanschauung, all communication, lies myth. Myths are the stories embodied by acts; assertions, and acceptance.

Freedom…
Freedom is being a dead body floating down a stream.
Going with the flow, all resistance gone.
The Anglo soul floating downstream.


A country at war is about having the junk-food-glibertainment lifestyle for the majority who show their moral indignation over what makes that lifestyle possible.
This is not war and their indignation is not anti-war.

What is shameful and sad about degeneracy and cowardice is not only the ugliness of the coward themselves, nor only the shame they bring upon their ancestors, but also the humiliation they allow of their ancestral enemies. Their weakness is an insult to not only the man of centuries past that made them, but also to the many noble spirits who died by their hands.

A man's might, majesty, and power are forever limited by the woman he must redeposit himself within, to give rebirth to such traits. Thus a woman limits mankind. But a woman's greatness is limited by her grace, humility, and dignity. A woman always lacks in imagination and ideals, and these traits can never be cultivated enough by mankind. In such a way man and woman are complimentary, and the strength of one must embolden the other.

Only a great woman can complete a great man.

For power and control:
The freer the memes, the more restricted the genes. And vice-versa.

Immigration is being turned up to 11, criminally so, because the internet has enabled greater access to alternative viewpoints and narratives. They do not want a white nationalist faction rising up against their power structures. They are working double time to disenfranchise white people from political and economic influence, because their narrative is collapsing.

The Terminator movie

This idea of a robot coming back in time and saving you from death (because you're a hero in the future) is another instance of Judaic coming-utopia thinking. The future idea(l) is what will save you from your present and so, also, save you from your past.

The same can be said to those who wait with hope for anything to happen. Such as an old man to come 'rescue you' and guide you.

What is the difference between hope and patience, then? Something I may explore later..

While waiting, instead of being offered coffee or tea, there will be asked if you would like to know the password for the WIFI connection.
While conversing, there will be a hold in movements because someone wants to make a photo.
Looking at all those people in the supermarkets, how much has changed in the mentality of searching and gathering, without the hunt and necessary preparations, you see them absorbed in their own worlds without fear for enemies wanting to overtake their resources but only a ''be the first to get it and stand in line''.