Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

Those who know only arrogance and pitifulness will never claim responsibility for anything they do. Likewise, their inability to claim that responsibility is why they are fit for remaining slaves or being treated as anti-human and nothing else. Pitiful, cowardly and contemptuous implosions of self are no different from unrepentant arrogance. The former negates self through smallness and the latter through large entitlement.


(This wasn't in regard to the above post - but Vegeta doesn't qualify, for he doesn't lower himself to pitiful displays, even near death or if it means it to be so. He may show pain, but he does not cower like a yellow dog.)

Slaughtz wrote:

Vegeta doesn't qualify, for he doesn't lower himself to pitiful displays, even near death or if it means it to be so. He may show pain, but he does not cower like a yellow dog.

Sadly, you are wrong about this. Remember, the writer of DB is the modern faggot Toriyama. Toriyama is a nihilist (reality-inverter) and he himself stated that he hates Vegeta. The only reason Vegeta wasn't killed off is that fans wanted him to stay. Because Toriyama is a nihilist and Vegeta represents the opposite of his beliefs, Vegeta often unintentionally represents the inversion of nihilism - the affirmation of reality and the voice of reason, as in the video above.

Vegeta's inclusion in the series as an ally of retarded, weak, universalist earthlings had his emasculation and domestication as a necessary consequence. Majin Vegeta is his old self resurfacing for a short while, of course presented as "evil".

Slaughtz wrote:

Those who know only arrogance and pitifulness will never claim responsibility for anything they do. Likewise, their inability to claim that responsibility is why they are fit for remaining slaves or being treated as anti-human and nothing else. Pitiful, cowardly and contemptuous implosions of self are no different from unrepentant arrogance. The former negates self through smallness and the latter through large entitlement.

These same radicals/extremists are what drain a populace of laws which assume and require a moderate disposition. By a protective institution, they can perform any sort of boundary pushing slander and libel in order to achieve monetary or other destructive ends.* It is against these extremists that one's respect for culture (conservatism) fights. In the name of progress, of 'freeing' others or themselves, they can rob not only the people of its future and past, but also lay claim to self-aggrandizing claim of being the 'leader' of what actually regresses a society. When the people promoting are irreproachable because of their history and that they are not received as 'other' but instead as one of your own, then you have a 'social leader' with an covert interest in causing that destruction.

I wrote further about this extremism as a power play with victim culture, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

Quote :

If you wish to profit off the culture of a people, learn their greatest devils and then claim you were a victim of it. Subsequently request assistance or offer them the ability to rectify the damage (this will be easy, because they would hate the subject in question, they get to feel good, righteous, heroic and actively productive for their own sake at the same time). Any that cannot will feel apologetic, reinforcing to others the importance of it. Any who accuse you of lying, you may vilify as insensitive or allied with who you claim victimized you.

Multi-culturalism fails on its face. Any non-retarded person knows this. That it has to be explained is a testament to the utmost idiocy and naivety of its advocates - if not outright malice. Some values will emerge over others and if anything it will become some kind of mongrelized and bastardized version of its previous self, if there is any integration. If we presume the culture is a means to promoting the good of the individuals within, the watering down and inevitable fading of more distinguished aspects will also cause the fading of a more refined character for the populace.

*A moderate and environmentally conscious populace does not needlessly exploit resources. Conservative Europeans tend to be satisfied with a simple family life - it is this moderated approach which has a cost/benefit: the cost being the lack of progress (slow), the benefit being the preservation of resources through a lax attitude. Porch sitters are actually virtuous in their leading a simple life where they don't believe themselves to have proper perspective to perform anything more than their simple duties.

AutSider wrote:

Slaughtz wrote:

Vegeta doesn't qualify, for he doesn't lower himself to pitiful displays, even near death or if it means it to be so. He may show pain, but he does not cower like a yellow dog.

Sadly, you are wrong about this. Remember, the writer of DB is the modern faggot Toriyama. Toriyama is a nihilist (reality-inverter) and he himself stated that he hates Vegeta. The only reason Vegeta wasn't killed off is that fans wanted him to stay. Because Toriyama is a nihilist and Vegeta represents the opposite of his beliefs, Vegeta often unintentionally represents the inversion of nihilism - the affirmation of reality and the voice of reason, as in the video above.

Vegeta's inclusion in the series as an ally of retarded, weak, universalist earthlings had his emasculation and domestication as a necessary consequence. Majin Vegeta is his old self resurfacing for a short while, of course presented as "evil".

For context, I've only watched from Dragon Ball to DBZ - nothing after. From those series, I don't recall that he ever becomes so pitiful as to grovel at the feet of his enemies - as a character - which is the sort of radical self-abandon which I referenced. Yes, he has some nihilistic character, as the whole characters do because of the writing - I don't deny that. However, I do not see very many radical nihilists within the series - at least not the ones I saw. The closest may be Hercules - but that still doesn't come close to the kind of horrified and crushed expression of those I'm referring to. Observe the expression of this Jew, as an example. The wide gape of mouth and shattered/fragile movements as if he were about to blow away in the wind, at 3:00 :


Edit: Re-watching this video, I notice that even in grovelling and pitiful behavior, the Jew in the video expresses disgust as an arrogance/contempt. A rare expression reserved for the most inhumane of occurrences, which from only a couple of black guys yelling 'Heil Hitler' and 'Hitler did nothing wrong', the Jew in the video expresses the social equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Even in its own grovelling and cowardice, it expresses contempt for its attacker, this way. Again, an expression of utter unrepentant arrogance.
The expression of horror (disgust and fear) on the face of an individual is a signal to every other human around them that they've encountered something utterly inhuman. Hollywood may seek to normalize the behavior with horror films, where it would have been a rare occurrence for only the most dire of situations - and the expression is not supposed to be used against what one understands and human: the dominance of one person over another. In such human interactions it is reserved for things like child torture and sexual abuse. It is for women protecting their children from death. It is when one uses it against regular human dominance behavior that one makes any tiny oppression or political ethnic conflict (murderous or not) the equivalent of what is reserved supernatural and inhumane horror. The expression itself evokes a fear flee/flight reaction within those who see it without context.

Yes, I was referring to the new series, Dragon Ball Super. It's so shitty I stopped watching it. Actually, my point was that Vegeta was one of the least nihilistic characters in the series, at least until he started becoming "the good guy" by DB standards.

Your observations about the video you linked are interesting, btw.

Slaughtz wrote:

Edit: Re-watching this video, I notice that even in grovelling and pitiful behavior, the Jew in the video expresses disgust as an arrogance/contempt. A rare expression reserved for the most inhumane of occurrences, which from only a couple of black guys yelling 'Heil Hitler' and 'Hitler did nothing wrong', the Jew in the video expresses the social equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Even in its own grovelling and cowardice, it expresses contempt for its attacker, this way. Again, an expression of utter unrepentant arrogance.

Moral indignation is ingrained into the chosen victims.

They are empowered by hate. They love it and hate it...they love to hate it, and hate to love it.
Without this hate directed at them, they have no identity, and no power.
Jewish comedic wit is founded on this paradox, as is their innate guilt.
Gives them this unmatched cynical edge.
They are laughing at themselves....they want others to laugh with them, at them.
Their guilt is momentarily cleansed.

It was an interesting vid if you like to study human nature.

Human sacrifice never really ended, just changed forms and morphed into 'Modern' terms. Liberal-leftist "Social Justice Warriors" are forced into hypocritical identities. In order for Milo Yiannopoulos to critique the left, rationally (which is a mistake to begin with), he must "be one of them" and that means sucking on a black guy's dick, a homosexual. After this 'sacrifice' is made, then he is free-er to call out the hypocrisy of his own kind (liberals). Or you can extend this to liberal whites who fuck black guys, often driven by a guilt-complex and/or self-hatred (nihilism). By destroying their own kind, mixing-races, they (believe they) can alleviate "white guilt". Therefore their primary motives are not "selfless", kind, good, true, just, as they wish they were, but instead driven by further hypocrisy and self-defeating motives. Instead of Nihilism rising "above" their complexes, instead they dig their graves deeper.

This is true of most modern-liberal-left institutions, ideologies, and complexes, most of which are nihilistic (self-sacrificing) to begin with. Once modern-liberal-leftism is understood this way, it becomes revealed for what it is, a Martyr complex that appeared in ancient times as self-sacrificing practices. To give away a virgin daughter, to society's priests, to do as they will with her, even including public sacrifices and blood-letting to the old gods. A form of spiritual pimping and prostituting, giving a virgin daughter up to the higher classes, priests, and royalists.

All of this never disappeared, just like "slavery" never ended. Still exists today, merely different forms, change the wording around a little bit, everybody is fooled, temporarily, until they wake up, then all the words change again, and the process repeats.

It is left to the philosophers to see the world as it truly is, and understand it, and know its causes. But once you do understand the causes, do you really care anymore? Do you really want to interfere, to interrupt and mix with cretins? Do you really want to swim in the mud with the pigs, oinking and eating your own vomit, to blend in? No, you don't.

Concerning the previous post, this also applies to "OnWithTheirHeads" who is a "trans-sexual", another modern identity representing self-castration, cuckoldry, and eunuchs. The ancient practice, again, of "genital mutiliation" (males castrating their dicks), is another re-manifestation of all these social sicknesses, illnesses, and diseases.

Nihilism runs deep. Trans-sexualism is newspeak for male castration, Eunuch-ry. Ancient practices, the old ways, brought to light, re-defined for a new (Modern) era.

Something a little bit further about the depth of modern (liberal-left) hypocrisy is this. Liberal-leftism depends on the sacrifices and "privileges" provided for everybody by the conservative-rightists. Thus, the liberal-left effectively reasserts and protects the very institution s/he claims to hate, in a way, by pretending to be against it and hating it. For example this is the way modern feminists claim to be against "evil white male patriarchy" while simultaneously benefiting from it, knowingly or not, and being explicitly contented by it. Thus liberal-leftists are not truly anarachistic. They would never, ever, truly threaten the system to the point that ruins or truly disrupts their own hedonistic urges. Thus the left-right political divide is a false narrative. They are not truly opposed except superficially and "in name only".

What is not up for debate, not even discussed openly, are the "privileges" enjoyed by all in western, first world countries. Because you don't see liberal-leftists, or feminists, giving these up. They do not truly 'sacrifice' anything. They do not truly rock the boat. They are not true "revolutionaries" as they claim.

The left is not "left" enough, to matter. These are all word games, semantic/ideological/idealistic battles. Fantasy games.

In the end, the left and right support the same institution, status quo, at heart. When western "privilege" truly ends, or is threatened, or attacked (as on 9-11) then you see the left and right come together rather quickly, and expectantly. Is it ironic how physical threats and death are used to "wake up" the west from slumber? No, again, the answer is No.

Other than the weird nervous laugh, that sounds more like hyperventilation, this guy is good.

Liberal faggots should not complain about Trump's obvious narcissistic disconnection from reality.
They are simply the opposite pole of the same dis-eased spectrum.

If they can look you in the eyes and tell you that what you see is not real, or it is not important, and that despite appearances the true 'reality' is underneath, then why can't Trump look at a small crowd and declare it the largest he's ever seen?
If moderns can dismiss anything that conflicts with their idealism on the grounds that it is a social construct, or too complex, or the complete data is not yet in so we ought not to jump to conclusions, then why can't trump, or some other moron, not make up his own data?
If they can simply declare things, and only support them emotionally, then why can't Trump do the same?

Sad world when stating the obvious can be delivered as a controversial topic by degenerates like Yiannopoulos and Molyneax.

Its already up on Wiki, ha..

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



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

One way of coping against people who take sexual advantage of you, as a child or teen, is to take the lead and initiate the advance, and make it cool, so you dont feel victimized in your own eyes. Some adolescents want to mature quick into the adult world to be taken serious. Exactly what he's doing. Calling it consensual sex and himself a sex predator at 14.

Another case for the illusion of free-will, when its weak self-defense at bottom.

Satyr wrote:

Other than the weird nervous laugh, that sounds more like hyperventilation, this guy is good.

I knew what Molyneux was. This guy reinforced that knowledge nicely.

The Alexandrian man has become the current 'facts' man. This guy states it well, pointing out the pitiful reliance most have on an overabundance of facts and data to tell them what they are too dumb to divine on their own from nature itself.

No doubt it is about survival for these sycophants. They are the modern "anti-heros" of free speech. Their obsession with facts and statistics and data and evidence, exposes their otherwise deficient reasoning abilities through self-will. Molyneux mentions his academic training in philosophy and logic, as if that qualifies him as a philosopher. They are Judaic parasites, merging with popular notions of anarchism to appear audacious and 'courageous' against the establishment, while being loyal to the scientific method to make themselves credible or indisputable.

If they were any caliber of a genuinely superior thinker, they wouldnt be making Youtube guru videos, they wouldn't be on youtube at all, they would be nowhere to be found; their voices nowhere to be heard.

I love how much of a ruthless, brutish, self-serving animal there is in a 'rational man'. How much of hypocrisy, lies, weakness inverted, manipulations can an animal like this ignore to serve his self-maintaining purposes of creating an image of himself that he can thrive off in a world he can tolerate whilst giving him a high off of the fame, reputation and money. The most 'rational' and 'good' and 'truthful' one claims the more I distrust him.
My father never complemented me, never told me sweet lies, made fake promises, made any effort to 'please' me and attract me to him because it was obvious what he provided every single fucking day by being out for 12 hours working often 7 days a week and why he did it whereas the less honest and loyal towards me a person was the more emphasis they put on letting me know they are 'nice' towards me.

apaosha wrote:

Comment on the video:

Quote :

Sodomy
Race mixing
Sexual promiscuity
Materialism
Narcissism
Drug use
Pedophile apologetics
Probable member of a secret society (does Illuminati hand signs and did the bathing in fake blood thing)

Yep, every single one of your conservative values represented, goy

The left dismisses any straight white man who speaks on homosexuality, races, and women as a homophobe, racist and misogynist.

Milo cannot be a homophobe, he is openly homosexual. He cannot be a racist, he openly fucks blacks. The accusation of misogyny won't stick either cause he is homo.

While having Milo represent the right gets around this leftist tactic and allows some ideas on the right to enter the mainstream discussion, it is also a tacit submission to leftist moral authority and for this reason it necessarily punches to the right.

Apparently, a white man must be a miscegenating faggot to speak about homosexuality and race and not be instantly dismissed. Fuck that, fuck leftists, and fuck cucks who submit to leftist moral authority.

The basic thing is to stop punching to the right as that is virtue signalling to the left. If Milo is to be praised, it is because of the things to the right he advocates.

Of what use to the "Right" is a homosexual, jewish, racemixing, pederast? For most people, attacking him would be punching to the left. He's libertine, a cultural libertarian. All he wants is that muslims don't toss him off a building.
I've been on /pol/ for years so I feel like I've had this discussion a million times. Milo is a subversive. He's not actually conservative. Unless AIDS is conservatism.

Plus, the entire concept of conservatism is a dead end in my opinion: the implication is that you're trying to hold onto something that's disappearing, trying to preserve a pattern of order in the turbulence of the flux, when all is ever-changing and mutable; it's a looking-back to an idealized past, a denial of the present and a deliberate blindness towards possible futures.
Progressives then get to contrast it with their ideological implications of forward movement, improvement and advancement, which is incredibly disingenuous because everything they represent is entropic.
It's a battle over mindspace using words, as Satyr describes it.

In this civilisation there isn't anything left to conserve. So the Right must be revolutionary. Order must be imposed on chaos, forcefully, radically. Not conserving past or present systems which have collapsed under their own decadence.

He is of some use but it is a trade-off like I said, and not a worthwhile one. We should seek to impose our own ideals as the norm, not try to appeal to leftists by being represented by essentially one of their own in a desperate attempt to get some basic truths out in mainstream discussions.

Yes, for conservatism to exist first there must be something worth conserving, I agree.

Autsider wrote:

The accusation of misogyny won't stick either cause he is homo.

Which is very much upside down kind of thinking present in the modern people at large.
I think that most actual misogyny comes from homosexuals.

They ultimately say that sexism - treating and expecting different things from the different sexes - is what misogyny or misandry are about. So no surprise about the inversions that follow from that inversion.

Homosexuals, the ally of childless women who have given up on fertility in all areas of life.

Actual misogyny - Hating women for being women, for not being grey goo.

The feminine demand for safety becomes destructively nihilistic when just touching on the idea of a danger, a risk, which is not responsible to them (yet is capable of conspiring against them beyond their ability to protect their children) is treated as if it were advocacy for the danger itself. However, it is less about mistaking the messenger for the message - but about the realization of their own unpreparedness and the perception of trusting power/authority.

Merchants feign authority - they feign that a product is supreme when it is terrible. Merchants indirectly, for purposes of sheer hedonism or survival of self, manipulate perceptions of power - assign more power to themselves than they are capable of delivering on. What does a merchant say when called out on his bullshit? He accuses the other of ill doing: the other sabotaged him, the other broke it. If not this, then he lies again "My product is different!" The only recourse when fully exposed is to run away.

Modern white women are caught in this bind - the power of money as an institution versus the guaranteed conflict that comes with racial identification and the usurpation of the new dollar plantation. The establishment capitalists do their best to keep women unaware - it's lucky for them they can blame their gaslighting on being the result of the lack of foresight by their fathers, as an attempt to sell them on miscegenation - to get rid of natural distinctions and replace with artificial, legal and economic ones. Put the little devil white babies through some racial sensitivity training to give the illusion of progress. Declining numbers of whites is quoted as a "good thing indeed" by Joe Biden. Which serve as greater tools of selling poison as if it were an elixir of everlasting life, than the race of people's who by necessity nitpicked over every dollar and cent? Who subsisted only as parasites upon the politik and trust put into some gold or silver coins. As if to acquire the silver was to acquire its power automatically.

Kept unaware, women would of course assume that the behavior of their masters are good. The one warning them of a traitorous strain within their governmental body is accused of being traitorous themselves - they are just trying to separate the woman from the protection of the state. They are causing conflict, by having an identity which excludes the ones which have no care for them. Why, it is that they have no care, is the reason why - and besides, the suggestion of foreign men being hostile means that there is something which women have need for men for; totally against feminist principles.

What is "The Past" except those things which change the least and seem most permanent?

What is "The Future" except those things which change the most and seem most temporary?

Another sign of how cucked the right is are all the black Trump supporter videos on YouTube, as if whites need the validation and approval of blacks to advocate for their own interests.

A nation's debt, when spent on everyday living expenses (and perhaps whenever spent), is a reversal of the relationship between parents and children. The children now pay for their parents to subsist, instead of the opposite.

Welfare is the transfer of wealth to the less intelligent from the more intelligent.  Every business which requires these less intelligent consumers to sustain itself, has an interest in maintaining the welfare state (including the governmental employed and career politicians). That, while minimizing what they pay into it.

I am not entirely sure how they do this, but here are some ideas: pay for those less intelligent and more dependent consumers to enter the country in the name of a tax exempt "charity", invest in foreign lands whilst avoiding the taxes of the nation you originated from.

Slaughtz wrote:

Welfare is the transfer of wealth to the less intelligent from the more intelligent.  Every business which requires these less intelligent consumers to sustain itself, has an interest in maintaining the welfare state (including the governmental employed and career politicians). That, while minimizing what they pay into it.

I am not entirely sure how they do this, but here are some ideas: pay for those less intelligent and more dependent consumers to enter the country in the name of a tax exempt "charity", invest in foreign lands whilst avoiding the taxes of the nation you originated from.

Some of it has probably to do with technology and how it makes it possible to be somewhere else from where you do your business. Your production facilities are not located where you sell your stuff. Neither do you have to live around those who you sell your stuff to.

Another part is probably the individualistic approach to society and economy common at least in the West. Morality and laws do not demand that you are in any way responsible for the destructive aspects of your business practices as long as it was all done in "free will".
If I can sell people something which they buy out of their "free will" then that's usually all there is to it.

This in turn has to do with the way how society is increasingly organised which is a very flat hierarchy.
In a tall hierarchy, the one you are dealing with is never just an individual but he may be under the patronage of someone else, someone more powerful, or he is someone who is the leader of a small or larger group.

Those power relationships are now often just about money, if you have it then you have the power.
Then you can finance a horde of monkeys which produce and write and communicate the necessary social outrage to put social pressure on your enemies. Besides paying for lawyers and even more direct ways of attack.

And for getting lots of money, you don't just need the intelligence and vigour but also the hunger for money at the expense of other things in life. And this in turn usually correlates with certain qualities, which means those qualities are present in social leadership and so on.

Anfang wrote:

Autsider wrote:

The accusation of misogyny won't stick either cause he is homo.

Which is very much upside down kind of thinking present in the modern people at large.
I think that most actual misogyny comes from homosexuals.

They ultimately say that sexism - treating and expecting different things from the different sexes - is what misogyny or misandry are about. So no surprise about the inversions that follow from that inversion.

Homosexuals, the ally of childless women who have given up on fertility in all areas of life.

Actual misogyny - Hating women for being women, for not being grey goo.

You could then say that when homosexuals hate women, they hate women because women are better at being feminine than they are.

Just like lesbians hate men because men are better at being masculine than they are.

Then on the other hand, faggots and women and lesbians and men can get along and relate to each other better than straight men and straight women because the former have similar interests.

Also, many misogynists are straight men who are angry at women because they cannot obtain one, like many misandrists are straight women angry at men because they cannot retain one.

That said, I still think what I initially said - homosexual men are less likely to be woman haters as they don't have much reason to interact with/think about women at all. I think most misogyny and misandry is based on sexual frustration, and homosexual men and women don't have much reason to be sexually frustrated by a sex they aren't attracted to.

^
I think it's normal to be angry after realising you have been lied to about how society actually works today.
And it's also normal to be angry about the situation when (in this case) women try to continue to run the social script with you if you are refusing to play along. At least you are angry as long as you feel like you are in danger of falling back into a behaviour you don't like.


That being said, misogyny (or misandry) is I think something else than just hating a woman or a man. Even several women or several men.
Isn't it that the bitter man-hating feminists have no problem with being 'friends' with men? As long, as they behave the way they want them to behave? They enjoy being around men, provided they play along with their fantasies, like figuratively castrating themselves, or grovel, or lament about the wickedness of most men?
Similar to the kind of MGTOW who enjoys talking to women, provided that they lament about the wickedness of women and their evil ways.

This is different from having a discussion about the ways of women and their not so loving ways which are part of them.
For the hater it's an evil which must change and for which he expects to be treated as good and noble in comparison. He expects social validation, compensation and adoration.


I think homosexuals can relate to women as long as its not about children, family matters.
I suspect they prefer to them as shopping and gossip friends. And even that only in small amounts.

Just started watching the Oscars and I'm already sick of the ass-kissing.
One hypocrite saying how wonderful all the other hypocrites were during their latest propaganda collaboration.

Now I'm looking forward to the endless Trump bashing that will follow.

Enjoy the subtle and obvious propaganda.


It comes at you with small details like watch how the only country that forcefully resists Trump is Zimbabwe.
Did you watch the Oscars?
Notice the black worship, after last years shaming, the self-flagellation of their own racism?
This is this year's Oscar winner:

I cannot help but consider the apparent mix-up, during the awards, as intentional.
Some 'hand' used it to make a point, about the gratuitous award giving/propaganda.

Was it also coincidental that the Oscars experienced a low television rating?

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

The most accurate representation of my political leanings

Life can be defined as a type of metaphysical resistance, not against entropy or "decay" but rather against stagnation and unchange. Life develops, evolves, becomes conscious, and eventually if an organism is blessed (Superior) then it begins to think, contemplate, understand, explore, and to know the world. To think is the greatest action and movement of evolved life. So while a man may sit prone, unmoving, his thought does move him. Thought is an action, as an extension of all previous actions.

In this way, thinking is yet the greatest manifestation of 'resistance' against stagnation and lifelessness.

Do not be fooled by humanist propaganda. Thinking among humans is rare and uncommon. Most humans do not 'think' at all, but instead merely feel, emote, and react based upon instinct. 'Thought' and "to think" is a different type of cognizance.

Very few people 'think'.