Noble Elitism

A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expressing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.
Hannibal is erotic.
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.
His game is a private one.

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

The basic component here is cynicism

Read the LaughingStock expose his inner motives:

LaughingStock wrote:

Link me the text so I can debunk it in this thread.  Smile

A position placing him in bad faith.
He is not interesting in understanding, but in debunking.
The easiest thing between constructing and destroying is the latter.

The man-child is not interested ni creating anything...his resentiment is full-on destruction - if he cannot find value then all values will be debunked. ridiculed, destroyed.
A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.  

Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.

Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
"Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
Saving mankind, is not the goal.
Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.

I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?

Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.

What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?

LaughingStock wrote:

I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?

ideas...ideals...

LaughingStock wrote:

Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.

Spoken like a true woman...
always on the side of the bigger power...always power by association.

LaughingStock wrote:

What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?

Re-Create...all creativity is a combination of what was.

Satyr wrote:

A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions. He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it. Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality. Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd. The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force. (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)

Joker wears his damage out front. It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is. Lector pretends not to have damage. And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling. But he does not cull the weak. They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak. Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.

Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.

Quote :

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.

But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with. His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius. But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault. To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields. They have to imply or really declare it. But it simply would not be there. You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you. It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also. And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours. Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.

Quote :

An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him. He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror. It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror. It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over. And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast. And compulsive in the OCD sense.

Quote :

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

As said, I do not see this. He has pet peeves, he does not cull weakness.

Joker, like our local watered down version here, wants the chaos he experiences as present in the current so called order to be out in the open. He is sick of the hypocrisy and hidden violence. Manson comes to mind also. Another boy-man incapable of stomaching the vast hypocrisy around him and incapable of not feeding it back to the classes and people he most felt it coming from.

Joker is hardly an ideal, but he is more honest than Lector, who like any prissy upper class with lots of refinement and social beauracracy - Think Shogun Japan or any culture where the upper classes have white wigs and powdered faces - is presenting a denial of his own bestiality and lack of control in the front. He may not even believe it as much as his fan here does. Impossible to know.

Quote :

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Precisely. But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.

Quote :

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expr essing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.

That he is getting off on his proclivities is clear, but it is also clear that Joker is. Neither one is erotic for others who have any feeling at all.

Quote :

His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

Well, neither one is much something to shoot for. Any critique of Lector is not a putting of Joker on a pedastal. And since this section is really more of the same, my response is more of the same. Lector is in all his refinement primarily a lie and Joker
and small case joker here, hate that lie. All that pretense and smugness based on an denied self hatred and smoke and mirrors.

I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.

Kovacs wrote:

Satyr wrote:

A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions.   He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it.   Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality.   Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd.   The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force.  (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)

Joker wears his damage out front.  It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is.   Lector pretends not to have damage.   And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling.   But he does not cull the weak.   They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak.   Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.  

Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.

Quote :

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.

But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with.   His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius.   But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault.   To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields.   They have to imply or really declare it.   But it simply would not be there.    You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you.   It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also.   And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours.    Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.

Quote :

An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him.   He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror.   It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror.  It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over.   And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast.   And compulsive in the OCD sense.

Quote :

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

As said, I do not see this.   He has pet peeves, he does not cull weakness.  

Joker, like our local watered down version here, wants the chaos he experiences as present in the current so called order to be out in the open.   He is sick of the hypocrisy and hidden violence.   Manson comes to mind also.  Another boy-man incapable of stomaching the vast hypocrisy around him and incapable of not feeding it back to the classes and people he most felt it coming from.

Joker is hardly an ideal, but he is more honest than Lector, who like any prissy upper class with lots of refinement and social beauracracy - Think Shogun Japan or any culture where the upper classes have white wigs and powdered faces - is presenting a denial of his own bestiality and lack of control in the front.   He may not even believe it as much as his fan here does.  Impossible to know.

Quote :

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Precisely.   But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.

Quote :

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expr essing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.

That he is getting off on his proclivities is clear, but it is also clear that Joker is.   Neither one is erotic for others who have any feeling at all.

Quote :

His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

Well, neither one is much something to shoot for.   Any critique of Lector is not a putting of Joker on a pedastal.   And since this section is really more of the same, my response is more of the same.   Lector is in all his refinement primarily a lie and Joker
and small case joker here, hate that lie.  All that pretense and smugness based on an denied self hatred and smoke and mirrors.

I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.

Interesting take (claps).

Satyr wrote:

LaughingStock wrote:

I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?

ideas...ideals...

LaughingStock wrote:

Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.

Spoken like a true woman...
always on the side of the bigger power...always power by association.

LaughingStock wrote:

What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?

Re-Create...all creativity is a combination of what was.

Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?

You know, a person like me is filled with ideas and ideals also.......

I wouldn't call myself very noble however.

I'm looking to do some of my own recreation eventually.

With all this talk about nobility I just want somebody to tell me what it means to be noble.

Kovacs wrote:

Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions.   He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it.

He is a hunter.
A hunter hunts.
A wolf has a compulsion to hunt.
He controls his nature, he does not invent it.

Joker is a wild-card; Hannibal is in control.
Hannibal's style, his elegance, his demeanor...all controlled.

Joker is suicidal - he flips a coin to see if he lives or dies; Hannibal flips a coin to see if you live or die.

But hunting has its risks.

Kovacs wrote:

Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality.   Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd.   The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force.  (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)

He follows his rules, not the herd's.
The herd is all-inclusive; shares insecurities alleviated by communing.
He is solitary, seeking his own kind amongst the herd.

Kovacs wrote:

Joker wears his damage out front.  It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is.   Lector pretends not to have damage.   And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling.   But he does not cull the weak.   They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak.  Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.

"Damage" is your evaluation using your herd psychology.
Who, but the "damaged" would not associate with the herd...where it is safe?
herd=health
no-herd=ill

When Hannibal kills, it is not his own...no more than if Tarzan killed one of the apes in his troop.

Your identity is so caught-up with the sexual category homo sapient, that you must then eliminate the sexual component, the male/female, to make it all-inclusive, and uniform.
But if so, if human is an idea, an ideal, a memetic identity, then you just opened the door to other such identifiers, which do not adhere to your secularized Judeo-Christian forms.

But he does cull the stronger amongst the weak...and who goes on-line with the strength of his convictions?
Do I go to the synagogue to find that poor old Jew to beat up on?
No.
I wait here, for that Jew with his circumcised cock in the air, to come to me.

Who, do I play with on ILP?
The arrogant douche-bags, like shit-Stain, who declare themselves "intellectuals"...and you, Kovacs.
Are you one of the weak?
Is Phoneee and Mooo?

Kovacs wrote:

Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.

But of course, imbecile, what else but trauma, chaos, could produce such a brilliant dancing star, in a world of complacent, dullards, hiding their fears beneath loving gestures?

What does not kill me, idiot...and if sheltered and protected, what a pathetic atrophied spirit you become.

Kovacs wrote:

But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with.   His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius.   But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault.

Joker is a nihilist.
He wants the world to adapt to him.
Lector accepts the world as it is...not wanting to change a thing.
He does not belong to the world of such men...he is timeless.

His genius is how he manipulates the herd.
He knows them.

Kovacs wrote:

To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields.   They have to imply or really declare it.   But it simply would not be there.    You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you.   It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also.   And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours.    Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.

It's because you, imbecile, still ascribe to the herd your values.
If it is popular to the herd, if it helps the herd...
Why would Lecter, who does not identify with the herd, write anything for them?
He writes sonnets, for himself.
We are not told if he writes essays, but he sketches...

You belong to the category of minds that only value what the many, some other, appreciates.
If there is nobody to appreciate it, it has no value.

But, in this case, who does he create his masterpieces of death for?
His design.

In the book, imbecile, Hannibal gets the girl...in the movie he loses the girl and his hand.
Harrison had other ideas about the character.
The television series seems more closer to that.
But we shall see...you never know with the established institutions, and what messages they want to give to the herd.
 

Kovacs wrote:

In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him.   He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror.   It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror.  It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over.   And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast.   And compulsive in the OCD sense.

How much self-love he truly has you will never know.
You missed it because the only love you know of is the one you receive reflected in others.

If you notice, he kills those that even a herd member, like you, would consider despicable.
The reporter....the pedophile billionaire...the cop who destroys Starlings career, the sicko psychologist etc.

Kovacs wrote:

Precisely.   But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.

Can you control your compulsion to help the herd you belong to?
Can you control your compulsion to fuck a pretty girl, to eat a juicy steak?
How much and for how long?
He does what some only hope they could do.
He is, after all, a caricature.
He represents what IS controlled out there, you imbecile.  

Kovacs wrote:

I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.

The pretense is towards the herd, and you witness it; you are a martyr to it, as a voyeur.

If a wolf wants to approach sheep, does it not pretend to be grass?

And you, do you not pretend to be smart, when you are nothing more than a bovine?
Do you not come here to protect your kind?

Shared narcissism:
- The belief that you DESERVE, eternal life, respect, rights, attention, just because you were born.
- The belief that your club is a club everyone wants to belong to, and if you don't it is because you are lying, or because you can't get in.
- The belief that you are healthy, because your condition is common, popular, shared.
- The belief that fear underlies all positions on life, except your own.
- The belief that empathy automatically means sympathy.
- The belief that all are pretentious except you, when you ask "ho do you do?".
- The belief that all compulsions are obsessive except your own.
- The belief that love is constructive, and hate is destructive.  
- The belief that all positions you despise are the result of trauma, or some other negative experience, except your own, or positions you can relate to.

What can be more pretentious, than the terror to face the world alone, becoming a desperate need to immerse yourself in a communal identity, and to then pretend you give a shit about everybody sharing in it?
What can be more narcissistic than identifying with a faceless, formless, ideal, convincing yourself you are its best representation?
What can be more hypocritical, than to think you value honesty and then attack it when it insults you, or says things you do not ant to believe are true?

LaughingStock wrote:

Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?

Now why would I do that?

You have no part in it.

Satyr wrote:

LaughingStock wrote:

Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?

Now why would I do that?

You have no part in it.

A secret then? Oh, I like secrets!


Now your philosophy is starting to resemble a form of mysticism.

I hope you don't go all shaving your head and such on me.

I look forward later tonight addressing your much larger posts.

I hope Lyssa returns soon. Perhaps she can shed further light on the NE, bring it down to earth. I think I have a fairly good conception of what it is anyway, but some specifics require clarification. Much like the Joker, I'd like to see it applied out in the real world. Less abstractions, more examples.

To me, it's very reminiscent of Aristotle's golden mean, his magnanimous man (if I remember it correctly), and classical Athens in general. Sparta might be a bit too crude for it, and Alexandria, too decadent.

Among other things, Symmetry, in all things. Just as material and physical symmetry is beautiful, so too is there an ethnical, social, emotional and mental symmetry, and they're beautiful, and of course, they require refined, sophisticated sensations, emotions and intellect to appreciate them, and rank them above the inferior, which is why such evaluations must always be essentially esoteric, but perhaps more/less esoteric, depending on much the "elite", diverges from the inferior, on any given forum or in any given population.

In that other thread, I contrasted a Tony Montana is with the NE. Primitive, Hypermasculinity versus advanced, mitigated or moderated masculinity. Tony Montana, or Tony Soprano for that matter, are charismatics, powerful figures, and though they may lack some mental finesses, they read people and situations well enough to reap their hearts desire, but of course, they have no mastery over themselves. They're too extroverted, as well as too idealistic, and thus, their desires, as naturally bombastic and monstrous to begin with, go unchecked, and get the better of them in the end, or least in the case of the former, and in the case of much of those sorts.

The NE is master of himself, more than he is master of the world. He is realist, not an idealist, empirical, as opposed to top down, in tune with his past/nature and the nature of those around him, deeply in tune, but not overcome by it (mainly). He realizes, and he is able and willing to realize, that it is not otherness that is his primary responsibility/sphere of influence, but his response to otherness, for at the end of the day, we only control otherness, all otherness indirectly, it's only ourselves we have control over, and even here, only so much, we, as in our more aware selves, cannot reinvent our nature ex nihilo, but we can repress (nihilistic asceticism), or rather, direct, redirect and moderate (asceticism proper) our nature.

So he's a realist, bottom to up, from past to present/future, and of course it takes a certain kind of nature and nurture, a certain kind of intellect and personality to be as such, it's not a road all or even the majority are able/willing to walk down, but it's in all probability, the best one.

Is the NE divine? No, no, he has imperfections like others, just fewer, keeping with realism and avoiding Christian or Stoic idealism. Christians rigidly divide the world into saved and damned, Stoics, wise and foolish. If the NE was perfect, what need would he have to manipulate his appetites, his appetites would be perfectly tuned with their environments. They may be more in tune than others, but not absolutely so, so his reason is by and large, able to compensate, for whatever the passions lack.

All men, some more than others, are born with imperfect passions, simply because nature is imperfect, but also because man is out of sync with the environments he's constructed for himself (the meme evolves faster than the gene), which is what gives way to decadence - gluttony, greed, sloth, and all the rest of them, and this too, points to the central importance of mastering oneself, as opposed to otherness, because "success can test ones mettle as surely as the strongest adversary" (laughs).

There's such a thing as too much, especially post-civilizing and socializing, and robbing the productive (or at least those who're able to satisfy societies needs and desires proportionately via their creativity/labor, not necessarily all productive, but the qualitatively productive) and giving to the unproductive, is itself a form of excess, little different than gluttony, drunkenness and all the rest of em, a kind of population obesity, or overpopulation (high quantity of low quality).

Yes species can be their own worst enemy, not just man, but many species have killed themselves by overgrazing, overfeeding, so the importance on inward dominance over outward dominance, needs to be more stressed in modernity than ever.

It's the classical ideal, elegant simplicity, refinement and sophistication, the golden mean, in between masculine and feminine, in between affluence and poverty, that is the NE. And of course, not everyone is able to master himself, due to poor genes and memes, and the necessity for ranking comes into play.

It's not that the NE wants to destroy the common man, necessarily, like a sociopath/psychopath, he merely prioritizes, his affection is conditional and discriminatory, he doesn't dole it out so easily, by and large he let's others fend for themselves, keeping in line with his meritocratic values. He only actively destroys another he comes across, if absolutely necessary, like if he's up against a total nihilist, or a dangerous lunatic, otherwise, he simply let's nature take its course.

He's not anti-pleasure, certainly not anti-life, but he prioritizes some pleasures over others, and perhaps, health and the healthy over pleasure, generally. Yes it's fundamentally about balance ultimately, and that's what makes it so elusive, because black/white are so much easier to deal with, so much easier to comprehend. You can teach mathematics, 1s and 0s in elementary, but can you teach ethics, really, can you teach moderation? Perhaps, but it's more difficult, and it varies, what's balanced for you might not be balanced for me, it varies from individual to individual, society to society, time to time, and place to place, but because we're all human we can meaningfully talk about it and often what applies to one, applies to all or most.

Balance in all things, in society even, between the master with a thousand slaves/serfs/proletariat, and a slave/serf/proletariat. Between riches and poverty. Between indulgence and abstinence, masculinity and femininity, artifice and nature, that's why it's so elusive, it's not as obvious as, king, or peasant, it's not delineated as that. It's that person somewhere in between everything, enigmatic, he can dine with kings and wrestle with the peasants, his allegiances and identifications are fundamentally to himself and a few of his kind, not to any fundamental social/economic categories.

Most men, those on the top and even those on the top, crave to be on top, whether it be a plutocratic top, or a kratocratic top, or whatever, but the NE, as I understand it, and no doubt I have poured some of my own understanding of things into it, is that elusive individual, who, because of his physical, and especially his mental symmetry as well as capacity (two different things, symmetry and capacity), could possibly reach the "highest" rungs if he so desired, but declines, I mean he might receive it if it falls into his lap, but otherwise, he would not reach for the stars, neither be too proud nor to humble, because he's able/willing to master himself, like that, which is what he does. He's a realist, and he knows that being on top for too long, too much food, women, wine, whatever it may be, perhaps even too much knowledge, or rather, information and idle talk/speculation/conjecture, spoils/comes with a price, being on top spoils or it certainly can, it spoils men as individuals, as societies, and it even spoils the whole earth, so he declines, he prefers to be somewhere in the middle, but he is not the same as with most middle men, who always strive for more, more, more, he reaches a certain point, hedonically, materially, socially.. and then he retires, preferring to ward off atrophy and excess.

Most here tend to focus on the masculine (genuine creativity/imagination/individualism, and not being different purely for the sake of it, charisma, competition, dominance..) aspect of the NE, and it may very well be a fundamentally masculine enterprise, but I think a female, some or a few, might be able to practice it too, but of course it would manifest itself differently, due to their peculiarities. Yeah people here, young men, tend to run away with the masculine aspects, and you see them with their avatars and what not, but ultimately at the end of the day, it, as far as I can fathom it, is about, proportion, harmony.. nothing in excess, the masculine preceding the feminine, perhaps, but not obliterating it, nor denying it.

It is the classical ideal, it is to what all of western civilization, the whole of it turns to, and revolves around, in contrast to Judea, but also perhaps, in contrast to Alexandria, and Rome after the fall of the republic, and all that went on there, all the pomp, frivolity and flamboyance. It doesn't belong to Satyr, or Lyssa, no, and no one could ever hope to fully embody it, but perhaps, approximate it. Satyr and Lyssa are merely carrying the torch to the best of their ability, passing it onto the next generation, or a few among them. The whole of the earth could never become like Athens was, of course, it's an ideal, a city of relatively free, self-governing soldiers/politicians/men, neither master nor slaves themselves, but of course many of them owned a few slaves.

Perhaps America partly achieved something like it during the 19th and early 20th centuries, I'm not sure, that's just how I always thought of it, but both Athens and America were only able to achieve such political, economic and moral excellence because of peculiar genes apprehending peculiar memes at that time. Of course America, as it is now, filled with negroes, decadent whites, and under the thumb of Jerusalem, could never hope to rekindle its former glory, and is surely in permanent decline.

Anyway.. that is all, that is the best I can do with the information I've been given. This was not me trying to ape Satyr or Lyssa, rather, this is just my interpretation of what they, as well as some others I've read and listened to over the years, seem to be saying, and in many regards, my interpretation is just as important to me as what they actually think and feel about the world, because like any interpretation ought to be, there's a lot of me, what I've always thought about the world, in it.

Nobility like so called goodness and morality is all fake or filled with endless pretensions.

That's where I'm going with all of this Diver.

Noble elites?  Just a bunch of people trying to make themselves look special, unique, favorable, and chosen.  All pretend and illusion.

To Lyssa:

Quote :

Noble elitism is the calm born of cold discrimination and bold self-awareness.

Everybody is discriminating and has awareness.

Quote :

A Heightened consciousness that has observed, analyzed, lived, experienced, vast spectrums of life, raises it to a knowledge and a far-sightedness that puts distance between it and all the rest.

These people are special snowflakes and cases that need to be enshrined on a kind of pedestal or throne, huh?

People who glamorize themselves that really do believe they are more special than everybody else.  One word:  Arrogance.

Quote :

This "distance" is born of honest "clarity" with oneself and the world.

This "distance" is not the same as the "distance" in the ladder of the corporate elites who have climbed via capital, and for whom maximizing capital is the sole end.

It's the same thing.  Notice that all your old style type of aristocracy like whores have sold themselves into the modern oligarchy or plutocracy.

This is why your virtuous aristocrats no longer exist in the world, although one could say even further that in history they never really did exist to begin with.

Quote :

A Noble elite is a creative individual. He "creates wealth"... in the form of capital-irreducible art, visions, philosophy, etc.

What you call commoners do all of these things also.

What you and Satyr are doing is nothing more than fetishizing certain individuals over all others.  A sort of fixation.

Quote :

He distinguishes himself from the rest and the plutocratic elite because of his overflowing spirit - his abundant consciousness, which is his real wealth and power.
His spirit is masculine and it Wants to distinguish itself and stand apart - not simply for the sake of standing apart (in which case you get the decadent hipsters and such specimens recently posted), but in the aspiration of seeking clarity about himself, in the aspiration of self-reliance to define his freedom.

A special snowflake separate from the rest supposedly.......

Quote :

And the most heightened consciousness is born of knowing your past, and the chain that made you possible. - Which is what you confuse for "outdated living in the past", or "going back to stoneage aristocracy"...

Anybody can know their past by reading a history book.

You and Satyr want to revive an age that will never come back to this world.

Quote :

This will be news to you that Nietzsche himself said, aristocracy is not just about being blue-eyed and blond-haired - which your best pal Neon advocates and funnily you don't take him to task for it,,, but an aristocracy also of the Spirit. - Know Thyself.

I despise authority and therefore by association also despise any form of aristocracy.

Quote :

The Plutocratic Elites live to enjoy privileges and are a function of it, whereas the Noble Elite bestow privileges; they determine the highest value beyond pain/pleasure, from their strength and their deeds - the Plutocrats merely try to capitalize on it, parasitism. Privileges are a function of the Noble Elite, and not the other way.

You're trying so desperately to show difference between the two where there isn't any.

Nobility is entirely absent of this world much as morality is.

I would say that Joker and Batman are presentations of noble characters in their own regard.

To me nobility is just exceptional people in exceptional circumstances, poor or rich don't matter.

Satyr wrote:

A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expressing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

All cinema and archetypal characters aside you want to reform authority it seems with your praise of an aristocracy where I on the other hand want to destroy it all together or at the very least neutralize it to the point of impotency.

You're consumed with higher culture and values.  I'm not.

I have an understanding of how all values and cultures inevitably destroy themselves.

Why bother with either at all?

LaughingMan wrote:

Nobility like so called goodness and morality is all fake or filled with endless pretensions.

That's where I'm going with all of this Diver.

Noble elites?  Just a bunch of people trying to make themselves look special, unique, favorable, and chosen.  All pretend and illusion.

I half agree with you.

Although I've never read the book, and I don't care to (I'm not much of an offline reader, especially when it comes to fiction (I've seen the films), I think the truth about Hannibal, and maybe those who aspire to be him, or something like him, is likely somewhere in between Satyr's portraits of him, and kovac's.. but for me, things are rarely so, black/white, like either they, "noble elites", or whatever you want to call them, exist, or they don't, either virtue exists, or it doesn't, and so on, which is why what you, or the cynic says, appeals to me just as much, as what they say.

Here's my honest assessment of them, I like quite a bit of what Satyr, Lyssa and others have to say, about the human condition, about morals and values and so on, but at the same time, I could do without all the pretense, pomp, excess and embellishment. They speak to people so arrogantly, inhumanly, so hung up on the ideal, they rarely bring it down to earth and apply. It's not that I'm inherently against pride, or superiority, no it's not that simple, 1/0, it's just that it's too much for my liking, too much idealism and it sickens me, makes me want to puke. They don't talk to people the way you and I talk to one another, like real people, but then of course they say they have their reasons, they're driving away the weak, the moronic, etcetera, and I don't care.

They play games, and I don't like game players.

Let me ask you this, do you not have your ideals, which you consider to be superior to that of others? Do you not feel your ideals give you an edge, in the struggle for survival, which is what you're into right? I mean if you were just into hedonism, you would've given up a long time ago, it would've been so easy for you I'm sure, being surrounded by all the crack and filth, to give in, like so many in your position do, but you have dreams, right, ambition? Just a different sort. Well, Satyr and Lyssa and their ilk, whoever they might be, have their ambition too, it's just different than yours, and while there's is more realistic than yours for the time being, yes, if things change, and they very well could soon, then I would see more value in the sorts of schemes your proposing, but for the moment, I can only discuss such schemes with you, I am not prepared to act on them.

Sure, we all perish, but that's life.

I think, what we do or don't do, echoes in eternity, and that ripples, can turn into waves, so that by choosing to hang on in spite of it all, we bring ourselves and our species and life itself a little further from extinction. That's what we do, I don't believe your an agent of chaos, absolutely, correct me if I'm wrong, are you not trying to bring about a more, cynical, sort of order, out of chaos? One that benefits you, and that might benefit, your ilk/companions?

Satyr wrote:

The basic component here is cynicism

Read the LaughingStock expose his inner motives:

LaughingStock wrote:

Link me the text so I can debunk it in this thread.  Smile

A position placing him in bad faith.
He is not interesting in understanding, but in debunking.
The easiest thing between constructing and destroying is the latter.

The man-child is not interested ni creating anything...his resentiment is full-on destruction - if he cannot find value then all values will be debunked. ridiculed, destroyed.
A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.  

Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.

Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
"Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
Saving mankind, is not the goal.
Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.

I'm interested in understanding when there is something to understand.

The thing about destruction Satyr is that it also creates.  Destruction and creation go hand in hand.

Destruction is the means of my philosophy but not the destination.

Quote :

A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.

 

There is a lot of miserable people out there in the world.  Imagine if somebody could unite all the miserable people in the world and create an army of them.

The kids having fun shouldn't complain since after all they're the ones that created all the miserable people in the world to begin with.

Their happiness at the expense of other peoples misery or misfortune.

Quote :

Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.

Poor Satyr.  He could never be accepted or cut it in the current modern aristocracy where instead he dreams of reviving a much older one from history's past as a competing fixation of his.

He of course wants to reform authority because actually living without one has never crossed his mind.  An individual that very much needs authority or at the very least wants to have some over others.


   

Quote :

Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
   "Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

   An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
   A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

   He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
   It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
   His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
   It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

   An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

   Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

   Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
   Saving mankind, is not the goal.
   Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.

It's always funny when Satyr compares people or things to Christianity and Judaism considering how he is always talking about himself and his group of destined chosenites.

The chosen people!


The chosenites bestowed by nature and existence supremacy over the unwashed masses. Over the nonbelievers or nonconformers...

How very religious of you Satyr.


Next we'll be hearing something about a rapture from Satyr that will gather up the chosen people.

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Quote :

Satyr: The noble elite accepts the world as it is...not wanting to change a thing.
He does not belong to the world of such men...he is timeless.

Are you a messiah figure Satyr?

John 18:36

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.


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

Divergense wrote:

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.

Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.

LaughingMan wrote:

Divergense wrote:

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.

Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?

Divergense wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

Divergense wrote:

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.

Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?

I'm apolitical.  I'm an individualist.  Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.

I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.

I simply do what I have to in order to get by.

If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.

...well that about does it for me, I'm through discussing Satyr and Lyssa's philosophy, or anyone else's for that matter, from a relatively neutral perspective, which is not to say there was nothing of me in anything I wrote, there was, but I'm holding back. If I post anything more on this forum, or anywhere else, it's going to be 100% me and my perspective, and anti-anything that dv8s from me and my perspective. In any case, I had fun, I think I understand Satyr's philosophy as good or better than anyone on this forum, other than the goat himself of course, and I appreciate it.. but it's not my own.

...on 2nd thought, I thought I was partly holding back some fundamental opposition to Satyr's thought, but... upon further in introspection, now I'm not so sure. I think I agree with most of it, it's more the details than anything else. I mean what's not to like, know thyself, nothing in excess? Aren't those pretty much givens? I've got some more thinking to, but...

I feel more a little more sober than usual, I feel like I'm sobering up, I dunno...

LaughingMan wrote:

Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.

I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.

Play the hand we're dealt.

LaughingMan wrote:

Divergense wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

Divergense wrote:

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.

Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?

I'm apolitical.  I'm an individualist.  Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.

I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.

I simply do what I have to in order to get by.

If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.

I'm the same way, except for that last part.

I'm just going to let the world do what it does, and respond in kind.

Carve out my own niche, perhaps, my own little oasis.

Divergense wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.

I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.

Play the hand we're dealt.

Play the hand we're dealt?

I find that intolerable.

Know thyself... it's been tough, I've had a love/hate relationship with myself for the past few years, but in the main, I think, I have chosen to stare into that abyss, rather than look away from it, I'm not sure why. I guess I'm just curious, and I pride myself on being strong, in tune with reality. I have strengths and weaknesses, I'm an organic person. Knowing the world has been easier than knowing myself, it's so much easier to perceive the flaw, in otherness.

Nothing in excess... I couldn't agree more, this has been my philosophy for the bulk of my life, long before I came here. My problem has generally been deficiency, rather than excess, except when it comes to thinking. If I could get behind any principle, it would be this one.