Interfacial atmosphere

Interfacial atmospheric individuality

What the outer appearance can tell us is very interesting and honest.

Behaviour is always an extension of the outer appearance; don't we all judge a snake, poisonous or not, simply upon its outer appearance and,
in general, due to the value judgment one makes, seek to not confront this animal.
There is a lizard specie that can decide to drop all its legs and move on as a snake through its environment; why this survival mechanism?
Because we judge upon the outer appearance, sometimes it is simply a lie (like in human society - clothing as a deceiving second skin or reciting knowledge and pretending it to be yours), but in general it is the naked truth.

Through experience we develop our judgment.

A amplified example I do not need to give.
Can't we all tell the difference between a hedonistic, sexual overactive, non-discriminating slut and a more pious woman, thus a conscious woman. And what is the essence of a fat, unhygienic man? A impulsive manimal with no consciousness, only immediate gratification, living in the moment, no sense of Self or otherness such as people who might bother with his smell and his disgusting outer appearance, and thus repulsive behaviour.


About the interfacial atmosphere..
The face tells us a lot about a person; the engraved emotions for example, scarring the face throughout the years, have become a recognition of his or her essence. His/her view on the world, the inter-action with others, with Self, his/her thoughts exposing himSelf through emotional usage.


The facial feautures are the most interesting, such as the eyes..
Eyes are besides a sense organ to perceive the environment, the otherness, to make a distinction between friends and enemies, also a sexual selective organ, as are the other senses. There is a interesting observation to be made if one compares the distinct human breeds with each other, the sclera (eye whites) is ranging from yellow to muddy brown within the Sub-Saharan African races, without it being an indication of any sickness.

Also, their indistinct, uniformal faces indicate a uniform behaviour.
The genetic diversity is the highest amongst the Sub-Saharan Africans, yet their outer appearances, intellectual capacities, hormone quantities, low-impulse control are very uniform.
They are like a school of fish or a swarm of birds; best observed through music and dance; their dances are very sexual and indiscriminative, they 'know without knowing' upon impulses.
When they dance there is no interfacial interconnection, they do not look at each others eyes, their emotions, the expression; they only focus upon the sexual such as shaking asses and dicks, without making any attempt to know the other as we do. There is no ''knowing the other'', for they are uniform.

When one sees a negro in the dark, the most notable are his eyes and teeth, but the face as a whole is of no actual importance due to their low intellect and less emotional understanding; one simply does not make a interfacial interconnection with such a person.
The eyes of the primitives are not for sexual selection, as are they amongst the Eurasian peoples, but simply used for their fight/flight mechanism and in some way, reproductive without any rational or emotional link - only impulsive lust.
Their eyesight are not of any importance to recognise the individual and that which makes him or her a person, such as the emotions, the intellect, the feelings, the specific connection with a specific essence.
Their seeing ability is to recognise a specie as a whole, non-individual, basic understanding of ''we vs. them'' and an abstraction to the common lowest denominator regarding sexual reproduction. Thus human females and males.

While the iris amongst the more refined and somehow domesticated humans, is used as a way of sexual selection - flirting, making a connection with the individual of the in general, opposit gender.
And if not sexual discriminative with a dual-hearted, atmospheric oneness; it is a connection with another individual such as with shared joy, fear, sadness, understanding.
Even if the persons are separated from each other within a face-recognizable distance, they feel each other and have their own micro-atmosphere, no matter if they are amongst many other people in the shared space.  

Thus the face has developed itself amongst the many Eurasian peoples, throughout the centuries, at the point of us having become individuals; with a specific, distinctive essence - being able to make not just a atmosphere of genetic and memetic unity, but also individual interconnections.

If I encounter a negro with a intellect above the average of his specie, his face stands out, it looks more ''enlightened'', it has distinctive traits, more pleasant to look at, he is able to make a micro-atmosphere with other individuals no matter the race.
The more ''open'' the face is, the more consciousness the person possess, the better (s)he can express his/her essence, and very important - altruism developed with the interfacial interconnection.

Quote :

Their seeing ability is to recognise a specie as a whole, non-individual, basic understanding of ''we vs. them'' and an abstraction to the common lowest denominator regarding sexual reproduction. Thus human females and males.

You appear to suffer the same problem as your 'negro in the dark'. Are you black?

Quote :

While the iris amongst the more refined and somehow domesticated humans, is used as a way of sexual selection - flirting, making a connection with the individual of the in general, opposit gender.

Why do you associate refined and domesticated in this way?

It seems that you promote repression of basic instincts and urges and condemn those that act upon them. Why is this the case?

What is this individual essence you refer to? And how is it that it can fail to be expressed? Why do you appear to associate repression with a better ability to express essence?

If a blind person never recongises a face, does that mean they are intellectually inferior too?

Quote :

Their seeing ability is to recognise a specie as a whole, non-individual, basic understanding of ''we vs. them'' and an abstraction to the common lowest denominator regarding sexual reproduction. Thus human females and males.

MonoExplosion wrote:

You appear to suffer the same problem as your 'negro in the dark'. Are you black?

Am I wrong.. - if one looks at their behavior and sexual choices in general.

Quote :

While the iris amongst the more refined and somehow domesticated humans, is used as a way of sexual selection - flirting, making a connection with the individual of the in general, opposit gender.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Why do you associate refined and domesticated in this way?

Domesticated as one can see with a comparison with the symmetrical bodies of the Eurasian peoples and unsymmetrical bodies of the Sub-Saharan races; more aware of otherness regarding putting yourself into the place of another not necessarily belonging to the same specie as you belong to. Although in wild life symbiosis is not uncommon indeed, species evolved with each other.

MonoExplosion wrote:

It seems that you promote repression of basic instincts and urges and condemn those that act upon them. Why is this the case?

Basic instincts; I do not promote to suppress or deny them - I simply mean that they are more animalistic within the Sub-Saharan species and that they are less aware of them.
More impulsive, less selective.

MonoExplosion wrote:

What is this individual essence you refer to? And how is it that it can fail to be expressed?

They are simply more uniform in behaviour and intellect and thus have less individual characteristics - nothing mystical regarding the essence.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Why do you appear to associate repression with a better ability to express essence?

Can you refer me where you seem to think I support any ''repression''?
If you mean ''discriminative and selective'', Selection based upon an interconnection between individuals regarding intellect, consciousness, shared values, health, blood line etc.

MonoExplosion wrote:

If a blind person never recongises a face, does that mean they are intellectually inferior too?

Blind persons develop, in the West with support of state and family, their other senses to a higher capacity to compensate for their useless eyesight. Thus their sensual intellect would be relative to the circumstances. Also, is a blind European man equal to a blind negro if each person would have a IQ as the average of the specie he belongs to..

OhFortunae wrote:

About the interfacial atmosphere..
The face tells us a lot about a person; the engraved emotions for example, scarring the face throughout the years, have become a recognition of his or her essence. His/her view on the world, the inter-action with others, with Self, his/her thoughts exposing himSelf through emotional usage.

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

-

This 'engraved emotions' and rigidity is what William Reich referred to as the Body or Character Armour.

"One's Character IS one's Fate, one's Daemon." [Heraclitus]

Quote :

"Character Armor.

A habitual pattern of organized defenses against anxiety."

Quote :

"Wilhelm Reich identified "armor" as the sum total of typical character attitudes, which an individual develops as a blocking against his emotional excitations, resulting in rigidity of the body, lack of emotional contact, "deadness". Functionally identical to muscular armor (chronic muscular spasms)..."

Quote :

"In character-analytic work, we meet the function of the armor also in the form of chronically fixed muscular attitudes.”

Reich will later define this “muscular armor” as:

“the sum total of the muscular attitudes or chronic muscular spasms which an individual develops as a block against the breakthrough of emotions and organ sensations, in particular anxiety, rage and sexual excitation."

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

Quote :

"Pioneer of emotion-centered healing techniques and researcher of primordial energy, Reich believed that the root cause of mental illness was evidenced in inhibited sexuality. He developed a theory of what he initially called "vegetative currents", streaming life energy flowing within the human body that is basic to it's functioning. These currents are most accessible to study in the sexual (life continuing) functions, but are inherent in all life.

Reich discovered that these vegetative currents were blocked by chronic tension of the body's muscles. These blocks form in observable patterns and structures, "character armor", which Reich believed were reflective of the primitive evolutionary segmentation of the body. These patterns provide a degree of predictability of the symptoms that the patient would experience."

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

Quote :

"The Body's outward appearance is an accurate reflection of what's happening inside, said Reich. There is a basic mistake in idea, "I think,...I am." You can't change your thoughts at a basic level without change in your body, in what you do.

Reich wanted a full-body emotional response to life. If you cover yourself up, may deaden pain, but also rob yourself of full joy.
When someone inhibits an impulse they feel tension. Inhibited libido is tense muscles, sexual charm is relaxed muscles.

Functions of Muscular Armor:

Keeps potentially explosive emotions inwards off emotions of others.

Reich noticed men have trouble taking away armor because they are so accustomed to suppressing feelings and emotions.
An armored person does not feel their armor as such. Reich believed that mind-body work is necessary for people to rid themselves of this armor.
Body Armor and Character Armor are essentially the same. Their function is trying to protect yourself against the pain of notexpressing things that society says you may not express. Muscular armor is character armor expressed in body, muscular rigidity.
Armoring is the sum total of the muscular attitudes which a person develops as a defense against the breakthrough of emotions, especially anxity, rage, sexual excitation. Character armor is the sum total of all the years of the muscular attituded that have also been incorporated in the person's character.

Character Armor can be reflected in Life Patterns. Karen Horney, reflecting on Reich's work, noted that people may arrange their lives to fit their character armor. Thus a severely introverted person may find an apartment in a building that is so configured that he or she need not meet or interact with neighbors, and shop at impersonal stores where minimal contact with others is necessary.

The longer the armor goes on, instinct suppressed, the more psychosomatic problems its likely to lead to.

Rings

Blocks are the contractions in the organsism which prevent the free flow of energy. It appeared to Reich that these appear as rings at a number of points in the body.

1. Ocular: Forehead, eyes, cheekbones, tear duct glands. Inability to open eyes wide. Treatment: Get people to open their eyes "really wide like they're scared."

2. Oral: Lips, chin, throat. Person may find it hard to cry, grin, grimace at all.

3. Neck: When armoned, holding back crying, anger.

4. Chest: Major function--self-control, restraint. Ex: suppressed spite. Holding back anger. Tight muscles holding back raving rage, heartbreaking solbbing, intolerable longing. The armored peerson is unable to express thos things.

With someone armored in chest areas -- hands and arms may move very awkwardly.Example of being free of this armor: musician or dancer who moves in very fluid way. Armor in head and chest-- often found in militarism. Militarism based on armoring and vice-versa. In women, armoring can result in insensitivity in nipples, disgust at nursing.

5. Diaphragm

6. Abdominal Contractions

7. Pelvic Region: When excitement reaches a place that is blocked, the pleasure that comes from the flowing of the energy turns into rage. Might have muscular spasms. Emphasis on vigorous expression of anger, rage, crying, other emotions. We can function as a whole unit when the armor is removed. Focus on breaking up the inhibitions.


Sexuality and Armouring: As a result of armoring, the sexual impulse is changed from something soft and gentle to something harsh and brutal. Inability to express sexuality causes rage, which must also be repressed, and then sex becomes mechanical and brutal.

Orgiastic Potency: Ability to surrender to the flow without any inhibition. Complete surrender to the sexual act. "This is always lacking in neurotic individuals." Few people mature with complete orgiastic potency. Full orgasm can only happen in 4 ways, held Reich:

If people love each other and can express this love
When both people are free of armor, then involuntary muscular movements occur before climax
Breathing should be deep, full, pleasurable
Shortly before orgasm both sexes should experience deep, delicious current-like sensations running up and down bodies. Armoriing cuts this off. Otherwise, climax in loins only. Not throughout body.

Reich saw sexual energy as in two parts. Buildup and release. Charge and discharge.
He held that Neurosis is none other than the sum total of all chronically automatic inhibitions of natural sexual excitation, and everything else is the result of this original disturbance.

Stasis: A damming-up of sexual energy in the organism. Stasis = neurosis. Sexual stasis is the difference between the energy built up and the amount released during orgasm. This leftover energy, undischarged, feeds the inhibition which is hindering sexual release and pleasure, and the inhibition in turn adds to the sexual stasis. A vicious circle. That, for Reich, was the energy source of neurosis.

Essential: Ability to give and receive love in all its forms The full orgiastic reflex is a sign that the person is free of body armoring. Reich's goal was to RESTORE THE PRIMACY OF OUR SENSUAL NATURE. To really let go during the sexual experience. Not just an orgasm but a complete, full release.

In Character Analysis, resistances could be observed in the patient's behavior --ways of talking, walking, moving. Reich couldn't understand why psychoanalysts refused to pay attention to observable behavior.

We have primarily one character structure. Our character can imprison us in rigid and stereotyped reactions at the same time that we build our character as a defense against our environment. Characterological armoring. The armoring is a compromise between our impulses and our social obligations--between what we want and what we think we should do.

In therapy, instead of digging into the deep meaning of the information people present, he would notice how they breathed, held their shoulders, etc. and work with that.

In the 1930s, took idea of armoring one step farther, to muscular armor. Assumes that we are the sum total of our entire lives. How we breathe, laugh, hold ourselves.

He focused on breaking down the muscular armor. Through breathing and other techniques that mobilized body energies. Lookef for "the orgasm reflex" in breathing. Start breathing way up high and way down into the belly. Then become aware of your head --what does your head do as you inhale and exhale, which way does the pelvis go?..."

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

Quote :

"Reich decided the patients' body language could be more revealing than their words. He observed their tone of voice and the way they moved and concluded that people form a kind of Armour to protect themselves, not only from the blows of the outside world, but also from their own desires and instincts. Most of us desire something, and immediately set out to find ways Not to get it! Reich saw this process working in the body. Over the years a person builds up this character armour through bodily habits and patterns of physical behaviour. This being in the days before Kevlar, the armour was presented as a series of corsetry designs in canvas and whalebone, which included a shoulder-straightener for men. Reich called this work Character Analysis."

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

Quote :

"A character structure is a system of relatively permanent traits that are manifested in the specific ways that an individual relates and reacts to others, to various kinds of stimuli, and to the environment.

For Wilhelm Reich, character structures are based upon blocks—chronic, unconsciously held muscular contractions—against awareness of feelings. The blocks result from trauma: the child learns to limit their awareness of strong feelings as their needs are thwarted by parents who meet cries for fulfillment with neglect or punishment. Reich argued for five basic character structures, each with its own body type developed as a result of the particular blocks created due to deprivation or frustration of the child's stage-specific needs:

The schizoid structure, which could result in full blown schizophrenia: this is the result of not feeling wanted by hostile parents, even in the womb. There is a fragmentation of both body and mind with this structure.

The oral structure: from deprivation of warmth and milk from the mother, around age 1. The oral structure adopts an attitude of "you do it for me, because you didn't nurture me when I was young." Shoulders are usually hunched, head bent forward, wrists and ankles weak, as if to say, "I can't get it for myself."

The psychopath or upwardly displaced structure: this wound, around the age of 3, is around the parent manipulating, emotionally molesting the child, seducing them into feeling "special," for the parent's own narcisstic needs. The child resolves to never again permit themselves to be vulnerable, and so decides to instead manipulate and overpower others with their will. The body is well developed above, weak below, as the psychopath pulls away from the ground and attempts to overpower from above. This structure has variations, depending on the admixture with prior wounds: the overbearing is the pure type, the submissive is mixed with oral, the withdrawing, with schizoid.

The masochist structure: this wound occurs when the parent refuses to allow the child to say "no," the first step in setting boundaries. The child seeks relief from the rage that builds up underneath bounded muscle and fat, by provoking punishment from others.

The rigid: this wound occurs around the time of the first puberty, the age of 4. The child's sexuality is not affirmed by the parent, but instead shamed or denied. This structure seeks to prove to the parents and others that the child is worthy of love. The rigid structure is often beautifully harmonious, but there is a physical split around the diaphragm between heart and pelvis: love and sex. This person has trouble with being aware of their emotions, which are strong, yet buried. The rigid structure has many substructures, depending on the exact nature of the wound, the admixture with other pre-rigid (oedipal) structures, and the gender: in women, the masculine aggressive, hysterical, and the alternating; in men, the phallic narcissist, the compulsive, and the passive feminine.

While each of these structures has blocks, and these blocks to some degree resemble "armour," it is only the rigid structure that truly has what Reich called "character armour": a system of blocks all over the body. Depending on which version of rigid one is, the rigid character possesses either 'plate' (i.e. clanky) or 'mesh'(much more flexible) character armour."

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

Quote :

"Character Armour is a compromise between our impulses and our social obligations - between what we want and what we think we should do.
Reich took the idea of armour one step farther, to Neuro-Muscular Armour
He focused on breaking down the Neuro-Muscular Armour through breathing and other techniques that moved body energies.

Neuro-Muscular Armour

One way in which the body protects itself from emotional intensity is by suppression, which leads to the development of chronic muscular tension called Neuro-Muscular Armour by Reich.

Function of Muscular Armour:

To keep inside pontentially explosive emotions,
To keep away the emotion of others,
Men find it difficult to remove the armour as they are so accustomed to supressing feelings/ emotions,
People cannot feel their armour,
Reich believed that Mind-Body work is needed to remove armour.

Body Armour and Character Armour:

Are essentially the same,
Function is to protect against pain,
Pain is caused by non-expression of things that society says must not be expressed,
Muscular Armour is the expression of Character Armour in the body, where it causes rigity,
Can lead to cancer, arthritis, and rheumatism.

Rings of Tension are blocks where muscular contraction prevents the free flow of energy. Reich identified 7 of these rings in the body:

Occular - forehead, eyes, cheekbones, tear duct glands - inability to open eyes wide,
Oral - lips, chin, throat - may find it hard to cry, grin, or grimace,
Neck - holding back of crying, and anger.
Chest - self-control, and restraint - holding back of anger,
Diaphragm,
Abdomen,
Pelvis - pleasure turns into anger - muscular spasms.

Sexual Repression

Reich believed that Sexual Repression is caused by armouring:

The sexual impulse is changed from something soft and gentle to something harsh and brutal,
Inability to express sexuality causes rage, which must also be repressed, and then sex becomes mechanical and brutal,
The pelvis is pulled back and thigh and buttock muscles tighten,
There is a loss of the ability to feel pleasure from sexual acts."

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

Quote :

"Wilhelm Reich coined the term armoring as a reference to character and body armor. Initially trained as a psychoanalyst with Freud, Reich veered from standard theory and practice and over time conceptualized a very different paradigm. He practiced with an engaged style in the here and now, interacting with how patients presented in the office and toward him.

Reich created the term character armor. He meant that we all have coping patterns – stylistic character defenses that we develop throughout our life, usually starting before we can think or talk. We scope out our life situation with parents, caregivers, and early schooling, and figure out the best way to adapt. Depending on how our life unfolds, our defensive structure either becomes more adaptive or becomes problematic. Reich called our habitual demeanor, stance and attitude character armor. Our dominant, submissive, pleasing, withdrawn, petulant, stubborn styles, for example, become a uniform we wear in relationships – our suit of armor.

As Reich’s work progressed scientifically, his focus turned to the body and the way it mirrors the character in all systems. He found that our bodies embody the template of our personalities and conform to those dictates. Reich discovered the basic pulsation in the universe and that healthy organisms and organs have natural expansion and contraction. That life energy pulsates. When we are armored, our pulsation is interrupted and the movement restricted; the energy flow throughout our body is impeded. We may experience this as a lack of sensation, aliveness, a stiffness or tension. Armor can develop into painful sensation if places in our body have chronic holding or are under-charged. So our physicality speaks as well as our voice. Our armoring reduces our creative capacity, our natural expression of our unique Self.

If we allow expansion, we naturally experience new ideas and interests that we have energy to pursue. As we reinstate our natural pulsation by interrupting our character and dissolving our body armor, we naturally and spontaneously embrace life in the way suited to us. When we are imprisoned in unconscious ways of being, we lose flexibility necessary for healthy adaptation."

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

Quote :

"There are two ways to think of armoring phenomenon, as arrested neuromuscular development with some compensatory distortions, or as a imposed change on an already developed function. The former is probably true of 'early' character aspects, especially before age two, and the latter is probably true of armoring that happens at age four and five. That is why bodywork for 'early' problems may best be methodical and developmental, while bodywork for later problems may best be explosive and 'releasing'. It is probably fair to say that both Reich and Lowen emphasized releasing type bodywork.

The word armor of course has a connotation of something that resists penetration. Wilhelm Reich developed the concept because he felt that some psychoanalytic patients were unaffected by in-session interpretations and out-of-session events that 'should' have affected them strongly. It was as if things 'bounced off' them. The name armor implies that the phenomenon comes into existence to fulfill this purpose. That is a teleological explanation, which for biological phenomena, may be misleading. If the purpose is no longer relevant, then the phenomenon should disappear right? This is in fact how many therapist approach the problem--trying to convince the client to 'just drop' the defense, it is no longer needed. That is not how biology works. A more physiologically sound model is allostasis below.

The Amoeba

The amoeba is a one-celled animal, that is, a protozoa. Under a microscope, it can be seen that an amoeba naturally reaches out into its environment. If poked however, the amoeba contracts. What is interesting is that having contracted from the first poke, the amoeba will contract more readily and longer to a second noxious stimulus. The comparison to humans (metazoa) that have been hurt almost makes itself. What is clear with the amoeba, is that this is not a cognitive problem, the amoeba has no brain "to erroneously overgeneralize," or otherwise form a cognitive distortion. Contraction is a biological reaction, not a mental mistake."

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

Reich wrote:

"When we trace the origin of this character 'armor' analytically, we see that it also has a definite economic function. Such armor serves on the one hand as a defense against external stimuli; on the other hand it proves to be a means of gaining mastery over the libido, which is continuously pushing forward from the id, because libidinal and sadistic energy is used up in the neurotic reaction formations, compensations, etc." [Character Analysis, p. 48]

OhFortunae wrote:

Quote :

Their seeing ability is to recognise a specie as a whole, non-individual, basic understanding of ''we vs. them'' and an abstraction to the common lowest denominator regarding sexual reproduction. Thus human females and males.

MonoExplosion wrote:

You appear to suffer the same problem as your 'negro in the dark'. Are you black?

Am I wrong.. - if one looks at their behavior and sexual choices in general.

You are hypocritical. Everything in your post is expressive of this same ‘ability to recognise a specie as a whole, non-individual understanding of ‘we vs. them’’.
You are attempting to create a fallacious dichotomy between Negroes and Europeans. Your hierarchy will fail because there is a paradox in its very core. You want there to be a distinct conceptual break between what makes a European and what makes a Negro, but in doing so, you are placing yourself into the category of stereotypical thought you attribute to Negroes. You are attempting to use the concept of selection as opposed to instinct, but use sweeping generalized statements to support your argument.

I would be more interested in your claims if they were personal. If Europeans are so refined, and selective, then surely that is of more interest than some 'black mass' that is indistinct and moved by nothing more than basic instincts.

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

It seems that you promote repression of basic instincts and urges and condemn those that act upon them. Why is this the case?

Basic instincts; I do not promote to suppress or deny them - I simply mean that they are more animalistic within the Sub-Saharan species and that they are less aware of them.
More impulsive, less selective.

Your whole OP reeks of trying to establish a hierarchy whereby European ideals of beauty and rationality are seen as superior to other phenotypes and images of thought [specifically, Negroes]. I am curious as to why this may be the case.

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

What is this individual essence you refer to? And how is it that it can fail to be expressed?

They are simply more uniform in behaviour and intellect and thus have less individual characteristics

I have yet to see a Western person who does not identify with a culture. ‘Individual characteristics’ do not exist. You appeal to some ‘essence’ outside of culture and social situation. Please explain to me how that comes about.

Quote :

- nothing mystical regarding the essence.

No, not mystical. But how can one action better express essence than another? [Supposing there is an essence to be expressed]

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

Why do you appear to associate repression with a better ability to express essence?

Can you refer me where you seem to think I support any ''repression''?

Quote :

yet their outer appearances, intellectual capacities, hormone quantities, low-impulse control are very uniform.
They are like a school of fish or a swarm of birds; best observed through music and dance; their dances are very sexual and indiscriminative, they 'know without knowing' upon impulses.
When they dance there is no interfacial interconnection, they do not look at each others eyes, their emotions, the expression; they only focus upon the sexual such as shaking asses and dicks, without making any attempt to know the other as we do. There is no ''knowing the other'', for they are uniform.

You choose to create a binary image of man (your entire post is what I am referring to), where the animalistic and less cultured aspects are represented in Negro behaviour and phenotypes, contrasted against this ‘refined and domesticated’ European image of man. Domestication, I take to mean a repression of those instincts. Perhaps you think that selection is somehow related to a refined form of human essence, as in: selection is a better expression of essence than ‘impulse’.
It is easy to define an essence when you make general categories of things. So, I want to know why you made your categories the way you did.

Quote :

The genetic diversity is the highest amongst the Sub-Saharan Africans,

As an interesting aside that may yet play into our discussion, I wonder, do you ever wonder why that area of Africa is ‘Sub-Saharan’?

I hope to explain later this day - work.
Thank for questioning my thoughts.



Edit: I took some trouble to translate a page from Sloterdijks book to English and wrote a little bit myself in order to explain my thoughts and about some personal experiences (of today also coincidentally), which I need to amplify - tomorrow I will have more time left after work.
My apology - sleep is important.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Your whole OP reeks of trying to establish a hierarchy whereby European ideals of beauty and rationality are seen as superior to other phenotypes and images of thought [specifically, Negroes]. I am curious as to why this may be the case.

Hierarchy in Nature is simply existence; but there also is a hierarchy within the 'world of man'; negroids and Europeans are 2 different human breeds belonging to the same specie with each having its average genetic advantages and disadvantages.
There have been studies, which I quoted on the 'race' topic, regarding racial beauty. Peoples from all over the world, belonging to different races, found the, specifical, White-nordic faces to be the most beautiful.

Standards on defining of 'being an actual human' within the 'world of man', is more than just sexual reproductive commonality: Becoming, altruism, intellect, emotional understanding, impulse control / selection. Although, many Europeans are becoming more and more uniform as well - stupidity is to be read on so many faces.

If you compare the races with each other; negroid bodies are unsymmetrical compared to that of the Eurasians.
Symmetry = Order = Attraction. Order is patterns / domestication.

MonoExplosion wrote:

I have yet to see a Western person who does not identify with a culture. ‘Individual characteristics’ do not exist. You appeal to some ‘essence’ outside of culture and social situation. Please explain to me how that comes about.

Culture dervies from race, the average and those 'above the average' allowed to develop.
''Individual characteristics'' - shared by all yes, but there is more diversity amongst the non-primitives. Within the non-primitive populations one can make with more ease, reserved connections with 'specific few'. Micro-atmospheres. Negroids mainly like to gather in big packs yet cannot live within too big communities as is proven again and again thoughout history and ongoing multicultural developments.

Altruism through identifying with the personal, but if there is no Self to know about (no intellectual understanding), then why feel empathy with another person, thus the face is of no importance for such.

As Schoppenhauer noted:

Quote :

''It is said that the most sociable of all people are the negroes; and they are at the bottom of the scale in intellect. I remember reading once in a French paper that the blacks in North America, whether free or enslaved, are fond of shutting themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot have enough of one another's snub−nosed company.''

Of course, everybody lives within a macro-atmosphere (Nation state, religious doctrines, blood line) - I am more specific about the micro.
In Dutch we have a word called 'Gezelligheid'; it is a atmosphere one shares with a selection of people - being pleasant, cuzy, joyful etc., but we use this word also for the 'Ongezelligheid' - you will know by the tone of voice, a vocal tone also is a vibrant indication or maintenance / development of an atmosphere.

Compare the face of a primitive to that of a European and you can see that the European face has developed to a point where one can read different kind of temperaments and moods  more easily than on a face of a negro.
Mainly 3 types of faces I found to be present within the negroid population, which are: stupid, dull, uninterested, sleepy, smiley -- agressive, hateful -- and the individual exceptions.
Again, by my own observations. Also which I notice are the 'untouched foreheads' of many negroes I encounter; no emotional / thinking scars present, it looks 'smooth', young.

Yesterday, during work, I was standing on one side of the road and 2 colleagues at another side. One White man and one negro with blonde-dyed hair and beard.
A red car stopped next to me, with a dark interior, tanned side windows (the front ones were open) and 2 negroes with dread-locks sitting in it. One sitting at the side of the driver, he turned his head to me and said ''Hey, hij denkt hij is blank.'' (Hey, he thinks he is White), thus referring to the blonde-dyed negro. I could not see his face even though the sun was very bright, but I could see his teeth forming a recognisable smile out of the dark (face). I laughed, they laughed, drove further and I signed them goodbye with a joyful smile. There was a connection between us - shared joy, but more of his face I could not read, only due to his teeth.

Quote :

- nothing mystical regarding the essence.

MonoExplosion wrote:

But how can one action better express essence than another? [Supposing there is an essence to be expressed]

The cumulative, the essence of negroids is more prone to uniformity.
With essence I mean intellectual capacity, understanding, interests, behavioural tendencies, hormone quantities, emotions.

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

Why do you appear to associate repression with a better ability to express essence?

Quote :

Can you refer me where you seem to think I support any ''repression''?

Quote :

yet their outer appearances, intellectual capacities, hormone quantities, low-impulse control are very uniform.
They are like a school of fish or a swarm of birds; best observed through music and dance; their dances are very sexual and indiscriminative, they 'know without knowing' upon impulses.
When they dance there is no interfacial interconnection, they do not look at each others eyes, their emotions, the expression; they only focus upon the sexual such as shaking asses and dicks, without making any attempt to know the other as we do. There is no ''knowing the other'', for they are uniform.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Perhaps you think that selection is somehow related to a refined form of human essence, as in: selection is a better expression of essence than ‘impulse’.

Impulse control indicates a higher IQ, foreseeing, calculating and understanding the consequences and thus being more selective with the choices one makes - such as with reproductive selection. Fucking anything and all - or select only the (most) beautiful and healthy.

I urge you to read the ''Essay by a teacher in a black high school'', posted by Lyssa on this topic: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



More about 'individual essence', my thoughts at least..

In dance, amongst Eurasians, it is not just about the whole, but also about the individuals and making a reserved connection with each other (partners) through body language and interfacial exchanges of thought - in contrast with the primitive races, which is mainly sexual, no inter-connection with a specific few. Tribes still existing in Africa do have warrior dances, but again, it is about the whole - and uniform.

My personal experience with dance - I had a Inter-connection with a girl I find the most beautiful, something she did with her eyes reserved for the few. Exchanging smiles, eye contact; I asked her for the dance. During such a dance, and any dance with any partner, one should always have reserved attention for the other and his/her expression.

Note: she is not on the picture.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




I translated this directly from Sloterdijks book 'Spheres - Bubbles', chapter; 'Between faces'.

Sloterdijk wrote:

''De lange weg van de homo sapiens naar de huidige 'gezichtheid' wordt waarschijnlijk voor meer dan vijfennegentig procent afgelegd in prehistorische tijden. Gedurende deze hele periode kan het gezicht van de ander, afgezien van vage toespelingen op vertrouwdheid en verwantschap, nog niet gefungeerd hebben als herkenningsteken of levend signalement, zoals ten tijde van latere volken en rijken; de vraag naar het gezicht als identiteitsbewijs zal pas in de tijd van de eerste volksvorming in de vroege Oudheid aan gewicht hebben gewonnen, dat wil zeggen in de tijd dat mensengroepen hun kritische massa overschreden en nieuwe oriëntatiepunten moesten zien te vinden in een grotendeels niet-verwante en onbekende omgeving. Vanaf dat moment worden de ogen van mensen die in volken leven gescherpt voor het lezen van gezichten; ze speuren naar verwantschapskenmerken en individuele karaktertrekken.
Voor de ogen van de prehistorische mens moet deze combinatie van faciale nieuwschierigheid en de behoeft aan identificatie volkomen vreemd zijn geweest. Hun belangstelling voor de gezichten van anderen moet voornamelijk bio-esthetisch van aard zijn geweest. Vóór de tijd van de neolitische dorpen en de eerste steden zijn de verwante gezichten eerder een geruststelling dan een teken dat van belang is voor identificaties.
Daarom hebben cultuurhistorici en filosofen, in het bijzonder André Leroi-Gourhan en Thomas Macho, er terecht op gewezen dat in de beeldenwereld van het stenen tijdperk afbeeldingen van mensengezichten totaal ontbraken, als was voor die vroege mensen niet alleen het eigen gezicht onzichtbaar, maar ook dat van de medemensen.
Het ontbreken van gezichten op de oudste schilderingen bewijst echter maar één ding, namelijk dat de belangstelling voor de gezichten van anderen thuishoort in een gebied dat niet uitgebeeld wil of mag worden.''


''The long road of the homo sapiens to the current 'facialness' is probably more than ninety-five percent developed in prehistoric times. Throughout this period, can the face of the other, apart from vague allusions to familiarity and kinship, have not yet functioned as recognition or as a living description, as at the times of later peoples and empires; the demand for the face as identification will gain weigth in the time during the first forming of nations in the early Antiquity i.e. in the time that groups of people exceeded their critical mass and needed to find new orientation points within a largely unrelated and unfamiliar environment. From that moment the eyes of people who live in nations sharpened to read faces; they trace for kinship traits and individual characteristics.
For the eyes of the prehistoric men, this combination of facial curiosity and the need to identify must have been completely foreign to them. Their interest in the faces of others must have been mainly bio-aesthetic in nature. Before the era of the first neolithic villages and the first cities, are related faces rather a comfort than a sign that is of importance for identification. Therefore, cultural historians and philosophers, in particular André Leroi-Gourhan and Thomas Macho, rightly pointed out that the world of pictures of the stone age, images of human faces are totally absent, as were for those early people not only their own face invisible, but also that of fellow men. The absence of faces on the oldest paintings proves only one thing, namely that the interest in the faces of others belongs in an area where they may not or did not want to be portrayed.''

Quote :

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

"For the medieval man and woman, the eyes and their gazes were an important part of sexuality. In her book, Medieval Life, Roberta Gilchrist explains that according to medieval theories about sight, “the eye was not a passive receiver but was instead active in sending out rays of sight toward the object of vision. The very act of looking could stimulate desire in the observer and the observed.” Women were typically advised to avoid looking at men so as not to tempt them."

Quote :

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

"It is thought that asymmetrical features are a sign of underlying genetic problems. Numerous studies in humans have shown that men in particular go for women with symmetrical faces.

New York psychologist, Professor Arthur Arun, has been studying the dynamics of what happens when people fall in love. He has shown that the simple act of staring into each other's eyes has a powerful impact.

He asked two complete strangers to reveal to each other intimate details about their lives. This carried on for an hour and a half. The two strangers were then made to stare into each others eyes without talking for four minutes. Afterwards many of his couples confessed to feeling deeply attracted to their opposite number and two of his subjects even married afterwards.

When we are aroused and interested in what we are looking at our pupils dilate. In medieval Italy, women put belladonna into their eyes to make them look bigger. In fact, bella donna means 'beautiful lady'. However, this is not recommended, as belladonna is a kind of poison!


When people are attracted to each other, they tend to sit or stand in the same way and copy each other's physical gestures. This is known as 'mirroring'. When someone does this, it marks good communication and shows us that our interest is reciprocated. Mirroring also happens when talking to close friends as well as potential lovers, so be careful as you may misread signs of friendship as signs of love."

What are the eyes capable of in a world full of naked bodies and meaningless minds.
Although the eyes are still used for seduction, the impact is lesser, it is less selective.
When I walk in a city, or sit in a metro/bus, or wander around at a public transportation stop; I like to observe the people, look at their faces, their activities and look in their eyes. But the eyes are mostly hidden /unconscious in their ''personal'', digital atmosphere and in the early mornings, in the news papers. Often I have seen people bump into each other, tackle one another, or fall almost on the ground - to grab a news paper free to take near the entrance of the metro station, between a wall and a pillar. In a hurry yet willing to miss the metro just for a news paper..

When I glance into the eyes of women, Western women, they do not notice it often (mobiles, makeup, too much focus on her way of walking), if they do, arrogance; thinking that I want ''something'' (piece of unclothed body) from them. When I do this with a Islamic woman, she lowers her gaze to the ground, although they are Westernizing in a rapid speed and also their eyes will become less selective and thus less used for excitatory / aphrodisiac gazes eventually.

Focusing the eyes upon shaking hips, tattoos revealed on naked bodies as to describe their ''life stories'' and ''personality'', accentuating clothes, consumption symbols, jewelery, perfumes..
What is the place, the meaning of the face in these times?

Skank Worms the Cuck Awakens (Star Tards [Starring Niggers in the Evil White empire vs. the Multicultural Utopian Good Side - AKA, Star Wars), 10 minutes in:

The fact that the person is in a uniform and the same as anyone else means that they wanted to distinct him through bodily expression. The fact that such a nigger has no emotional intensities as Eurasians have, shows in his acting, trying too hard, something easier to act for a White because it is closer to his natural essence, thus simply understanding how to enact expressed feelings otherwise sincere without the need to stimlute from within, but hard to comprehend for a nigger, let alone stimlute what he has in a lesser degree of understanding and intensities.

How do people communicate in today's world, trying to socialize, build relationships (beside McDonalds): The cinema, that is how the faces are shaped of the young, don't they dare to look each other's emptiness in the eyes on a more ''personal'' date with options to expose one's self; then try the cinema, it has side effects of shaping your imagination too and to territorialize their ideals and perception upon the world and its inhabitants - namely, sensitive niggers exist too, hell, they are even more capable to express their divine inner egg than the White man.

Makes me think now of the series ''Man in the High Castle''; everytime they portray a ''nazi'', he has this cold face, expressing a certain high intelligence, calmness, ready to sacrifice, loyal to the higher ideal rather than to give into feeeelings.

They want to relate ''evil'' to these higher traits expressed on the face of what the spirit is.
And that is how you manipulate faces.

Here are my unbiased views.

From what I gather, negro american females (mixed with a small amount of white blood) are not emotionally disconnected. Some negro american females, are more empathetic and noble than white women, on average. For instance, if you took a random sample set of white females, and black females, there is a greater chance of blacks being more knowledgeable about political issues than than white females. The average white female won't care about political issues, Monsanto, or any such thing, while the black female feels it as an affront to her community. Black females are on average less apathetic than white females. The reason for this is unclear, but it is perhaps because black women are more tribal and masculine, and thus have more drive in their blood. However, a full blooded negro, with no white DNA, may not be very knowledgeable at all, and lose this perk. However, every blue moon you get a full blooded negro who has a high IQ.

From my experience, negro american males have a higher dimorphism than the negro american females. What this means is some of them are slightly higher intelligence to the females, and some of them are much dumber than the females (or at least try to be.) Most negro american males are focused on physical things, such as sports. They seem to be highly religious and ridicule anything with perceived physical weakness. As far as religion goes, it is almost impossible to find a single negro who is not religious. If you do happen to find one, chances are he will be a negro who looks down on negros and finds other negros to be stupid.

The intelligence I referred to earlier refers to a kind of general intelligence. But in terms of technical or mechanical intellect the difference between males and females is night and day. A negro male will outperform any negro female in technical abilities, and will definitely outperform the average white female as well. The average female brain seems to be completely devoid of technical competence. However, once in a blue moon you will get females who are very technically skilled, such as women who create inventions and other things. Most women who are programmers and geeks are androgynous, but every blue moon you will get feminine women who are programmers as well.

It seems that your assertion that facial homogeny=cultural homogeny is correct. Asians are the worse offenders of this trait, and only a passing examination of their culture will provide evidence as to why.

In terms of technical skill, Asians, Whites, and Jews seem to be the best at technical things. Indian technical skill is debatable, they seem to be good at computers but terrible at planning for the future (low wisdom). It seems that the Nihilistic disease struck them hard.

While the Nihilistic J xT has affected Christian temperament, it has not effected their creativity or desire to construct things. Jesus was a carpenter, and you can see this reflected in American ideals. There are frequent motifs to doing "Gods work on Earth" and planning for the future. Newton was Christian, but also a hardworking scientist.

Buddhists have no such thing...Buddhism teaches Indians to be passive and "focus on the now". We can see this reflected on their culture. Priests are the highest caste, warriors second highest, and inventors, carpenters and workers are considered a low caste. Indians do "focus on the now" and we can see it in their overpopulation and inability to regulate pollution. Furthermore, Buddhism promotes such existential lethargy as to diminish their instinct for creative output.

Lys, Reich's armor theories are interesting but like Freud's theories they are hit and miss.

Character armor does not seem to diminish creative quality of aesthetics, but improve them, because someone with armor is focused on the real, rather than whatever thought their mind happens to focus on. Rather than devoting energies to endless whims, their aesthetics of creative pieces often improve.

Someone with skinny wrists might just be more manipulative because they are more feminine and have higher estrogen, which causes laziness. It is not always because of some childhood trauma. Someone with hunched shoulders might not be manipulative, but shy. Because they are shy they want others to do things for them (so they don't have to interact with people themselves.)

I don't see why Reich advocated removing armor. Shouldn't the root cause of the problem (society) be fixed before armor is removed? One does not go into battle unarmored. Furthermore, aren't tense muscles better in combat?

OhFortunae wrote:

Skank Worms the Cuck Awakens (Star Tards [Starring Niggers in the Evil White empire vs. the Multicultural Utopian Good Side - AKA, Star Wars), 10 minutes in:

The fact that the person is in a uniform and the same as anyone else means that they wanted to distinct him through bodily expression. The fact that such a nigger has no emotional intensities as Eurasians have, shows in his acting, trying too hard, something easier to act for a White because it is closer to his natural essence, thus simply understanding how to enact expressed feelings otherwise sincere without the need to stimlute from within, but hard to comprehend for a nigger, let alone stimlute what he has in a lesser degree of understanding and intensities.

Emperor Popeatine was originally racist and did not let non-humans join the Imperial Forces, and he did not allow females to hold positions of high ranking officers. Unsure if he allowed blacks or not. But after his death they became desperate and less discriminative of entry into their ranks. Popeatine's background was a race car driver on Naboo, he crashed his opponent into a wreck and they died. He got grounded by his parents after shortly after became a Sith apprentice.

In Star Wars the Farce Awakens, JJ Abrams is still as racist as George Lucas in his protrayal of the black man, he is clumsy, inept, and generally clueless and cowardly. I am suprised your discerning eye did not spot this, yours seems to be an emotional rant of sorts. Blacks are generally rebellious to authority, so it makes sense to have a black stormtrooper rebel. I don't get why the Aryan brotherhood is so butthurt about this. Secondly, it doesn't show "Multiculturalism Utopian Good Side" it shows a bunch of nasty aliens who are slave traders. I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain. That being said, I shall post a video regarding Popeatine.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

OhFortunae wrote:

Skank Worms the Cuck Awakens (Star Tards [Starring Niggers in the Evil White empire vs. the Multicultural Utopian Good Side - AKA, Star Wars), 10 minutes in:

The fact that the person is in a uniform and the same as anyone else means that they wanted to distinct him through bodily expression. The fact that such a nigger has no emotional intensities as Eurasians have, shows in his acting, trying too hard, something easier to act for a White because it is closer to his natural essence, thus simply understanding how to enact expressed feelings otherwise sincere without the need to stimlute from within, but hard to comprehend for a nigger, let alone stimlute what he has in a lesser degree of understanding and intensities.

Emperor Popeatine was originally racist and did not let non-humans join the Imperial Forces, and he did not allow females to hold positions of high ranking officers. Unsure if he allowed blacks or not. But after his death they became desperate and less discriminative of entry into their ranks. Popeatine's background was a race car driver on Naboo, he crashed his opponent into a wreck and they died. He got grounded by his parents after shortly after became a Sith apprentice.

In Star Wars the Farce Awakens, JJ Abrams is still as racist as George Lucas in his protrayal of the black man, he is clumsy, inept, and generally clueless and cowardly. I am suprised your discerning eye did not spot this, yours seems to be an emotional rant of sorts. Blacks are generally rebellious to authority, so it makes sense to have a black stormtrooper rebel. I don't get why the Aryan brotherhood is so butthurt about this. Secondly, it doesn't show "Multiculturalism Utopian Good Side" it shows a bunch of nasty aliens who are slave traders. I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain. That being said, I shall post a video regarding Popeatine.

Dear American nigger mongrel; gtfo to some kind of coal burner forum and share your revelations there.
Niggers are not anti-authoritarian, they are genetically impotent to rule anything hence expressed in their history of having not one succesful form of civilisation and not one animal species domesticated; they should have never been subjugated to be ''civilised'' because that is alike putting a monkey in a suit saying it is now European.

As how the former SW movies were portrayed, is an highly technologically advanced empire ruled by healthy White men with no niggers or alien intra-space fucking mongrels among them versus the democratic, tolerant, 3th world slums fighting evil Whitey.
I have not seen all the movies, did not fully watch the last one and care less except for the propaganda.
It makes sense that the negro ''stromtrooper'' is portrayed as a coward for they are nothing but cowards, but it makes no sense as to portray it as ''emotionally empathetic'' for they have lesser empathy.

Niggers are so authoritarian that they listen only to a whip and never had any remarkable slave rebellions throughout history.

Heavy Star Wars Spoilers Ahead:

There were no strong white male and young characters on the Good side in the new Star Wars movie. It was all old white people - weak white manginas and a fat neckbeard thrown in for good measure. The good heroes are old white people (the ones who have the old ethos of being against racism), a white woman and a black man... and a hispanic person.

Kylo Ren is a faggot who worships his grandfather..a statement on paganism's worship of ancestors. And Hux is a just obviously new Hitler. These are the roles of young white men, through this film. If they shine - it's because they're evil or misguided and talented faggots.

Another scene: when Kylo slashes down the black guy, it's on the back, as if it were him whipping/lashing his back as a slave.

Oh, and the only non-neurotic personality on the dark side is a woman and an old decrepit emperor dude who is obviously retarded enough to have let another death star blow up.

Then, of course, the black guy is the exception to the rule of everyone else who are conformist and white - ignoramus drones under the rule of Huxler. The black guy is the one with the 'conscience', heart, or whatever to join the good side.

The only masculine white person was Han Solo, and he got killed from thinking his son was salvageable from being a 'pagan worshiping faggot'.

OhFortunae wrote:

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

OhFortunae wrote:

Skank Worms the Cuck Awakens (Star Tards [Starring Niggers in the Evil White empire vs. the Multicultural Utopian Good Side - AKA, Star Wars), 10 minutes in:

The fact that the person is in a uniform and the same as anyone else means that they wanted to distinct him through bodily expression. The fact that such a nigger has no emotional intensities as Eurasians have, shows in his acting, trying too hard, something easier to act for a White because it is closer to his natural essence, thus simply understanding how to enact expressed feelings otherwise sincere without the need to stimlute from within, but hard to comprehend for a nigger, let alone stimlute what he has in a lesser degree of understanding and intensities.

Emperor Popeatine was originally racist and did not let non-humans join the Imperial Forces, and he did not allow females to hold positions of high ranking officers. Unsure if he allowed blacks or not. But after his death they became desperate and less discriminative of entry into their ranks. Popeatine's background was a race car driver on Naboo, he crashed his opponent into a wreck and they died. He got grounded by his parents after shortly after became a Sith apprentice.

In Star Wars the Farce Awakens, JJ Abrams is still as racist as George Lucas in his protrayal of the black man, he is clumsy, inept, and generally clueless and cowardly. I am suprised your discerning eye did not spot this, yours seems to be an emotional rant of sorts. Blacks are generally rebellious to authority, so it makes sense to have a black stormtrooper rebel. I don't get why the Aryan brotherhood is so butthurt about this. Secondly, it doesn't show "Multiculturalism Utopian Good Side" it shows a bunch of nasty aliens who are slave traders. I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain. That being said, I shall post a video regarding Popeatine.

Dear American nigger mongrel; gtfo to some kind of coal burner forum and share your revelations there.
Niggers are not anti-authoritarian, they are genetically impotent to rule anything hence expressed in their history of having not one succesful form of civilisation and not one animal species domesticated; they should have never been subjugated to be ''civilised'' because that is alike putting a monkey in a suit saying it is now European.

As how the former SW movies were portrayed, is an highly technologically advanced empire ruled by healthy White men with no niggers or alien intra-space fucking mongrels among them versus the democratic, tolerant, 3th world slums fighting evil Whitey.
I have not seen all the movies, did not fully watch the last one and care less except for the propaganda.
It makes sense that the negro ''stromtrooper'' is portrayed as a coward for they are nothing but cowards, but it makes no sense as to portray it as ''emotionally empathetic'' for they have lesser empathy.

Niggers are so authoritarian that they listen only to a whip and never had any remarkable slave rebellions throughout history.

I hope you were being sarcastic, this sounds like a post from Chimpout or Niggermania.

Thank you for refering me to those sites, looks fun to scroll through for a one timer; now - try to refute what I wrote, just try it.

Look at this face, and if you have not already, then you may come to realize that the appearance reflects the spirit, that the body is in fact the living embodiement of the spirit's characteristics, limits, tendencies and will.

This face tells you that in a war, he is the first in and the first one to die; he has loyalty to honour that cannot be understood through education, it is natural to him; he may have a family but will never raise his children for duty calls to protect his wife and children to fight the enemies still on distant land to prevent them from coming near to his family and property; he is intelligent and compassionate but does not cower for executing a captured prisoner of war - a man of character and endurance, of labour and family, of war and strive, of peace and reading.

Compare this face to that of a Modern Economic orientated Cuck's face, so dominantly represented in our age; chubby cheeks, a chin not yet double but can come falling down any moment at age thirty; a childish expression with not the innocence but the meanness and deserving attitude of spoiled children - a Manchild who when he has power will abuse it, let others do the dirty work while privileged himself for not having to climb up because everything has been given, he has a wife and children but never spends time with them relating to nature, sports and animals; the kind of a ''man'' who when duty calls for war, he is the one trying to obtain a ''rank'' to either be excluded from the warrior's strive, or to give safe orders or be stationed far away from the actual fighting, always sheltered and always his corrupt bloodline passed on from generation to generation; that is how cucks survive.

But if you look at this face of strive, loyalty, endurance, compassion and merciless mercy (his mercy is to kill and execute clean, no needless suffering) - you see he is rare; in ancient times they were more ''common'' and young men were trained to become warriors and women were given no other value than to give birth to warriors; throughout the many centuries of wars such men were the first to sacrifice themselves and the Socratic, Christian and Secular-Humanist doctrines having had an resentful impact upon the gene pool of our peoples in favour of weakness, ugliness and cuckoldry, this face can be seen suppressed somewhere in our society, hidden in this unnatural world of Economic priorities and cuck perversions, or as it is presented here - a statue's head capturing the moment of a rare face of hardship, loyalty, good fathership and labour; he sees the future and embraces it as a will of higher gods guiding him to his certain death in violence, but ever living through heroic inspiration for others to look up to, for women to be reminded with what kind of men they should bed and what kind of children they should birth; reminding young men how to embrace strive and how to sacrifice their own lives for the higher ideals and for wife and children to protect: to remind us what our people lack today and what kind of blood has been spilled; during World War II, these kind of men were the first to die and too many this time have been sacrificed and had not have the chance to inspirit a strong woman's womb to continue such a line of bloody Nobility; can we return to beauty and strive, that is our present day's difficulty to answer, not as a question but as a duty, a task we must fulfill - too much has been destroyed already and too many of the ugly breeds, the lower classes and Economic inverted Elites have survived and been propagated.

I Heil to all Men of Valour and Women with Couragous Instinct.

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

Sloterdijk, Spheres wrote:

''The mask is the facial shield held high in the war of the gazes. When the modern art still portrays faces, she writes as it were, the protocol of a permanent interfacial catastrophe. Like the archaic art of sculptures of the mask she displays faces that have no longer been shaped in intimate, spherical relationships, faces without recognition, marked by the world powers devoid of content and disfigurement - to which not in the last place the deformation as a result of success belongs, the permanent grin of the victors, faces that no longer stand eye to eye with human partners, but with monitors, cameras, markets, evaluation committees.''

''For the early history of the human facialness applies that people do not have their face for their own sake, but for the sake of others. The Greek word for the human face 'prosopon' exemplifies this course currently the best - it means: that what men through the gaze of the other reveals; a face is initially available only to the gaze of the other; but as a human face it has at the same time the ability of 'to be seen', to reply with a own counter look back - and this 'to look back' sees interim and naturally not itself, but only the face in opposite of itself.''

The permanent grin of the victors..
Look around you, walk through the city centre, notice the many billboards along the road, any path leading towards economic utility; watch the commercials presented…, enforced.., upon us, on the television, on youtube; see the advertisements popping up out of nowhere all over your screen, see the adverts on any government approved, ‘’official’’ website.

They all present the same ideal of ‘’happiness’’; smiling faces of all kinds of people: young, old, male, female, negro, White, Semite, mongrel etc., etc., but what meaning has their happiness enforced upon us through the constant presence of commercials all around us?

First of all, such empty smiles which you encounter also on the streets of actual ‘’people’’ (I-machines) might be sincerely rooted in ignorance, like dogs not knowing any better and thus not able to long for any higher, self-existential purpose. To know a difference, or to feel it in your blood memory, that once you have encountered this contrast, you can never return to what was.., what is.
These animal-men belong to the consciousness of the animal world, only lower in value since the cowards with no other meaning in life than to have infertile ‘’pleasures’’ (hedonism) are the most low-hearted beasts on the planet - no will to overcome, no will at all to be-come more than what was given to them through their nurturing-stagnation of the media and the educational filtering system and their abused and directed basic desires.

What value have their ever-lasting smiles on their programmed faces; there is no excuse to not doubt the smile of a pretty woman for it may be a habit well mimicked. Always distinct the honest from the dishonest and its intentions; for the honest might well be honestly repulsive.

To return to the subject of the commercialized smile - Commercials are used to direct the economic drive, often sexual since the most base people buy through means of manipulated impulses of sexual desire; and of course the colours exploding with symbolic meaning, as to associate it with a particular branch of sweets or hyper-masculine representations, such as cars.

The smile is sold and consumed, it is an economic smile to ‘’share’’ their happiness through selling useless products. Products not made but ready bought and sold, a constant flux of money with no patience and value for its creation.
The Japanese grin is a perfect example of the grin of the victor; there are many cases of people suffering from the ‘Smile Mask Syndrome’; causing depression, physical injury (muscle aches), headaches, a unawareness of them even smiling and an emotional suppression.
To not even be aware of your own smile, what is its value, what joy can one share..

Since the Allied, physical victory upon Japan and the whole of the world, they also won the faces of those conquered; through means of implanting their ideals in the minds, propagating democracy and an global economic system and enforcing their media upon us all.
The conquered peoples interact with each other by looking down on their mobile screens - broken necks, broken pride, broken in-sight. All sharing the same jokes and one-sided information through the same communicative tools as facebook, twitter and any other platform changing in name but not in purpose, though ironically, the puppet-victors themselves have fallen victim to their own mechanical facial-atmosphere.

Smile to the (security)camera!
No face can share a joyous moment of rare experience, a shared memory inter-connected with each other’s eye-gazing; all have the same expression of ignorance, uncaringness, degeneration into uniformly increasing infantility on their faces.

The grin of the victor is all around us, on each face; a smirk of ignorance as they want it, a produced smile for whorish consumption, a grin on the faces of the puppet-victors, those followers of infertile ideals, by each seeming ‘’victory’’ against their opposite on the same coin of dualism, owned by an absolutist force of greed



It is true that each age has its own expression, thinking not only about clothes and costumes, style of hair and manner of walking; already expressing a certain (cultivated) psyche; but also in general behaviour and emotional expression. How does the smile for example differ today from previous centuries; it are cameras having had an impact upon how we should smile, or rather, the advertisement how to present yourself in front of the camera as the first decades of the use of cameras, were photographed people represented with no smiles at all.
To unsheathe the teeth with most spread out lips possible is the ideal representation and has even become an aesthetic fashion and fashion of popular appeal, as to want to show people (on a-social media) they have had a good time, are happy and will smile in all circumstances; but this forced facial expression already exposes the need to tell others, or rather themselves, what is lacking – sincere happiness.


A Utopian Dream World – Faceless, diverse faces not representing a volk, with a common expression of ‘’happiness’’, and whorish tolerance.

The selfie-stick is just one of the many add-ons on how we see ourselves and others perceive us through camera altering; the precise angle of a camera and adjusted light is often enough used by people desperate to have their faces seen but with cunning side effects of appearing to be more light than the skin tone (often south-East Asian women) actually is, and the fatty angle, the face in a certain position so that the chubby cheeks, rolling chin blubs and the ''modest'' smile carved in a face full of chub chub is not noticed for the untrained eye; that is, those not exposed too much to this kind of advertisement, for what are photos (of yourself) but a form of advertisement, how you present yourself to others, how you actually are and what your need is, such as the fatty desiring comments not relating to her fatness.

This selfie-stick and the common selfies in general exposes the need to share the happiness of those making the photos, like when I was in a metro in Rotterdam and a group of teenage girls came together and one rolled out a selfie-stick (first time I saw one so I was perplexed what the fuck that was); they came close together, had some fun in altering this stick in the right position, smiled and when a few photos were taken, they all sat in their own seats again in all seriousness, seriousness - that is, emptiness. It exposes the need for others to be seen and acknowledged in relationship to the ideal of happiness and togetherness, in this age of individual copy-paste Parrots and the colleteral damage of the family unit, lonely desperation.

Selfies, big bling jewelry, eccentric clothes: It all is a means to ''exist''; you see, when such people are alone, on their own, nobody sees them and inter-acts with them, so they need to be acknowledged that they exist. Make a selfie, post it online, and get acknowledgment that someone has seen you, liked you and ''cared'' about it.

Just like niggers with their bling bling, alone in the cribz they are non-existing, they need to be heard and seen (in a ''uniwque'' manner) through means of items, they are not special hence the decorations to attract attention.

And then the touristic mindset: ''I take a picture, therefore I exist (if I don't shoot the sunset, I'm not there).''

So far cameras have been centralized to give value to lives, rather, acknowledge them and their happiness, visited places, met persons and done activities.
Between a relationship there is camera.

OhFortunae wrote:

Dear American nigger mongrel; gtfo to some kind of coal burner forum and share your revelations there.

Not worth my time, most of those forums are filled with low IQ religious nutters. They do seem to have empathy, though.

Quote :

Niggers are not anti-authoritarian, they are genetically impotent to rule anything hence expressed in their history of having not one succesful form of civilisation and not one animal species domesticated; they should have never been subjugated to be ''civilised'' because that is alike putting a monkey in a suit saying it is now European.

Monkeys are naturally rebels, and anti-authoritarian. It is their nature. Your statement pretty much defeats itself.

Quote :

It makes sense that the negro ''stromtrooper'' is portrayed as a coward for they are nothing but cowards, but it makes no sense as to portray it as ''emotionally empathetic'' for they have lesser empathy.

Rubbish and hubris. Where is your evidence? Blacks seem to have more empathy towards blacks, whites seem to have more empathy towards whites. The net amount of empathy is the same. In the movie, there was a village they shot up. This tuned into the black stormtrooper's primal nature and he felt empathy to the village, since it reminded him of his african roots.
Article about this. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am a scientist, so I try to base it on the facts.

Fact. Blacks have lower IQ.
Fact. Blacks are more savage.
Fact. Blacks have more primate-like bodies.

Not fact. Blacks have less empathy.

For example, Native Americans were savages, but they had empathy for animals and nature.
There are two types of savages, Northern Americans (has empathy) and Mayans (cannibals with no empathy.)

White people are bad people, black people are bad people. White women and men went to hangings in the 1820's for entertainment. Blacks eat pork. Whites eat beef and mcdonalds. Whites are serial killers, blacks do drive bys. It's just a world full of bad people.

If you are set on this path of hating blacks at all costs, I can't take you off the path you are on.

The Empire in Star Wars represents Nazi germany. White people are not inherently good. I dont like Jews any more than anyone else, but I wouldn't starve them to death like Hitler did. I would cut off their balls as payback for all of the babies they circumcized, but I wouldnt send them to ovens. Where is the evidence that whites have empathy? Because I don't see it anywhere. Only a small portion of Aryans have empathy, and they have the feminine looking faces you seem to view as undesirable.

Quote :

Niggers are so authoritarian that they listen only to a whip and never had any remarkable slave rebellions throughout history.

So, blacks had no role in the civil rights movement, and did not make the Underground Railroad?

" Whites are serial killers, blacks do drive bys. It's just a world full of bad people. " That's the typical afrocentrist argument, those damn evil edomites

Quote :

In RISE OF THE BLACK SERIAL KILLER: Documenting a Startling Trend, Justin Cottrell expels the myth that serial killers in America are predominately white. But after sifting through a myriad of newspaper records and books, he's compiled a list of black murderers that is equal too or greater than the number of white serial killers from 1860 to present. Few if any have ever heard any of their names or stories, until now.Based on his findings white serial killers have been underrepresented throughout American history when compared to the percentage of the population they represent by a factor of 1.79 on average. On the other hand, black serial killers have been overrepresented 2.68 to 7 times their portion of the population, with a 150 year average of 4.18. Another startling thing he uncovered is black serial killers have never represented less than 26.83% of the number of serial killers in a given decade, despite their overall percentage of the population never exceeding 13.1%. This trend has steadily increased to the point that in our current decade they represent 88.24% of the number of serial killers apprehended since 2010, yet only account for 12.6% of the populace.

Aside from trends, this book offers reasons most people assume black serial killers don't exist—from the media prohibition on the subject, to general misunderstandings. Coupled with this is a look into the various factors that breed serial killers, with a look into why black serial killers are on the rise, while white serial killers are on the decline.

To prove his research is valid, the full list of 836 black serial killers is provided, along with a brief description of their crimes. In addition to this the biographies of 35 of these killers are given, with detailed information about their crimes, including the names of their victims. The book is dedicated to the victims, and families affected by these murderers, with a goal of shedding light on this rarely discussed topic, by telling historical stories that have almost been forgotten.

" Where is the evidence that whites have empathy? Because I don't see it anywhere.  " Maybe you should look into Europe which is destroying itself because of it, whites are the only ones volunteering to help the third-world shithole's even if it costs their own lives or get raped, whites are adopting black babies instead of having their own....These people are letting refugees in based on how touching they think their made up stories are, maybe you should have followed whats going on in the immigration issues topic

Jarno wrote:

" Whites are serial killers, blacks do drive bys. It's just a world full of bad people. " That's the typical afrocentrist argument, those damn evil edomites

If you're calling me an afrocentrist, that's a fallacy. If there really are 2to1 ration of black serial killers, its probably because twice as many whites just don't get caught. Also, it is because the white controlled media has a black agenda. I am no afrocentrist, my goal is to alert people to the truth, that you're choosing between shit (blacks) and butterfeces (whites).

The white controlled media has a black agenda, you can see it on MTV trying to get kids into rap music and degradeful things. Now they are on football commercials, with white people in suits trying to look "hip" by shaking their booty and dancing to rap music. Its what you'd call the niggerfication of america. Bing bling is a symptom of this. It is unclear whether it is the blacks natural desire for it, or this desire for it was imposed it upon him by the white media. The white media also hypersexualizes the female form, and this causes feminization of man. Wearing necklaces and bingbling is also a symptom. The TV in of itself is a trance, and runs at 30 hz, the trance in of itself is feminizing.

No, you are a American nigger mongrel putting the title of ''scientist'' on yourself, or has been given by some ''official'' authority, for that strokes an erection in your ''value''.

Of course a White feels more empathy to another White and a black to another black; for that is the basic fundament of seeing yourself in another, one who looks similar to you, hence pain intensity is more strong to be felt if one sees another suffering belonging to a similar breed (and class).

Evidence, you have Google, that is one; second, I can make connections to other traits, you fucked up nigger breeding moron: Niggers have less mirror neurons fired that relates to empathy in contrast to Whites, as well have a more simplistic brain structure, less weight, smaller cranial capacity, lower intellectual capacity, higher testosterone levels - that all RELATES to the potential degree of feeling beyond yourself and beyond your likes and the intensity felt.

Empathy to animals.., Mayans no empathy, or do you mean sympathy... Hence they were the ones making the buffaloos nearly extinct, new-age nonsense; and a lion hunting down a antilope, ripping its throat in shreds when captured, does it out of instinctive judgement, the fastest kill is the best fed and the best to mate with another; not out of sympathy - instinctive empathy is not that broad. A shewolf protects the throat of her alpha male mate when challenged, a Maya may feel sympathy to the blessing of the gods upon his people.

Niggers are in general more prone to serial killings btw, you ''scientist'' moron.
Your bad is note mine, you stupid nigger-loving mongrel.
''Inherently good''? Did I say that anywhere? Did I ever state I believe in absolute good, you cancer stain.
Who the fuck, you lying peace of shit, did Hitler starve to death, you fucking parrot of lies of the all-lies with your ''ovens''; your historic awareness clearly is as retarded as is your understanding of biology and higher ideals.

Niggers only participate in any form of developments related to White standards, in a culture of Whites.

Now, get cancer and get the fuck off all together.

Jarno wrote:

" Where is the evidence that whites have empathy? Because I don't see it anywhere.  " Maybe you should look into Europe which is destroying itself because of it, whites are the only ones volunteering to help the third-world shithole's even if it costs their own lives or get raped, whites are adopting black babies instead of having their own....These people are letting refugees in based on how touching they think their made up stories are, maybe you should have followed whats going on in the immigration issues topic

This is what I call "fempathy" or fake empathy. They probably have empathy for only what it is they are focused on, such as missionary missions overseas. If, for example, you tried to be their friend in real life, they would probably be an asshole to you and give you the slip. No different than hipsters, lesbians, or any similar faggot.

Yeah...It seems you are heavy league scientist.

Quote :

This is what I call "fempathy" or fake empathy.:

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

The owner of MTV, Sumner Murray Rothstein, he certainly is not a goyim. ^

But yeah, whats the point...