Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

When one is confronted with doubt of the competency and trustworthiness of an entity, there is no point in expecting anything less than a full justice/justification that is evaluated stringently and mercilessly against that entity's own claims to virtue and sound perception when they contradict one's fundamental sense of reality. Giving up one's fundamental sense is the option of a coward, lest they forget what made them become so confident in their newfound proselytized reality, for they become more ardent believers the more thoroughly they doubted before - if they give it up.

Hume appeared to believe that Pleasure was an attractive force and Pain was an avoidant force.

If pleasure is simply the numbing of pain, can it be 'attractive' or is it simply neutral? Indifferent.

I've noticed that a trick of Judases is not that they are good at becoming attractive, but instead they are good at disappearing and disownership. They will perform actions like molesting someone while pretending nothing is going on at all, causing immense confusion to the woman who is just getting her boundaries violated as if it were nothing. The sheer apparent indifference of the one performing the action is what frightens her into inaction and thinking it was nothing but a dream/imagination.

With sexual reproduction, the woman is not converting the invasive/violent act into something positive, but numbing the negative. The interaction numbs her existential burden of reproduction, which is all encompassing. People who are satisfied with life tend to have a naturally 'satisfied' or 'happy' demeanor.

This demeanor of satisfaction certainly feels to an individual, who finds the satisfied person 'attractive', as some sort of attractive force. However, if they are not idiots or they are conscientious, it is also something which makes them fearful, since they risk appearing too desperate and could injure the satisfied person or appear like they are too desperate to be capable of handling such a person. The 'attractive' quality is really the prospect of one acquiring, through mirror neurons, a state of mind in which they are indifferent to suffering as well.

Instead, it is a comparison of options: the imagined suffering without association with the satisfied person compared to the imagined limitation of suffering when acquiring association with the satisfied person. 'Happiness' or 'attraction' is not in the formulation, but a calculation of future minimization of suffering, and a comparison of that such that they avoid the one with more suffering rather than they pursue the one with less suffering.

I fear more a demeanor of excusing the worst than I do of displeasing the rest.

Slaughtz wrote:

Hume appeared to believe that Pleasure was an attractive force and Pain was an avoidant force.

If pleasure is simply the numbing of pain, can it be 'attractive' or is it simply neutral? Indifferent.

I'm not sure what you believe, but pain and pleasure are both additive forces, just in the opposite direction. Boredom is actually not neutral, but slightly on the pain side of the spectrum.

Quote :

With sexual reproduction, the woman is not converting the invasive/violent act into something positive, but numbing the negative.

Sounds like either a lesbian or dysfunctional relationship. For instance, I have different computers. On one internet, I have lag, and webpages don't load. The lag is not pleasurable to me. So I use the other one, which has a messed up mouse that makes it hard to move, this is not pleasurable either. But while I browse through the net, and find useful or interesting websites, it covers up the pain and masks some of it. Overall the experience isn't that great, since both are additive forces, they kind of cancel each other out.

OnWithTheirHead wrote:

Slaughtz wrote:

Hume appeared to believe that Pleasure was an attractive force and Pain was an avoidant force.

If pleasure is simply the numbing of pain, can it be 'attractive' or is it simply neutral? Indifferent.

I'm not sure what you believe, but pain and pleasure are both additive forces, just in the opposite direction. Boredom is actually not neutral, but slightly on the pain side of the spectrum.

Quote :

With sexual reproduction, the woman is not converting the invasive/violent act into something positive, but numbing the negative.

Sounds like either a lesbian or dysfunctional relationship. For instance, I have different computers. On one internet, I have lag, and webpages don't load. The lag is not pleasurable to me. So I use the other one, which has a messed up mouse that makes it hard to move, this is not pleasurable either. But while I browse through the net, and find useful or interesting websites, it covers up the pain and masks some of it. Overall the experience isn't that great, since both are additive forces, they kind of cancel each other out.

Well your post brought up a salient question: where does the standard begin for pain? If I were to take a guess: in the womb. There is where you've set your standard, physiologically, for pain/pleasure. In the womb, one experiences safety and comfort alike nowhere else - and from then on the amount of suffering you feel is measured against that. If that is too early, perhaps at some other stage in development. It could probably be a valid and testable, researchable, question.

Early developed expectations setting the standards for your frustrations - and those can perhaps become different over time, but there is a starting point. One that, perhaps, all your expectations currently can be traced back to - if it is not sheer fear. It would explain trauma as a traumatic event which twists your old expectations into ones that are new, giving new context. A car backfiring could now indicate you're about to die and need to go for cover - causing immense and immediate existential pain against the backdrop of a comfortable life.

And the approach I am talking about is one of suffering and numbness to suffering: no additive 'happy' emotions. Dopamine rushes or 'happy' anything, is just a momentary numbness/forgetting of/ignor(e)ance of the suffering and pain you experience. To clarify, this is a position on the fundamental nature of emotion and not simply selected for specific emotions. If it helps, think of it as a dopamine low causing anxiety, dopamine normal causing regular experience, dopamine high causing excitement.

My memory doesn't go back that far, I can't remember what it was like to be in the womb, so I can't say. I can't remember anything before age 4.

The arguments for guilty consciousnesses following colonialism, and the vigor behind its political influence, is based on: a tribal and racialized understanding, where the subjects believe they became slaves to colonial masters =and= the interpretations of the intent behind popular acceptance of colonial spread as being one of malicious intent when it was promoted to those supporting it as precisely the opposite.

Has anyone read [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Aerial shot of rivers forming in the desert after a downpour.

Gravity interacting with fluidity...forming into the shapes we see in nature - trees.
Path-of least resistance, merging `and flowing towards the source of resistance....
Life away and lifeless towards....will, no will.

I think feminisation on a physiological level (hormone release etc.) happens when the individual is brought into a state where both, fight and flight are inhibited/self-inhibited.

E.g. the average modern social, civil, setting.
It's inappropriate, not civil, to be aggressive in an open manner while at the same time you are expected to participate within the social environment and not to withdraw from the setting.
It's the civility, the particular civility of a feminising civil-isation.

Experienced fear is soothed through surrendering in the situation, through release of hormones and so on.

The more reserved temperament among Northern Europeans is how they dealt with the confined space of a civilisation. It's socially normal to be more withdrawn, to "flee" a social setting or interaction. This allows for less feminised individuals. It's one way how a less feminised people express themselves - to be more socially withdrawn.
Another way would be openly aggressive battles for social rank. Challengers fighting one on one.

Yes...love evolves to deal with the stress of fight/flight to enable heterosexual reproduction, and to alter establish cooperative groups.
Love is closely tide to the feminine demeanour.
It not only inhibits her fight/flight, allowing a bigger stronger male to approach and to penetrate her, but it then bonds her to her offspring ensuring her care for it.
She is hormonal conduced to identify the offspring with herself.
As hormones decline, over time, she begins pushing the offspring away, finalizing the weening process.

The 'love' hormonal' reaction is very feminine.
It's the only way she can carry out her specialized role and tolerate those she must rely upon, having evolved away from self-sufficiency, in the case of social species, like humans.

Motherly instincts are at the centre of Modern psychology.
The mother/child dynamic, where the male is the State or the Idea(l).
God = incorporeal noetic absolute.
Masculinity pushed to to its idealized absolute extreme.

Feminization is the nurturing of these motherly, feminine traits, along with the sacrifice of those that would inhibit independence.
The result is males stunted to remain in a state of infancy, or urged to become mothering...surrogate females.

Love is the key emotion.
It is the only emotion that has evolved to deal with anxiety/fear.
Without this hormonal effect, heterosexual reproduction would be impossible, as would be social behaviour.

Love evolves from lust, which evolves from hunger.
Lust = hungering for otherness.
The female wants to consume the other through her vagina, and digest him, gestate his essence.
Copulation for her has the element of hunger consuming the male; absorbing him into her essence.
This is how she becomes his means.
Anxiety/Fear must be present.
If it is no the female begins losing her lust for the male.
Without intimidation, both physical and mental, the hormonal reactions that can produce lust are not triggered in her.
We speak of men being 'hunters'....and this is how the female validates her sexual value, and triggers the fight/flight mechanism - to be pursued, afraid, stressed, gradually longing to be captured, dominated, brought down and mounted.
Male has to work for her surrender, and the more he works the more her capitulation is elevated.
Anxiety/Fear is the trigger for her lust, and then her love....eros.
The child is the reminder of her surrender to a worthy male.

This is absent in Modern systems where only the State can use force, can dominate and intimidate.
Women give themselves to the theoretical abstraction of masculinity...first in the Abrahamic God, and then the State....leaving real men on the sidelines......unworthy representations of this idealized masculinity, delivered through pop-art, especially in movies.

Without the component of intimidation to trigger a female's lust, the female relates to a male as a mother to her child, if she is not completely indifferent.

Just because you can read a book, or repeat back what is said, does not make you Literate.

Literacy requires something more, a perceptive and sharp intellect, to cut through the innuendos, and dig toward the deepest meanings.

In this way Literacy is always a rarity in humanity, no matter the time or place. Amount of books read, amount of words known and used, all mean nothing, without a comprehensive and proficient demonstration of those meanings.

They have taken to denying the truth, and in doing so, they have made themselves avatars of ignorance. I empathize, or try to empathize, with them and I find the void which they occupy: one of absolute ignorance, parading itself as absolute knowledge. I set myself to work, banging away with my hammer, at the construct of that void within myself - taken from an appreciation of that abyssal ignorance. Pounding away, each strike creates light, but not just for me - for all around. From distilled arrogance, I found something worth pursuing.

"When, after a vigorous effort to gaze into the sun, we turn away blinded, we have dark-coloured spots before our eyes as restoratives, so to speak ; while, on the contrary, those light-picture phenomena of the Sophoclean hero, in short, the Apollonian of the mask, are the necessary productions of a glance into the secret and terrible things of nature, as it were shining spots to heal the eye which dire night has seared. ... "Greek cheerfulness," which we have already spoken of as a senile, unproductive love of existence ; this cheerfulness [stands opposed to] the splendid " naivete " of the earlier Greeks, which, according to the characteristic indicated above, must be conceived as the blossom of the Apollonian culture growing out of a dark abyss, as the victory which the Hellenic will, through its mirroring of beauty, obtains over suffering and the wisdom of suffering."
- THE BIRTH OF A TRAGEDY, Friedrich Nietzsche

(Note: I am looking for a quote, I believe by Nietzsche, or at least posted here on this forum, which refers to 'a man' 'pounding away' or 'hammering away' at 'darkness' 'in himself' and 'creating light' thereby. It may have involved imagery of 'a forge' qua 'hammering'. If you can help me find it, I'd appreciate it.)

Slaughtz wrote:

(Note: I am looking for a quote, I believe by Nietzsche, or at least posted here on this forum, which refers to 'a man' 'pounding away' or 'hammering away' at 'darkness' 'in himself' and 'creating light' thereby. It may have involved imagery of 'a forge' qua 'hammering'. If you can help me find it, I'd appreciate it.)

It sounds akin to his more passionate works such as Human All to Human or The Gay Science. I'd look to the Gay Science.

Satyr wrote:

Reaffirmation of the past is not a return to it.
It's not a regression back to that state.

Reaffirmation is not return to past superstitions, as if nothing has been accrued from then until now.
It is not forgetting, not only of this past, but of all that has been accumulated since.

Reaffirmation of past is a re-connection with it.
A re-harmonization, after a period of disharmony, of disconnection.

We do not return to primitive practices but we return to a foundation, upon which we have built in opposition.
We realign, what has been experienced with has been known.
We re-collect and add to it more memories in-line, in-tune.

I believe one here mused about how this period will be seen as in the future, modernity an extension of a Christian illness. A fever dream, to teach us to associate those flowery untruths with something collectively painful and regressive to ourselves and our own bodies. Lying will be seen as the murder of unborn children.

Some have taken our affirmation of past, and our honouring of it, as a desire to return to its primitive conditions.
Some present that period's superstitions as progress, or affirmation of it, because they cannot love unless the loved one is idolized.

That periods superstitions, and practices, are not all to be emulated.
We do not honour our parents by forgetting their human faults, nor do we want to become copies of them.
All parents want their children to become better.
They desire that their children take what is valuable from them and add more.

Abrahamics have no shame but they have guilt.
Guilt founded on their idolization of everything they worship and need to survive, and to cope.
When you idolize that which you love, you find yourself wanting in comparison.
Guilt is this inability to live-up to the idol.

Actually it's worse....when you must idolize to love, then nothing of the real can satisfy.
This is sad when it comes to loving yourself.
Narcissism is the outcome, or schizophrenia, or depression.

To love you must exaggerate the loved ones nature.
This is best done after death, because the living contradict all such exaggerations, wheres the dead remain silent, and have become memory - noumena.

Guilt forces hyperbole, because as idealizing the loved one necessitates an inflation of his desirable traits, and the deflation of his undesirable ones, to live-up to such a psychotic construct also necessitates hyperinflation, if it does not produce hyper-deflation.

Satyr wrote:

Philosophy becomes psychobabble when it shifts from an engagement of reality, the world, into an expression of the individual's reaction to the world.
The exoteric is absorbed into the esoteric, where words need no external reference, need no sequential adherence to natural order, if they carry an internal emotion, a passion, or the imagery of a mythology, an abstraction that has been disconnected from reality and exists autonomously.

This can only be mitigated by having the humility and intelligence to recognize when one is promoting esoteric opinions and musings - and then qualifies what they said as being a result of those processes. This means abandoning the dopamine rush of promoting one's own opinion as fact and also exposing oneself to judgment about your own thought process(es). One becomes especially vulnerable to attack when they reveal this in front of enemies or those who see them as 'other', while the attacker is perceived to be an ally - by oneself or one's own group.

Quote :

It is very easy to couch your esoteric judgments in an exoteric manner if you qualify it as being your own judgments and opinions/perception. Around the dense, dull and thickheaded you will encounter idiotic responses of subjectivism saying that their judgments are of equal quality to yours, without qualification except that you did not present your esoteric judgments as exoteric and authoritative. That is a risk you take by talking without phenomenal justification defending your judgment, though. This is why hierarchy is important.

The dense and thickheaded who say their judgments are equal, are performing a sort of backhanded intimidation(intimitation). Here they are presuming themselves at least equal to you, and investing their personhood into their own judgments, hiddenly couching their identity with their judgment - a judgment which you explicitly said of yourself was 'merely' a judgment, treating it with less investment - they equate to a judgment they talk of, sometimes in a dismissing/laughing/comedic matter, as being equal to whatever mind farts they expel.

The intimitation is that they are equal, so they will feel offended when it is challenged. The intimidation is their reaction when it is challenged/they are offended - especially if there is a group around to take notice of you not validating their idiocy. Part of that intimitation's subversive nature is that they've now asserted superiority indirectly by equating what took some serious consideration on your part, to something which they only brain-farted.

A heavy hammer slipped out of my hands and dropped on my foot.

The modern interpretation of taking responsibility:

Now, now, don’t think about how the hammer is heavy and that you have to hold a tight grip around its handle, in short, don’t blame the hammer
Instead, focus on yourself and your failure because you noticed the hammer dropping on your foot.
What’s wrong with you that you focus all your attention on this innocent hammer?
Will you quit it with all that complaining?
Just don’t talk about the hammer, will ya?


This is the kind of self-described conservative who likes to destroy through guilt-tripping.
The same variant who also likes to say things like - “Don’t be selfish.”
It doesn’t matter, the guilt-tripper will find something, some ideal, some aspiration which you somehow identify with and will twist it around to try to confuse and ideally destroy you.
They feel gleeful when doing so.

In evolution, the first race was distinguished against by a cousin that separated from them. The cousin took on its own evolutionary path, eventually, to become genetically distinct from what was previously its genetic cousin. This separation happened by geography and sexual/natural selection.
In the majority of cases, the woman performs harem behavior to protect her ability to choose a mate - by flooding a dominant male with available women (of which she's a part), she retrieves the benefit of the alpha male's protection, and the alpha male's indifference if she isn't "in the mood", because he has many other women available to choose from. She may then, at some other point, choose to reproduce with a male by running away from the Alpha.
Natural selection killed off those who couldn't survive the environment - and can select for pro-social behaviors which encourage cooperation.
Conflict, males 'going their own way' if they believe they're competent enough to abandon the political/social structure of the current Alpha or are unable to access females, is a natural thing for them to do. Natural, but pathetic - because it is usually out of necessity and not self-distinction. Even in the cases of necessity, though, if they get themselves trapped in the elements of a foreign land, they can end up surpassing their beginning seed.

In the sight of a child: playing is serious and only fear prevents honesty. Communists have kept the image of innocence for themselves by scapegoating/blaming others, disappearing into 'humanity'. Faustian spirits have preserved it through taking on all the costs of increasing discrimination. Fascists seek to preserve it by disappearing within and distributing the costs within a selected tribe.

Faustian spirits are brothers only so long as they both seek to cleanse the field they reside in for more discriminatory engagements, whereupon they can engage each other in combat without resentment by seeking justice. A battle of essences.

This Faustian spirit has been hijacked by Liberals to say that what is part of the conflict, an essence of a person's race, is an injustice that must be cleared from the field. It is one thing to clear gnats, ticks and leeches from your arena, but to give your opponent a enhanced mobility device is not in the spirit of justice.

The same (Classical) Liberals are nihilists of collective essences, and so also deny their own distinction as a reproductive species in the same breath as they dismiss racial characterizations. The dismissal of the _basic_ essences, the primitive, is more barbarous and wicked than actually being a gluttonous, but honest, idiot. The basic essences are a necessary base upon which the distinguished essence must refine itself, like a mountain peak only exists with the mountainous land holding it up.

Self-deception for the sake of deception, to appear bigger than one is and poison the commons with baseless pronouncements is an attempt at letting degenerate essences be fostered or ignored.

To preserve a small detail (significant or not) requires a promise fulfilling the same minutiae of desire and/or honor for it to be justified.

In the Bible, the promise is eternal life - preserving the names of hundreds along with it.

For culture and tradition, small behaviors like throwing silver in water becomes justified by its purifying quality.

The focus of Aryan resurgence, or the Alt-Right, ought to be in attracting females, and shaping them into memetic and genetic filters.
Beta-Males will go where the 'pussy' is headed.
They have no mind beyond hedonism, and the reproductive drive, always rationalized and mostly conceptualized idealistically.
Underlying the reproductive drive is an organic anxiety concerning mortality.
In conscious life, an innate fear of the unknown, and automated reaction (fight/flight, emotion etc); in emergent self-awareness, self-consciousness, an increasing awareness of self, and its place within existence, or in relation to existence.
Conflict between consciousness and self-consciousness establishes the ground upon which nihilism is built.
A disharmony between automatic reactions and the increasing awareness and questioning of these automatic reactions - anxiety in relation to anxiety, the foundations of neurosis, and the Abrahamic spirit.
To deal with this Abrahamism redefines self, as 'Self', as something greater, or mystical, or beyond, existing outside the mind/body dichotomy.
It does so by associating it with mind, and defining body as a illusion, or as a false shell, a trap.
Idea(l) contra Real....Noumenon contra Phenomenon.
Corporeality, the physical, is sublimated into a theoretical, noetic, construct - it is idealized, or totally dismissed.
It becomes the mind's invention - social construct.

Females are indoctrinated into this comforting idealism, where they are placed on a pedestal, or considered the idea(l) archetype, forcing males to adapt - feminization.
Masculinity is pushed into the unreal, the super-natural periphery encompassing this internal emasculation.
It's the conceptual shell, containing the ovum - womb.

Paternalism placed the control in the hands of biological males - Aryanism.
Abrahamism took it away to project it in some underlying, occult, or beyond ideal, leaving biological males as its representations, or as emasculated, surrogate females, channelling this idealized 'force'.
Messianic complex.
Post-Modernity, Marxism, rejected masculinity altogether, and converted it, along with femininity and all biological identifiers, into an idealized standard, in relation to State, not to world.
This invented the idea of utility, not in reference to a goal, an objective, but in reference to a collective.
Society, and not world, was the standard of judging good from bad, true from false.

Humanity became redefined as World, where world, objectivity, no longer existed.
All was a human echo chamber.
The Nihilistic paradigm - right/left, good/evil, order/complexity - 1/0.
The masculine 'shell' became the code - Scripture, language....the word.

When the concept of masculinity was detached from the real, the physical, and was converted to an idea(l), it took up the place of the beyond, the edge of existence, the noetic extreme, outside space/time - exoteric.
In turn, the feminine was also idealized and became the occult, the secret, the mysterious internal - esoteric.
Abrahamism is characterized by this idealization of the feminine, and the masculine, and its occult idealism.

Aryan rites of passage could not be finalized.
Individuals remained in a perpetual state of adolescence.
Father and mother could not be surpassed, but submitted to.
European families were no longer necessary, but detrimental to this nihilistic degradation.

There is no better numbing agent to superstitious fears than superstitious hopes.

Satyr wrote:

The focus of Aryan resurgence, or the Alt-Right, ought to be in attracting females, and shaping them into memetic and genetic filters.
Beta-Males will go where the 'pussy' is headed.

Pandering to feminism and feminine emotionalism and attracting beta-males are the last things the Alt-Right needs. That's what feminism is about.

The Alt-Right needs to build a brotherhood between men, and it needs to increase power and masculinity of men in various ways. When this is done, women fall into line naturally.

All changes must start with men. Men are the ones capable of being responsible. Women are merely the reflections of their men.