Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

It is refreshing to keep company with those of greater or equal intellectual vigor, so that one does not need to explain trivialities over and over again about what is obvious. Such a gift, not granted to the highest of a hierarchy, instead grants them the right to moderately increasing privacy so that all may benefit from what reflects on itself. The collectivization of self-knowledge and discovery.

Satyr wrote:

Today a feeble fag, or a woman, or a child, with a semi-automatic can take down a 6'6" muscled behemoth, without even breaking a sweat.

If they have the minimum level of intelligence required to realize they need a weapon. Otherwise...

JEWelry

oy vey goyim, don't use your money to obtain practically useful things. Buy shiny trinkets instead!

You don't need blood and soil when you have gold and diamonds.

We experience both, the costs and benefits of our ancestors’ successes and failures.

The two main mistakes of our ancestors was not brutally suppressing what needs to be suppressed, and not taking opportunities to conquer what they could. A failure to identify and respond to threats, and a failure to exploit opportunities. They were mistakes to learn from.

It is up to us now to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits to the extent we can, and teach the future generations to do the same.

Nice image from the comedy thread.

The fact that most people now have been programmed similar to NPCs in video games and that options to do fun stuff in reality are severely limited, only makes the point stronger.

But in the end all video games end up simulating what people would want to do in reality but either cannot do at all, or the costs of doing it are too high. Usually some form of hunting, war, and resource gathering for men, and dress-up, social relationship management and home management for women.

There was even this game some women had on their phones which was about having what appeared to be a literal piece of poop that you had to feed every couple of hours, play with it, clothe it and such, like you would a dog or an infant. Obviously appealing to and exploiting the maternal instinct to nurture.

But they are not all bad.

Both fictional and non-fictional narratives are useful for people with a higher awareness to communicate their ideas and imagery across larger spatial and temporal distances to the few other people scattered around who possess the capacity/interest in such things.

Once created, they become static externalizations of the author's mental processes at the point of creation. By interacting with these narratives, we are indirectly interacting with the author/s and enter their minds. So in a sense, even when you play a video game you interact with real people.

And how different is it really from talking to some normie who just repeats what he's been programmed with?

What I got out of that comic, is the emptiness of moderns. They live cliched existences. They are desperate for an identity, and that lacking creates a self-absorbed sickness; all that matters are themselves. Regardless what they do, they will always be what they hate, or end up in a situation alongside those they hate. Lacking no fundamental emotional intelligence that comes from introspection, they cannot help being something artificial, something pretentious. Instinctively and obliviously, they follow degenerate cultural trends of what self is and how to attain it. Like Edward Bernay's says about the collective man and how his choices are based, subconsciously, on mass marketed images he has been exposed to, which guide his reasoning and decision making drives. It's primal and inevitable. They are not aware of it. All they know is that there is something 'missing", something which deserves resentment. Which is themselves.

We are living in a time where no one can cope with being alone, at least not conceptually. There has to be some person or filler to complete them, to form and shape them, to compliment them, to validate them, to give them purpose. There has to be some transitory medium they can access, to give them value. When one fails, they move to the next. They try on another costume.

Many instances of the unwise thinking they've freed themselves, with momentary intoxication with modern standards - only to find they were being shallow, not appropriately assessing the risks, the dangers. They "get fit", "get a job", etc. only to find things are exactly as they feared they would be. Their bodies gave no new insight, they never trained for tolerance. They approached where they are inauthentically. Every fiber of their body and ghost of their spirit was/had been trained for vanity and not action. No longer do they conquer themselves, or others - they reduce pain, conforming - and solidify arrogance. They don't fuck women, out of pure taste - they marry, they 'settle', they work.

Work was reserved for women and the elderly. Anything you couldn't, or wouldn't, defend wasn't yours.

Satyr wrote:

For every cost there is a benefit and for every benefit a cost.
This also refers to the Yin/Yang eastern symbolization of cosmic balance.
We'll not get chaos involved here, because it modifies things.

Is the ideal of "Cosmic Balance" the seed of Abrahamism? The idea that no matter how weak you are, you are owed an advantage to compensate for that disadvantage. "God" being the anthropomorphic representation of that force. Of course, once the tables are turned in their favor, they forget such principles and indulge in their dominance, calling themselves the new strength and seeing no disadvantage or cost in their behavior.

Satyr wrote:

It's not easy to be king.
Harder to maintain kingship than to ascend to the throne.

Depends, most so called "kings" in history maintained their kingship more-so through abrahamic husbandry than personal dominance.

Satyr wrote:

The weapons males invented to dominate become tools for them to be dominated.

Today a feeble fag, or a woman, or a child, with a semi-automatic can take down a 6'6" muscled behemoth, without even breaking a sweat.

Compensation/focus is not new, but a sword/shield/spear still required more muscle and intelligence than a firearm.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Satyr wrote:

For every cost there is a benefit and for every benefit a cost.
This also refers to the Yin/Yang eastern symbolization of cosmic balance.
We'll not get chaos involved here, because it modifies things.

Is the ideal of "Cosmic Balance" the seed of Abrahamism?

In the absolute sense, yes.
The idea of justice of perfect balance.
There is no such state....not for Hellenism. I used the metaphor of the surfer to represent how I think of it:
A surfer is continuously adjusting his mass, in relation to the waves. He never attains perfect, absolute, balance...he is always on the edge of falling over, when he corrects himself, until the waves get the better of him.

That's life. life is always one heart-beat away from death, and then the next one comes and life continues.
Life is constant agon. It requires constant affirmation.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

The idea that no matter how weak you are, you are owed an advantage to compensate for that disadvantage. "God" being the anthropomorphic representation of that force. Of course, once the tables are turned in their favor, they forget such principles and indulge in their dominance, calling themselves the new strength and seeing no disadvantage or cost in their behavior.

Yes...the idea that no matter how 'weak' anyone is, he has some strength, some quality that redeems him/her.
It's harsh, but that's not the case. To be born does not suffice.
Most are born merely to be the prey predators feed on. Some die shortly after birth.
Every birth is a possibility that is realized or is not - every birth is an experiment: will this combination of genes suffice? How far will it go?
The idea that all life has value is an Abrahamic one...and it is seductive: self-comforting. We all feel vulnerable and can relate to the fragility of life. We all feel the pain and suffering of existence....we all wish certain things were true.
This is why we cling to each other.

The ability to think and to judge objectively, clearly, despite this, is what separates intellectuals from pseudo-intellectual sophists.
Being a philosopher requires more than intelligence. not all can be, nor should be.
How much reality can a mind endure, determines how close to the objective he reaches, knowing he'll never attain absolute objectivity.

Strength is a measure of weakness; knowledge is a measure of ignorance; courage is a measure of fear and how much one can endure without fleeing, without turning away, without intentionally blinding himself.
Brutal, I know.
Some ought not to go further....if it troubles them. They'll go mad. Every man should be able to judge how much reality he can endure.
After all, absolute clarity is not required to survive.  
Actually, too much knowledge and understanding can be detrimental to life.
The closer to the absolute one reaches, the more strength it requires to push on further.      

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Depends, most so called "kings" in history maintained their kingship more-so through abrahamic husbandry than personal dominance.

Nihilism is the best political tool.
In fact, it is only political...and politics is about psychology - human husbandry. It's only 'power' is within human populations, or any organism that can use language and be affected by it.
Schmitt says politics is about identifying your enemy, in life's endless war.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Compensation/focus is not new, but a sword/shield/spear still required more muscle and intelligence than a firearm.

The irony is that 'strength' and 'intelligence' creates the conditions of their own demise.

Metaphysically speaking....
The more you approach the absolute, the more difficult it becomes to advance and to maintain yourself there.
Theoretically, to complete the approach and attain the absolute (singularity) - such as omnipotence and/or omniscience - would require infinite energies....in other words the attainment of the absolute presupposes its existence, and its attainment.
To put it another way...to become absolute you must already be so.

Like...you can't become omnipotent without already applying infinite power, and/or you can't become omniscience without already knowing everything.
The idea/ideal of an absolute is, in fact, another way of saying non-existent.
So, its a secret death-wish, or a hidden desire to make yourself and the world irrelevant.

Pragmatically...the higher up you go - the more you gain - the more vulnerable to cosmic attrition you become.    
So, the more powerful you become the more fragile your power becomes.
The higher you climb the more vulnerable to the slightest slip you become. The more people you dominate the more this control is balances on a knife's edge.

The ideal is what the 'absolute' is. It cannot be attained, only approached.
Like all ideas it is used to orient yourself, and to direct your energies - it is an identifier, because the movement is what matters. The movement towards the ideal, for example, is what defines us all.
It's what you wish to become that shapes what you are as a becoming.
Therefore, the Abrahamic one-god - another name for the absent absolute - inspires and shapes the minds of those who strive to reach 'him/it.  
It can never be attained, but to strive towards it, is what shapes the individuals who have faith.
Like a warrior...who fights for what he loves. It's not if he wins or loses, but it is that he fights that defines him as a warrior.
Then it becomes a matter of evaluating how close to the ideal one reaches, and if the ideal was realistic or pure idealistic nonsense.
This is what defines you as an individual, while you live, and it follows you as your reputation, when you die.  

********************
It is possible to be aware of options, and not be able to take advantage of them.
This is the limit of free-will. Awareness of options does not necessarily mean the individual can choose them.
Again, the rule about the absolute applies. The more you see, the more options you become aware of....all the more you procrastinate, unable to choose - too many variables freeze you, the mind unable to process it all; the more options you perceive the more you suffer, knowing you cannot choose them.    
The brain is a simplifying/generalizing organ.
Trial & error - precedent.
An animal, unlike man - does not need a chemical analysis, an expert, a bimolecular study to judge the different as signifying a real difference in essence.
It trusts its senses....evolved over millions of years of trial & error. When it sees something different it knows that this difference means something - that this difference is relevant, and useful.
Only the sick Modern homo sapient - the ill ape - does not even trust its own eyes, intentionally choosing to trust 'theory' and not its senses.
It does so because as it becomes more aware, the probabilities multiply exponentially, terrifying it. It becomes indecisive, anxious, unable to move forward.  

But...I've said too much.

Satyr wrote:

An animal, unlike man- does not need a chemical analysis, an expert, a bimolecular study to judge the different as signifying a difference in essence.
It trusts its senses....evolved over millions of years of trial & error. When it sees something different it knows that this difference means something - that this difference is relevant.
Only Modern homo sapient, the ill ape, does not even trust its own eyes, intentionally choosing to trust 'theory' and not its senses.
It does so because as it becomes more aware, the probabilities multiply exponentially, terrifying it. It becomes indecisive, anxious, unable to move forward.

It does not trust its eyes because it does not need them, unlike those animals who tend to have a... larger perceptual event horizon, and lie around the middle of their environment's food chain.

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

There has been an anxiety towards these animals in how they've been represented in art and literature, perhaps this explains the source of that fear.

AutSider wrote:

Nice image from the comedy thread.

I don't have this "I hate my life" phase. I have the "I should be doing this or that or be more focused and so on" phase. Maybe this has its advantages and disadvantages. I hear that people who are often discontent with their life are more active in doing something to change it, although that alone is probably no guarantee for not doing more or less self-destructive things for the sake of change. One thing is the motivation to do something, another thing is doing the "right" thing.

I can relate to the "I would much rather be doing something else, than hang around with you 'normies'."
Social interaction in normie world is too sanitised. No open and honest conflict in case of disagreements or discontent. Either people just switch the subject and talk about something else or they take the route of becoming nasty in an underhanded way, like being sarcastic all the time.
It's understandable, open and honest disagreements and antipathies cannot be tolerated. You cannot be a worthwhile adversary, there is no room for respect, all must be cosy and sanitised, like animals who can't control themselves unless they are sedated this way. No fight, only a peaceful stable or flight.

Anfang wrote:

I can relate to the "I would much rather be doing something else, than hang around with you 'normies'."
Social interaction in normie world is too sanitised. No open and honest conflict in case of disagreements or discontent. Either people just switch the subject and talk about something else or they take the route of becoming nasty in an underhanded way, like being sarcastic all the time.
It's understandable, open and honest disagreements and antipathies cannot be tolerated. You cannot be a worthwhile adversary, there is no room for respect, all must be cosy and sanitised, like animals who can't control themselves unless they are sedated this way. No fight, only a peaceful stable or flight.

There has been a regression to the more childlike forms of signalling dominance and health through non-lethal means of intimidation which tends to be shallow because its non-lethal.

One of the "men" Ive worked with, had no problem attempting to make me flinch despite the "professional" setting we were in, taking advantage of his size and demeanor without paying the cost for attempting that without the protection of the state. This is why i don't respect modern "bullies" who attempt to get the same signalling value that would have required them to kill someone and bear the costs and consequences that act would have entailed.

Ohh boy, all these hyper-masculine guys put in one place where they are encouraged to think with their balls instead of their brains and, in our age, are either hypocritical enough to believe in freedom(which means they are likely to have bad characters and are susceptible to behaving like cunts) or blood-thirsty bullies and psychos...Thats why Id never want to go to military...no thanks...somebody i red said a soldier is a masculine spirit and feminine brain and a poet is feminine spirit and masculine brain or something like that...im definately the latter
what kind of guys are there deamon...are they really tough?
i really never could sympathize with bullying...I can never imagine picking out the weakest nerd in a class and teasing him in front of the whole class of people...what pleasure or satisfaction is in that? fucked up cunts...

You are an idiot!
- No, I am not an idiot!
...
...
...


I am an idiot!
- You are an idiot!
Yes I just said that, duh!
...
...


I am racist and must atone for it!
- You are racist!
Yes, friend, I just said this and I must atone for it!
...
...

Quote :

somebody i red said a soldier is a masculine spirit and feminine brain and a poet is feminine spirit and masculine brain or something like that

The guy named Weininger or something? Doesn't make much sense.

"Bullying" can be a useful mechanism for keeping the weak and degenerate in check and preventing them from getting uppity. And sometimes it's just kids testing each other with no ill intent, which the overly protective/motherly authority figures may misinterpret as bullying. I don't buy the idea Hollywood movies try to ingrain in us that evil, stupid, white athletes pick on weak smart Jew boys, eh, I mean jocks picking on nerds, just for the sake of inflicting pain, because they are evil and stupid.

When you look at what kids actually "bully" each other for, it makes sense. Being obese is a sign of unfitness. Having glasses is a sign of unfitness. Having acne is a sign of unfitness. Being a faggot is a sign of unfitness. Etc.

polishyouth wrote:

What kind of guys are there deamon...are they really tough?
i really never could sympathize with bullying...I can never imagine picking out the weakest nerd in a class and teasing him in front of the whole class of people...what pleasure or satisfaction is in that? fucked up cunts...

That was a rare occurrence, but i have found it happen before with guys like him, Type-A personalities who tend to resent me without much prior experience.
I think it might be part of the Alpha's resentment towards the Gamma's indifference to social dynamics.

Autsider wrote:

When you look at what kids actually "bully" each other for, it makes sense. Being obese is a sign of unfitness. Having glasses is a sign of unfitness. Having acne is a sign of unfitness. Being a faggot is a sign of unfitness. Etc.

Unfit and yet they aren't willing to take the responsibility to help them grow or cull them. Its masturbatory and destructive when you leave the bullied alive to grow resentments and plan revenge against your own culture and tribe. I always feel like telling bullies to try to kill their targets if they feel such a dominating desire, but this is where they reveal their cowardice and lack of conviction. They want all the signalling benefits to women without the potential scars and injuries they would receive in attempting murder or the hard work and effort put into helping someone else grow strong.

Take responsibility for their growth or death.

Quote :

The guy named Weininger or something? Doesn't make much sense.

To you. A good soldier must have a feminine brain, otherwise he wouldn't submit himself well enough and with enough conviction and at all times with the highest intesnity to make a good 'trooper'; he must have the spirit of a fighter but lack the masculine thinking disposition that would instill doubt into the purpose and end-outcome of his actions and sacrifices. You can see it in the likes of Jocko, the masculine spirit is evident yet their thinking is slavish and womanly...they believe they have made sacrifices for the sake of humanity, that they have died for the great and fair American freedoms and so on whilst all the evidence suggests that the purpose of USs'military is quite different and the elites dont give two shits about the values such a soldier upholds and believes he strives for...

Quote :

"Bullying" can be a useful mechanism for keeping the weak and degenerate in check and preventing them from getting uppity. And sometimes it's just kids testing each other with no ill intent, which the overly protective/motherly authority figures may misinterpret as bullying. I don't buy the idea Hollywood movies try to ingrain in us that evil, stupid, white athletes pick on weak smart Jew boys, eh, I mean jocks picking on nerds, just for the sake of inflicting pain, because they are evil and stupid.

When you look at what kids actually "bully" each other for, it makes sense. Being obese is a sign of unfitness. Having glasses is a sign of unfitness. Having acne is a sign of unfitness. Being a faggot is a sign of unfitness. Etc.

Ye man...teach your kid MMA, make sure he low-kicks the fatty kid in the liver every time they are in the changing locker, make him ruthless, program him to feel pride in fulfilling the darwinian crusade when the kid breaks down and cries in the corner too afraid to tell the teacher who did it and then goes home and cries in the bed all day, wetting his bed for the rest of his life, loosing all the confidence permanently...
Migh is Right, remember.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Take responsibility for their growth or death.

Why, it's not my responsibility - it's theirs. I'm not advocating for pointlessly and constantly causing harm, but pointing out a flaw constructively and keeping the weak and degenerate in check is just basic for a healthy society.

If they refuse or cannot change, fine - but they don't get praise, and they don't get to impose their weakness and degeneracy on the rest of us.

Otherwise you get the inversion of values we have now, where the bad is celebrated and the good is condemned.

Wtf, I love France now.
www . unz . com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
(cant link websites)

Great article and website.

The decline of Europe seems more like a temporary setback then.

The practical implication of it for ones own life is that while the masses keep flocking into the cities, it is to far better establish one self in a rural community.

What seems like the least plausible of predictions:

Quote :

At the extreme end, Israel will by now basically be a nation-sized breeder cult. With a population of at least 30 million by 2100, it will start soaring into the hundreds of millions in the century after that. At this point, it will likely have to territorially expand or to start emitting emigrants.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I linked it for you.

The buttons on the top of the dialogue box will help.

On topic....yes demographics will be key, as long as no accessible frontiers imprison man on this planet.

A case of the Behavioural Sink experiment.


With no war options available - due to the suicidal nature of a nuclear holocaust - what remains is a different kind of war - memetic warfare.

I think new accounts can't post links for 5 posts or so.

Somebody, I think sv3rige, called cities giant growing tumors. Very correct. It's where all the filth accumulates.

It's the only manmade environment where nihilism can flourish - far away from natural order it can immerse itself in human contrivances, convincing itself that there is no objective reality.

In nature you ignore reality at your own peril.
There is no artificial concrete and metal buffer supporting the delusion that all is 'subjective'
You are surrounded by life and life forms that are outside human nihilistic memes.

I thought that food-poisoning was something you get when you eat something like some seafood at some unhygienic restaurant or something like that. Turns out all kinds of foods can be contaminated with toxins during their production and be brought into circulation. If you eat small enough amounts non-regularly you probably won't even notice it in any obvious incapacitating way.

Not to derail the things to watch thread:

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Autsider wrote:

If the male offspring inherits his mother's feminine personality, would he also inherit her tits, ass and pussy? Not how biology works, but nice try Varg.

No, it means that the most feminine women would be selected for and as a result produce more feminine men, who would eventually overwhelm you, like they do today.

The idea that gender-specific traits (like tits, ass, pussy for physical traits, or feminine mindset for psychological) get passed on from parent to their child of opposite sex doesn't make sense, and isn't what I've perceived:



Why advocate for this? Is it not clearly ugly and inferior, a perverted inversion of nature?

A masculine man + dyke also doesn't work. Either one becomes more submissive to accommodate the other (aka a masculine man stops being masculine or dyke stops being dyke), or there is going to be conflict resulting in blood and death. Or they avoid each other. You may mistakenly think this is not so if the only men you've encountered are modern faggots who might only possess physical characteristics of masculinity, if that.

In junior school when we were about 14 the guys would joke about beating the shit out of lesbians until they're bloody and crying, can you guess how many dykes and lesbians there were around? Lol. But that was 10 years ago and a more natural environment.

As time went on, in more pussified environments there were more and more women who would suddenly think they are masculine and tough, not because they were, but because men were forced not to be. Zero sum game.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

It can never be a zero sum game due to entropy.

If two organisms interact, the more dominant one is, the less dominant the other can be, aka all dominance of one organism comes at the expense of another's dominance. That's all zero sum game means. I don't know how entropy changes anything here.

To be fair, I don't even know what is being spoken about when people say women should be dominant in the home. The home exists within society/nature, if men have dominance in society/nature it means their rules will also apply to the home, because it exists within society/nature. So what exactly does it mean? That a woman can bring some other guy home to fuck her, and the husband has to just accept it as long as it's in the home? That she can order her husband and their children to go on a plants and grains based diet and the man has to accept it or what, the police and military will come and enforce his wife's will? Or maybe she would try to bend him over the knee and spank him?

I seriously cannot think of a single scenario that isn't bizarre and doesn't involve clown world levels of emasculation which are funny if you detach, infuriating if you are masculine and empathize with the man.

In the end people will do what is in their nature to do. The naturally superior ways of interacting are reserved for the elite, not all are capable of them.

Weak, effeminate men are unable to give the superior, feminine women the masculine dominance they crave, and dyke women are unable to give superior, masculine men that femininity and beauty which would entice them to be dominant and accept the responsibility dominance entails as worthwhile.

The inferior are destined to seek out one another and use lies to justify themselves. They have no other options anyway, and truth exposes their inferiority and therefore hurts.

And it's also really funny to hear Varg talk about how women are wise and sages, how they knew herblore and so on. Lol.

Women don't possess wisdom, though they may regurgitate it.

I had to teach my own mother and grandmother how to properly fry meat. They'd put loads of salt and pepper and fry it for half an hour in unhealthy vegetable oils until it's tough as a brick and practically destroyed. Cause it's the "traditional" way of doing it.

This made no sense to me so I experimented with my own ways of preparing it, and looking back I was doing it quite scientifically. Each day I would prepare meat a bit differently, changing various factors until I exhausted most options and arrived at the most ideal way to prepare it.

I then invited my mom and grandmother to try it, and they conceded it was better and are preparing it similarly now.

Female wisdom, is like the sexual “feminine mystique”; it’s a myth. If the woman is capable of wisdom, it is from her force of submission to being its conduit. She has the ability to surrender to such a degree that what she becomes, is purified to be stronger than it was. Just as someone can see with greater awareness and perception when they are free of envy. However, her wisdom equates to the whims of feelings and sensualities which have mysticism effects on the psyche. It’s almost always women who are self-proclaimed mediums or psychics because they harness their predisposed affinity for emotional intuition and use it as a pragmatic concrete ability.

None of it has to do with reason or logic.

There is no point being any kind of a nationalist when the "nation" consists mostly of filth.

Nationalism is a less blunt/obvious means of eugenics. Today, the encompassing of the whole world under a 'world government' is an attempt to pacify a whole planet under a very small few. At the top of each country used to reside the genetically interested, preferring the survival of their lowest kinsmen/countrymen over the kings of another country.

Americanism with its Democracy created a new paradigm of international extremism. Efforts of civilian recovery took major geopolitical precedence - protecting and retrieving, negotiating, for the return of citizens where previously they could be chalked up to being 'lost' and not worth the trouble. The nature of the American government's national care has only recently been matched by that of Hitler with regards to the Danzig zone.

In civilizations like that of NSDAP Germany, there was always a very real threat of dethronement of Hitler by internal politics. A dictator will always have the issue of balkanizing 'houses' of influence in their own government. This is generally the result of a leader's vanity, like that in North Korea, where they assign more virtue onto themselves than they can actually manifest; or very simply, they are blatantly inferior to another within their own influence and there remains no reason to prevent their ousting.

The changing of leadership and eventual non-reproduction or disempowerment of the lowest in societies, the alpha protecting the females for himself, the poorest being sent to die in wars, or occupy gradually smaller opportune space - results in selection for the superior.

If a people is raised to its best potential, given the circumstances, then the best come out ontop. Having a racial consciousness has only recently become required, with the abstract realization of similarity and capability. Every 'median' of intelligence has exceptions - 'trash' and 'gems'. The slow divergence of the races shows the trends.

If one is racially targeted but refuses to countenance race, they are blind to influences which eventually would kill them. Knowing your enemy requires knowing their conceptions (incorrect or not) and how far they will go with it.

A person who loves too much will resent his own love, as it distinguishes him as separate from, performing love toward, that which he loves. Every day he realizes he is not actually the other, and becomes unable to perform responsibilities toward that which he loves, because to distinguish himself is contradictory to his love that he feels. When he thinks he must give - and wants to give - but the idea of 'giving' is fundamentally in opposition to love; by giving to another, he potentially weakens them; but he hasn't the strength to withhold love.

No person can reciprocate; reciprocation just results in more love; more resentment. Love ceases being a solution when one has to address the world outside humanity. People are bound to be nasty, ugly - and loving them with that understanding makes you wonder why you can't do more. There is no 'more' with no 'you'. A concept of you doing something.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]