Do what you wanna do

Always do what you want to do.

There is no such thing as discipline, there is no such thing as willpower, discipline and willpower are for slaves.

Never control or restrain yourself, controlling and restraining yourself is what slaves do.

Always do exactly what you want to do, and you'll be happy, or at least, not frustrated.

Does this mean you should indulge the first whim that enters your head? Not necessarily, but if that's what you want to do, do it, if you want to think about the consequences or decide against a whim because of them, that's fine too, but deciding not to do something you were thinking of doing because of the consequences, is not necessarily any better than deciding to do something in spite of the consequences.

Who is the I that controls the self?

I is a bit of an abstraction, but, does it not refer to all the goings on in one's head, and not only a small portion of it, the so called conscious, rational bits? The emotional bits are a part of us too, and even the sensual bits, and even all the objects of sensation are in some sense I.

In the bad old days of Christianity, man looked for something outside of himself to tell him what to think, feel, say and do. It was always to something outside of himself, whether Church or State. This is the condition of the slave mind, and I think we need to invent a new word in Greek in order to label this condition, which is similar in many respects to schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder, but much more commonplace and widespread than either of these two conditions.

Before Christianity, man was either free, or ruled by things largely outside his mind, by kings, queens, etcetera, but with Christianity, came a sort of internalized slavery, an internalized or psychological totalitarianism, so that man had no right to privacy, so that God could peer into your head at anytime, and thus there was no escape. At least the slave in the Greco-Roman era was free to hate his master in his head and heart, but no, that was insufficient, the tyrants of later eras wanted your head and heart under lock and key as well, your body and behavior wasn't good enough for them, the greedy bastards.

Even Jewish morality was largely externalized, so that the head/heart didn't matter, it was what you did that counted, but Christianity made the head/heart paramount to morality, so that one could be guilty of committing adultery or murder in one's thoughts/feelings. This religion, Christianity, was the most demented, diabolical form of psychological warfare and trickery that has ever been devised, and even though we moderns have to some extent rid ourselves of Christianity outwardly, the ripples, the echoes of it remain. Nearly 2000 years of psychological trauma and abuse is difficult to rid oneself of in a mere century or two.

Today, man still looks for things to govern himself, still looks for a master for which to give himself over to, and be a willing slave. Yes in Pagan eras, there were few, if any willing slaves, although even the Babylonians and Egyptians had forms of psychological molestation, they weren't nearly as profound and prolific as what the Jews, and later the Europeans concocted to further subjugate their populations. Today man turns to philosophical and scientific abstractions, like Social Darwinism, in order to be controlled by otherness, or Kantianism, or utilitarianism, abstractions about how human nature is, or ought to be, when human nature is so much more complicated than any of these isms assert. He looks to philosophers, politicians, psychologists and ideologues, he even conjures up his own moralities to shackle himself. He invents narratives about himself, or an ideal self, and then lives for these narratives and ideals instead of who and what he is in each and every moment, which is always above and beyond any narrative or ideal he can construct. The self is in many ways eternally and forever mysterious, complicated, dynamic, always changing, always evolving, and all our abstractions, our ideals and narratives, must change to accommodate it, rather than the other way round, so that we are always fulfilled, or in the process of fulfilling ourselves, as opposed to these artifacts of our imagination.

If you keep fighting yourself, trying to do x, and never getting x done, and doing y or z instead, you know what that means? That means x has failed you, you didn't fail it. Y or Z, at least for the now, is more who and what you really are, and should be doing, than X. This fundamental dichotomy between a good self, and a bad self, between thoughts of working hard for the betterment of society, and thoughts of sloth, gluttony, drunkenness, and yes, even rape and murder, has to go, along with Christianity, and humanism. Sloth, gluttony, drunkenness and all the rest of em, are a part of us too. We may not always be able to express these feelings, but nevertheless they're on the table, they're valid parts of ourselves, and if we strongly feel like doing them and don't care about the consequences, or have no natural empathy/sympathy for our fellow man, then there's no reason why we shouldn't act upon them.

Even if we generally or always choose to act against some of our whims, we should only do so because our counterwhims are more powerful, not because there's something fundamentally wrong, or weird, or not you, about such thoughts, they're us alright, or because of extremely abstract ideologies, or notions about Gods or human rights or what not.

Discipline is efficiency. Getting angry and swinging your fists, on pure instinct, is not enough to beat a fighter. To beat a fighter, to win, to survive, requires education, learning, and honing the instinct. This creates superior fighters.

It also creates superior intellect and wisdom.

Discipline is denial of your fist flying impulse. You don't strike out at everything, without discrimination. You don't flail your arms, like a fool. You watch. You wait. You bide your time. You understand your opponents. You strike with a perfect aim, with focus. And that focus is magnified by patience. A redirection of instinct.

Control over instinct. Superior reason over willpower. Masculine power over feminine.

Summoning Aleister Croweley Diver. Very nice.

Quote :

Discipline is efficiency.  Getting angry and swinging your fists, on pure instinct, is not enough to beat a fighter.  To beat a fighter, to win, to survive, requires education, learning, and honing the instinct.  This creates superior fighters.

If you want to work out, or study karate, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If you're doing it because you want to be a better fighter, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either. What I'm speaking against is a little different than that. What I'm talking about is what the ideal self needs and wants, versus what the real self needs and wants. The ideal self is an abstraction, and it's not that abstractions are bad, anymore than studying history or thinking about the future are bad, it's just that we don't live there, we live in the moment. We can live with past, future, and abstractions about ourselves and otherness derived therefore, in mind, but we don't live through these things, we live through ourselves in the present moment. Thus, if your abstract end, say, is to work out, study karate, for whatever reason, and so on, that abstract end is a lesser sort of reality than your real ends, which are complicated, dynamic, and always evolving. We have to give ourselves plenty of room to change our minds, we have to decide, each and every moment, whether I want to keep pursuing this or that end, or not, as opposed to being bound by abstractions. It is we, here/now, that are existing, and that decide to do this or that, not some elaborate idea about ourselves, who we are or should be, that is living and acting, otherwise, you'd have a kind of psychosis, where you're living for a static self as opposed to your real, dynamic self. You can come up with a plan, like I'm going to work and do karate everyday for a year, but this plan is not you, is not an entity with its own desires, you have to decide each and every moment, whether you want to follow through with said plain or not and if not, it is the plan that's the problem, not you, you didn't really know yourself, or your plan is where you were a day ago, or a month ago, not where you are today, you've changed, you've evolved, or things have come up. Do you see where I'm going with this, it's not so simple as, discipline versus chaos, it's something far more interesting than that, rather, it's the ideal self and world, versus the empirical self and world, the ideal, bends to the real, whether you want it to or not, it always does, and it always feels better to give into your empirical self. Utilitarianism and Kantianism and even Nietzscheanism pale in comparison to the authentic self, which is something Max Stirner and perhaps a few others stumbled upon. All these men were thinking in abstractions, greatest happiness for greatest number, liberty/uniformity, masculinity, and so on, but for the most part failing them, and fundamentally living in within the confines of their authentic selves, just as it's impossible or at least very painful and counterproductive to bend your arms in certain ways.

Quote :

It also creates superior intellect and wisdom.

And superior intellect is not good or bad in any absolute sense.

Superior intellect for whom, and for what?

Why?

Does superior intellect always help one to survive, or achieve ones ends?

Is it desirable, for each and everyone of us, even?

It's an abstraction, a gross one at that, lacking subtlety.

Quote :

Control over instinct.  Superior reason over willpower.  Masculine power over feminine.

Or, is discipline kind of like domestication, and domestication kind of like femininity?

I say the manly man always does what he thinks/feels he needs, lives for himself, instead of for otherness, be it a real otherness, or an imagined otherness. He doesn't restrain himself from drinking beer or smoking crack, rather he weighs the pros and cons, and decides the cons outweigh the pros for him, at this point in time, and declines, or, depending on the individual/time/place, decides he would like a pint of beer or a pinch of crack, in spite of the potential consequences, and indulges, but he doesn't need to, control himself, he let's the overwhelming thought/feeling of his head/heart, rule him, or rather, the overwhelming through/feeling is him, or about as him as anything could possibly be.

A quick response, more later.....

Yes intelligence revolves around survival, and also reproductive success. The "darwin awards" humorously focuses on people who die moronically, usually of their own free will and choice, who stupidly throw their lives away when a simple, intelligent choice would have saved them.

Like, for example, a "darwin award" is awarded to a man who dives in front of a bus to save somebody, trying to stop it with brute force, gets crushed, and the other person gets crushed too. Instead he could have pushed or pulled the second person out of the way, and both lives could have been saved.

The Darwin Awards exemplify how sheer stupidity can, and does, kill people. Sometimes it gets others killed too.



Secondly, "do what you want" is pretty simple, until two individuals cross each others' path, and my want conflicts with your want.

The want of two mammals in nature can be predator and prey, the want to eat the other, versus starvation for the predator and survival for the prey.

Wants and needs have classifications. The wants and needs of a predator animal is different than the wants and needs of a prey animal. Similarly, this is true for masters and slaves.

LaughingMan wrote:

Summoning Aleister Croweley Diver. Very nice.

I may've had Crowley's, "do what thou wilt", in mind, when I wrote this, subconsciously, I'm not sure.

Æon wrote:

A quick response, more later.....

Yes intelligence revolves around survival, and also reproductive success.  The "darwin awards" humorously focuses on people who die moronically, usually of their own free will and choice, who stupidly throw their lives away when a simple, intelligent choice would have saved them.

Like, for example, a "darwin award" is awarded to a man who dives in front of a bus to save somebody, trying to stop it with brute force, gets crushed, and the other person gets crushed too.  Instead he could have pushed or pulled the second person out of the way, and both lives could have been saved.

The Darwin Awards exemplify how sheer stupidity can, and does, kill people.  Sometimes it gets others killed too.



Secondly, "do what you want" is pretty simple, until two individuals cross each others' path, and my want conflicts with your want.

The want of two mammals in nature can be predator and prey, the want to eat the other, versus starvation for the predator and survival for the prey.

Wants and needs have classifications.  The wants and needs of a predator animal is different than the wants and needs of a prey animal.  Similarly, this is true for masters and slaves.

There's some truth to what you say.

Intelligence wouldn't've been as naturally selected as it's been, in humans specifically, and in birds and mammals generally, if it didn't offer a survival advantage, generally. However, there are exceptions. Intelligence coupled with curiosity and a conservative environment lead to the early death of Giordano Bruno, and so many others like him. Intelligence coupled with cowardice and a negative environment lead many an artist/intellectual to an early grave, via suicide. More on this later...

Intelligence and risk seem contrary to each other. If you are secure, the environment supports you, and for all intensive purposes, you and your descendants are relatively immortal. Your specie will perpetuate within a constant environment endlessly, like crocodiles and alligators who have not evolved for who knows how many millenniums.

So there is reasonable doubt behind natural selection or artificial selection. I disbelieve that intelligence just happens magically and spontaneously.

Many humans will not evolve, and will instead remain within a lower evolution, maybe forever. Maybe some humans will remain unchanged, and a lower intelligence, in the year 4000AD. There's no reason to believe that intelligence will keep "improving" or growing.

By definition, natural selection destroys unintelligence, as proved by the Darwin Awards. Stupid people get themselves, and sometimes others, killed needlessly. But perhaps this is also part of the specie's genetic traits. Risk taking.

That's what it's about, risks. Are some risks worth a life? I believe so, yes. But then the question ultimately arrives to, what would you risk your life for?

Personally, I would risk my life to fuck a virgin, beautiful, thin, blonde, blue eye, aryan, gorgeous girl. That would be a worthy risk. Everything else? Probably not. Not worth the risks.

I'm not going to risk my life to fuck a fat slutty negro.


Here's who I'd risk my neck for:

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

Why? Because I want inside the Kingdom of Heaven. I want to plant my seeds inside angelic soil. I want to fertilize the celestial sphere. I want that immortality, guarded by golden locks of hair. I want that pussy worth the price of "6 million" jews.

And they're worth every bit.

Æon wrote:

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

so beautiful.