File: 1678301926319.jpg (123 KB, 920x1250, 92:125, gtasa-cesar-vialpando.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
I just thought about it: we are the ones who are social and not normalfags. Think about it. Most people here from what I gather are rather polite, quiet, kind, tolerant and have more empathy than normalfags. It's normals who are rude, aggressive, paranoid, overly-defensive, overly-private and who don't give a fuck about anyone else except for themselves. In a crazy world the autists are the actual decent and sane persons. Our society and culture is sick. We live in Anti-Social World and ironically we are the only social people. We have more instinct to act with others in mind than the majority. I'd go so far as to say we are the extroverts and normals are the introverts. It's fucked up because we are led to believe the opposite is true by mainstream society. We are extroverts living a world where everyone is only concerned about himself and doesn't give a shit about any sense of community or decency.
I base this on my observations. I observed that normals are really insecure, don't want to let others into their ""private"" life easily and in more ways than one behave like autists. The normal people are the anti-social autists and we who are called autists by everyone are actually the healthy people. In a crazy world only the "crazy" people are sane, huh? Of course nobody sees it, I mean among normalfags, because they are so indoctrinated into believing that the majority is always right and should be the norm. Normals remind me of what Nietzsche said, something like "only weak people want to control others and only weak people feel the need to be cruel". Because they know they are inferior subhumans who can't understand anything nice and decent so the savages in turn hate us who are full of love, mercy and understanding. They hate us because we are the well-adjusted ones. It's classic resentment morality! The weak majority twists logic and words around until they posit the ugly as beautiful, the rotten vice as virtue and falsehood as truth. Normals secretly hate us because they envy us. They envy how free we are, how superior we are intellectually, how we have actual feelings, etc. They hate us and fear us because they can't do what we do.
I base this on my observations. I observed that normals are really insecure, don't want to let others into their ""private"" life easily and in more ways than one behave like autists. The normal people are the anti-social autists and we who are called autists by everyone are actually the healthy people. In a crazy world only the "crazy" people are sane, huh? Of course nobody sees it, I mean among normalfags, because they are so indoctrinated into believing that the majority is always right and should be the norm. Normals remind me of what Nietzsche said, something like "only weak people want to control others and only weak people feel the need to be cruel". Because they know they are inferior subhumans who can't understand anything nice and decent so the savages in turn hate us who are full of love, mercy and understanding. They hate us because we are the well-adjusted ones. It's classic resentment morality! The weak majority twists logic and words around until they posit the ugly as beautiful, the rotten vice as virtue and falsehood as truth. Normals secretly hate us because they envy us. They envy how free we are, how superior we are intellectually, how we have actual feelings, etc. They hate us and fear us because they can't do what we do.
what? people mindlessly talk shit to each other over the most trivial things here every day.
>>203515
>Most people here from what I gather are rather polite, quiet, kind, tolerant and have more empathy than normalfag
Them you really haven't spent much time here or you are extremely unobservant, because that simply isn't true.
>Most people here from what I gather are rather polite, quiet, kind, tolerant and have more empathy than normalfag
Them you really haven't spent much time here or you are extremely unobservant, because that simply isn't true.
>>203530
I agree with his view. Just don't read so much conviction between the lines and disagreement is either posted with respect or just the kind of spicy butthurt contemporary to imageboard 2023 vculture.
I agree with his view. Just don't read so much conviction between the lines and disagreement is either posted with respect or just the kind of spicy butthurt contemporary to imageboard 2023 vculture.
>>203516
>>203530
Nah, even the biggest shitfest threads around here are nothing compared to normalfag dramas. Same for the aggressive or psycho wizards, they don't have anything on normalfags. Those slimy fucks are on a whole different level when compared to us.
You think people here are bad? Then you haven't been outside lately.
>>203530
Nah, even the biggest shitfest threads around here are nothing compared to normalfag dramas. Same for the aggressive or psycho wizards, they don't have anything on normalfags. Those slimy fucks are on a whole different level when compared to us.
You think people here are bad? Then you haven't been outside lately.
>>203539
i dont live in third-world conditions so most people near me have the common decency to keep to themselves. still doesnt change the fact that posters here could not be described as any of the things you attributed to them.
i dont live in third-world conditions so most people near me have the common decency to keep to themselves. still doesnt change the fact that posters here could not be described as any of the things you attributed to them.
well if you think of the qualities of mammals and apes, who just happened to evolve intelligence by accident, while trying to trick each other into sex or kill animals/ each other. And contrast that with the rational robotic angels, designed by philosophical planners. There is a vast gulf between them.
Theres a quote by Steinbeck that everything we call "low survival quotient" in animals, we call morality in man.
so no surprise the norm of the species is shit. if the law scares them enough to not physically attack you, count yourself lucky
Theres a quote by Steinbeck that everything we call "low survival quotient" in animals, we call morality in man.
so no surprise the norm of the species is shit. if the law scares them enough to not physically attack you, count yourself lucky
Normalfags are basically animals, they let their reptilian brain control all their actions. This is why it's so tiresome to engage in conversation with normalcattle, they're pretty much like talking to a dog or a cat.
>>203548
> There is a strange duality in the human which makes for an ethical paradox. We have definitions of good qualities and of bad; not changing things, but generally considered good and bad throughout the ages and throughout the species. Of the good, we think always of wisdom, tolerance, kindliness, generosity, humility; and the qualities of cruelty, greed, self-interest, graspingness, and rapacity are universally considered undesirable. And yet in our structure of society, the so-called and considered good qualities are invariable concomitants of failure, while the bad ones are the cornerstones of success. A man — a viewing-point man — while he will love the abstract good qualities and detest the abstract bad, will nevertheless envy and admire the person who though possessing the bad qualities has succeeded economically and socially, and will hold in contempt that person whose good qualities have caused failure. When such a viewing-point man thinks of Jesus or St. Augustine or Socrates he regards them with love because they are the symbols of the good he admires, and he hates the symbols of the bad. But actually he would rather be successful than good. In an animal other than man we would replace the term “good” with “weak survival quotient” and the term “bad” with “strong survival quotient.” Thus, man in his thinking or reverie status admires the progression toward extinction, but in the unthinking stimulus which really activates him he tends toward survival. Perhaps no other animal is so torn between alternatives. Man might be described fairly adequately, if simply, as a two-legged paradox. He has never become accustomed to the tragic miracle of consciousness. Perhaps, as has been suggested, his species is not set, has not jelled, but is still in a state of becoming, bound by his physical memories to a past of struggle and survival, limited in his futures by the uneasiness of thought and consciousness.
> There is a strange duality in the human which makes for an ethical paradox. We have definitions of good qualities and of bad; not changing things, but generally considered good and bad throughout the ages and throughout the species. Of the good, we think always of wisdom, tolerance, kindliness, generosity, humility; and the qualities of cruelty, greed, self-interest, graspingness, and rapacity are universally considered undesirable. And yet in our structure of society, the so-called and considered good qualities are invariable concomitants of failure, while the bad ones are the cornerstones of success. A man — a viewing-point man — while he will love the abstract good qualities and detest the abstract bad, will nevertheless envy and admire the person who though possessing the bad qualities has succeeded economically and socially, and will hold in contempt that person whose good qualities have caused failure. When such a viewing-point man thinks of Jesus or St. Augustine or Socrates he regards them with love because they are the symbols of the good he admires, and he hates the symbols of the bad. But actually he would rather be successful than good. In an animal other than man we would replace the term “good” with “weak survival quotient” and the term “bad” with “strong survival quotient.” Thus, man in his thinking or reverie status admires the progression toward extinction, but in the unthinking stimulus which really activates him he tends toward survival. Perhaps no other animal is so torn between alternatives. Man might be described fairly adequately, if simply, as a two-legged paradox. He has never become accustomed to the tragic miracle of consciousness. Perhaps, as has been suggested, his species is not set, has not jelled, but is still in a state of becoming, bound by his physical memories to a past of struggle and survival, limited in his futures by the uneasiness of thought and consciousness.
Beside the fact that normalfags are almost animals moved by their impulse, the rest is sheer unfiltered cope.
>>203515
>
I base this on my observations. I observed that normals are really insecure, don't want to let others into their ""private"" life easily and in more ways than one behave like autists. The normal people are the anti-social autists and we who are called autists by everyone are actually the healthy people. In a crazy world only the "crazy" people are sane, huh? Of course nobody sees it, I mean among normalfags, because they are so indoctrinated into believing that the majority is always right and should be the norm. Normals remind me of what Nietzsche said, something like "only weak people want to control others and only weak people feel the need to be cruel". Because they know they are inferior subhumans who can't understand anything nice and decent so the savages in turn hate us who are full of love, mercy and understanding. They hate us because we are the well-adjusted ones. It's classic resentment morality! The weak majority twists logic and words around until they posit the ugly as beautiful, the rotten vice as virtue and falsehood as truth. Normals secretly hate us because they envy us. They envy how free we are, how superior we are intellectually, how we have actual feelings, etc. They hate us and fear us because they can't do what we do.
I disagree with a lot of this.
There is some truth to what you say in the first paragraph, but normies aren't evil or envious.
>
I base this on my observations. I observed that normals are really insecure, don't want to let others into their ""private"" life easily and in more ways than one behave like autists. The normal people are the anti-social autists and we who are called autists by everyone are actually the healthy people. In a crazy world only the "crazy" people are sane, huh? Of course nobody sees it, I mean among normalfags, because they are so indoctrinated into believing that the majority is always right and should be the norm. Normals remind me of what Nietzsche said, something like "only weak people want to control others and only weak people feel the need to be cruel". Because they know they are inferior subhumans who can't understand anything nice and decent so the savages in turn hate us who are full of love, mercy and understanding. They hate us because we are the well-adjusted ones. It's classic resentment morality! The weak majority twists logic and words around until they posit the ugly as beautiful, the rotten vice as virtue and falsehood as truth. Normals secretly hate us because they envy us. They envy how free we are, how superior we are intellectually, how we have actual feelings, etc. They hate us and fear us because they can't do what we do.
I disagree with a lot of this.
There is some truth to what you say in the first paragraph, but normies aren't evil or envious.
>>203552
I agree that normies are crazy, but being a different type of crazy in a crazy society is a possible, as there are many ways to make an unhappy family, but only one way to a happy one.
I am not sure if the imagined past of people stripping and mutating values happens so intentionally, I am fond of Baudrillard Hyperreality. It sure does make it harder to condemn individuals who, seemingly, don't know what they do.
"If the world hates you, good, know it hated me first" John 15:18
I agree that normies are crazy, but being a different type of crazy in a crazy society is a possible, as there are many ways to make an unhappy family, but only one way to a happy one.
I am not sure if the imagined past of people stripping and mutating values happens so intentionally, I am fond of Baudrillard Hyperreality. It sure does make it harder to condemn individuals who, seemingly, don't know what they do.
"If the world hates you, good, know it hated me first" John 15:18
My working theory is that we're the only ones who want to believe the institutions can work, and the great joke is that everyone else really does not think like that, despite their claims that they are socially conscious. They don't really think of society at all - just membership in their club and their private relations. We do what we do because we're forbidden entry into the secret world by and large, and so we only have each other and what we can claim in the world. Our dominant strategy is to cooperate rather than compete, since we are used to living on little and never clamored for excess or "bling". I was saying this to some black guy I worked with a while back who bragged about buying an expensive watch. He lectured me about the importance of status symbols, and I had to ask "why". It's not like any of that impresses anyone and he's a fool for paying a markup, but because I'm the retard and he's socially adjusted, he's going to do stupid things. Many such cases, I'm afraid. I just shrugged and went back to stocking shelves. At least in his case it's his own problem, whereas often my life entails people deciding to make my life hell to get ahead somehow.
The ugly truth is that most people didn't get to choose this, but they've been conditioned to accept the behavior of a minority and accepted the mentality that they are "dead" in a spiritual and moral sense. Most normal people know not to make my life worse, but they're always given the option to kick someone down to "get ahead", and there are enough takers who distinguish themselves with their lump of horseflesh. It's all sad and stupid, but humans will do human things. That said, a lot of normies know well that this world is shit, but they're not going to stick their neck out and know the cost of associating with "weakness" - that is, not going along with the jihad against the designated sacrifices. If normal people really were what the eugenists believed them to be, the world would be a much worse place and their plan would have been done by now. Eugenics cannot fail, it can only be failed, and they keep pushing because their logic and moral philosophy doesn't allow them to do anything else. That's the fate of humanity, and anyone suggesting that it could be different becomes a target; yet the only way we had a society is because someone did think it could be different. The eugenists don't care about cannibalizing everything because they're pushing the win button that was presented to them by their masters, and a few people at the very top know what they're doing and decided a long time ago who lives and who dies. That's all they think about, and that's all humanity ever was. The actual people, men at a basic level, aspired to be more, but humanism is a dead end and we see the result every day. It was always a trap of a certain type of person who suggested a false version of what men were supposed to be, instead of letting men become something better while holding to their own sense of the world. They only knew how to cajole and berate people into moral behavior, because they don't believe in communicating once they start the cycle of humiliation. A few sadistic perverts get to decide who lives and who dies and what we are going to be. It could stop very easily if there were a political will, and it will have to end in some part of the world for those selected to live, but the most contemptible are those who willfully enable the rot for nothing more than a cheap thrill. I can get why the people at the top do this and they've bragged that they can keep pushing humans to attack each other ad infinitum and they keep doing it, but I don't understand what the followers like the MAGA fags think they're getting out of it. Some niggers just can't resist a nigger moment.
Also Nietzsche is a fag and should be ignored.
The ugly truth is that most people didn't get to choose this, but they've been conditioned to accept the behavior of a minority and accepted the mentality that they are "dead" in a spiritual and moral sense. Most normal people know not to make my life worse, but they're always given the option to kick someone down to "get ahead", and there are enough takers who distinguish themselves with their lump of horseflesh. It's all sad and stupid, but humans will do human things. That said, a lot of normies know well that this world is shit, but they're not going to stick their neck out and know the cost of associating with "weakness" - that is, not going along with the jihad against the designated sacrifices. If normal people really were what the eugenists believed them to be, the world would be a much worse place and their plan would have been done by now. Eugenics cannot fail, it can only be failed, and they keep pushing because their logic and moral philosophy doesn't allow them to do anything else. That's the fate of humanity, and anyone suggesting that it could be different becomes a target; yet the only way we had a society is because someone did think it could be different. The eugenists don't care about cannibalizing everything because they're pushing the win button that was presented to them by their masters, and a few people at the very top know what they're doing and decided a long time ago who lives and who dies. That's all they think about, and that's all humanity ever was. The actual people, men at a basic level, aspired to be more, but humanism is a dead end and we see the result every day. It was always a trap of a certain type of person who suggested a false version of what men were supposed to be, instead of letting men become something better while holding to their own sense of the world. They only knew how to cajole and berate people into moral behavior, because they don't believe in communicating once they start the cycle of humiliation. A few sadistic perverts get to decide who lives and who dies and what we are going to be. It could stop very easily if there were a political will, and it will have to end in some part of the world for those selected to live, but the most contemptible are those who willfully enable the rot for nothing more than a cheap thrill. I can get why the people at the top do this and they've bragged that they can keep pushing humans to attack each other ad infinitum and they keep doing it, but I don't understand what the followers like the MAGA fags think they're getting out of it. Some niggers just can't resist a nigger moment.
Also Nietzsche is a fag and should be ignored.
File: 1678379695102.jpg (179.32 KB, 800x1040, 10:13, 1658379352031.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>203515
A corresponding observation is that many of the greatest people, i.e. the most sensitive and refined souls, are lost to us: often by their own hands. Maybe you've known some of them? What is favored above their art and poetry is incessant production that produces little of real value. It's a crime against humanity that we've all suffered for, but we've also suffered less as life becomes less vivid without them
While the stampede of normalfaggotry is plainly anti-social, from their perspective they produce the most pro-social outcomes. Note also the individualistic reaction the stampede produces is similarly captured: so when we talk about love, power, mercy, and understanding we mean precisely these untrampled noble virtues
A corresponding observation is that many of the greatest people, i.e. the most sensitive and refined souls, are lost to us: often by their own hands. Maybe you've known some of them? What is favored above their art and poetry is incessant production that produces little of real value. It's a crime against humanity that we've all suffered for, but we've also suffered less as life becomes less vivid without them
While the stampede of normalfaggotry is plainly anti-social, from their perspective they produce the most pro-social outcomes. Note also the individualistic reaction the stampede produces is similarly captured: so when we talk about love, power, mercy, and understanding we mean precisely these untrampled noble virtues
>>203515
Normals do have more antisocial tendencies, yes. Just remember school, the nerds, geeks and freaks would be the quieter and intellectual ones, easiest to communicate. The bullies, jocks, and and cheerleaders are there just to create chaos.
Normals do have more antisocial tendencies, yes. Just remember school, the nerds, geeks and freaks would be the quieter and intellectual ones, easiest to communicate. The bullies, jocks, and and cheerleaders are there just to create chaos.
File: 1678401264788.jpg (17.42 KB, 480x428, 120:107, would date the hell out of….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>203578
normalfags dont apepost at me the few times i have to deal with them. you can scroll above and below this thread on all and just see retards mindlessly talking shit for no apparent reason whatsoever. it's like that every day. keep trying to gatekeep over being patently wrong, though.
normalfags dont apepost at me the few times i have to deal with them. you can scroll above and below this thread on all and just see retards mindlessly talking shit for no apparent reason whatsoever. it's like that every day. keep trying to gatekeep over being patently wrong, though.
Interesting read, when you finish the first one keep scrolling down
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-world-look-like-if-all-people-were-psychopath
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-world-look-like-if-all-people-were-psychopath
>>203543
Because you don't know them enough or aren't forced to be around them much.
>>203546
It's not about first or third world, you are basically arguing about "my normalfags are better than yours" no a normalshit is always a normalshit, the traditions differ but in white or 1st world countries people are assholes in different ways. "Common decency" is a myth, the average guy would skin you and eat you if he could get away with it.
>>203551
>>203630
Anyone who says cope to this is just brainwashed by mainstream narrative and parrots the official pov.
>>203579
I'm sorry but that is delusional. Most people weren't ever near anywhere the level of being considered as human if you look at it objectively. It's not the fault of some satanist elite or jews in secret societies. They are the symptom of the sickness, not the cause of it. The cause is simply that normalfags are inferior creatures and lack any noble qualities. If the majority was healthy then there wouldn't be anti-social elites ruling. But as it is, most people are rotten so they are fine being governed by equally rotten animals.
>Also Nietzsche is a fag
So am I.
>>203591
Yes, normalshits can't behave and ruin everything for those of us in the minority who like nice things. We can't have nice things because they are too complicated for the ape alpha males and their concubines. They get frustrated over our intellect, that's why they want to make fun of us always.
>>203552
>normies aren't evil or envious
They always go full sour grapes about me when they realize I've been NEETing for years, even the rich normals. Go figure, even though I'm a poor NEET nobody should logically envy me but guess again. Normals aren't logical at all. They constantly envy each other too and look for ways to fuck each other over. "There is no honor among thieves" perfectly applies to them. They can't form proper human connections, yes I say this as a wizard. All their relations with others are centered around selfish purposes and psychopathic calculating.
Because you don't know them enough or aren't forced to be around them much.
>>203546
It's not about first or third world, you are basically arguing about "my normalfags are better than yours" no a normalshit is always a normalshit, the traditions differ but in white or 1st world countries people are assholes in different ways. "Common decency" is a myth, the average guy would skin you and eat you if he could get away with it.
>>203551
>>203630
Anyone who says cope to this is just brainwashed by mainstream narrative and parrots the official pov.
>>203579
I'm sorry but that is delusional. Most people weren't ever near anywhere the level of being considered as human if you look at it objectively. It's not the fault of some satanist elite or jews in secret societies. They are the symptom of the sickness, not the cause of it. The cause is simply that normalfags are inferior creatures and lack any noble qualities. If the majority was healthy then there wouldn't be anti-social elites ruling. But as it is, most people are rotten so they are fine being governed by equally rotten animals.
>Also Nietzsche is a fag
So am I.
>>203591
Yes, normalshits can't behave and ruin everything for those of us in the minority who like nice things. We can't have nice things because they are too complicated for the ape alpha males and their concubines. They get frustrated over our intellect, that's why they want to make fun of us always.
>>203552
>normies aren't evil or envious
They always go full sour grapes about me when they realize I've been NEETing for years, even the rich normals. Go figure, even though I'm a poor NEET nobody should logically envy me but guess again. Normals aren't logical at all. They constantly envy each other too and look for ways to fuck each other over. "There is no honor among thieves" perfectly applies to them. They can't form proper human connections, yes I say this as a wizard. All their relations with others are centered around selfish purposes and psychopathic calculating.
>>203516
>people mindlessly talk shit to each other over the most trivial things here every day
I agree with this too. I don't know what wizchan is OP browsing.
A good chunk of wizard are "polite, quiet, kind, tolerant" because they are docile men. Docile men can't start shit with other people, they get shut. So this behavior is actually a coping mechanism, these wizards can potentially be as much jerk as normies, they just haven't had the chance to display that behavior (because of being docile/weaker).
>people mindlessly talk shit to each other over the most trivial things here every day
I agree with this too. I don't know what wizchan is OP browsing.
A good chunk of wizard are "polite, quiet, kind, tolerant" because they are docile men. Docile men can't start shit with other people, they get shut. So this behavior is actually a coping mechanism, these wizards can potentially be as much jerk as normies, they just haven't had the chance to display that behavior (because of being docile/weaker).
>>203643
if you arent dangerous, youre not good, youre harmless.
lots of wizards think their ineptiude is moral virtue
if you arent dangerous, youre not good, youre harmless.
lots of wizards think their ineptiude is moral virtue
>>203643
>A good chunk of wizard are "polite, quiet, kind, tolerant" because they are docile men
>these wizards can potentially be as much jerk as normies, they just haven't had the chance to display that behavior
While power can strike down arbitrarily just to do so, more often the normalfag wields their minor power pettily. It's worth remembering normalfags are simply the normal mass of people, so they are only separated by degrees of relative docility
I entirely agree with you about the prevailing ideas of politeness, kindness, and tolerance (honor, generosity, and forbearance prior to inversion), this is why these words need to be carefully examined and why the OP can be misinterpreted
>A good chunk of wizard are "polite, quiet, kind, tolerant" because they are docile men
>these wizards can potentially be as much jerk as normies, they just haven't had the chance to display that behavior
While power can strike down arbitrarily just to do so, more often the normalfag wields their minor power pettily. It's worth remembering normalfags are simply the normal mass of people, so they are only separated by degrees of relative docility
I entirely agree with you about the prevailing ideas of politeness, kindness, and tolerance (honor, generosity, and forbearance prior to inversion), this is why these words need to be carefully examined and why the OP can be misinterpreted
>>203642
>aren't forced to be around them much.
very true
my interaction with normals is that they see me in public, occasional they compliment me. even begging on a highway exit I still find people are kind
>aren't forced to be around them much.
very true
my interaction with normals is that they see me in public, occasional they compliment me. even begging on a highway exit I still find people are kind
>>203648
So what are you doing on a place like this? If you don't have a problem with normal people why not browse social media? Or 4chan or reddit?
>>203643
>>203644
How does being docile in real life mean anything on the internet? If what you imply is true then everyone should be an asshole here because they can get away it but they aren't, they are actually better people than normalfags and more understanding.
Also, not behaving in a certain way doesn't mean you secretly want to do that thing but are incapable of it. Normals torture animals for fun lots of time for example, I'd never do such a thing and I spend a lot of time around animals and I could get away with it. I could also bully people if I wanted to but I don't do that.
Your little normalfag defense force fails spectacularly.
So what are you doing on a place like this? If you don't have a problem with normal people why not browse social media? Or 4chan or reddit?
>>203643
>>203644
How does being docile in real life mean anything on the internet? If what you imply is true then everyone should be an asshole here because they can get away it but they aren't, they are actually better people than normalfags and more understanding.
Also, not behaving in a certain way doesn't mean you secretly want to do that thing but are incapable of it. Normals torture animals for fun lots of time for example, I'd never do such a thing and I spend a lot of time around animals and I could get away with it. I could also bully people if I wanted to but I don't do that.
Your little normalfag defense force fails spectacularly.
>>203643
This is very much true, and I witnessed it with someone I lived with. As soon as he got the confidence to leave his bedroom, he became the biggest asshole I had ever met in my life. Up until that point I just assumed he was a nice polite guy.
This is very much true, and I witnessed it with someone I lived with. As soon as he got the confidence to leave his bedroom, he became the biggest asshole I had ever met in my life. Up until that point I just assumed he was a nice polite guy.
>>203686
If being a jerk or asshole is what normies do, doesn't that mean he just became normal? Is that social or anti-social?
If being a jerk or asshole is what normies do, doesn't that mean he just became normal? Is that social or anti-social?
>>203673
>How does being docile in real life mean anything on the internet?
Nothing. Point is being "polite, kind, tolerant" due to being submissive is not the same as saying you have moral virtue. OP is implying there's moral virtue in these traits, and that "most" wizards have these traits. What lots of wizards have is a coping mechanism, not really virtue. There's virtuous wizards too.
>How does being docile in real life mean anything on the internet?
Nothing. Point is being "polite, kind, tolerant" due to being submissive is not the same as saying you have moral virtue. OP is implying there's moral virtue in these traits, and that "most" wizards have these traits. What lots of wizards have is a coping mechanism, not really virtue. There's virtuous wizards too.
>>203673
If I were stronger I'd still probably stay away from people, simply because I find them disgusting. Most people don't look for someone to kick down to get ahead. They're pretty well sorted by time they reach their teenage years and know who they can kick down and who to suck up to, and whether they care to encourage that rot is up to them.
I know I hate people and wouldn't feel bad if I did kick them down, but unlike those people, I don't see the point of living like that. I would think they have actual problems, but the way we set for ourselves in this shithole country is to kick down to get ahead. That's the only thing that is valued, and this only works because anything worthwhile is deliberately destroyed and no one with big money wants us to have nice things. Allowing nice things to exist only sets a precedent that we would want them and start working towards them, which requires the powers that be to suppress people, as once they have those nice things, they don't need to tolerate the rulers.
I don't consider my stance to be a moral one, but rather a simple value assessment of what is a priority for me. I really wish this kick down to get ahead mentality didn't destroy everything, but that's what they're drilled to do. It doesn't actually do anything except make people miserable. If these fucks faced anything serious, their approach to life leads to them getting knifed to death, and when that does happen, they start squealing like retards about how unfair it all is. The only way it's possible is if bullycowards are protected by a greater force than they were historically. Usually that behavior is too counterproductive, and it's something you would do to a slave race which is what they want us to be now. Why normals want to cooperate with a slave system that they don't benefit from, I will never understand, and not all of them go along with it the whole way. It's rather that the interests that want to enslave us have created enough fear of reprisal if anyone tries to mitigate it. That's what Nazis always do.
If I were stronger I'd still probably stay away from people, simply because I find them disgusting. Most people don't look for someone to kick down to get ahead. They're pretty well sorted by time they reach their teenage years and know who they can kick down and who to suck up to, and whether they care to encourage that rot is up to them.
I know I hate people and wouldn't feel bad if I did kick them down, but unlike those people, I don't see the point of living like that. I would think they have actual problems, but the way we set for ourselves in this shithole country is to kick down to get ahead. That's the only thing that is valued, and this only works because anything worthwhile is deliberately destroyed and no one with big money wants us to have nice things. Allowing nice things to exist only sets a precedent that we would want them and start working towards them, which requires the powers that be to suppress people, as once they have those nice things, they don't need to tolerate the rulers.
I don't consider my stance to be a moral one, but rather a simple value assessment of what is a priority for me. I really wish this kick down to get ahead mentality didn't destroy everything, but that's what they're drilled to do. It doesn't actually do anything except make people miserable. If these fucks faced anything serious, their approach to life leads to them getting knifed to death, and when that does happen, they start squealing like retards about how unfair it all is. The only way it's possible is if bullycowards are protected by a greater force than they were historically. Usually that behavior is too counterproductive, and it's something you would do to a slave race which is what they want us to be now. Why normals want to cooperate with a slave system that they don't benefit from, I will never understand, and not all of them go along with it the whole way. It's rather that the interests that want to enslave us have created enough fear of reprisal if anyone tries to mitigate it. That's what Nazis always do.
>>203515
extremely true tho the envious part and all these racializations are idiotic the normies are just segmented parts of the archons they are here to serve as overseers they have no soul they are extremely evil by nature the only thing that constrains them is their built in cowardice without that you would see the world turn into a hellscape the likes of which no media has ever portrayed properly i was originally gonna write about this but its so unnecessary literally just go outside i abscorn the outside world the sheer evil contained in it is to the heights incomprehensible lets just hope ai can get powered up and end this mess
extremely true tho the envious part and all these racializations are idiotic the normies are just segmented parts of the archons they are here to serve as overseers they have no soul they are extremely evil by nature the only thing that constrains them is their built in cowardice without that you would see the world turn into a hellscape the likes of which no media has ever portrayed properly i was originally gonna write about this but its so unnecessary literally just go outside i abscorn the outside world the sheer evil contained in it is to the heights incomprehensible lets just hope ai can get powered up and end this mess
>>203686
Sounds like failed normalfag. Those are the ones who pretend to be the outcast but as soon as they ""make it"" in normie terms they start to hate on people they previously liked.
>>203699
If they are coping then they are failed norms, no? At least that's my credo. There are wizards here, including me, who have the power to be asshole but refuse to act as one because we simply dislike that behavior pattern. This "you want to do what we do but are too weak to do it" is a normalfag meme and I wouldn't take it seriously. They all believe that everyone wants to be popular and have sex ABOVE everything else. They can't comprehend that people can act based any other motivation except for these.
>>203700
>Why normals want to cooperate with a slave system that they don't benefit from, I will never understand
They do benefit from it. They are granted the right to continue to exist in relative peace and order, while they can also climb up the ladder if they lick ass hard enough. It's either this or anarchy (and anarchy isn't really what most anarchists believe it would be like).
Most people have always been okay with things this way, the rebels have always been a tiny educated minority who roused up the rabble. People aren't good by nature or even neutral, at least normalfags aren't. They are perfectly fine with shitting on people that are lower than them in society and acting nice towards the authority persons.
Sounds like failed normalfag. Those are the ones who pretend to be the outcast but as soon as they ""make it"" in normie terms they start to hate on people they previously liked.
>>203699
If they are coping then they are failed norms, no? At least that's my credo. There are wizards here, including me, who have the power to be asshole but refuse to act as one because we simply dislike that behavior pattern. This "you want to do what we do but are too weak to do it" is a normalfag meme and I wouldn't take it seriously. They all believe that everyone wants to be popular and have sex ABOVE everything else. They can't comprehend that people can act based any other motivation except for these.
>>203700
>Why normals want to cooperate with a slave system that they don't benefit from, I will never understand
They do benefit from it. They are granted the right to continue to exist in relative peace and order, while they can also climb up the ladder if they lick ass hard enough. It's either this or anarchy (and anarchy isn't really what most anarchists believe it would be like).
Most people have always been okay with things this way, the rebels have always been a tiny educated minority who roused up the rabble. People aren't good by nature or even neutral, at least normalfags aren't. They are perfectly fine with shitting on people that are lower than them in society and acting nice towards the authority persons.
>>203829
The educated minority are always those who are most enthusiastic about any regime, until they sense an opportunity to seize the state so their position can be enshrined. The ordinary people by and large don't give a fuck about any of that. Dumbasses like to invent a story about the perpetual rights of the aristocracy - a myth created by that educated minority so that they are secured - but usually history is full of slave revolts and outright refusal of men to reduce themselves to what the aristocracy wants them to be.
I don't speak of the people who go out of their way to supplicate to the regime. Those people do so because it is in their nature and it doesn't occur to them that there is anything else, and such people really are animals and natural slaves. What perplexes me are the people who keep their head down when it is clear that mass noncompliance and refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of this system is the only way it can be resisted. It's not like you can get by and expect peace. The people in charge made it clear they do not believe in social order or peace in any sense we would regard it. I suppose a lot of it is because of the numbers of those who are true, natural supplicants, who are always enamored with any slavery. Modern society selects for those people in ways that prior societies could not. Any society that did what we do today in the past would be overrun by more competent neighbors. Only by marching in lockstep and creating planned crises only can this arrangement be maintained, and it is has not been a terribly sophisticated secret. The problem are the enablers who go out of their way to do this. I used to think there was some incentive, but for most of these people it really is just instinct. They literally can't do anything else, even when I've explained to them how this works and why they're still at the bottom rung. They'd rather die than consider the possibility that there can be anything else. A century of eugenics has ensured that the natural slaves are selected and any rebellious instinct in the masses is ruthlessly suppressed. The educated minority are the prime beneficiaries of eugenics and had a large hand in imposing it in the first place, so this idea that the universities are revolutionary is some sort of joke. The liberal revolutions happen because the monarchs of Europe are so fucking incompetent that they should have been all put to death, after a whole millennium of being worthless shits. The only reason Europe is anything today is because of ordinary people. Aristocracies are always rotten from the start, and in most of the world, aristocracies were hampered because the prevalent political theory was despotism rather than republicanism. Despots see other aristocrats as usurpers and have a bare minimum of interest in keeping peace, while republics turn into gladhanding. In any event, society has only ever advanced off the backs of people who are largely anonymous, rising occasionally because their work was necessary or it was possible and usually being screwed by aristocrats who don't believe in anything productive whatsoever. That is the sad fate of humanity.
It's not like these things are unknown. It can only be explained because the dominant ideas moved from passive or reactive rooting out of threats to an active, aggressive campaign to liquidate anything we would consider good. Even the worst societies knew not to celebrate venality. The Romans at their worst didn't engage in the spectacle we do today, and would have considered it suicide to do so. Most cultures in the world would snuff out the life of anyone who is as aggressively stupid as the leaders of modern white countries.
The educated minority are always those who are most enthusiastic about any regime, until they sense an opportunity to seize the state so their position can be enshrined. The ordinary people by and large don't give a fuck about any of that. Dumbasses like to invent a story about the perpetual rights of the aristocracy - a myth created by that educated minority so that they are secured - but usually history is full of slave revolts and outright refusal of men to reduce themselves to what the aristocracy wants them to be.
I don't speak of the people who go out of their way to supplicate to the regime. Those people do so because it is in their nature and it doesn't occur to them that there is anything else, and such people really are animals and natural slaves. What perplexes me are the people who keep their head down when it is clear that mass noncompliance and refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of this system is the only way it can be resisted. It's not like you can get by and expect peace. The people in charge made it clear they do not believe in social order or peace in any sense we would regard it. I suppose a lot of it is because of the numbers of those who are true, natural supplicants, who are always enamored with any slavery. Modern society selects for those people in ways that prior societies could not. Any society that did what we do today in the past would be overrun by more competent neighbors. Only by marching in lockstep and creating planned crises only can this arrangement be maintained, and it is has not been a terribly sophisticated secret. The problem are the enablers who go out of their way to do this. I used to think there was some incentive, but for most of these people it really is just instinct. They literally can't do anything else, even when I've explained to them how this works and why they're still at the bottom rung. They'd rather die than consider the possibility that there can be anything else. A century of eugenics has ensured that the natural slaves are selected and any rebellious instinct in the masses is ruthlessly suppressed. The educated minority are the prime beneficiaries of eugenics and had a large hand in imposing it in the first place, so this idea that the universities are revolutionary is some sort of joke. The liberal revolutions happen because the monarchs of Europe are so fucking incompetent that they should have been all put to death, after a whole millennium of being worthless shits. The only reason Europe is anything today is because of ordinary people. Aristocracies are always rotten from the start, and in most of the world, aristocracies were hampered because the prevalent political theory was despotism rather than republicanism. Despots see other aristocrats as usurpers and have a bare minimum of interest in keeping peace, while republics turn into gladhanding. In any event, society has only ever advanced off the backs of people who are largely anonymous, rising occasionally because their work was necessary or it was possible and usually being screwed by aristocrats who don't believe in anything productive whatsoever. That is the sad fate of humanity.
It's not like these things are unknown. It can only be explained because the dominant ideas moved from passive or reactive rooting out of threats to an active, aggressive campaign to liquidate anything we would consider good. Even the worst societies knew not to celebrate venality. The Romans at their worst didn't engage in the spectacle we do today, and would have considered it suicide to do so. Most cultures in the world would snuff out the life of anyone who is as aggressively stupid as the leaders of modern white countries.
>>203867
> people who keep their head down when it is clear that mass noncompliance and
> refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of this system is the only way it
> can be resisted
It's a game theory esque coordination problem, if we all defect,
we all win, if only a few defect, defecters die.
> The Romans at their worst didn't engage in the spectacle we do
> today,
Is this because of technology? The only spectacle they had was
the "bread and circuses" or whatever in the pantheon. Otherwise,
Rome was also only rich compared to it's contemparies, now a
days, even the eugenics-applied class would revolt if they got as
little as the average pleb got. Hell, the heads of states would
likely rather be here than there as well.
> people who keep their head down when it is clear that mass noncompliance and
> refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of this system is the only way it
> can be resisted
It's a game theory esque coordination problem, if we all defect,
we all win, if only a few defect, defecters die.
> The Romans at their worst didn't engage in the spectacle we do
> today,
Is this because of technology? The only spectacle they had was
the "bread and circuses" or whatever in the pantheon. Otherwise,
Rome was also only rich compared to it's contemparies, now a
days, even the eugenics-applied class would revolt if they got as
little as the average pleb got. Hell, the heads of states would
likely rather be here than there as well.
I don’t think all autists are necessarily kind as I went to sped school and knew some who were complete assholes, but I do think the studies showing that we have higher average justice sensitivity and moral consistency are something to consider. We may not always be right but we are more likely to actually have strongly held values and ideals that we won’t go back on even if no one is watching. Even the most jaded and depressed wizards usually are only so miserable because the harsh reality of the world is in such stark contrast to what we know without a doubt SHOULD be right in the world: we know people should and can be better and that the world is overflowing with meaningless artificial suffering wrought by senseless, selfish human hands, and no matter how hopeless we get about it, we don’t agree with it. Once again of course I don’t think this can universally be applied to all wizards or autists but it is a more common line of thinking in us.
I’m also constantly struck in my interactions with normies how completely strange they are, genuinely nonsensical and basically thoughtless outside of selfish, base interests. They’re often obsessed with superficial pursuits revolving around a collectively imagined social hierarchy, and this hierarchy dominates their life and causes them to act in an extremely petty and evil way. When they act out at each other it’s often to do with this perceived status, and they antagonize or avoid those who appear “other” because they believe positive interactions with the Other will lower their place in the social order by proximity.
I’m also constantly struck in my interactions with normies how completely strange they are, genuinely nonsensical and basically thoughtless outside of selfish, base interests. They’re often obsessed with superficial pursuits revolving around a collectively imagined social hierarchy, and this hierarchy dominates their life and causes them to act in an extremely petty and evil way. When they act out at each other it’s often to do with this perceived status, and they antagonize or avoid those who appear “other” because they believe positive interactions with the Other will lower their place in the social order by proximity.
You just have to remember we're fucking animals. Just really fancy monkeys. Being a nice guy is a bad thing because it shows you are at the bottom of the social pecking order. It is instinctively viewed by others as an act of weakness that you do to protect yourself and submit socially. Everyone is expected to be selfish as the norm and when you act outside the norm it has to be for good reason. If they don't see that good reason, they just figure you're a chump and they know they can take advantage of you. I really do think Wizards are simply more evolved and civilized.
>>203868
>>203909
Back in the 1990s, it was still fashionable to show decency to others if you were strong. It showed that you were capable of dealing with inferiors with the minimum of strife. The younger generation was given the new training - that of of a pure screaming death cult reveling in sacrifice. That's where they got the idea to create Survivor and trashy "reality TV". Funny thing is that on the first season of Survivor, the contestants largely saw the show as a joke and would heckle Probst during the voting ceremony. It took a while to induce people to get the "correct" message from the show, because the "correct" message is irrational and guarantees a certain sort of person is selected to win long in advance simply by the impression of esteem. If you took the setup of the show as it is, then the only winning play is to regard it as a farce and be as boring as possible. Too many boring and worthless people would win so the hosts just rigged the whole thing from top to bottom to enforce the "correct" storylines.
If you engaged in the ideal offered to the American consumer, you would destroy your country within a generation. That is exactly what was decided at the end of the 1990s, and a generation later, America is effectively destroyed. Not just "about to be destroyed" - it's literally destroyed and being depopulated, and we're told that depopulation isn't real when it has been at its worst. Soon the rest of the world will follow suit, once eugenics has sucked enough life out of its host.
>>203909
Back in the 1990s, it was still fashionable to show decency to others if you were strong. It showed that you were capable of dealing with inferiors with the minimum of strife. The younger generation was given the new training - that of of a pure screaming death cult reveling in sacrifice. That's where they got the idea to create Survivor and trashy "reality TV". Funny thing is that on the first season of Survivor, the contestants largely saw the show as a joke and would heckle Probst during the voting ceremony. It took a while to induce people to get the "correct" message from the show, because the "correct" message is irrational and guarantees a certain sort of person is selected to win long in advance simply by the impression of esteem. If you took the setup of the show as it is, then the only winning play is to regard it as a farce and be as boring as possible. Too many boring and worthless people would win so the hosts just rigged the whole thing from top to bottom to enforce the "correct" storylines.
If you engaged in the ideal offered to the American consumer, you would destroy your country within a generation. That is exactly what was decided at the end of the 1990s, and a generation later, America is effectively destroyed. Not just "about to be destroyed" - it's literally destroyed and being depopulated, and we're told that depopulation isn't real when it has been at its worst. Soon the rest of the world will follow suit, once eugenics has sucked enough life out of its host.
>>203867
The biggest revolutionaries in history have been part of the elite. Look at Bakunin, Marx or Lenin for example, they all received higher education and were part of the intellectual elite.
It's a myth that the little guy or ordinary citizen/worker can rebel. No, on his own he can't do anything. There is a reason these people ended up as wageslaves and that's because they are more likely to obey in order to get benefits than to rebel and live free and experience the discomforts that come with being free.
I always disagreed with the idea of having a revolution led by the urban working class or poor peasants. The people can't organize on their own without a strong authority. If you are looking for potential rebels then you are better off searching in psychiatric wards, prisons, the street among homeless people or intellectual circles. The working class even before it got bourgeoisie-fied was unreliable.
Short story, the lumpenproletariat and outsider intellectuals are the only source of a potentially successful revolution. People are rotten, lazy and selfish generally and would rather just cooperate with the powers that rule than to show any sign of resistance.
>>203909
>Being a nice guy is a bad thing because it shows you are at the bottom of the social pecking order.
I think they exactly want us to think like this. Being bad = strong, being decent = weak. This is a false view. If you accept this axiom then you are already thinking in the direction they want you to think and you are playing their game. Being a good person in my opinion isn't something hard to do or anything that takes great effort. You don't have to be a martyr or super hero. And that's the most infuriating thing. It's not hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, pacifism but people would still rather be assholes.
>>203869
>When they act out at each other it’s often to do with this perceived status, and they antagonize or avoid those who appear “other” because they believe positive interactions with the Other will lower their place in the social order by proximity.
Especially true for females.
The biggest revolutionaries in history have been part of the elite. Look at Bakunin, Marx or Lenin for example, they all received higher education and were part of the intellectual elite.
It's a myth that the little guy or ordinary citizen/worker can rebel. No, on his own he can't do anything. There is a reason these people ended up as wageslaves and that's because they are more likely to obey in order to get benefits than to rebel and live free and experience the discomforts that come with being free.
I always disagreed with the idea of having a revolution led by the urban working class or poor peasants. The people can't organize on their own without a strong authority. If you are looking for potential rebels then you are better off searching in psychiatric wards, prisons, the street among homeless people or intellectual circles. The working class even before it got bourgeoisie-fied was unreliable.
Short story, the lumpenproletariat and outsider intellectuals are the only source of a potentially successful revolution. People are rotten, lazy and selfish generally and would rather just cooperate with the powers that rule than to show any sign of resistance.
>>203909
>Being a nice guy is a bad thing because it shows you are at the bottom of the social pecking order.
I think they exactly want us to think like this. Being bad = strong, being decent = weak. This is a false view. If you accept this axiom then you are already thinking in the direction they want you to think and you are playing their game. Being a good person in my opinion isn't something hard to do or anything that takes great effort. You don't have to be a martyr or super hero. And that's the most infuriating thing. It's not hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, pacifism but people would still rather be assholes.
>>203869
>When they act out at each other it’s often to do with this perceived status, and they antagonize or avoid those who appear “other” because they believe positive interactions with the Other will lower their place in the social order by proximity.
Especially true for females.
>>203969
>I think they exactly want us to think like this. Being bad = strong, being decent = weak. This is a false view.
Your problem is you're trying to attach logic to what is inherently an illogical and instinctive process. I kind of framed it like that too, but it's more of an instinct for normies than any sort of conscious thought about how the nice are weak. Most would probably reject if you put it in those terms and yet they would continue to take advantage of and disrespect niceness. The thing is that whether it is perceived positively or negatively has to do with how the person perceives the social status of the person who is being nice to them. If they perceive the person as low status because they are ugly and weird and alone, then the person feels the instinct to ridicule and reject them and take advantage of them. This is probably because doing so has been beneficial to reproductive and survival outcomes. If you can take advantage of those who are vulnerable you can gain advantage so we have developed an instinct to do it. If a person of high status with good social skills is nice it can increase his status among his peers because people see him as a coalition builder who knows how to network and get people to cooperate. If you are a loner, you have nothing to leverage through the act of being nice, it accrues no benefit to you or others who associate with you.
>I think they exactly want us to think like this. Being bad = strong, being decent = weak. This is a false view.
Your problem is you're trying to attach logic to what is inherently an illogical and instinctive process. I kind of framed it like that too, but it's more of an instinct for normies than any sort of conscious thought about how the nice are weak. Most would probably reject if you put it in those terms and yet they would continue to take advantage of and disrespect niceness. The thing is that whether it is perceived positively or negatively has to do with how the person perceives the social status of the person who is being nice to them. If they perceive the person as low status because they are ugly and weird and alone, then the person feels the instinct to ridicule and reject them and take advantage of them. This is probably because doing so has been beneficial to reproductive and survival outcomes. If you can take advantage of those who are vulnerable you can gain advantage so we have developed an instinct to do it. If a person of high status with good social skills is nice it can increase his status among his peers because people see him as a coalition builder who knows how to network and get people to cooperate. If you are a loner, you have nothing to leverage through the act of being nice, it accrues no benefit to you or others who associate with you.
>>203969
>they all received higher education and were part of the intellectual elite.
Stalin was basically your average lumpenproletariat petty criminal for a good portion of his early career. Ceausescu came from a peasant family. Hitler was likewise from a working class family. Hitler in his mid twenties would almost certainly be posting on here if he was alive today, his life at that point was basically no different to wizards and his work experience pretty much lines up with the complaints in the wageslave thread.
>they all received higher education and were part of the intellectual elite.
Stalin was basically your average lumpenproletariat petty criminal for a good portion of his early career. Ceausescu came from a peasant family. Hitler was likewise from a working class family. Hitler in his mid twenties would almost certainly be posting on here if he was alive today, his life at that point was basically no different to wizards and his work experience pretty much lines up with the complaints in the wageslave thread.
>>203969
Revolution and the program it entails is inherently bourgeois and the project of a middle class. Rebellion, which the lower classes engage in out of dire necessity, is what they seek to eliminate. I've said before what the rulers fear is not a revolution from below or the middle class, but a Caesar from their own ranks becoming too powerful and starting something new. None of this concerns the lower classes, whose program has been very simple - get rid of these assholes terrorizing them, and ask questions later about how to keep such a world. That has never happened once beyond a very local level, and the game has been to eliminate that local level.
If you want to speak of "authority" you have to acknowledge that authority is not merely a matter of some temporal manna where you declare you are "bigga". Any complex society relies on spiritual authority, and this authority was destroyed systematically throughout the modern period, where before it was taken for granted that serfs would remain serfs. The genuine meaning of religion would be replaced with ideology and an empty narrative, because most of the people were to be dragged into the world of a thought leader or pedagogue and stripped from their native sense altogether. It's an insidious process and one that has yet to complete, and it's only now in the 21st century that ordinary people can see what this really was.
It was known in the late 19th century that the rising intellectual and technological institutions were the source of a lot of the problem, and so one of the movements that was aborted was a rejection of the coup that was underway at the highest levels of government. That coup was successful, dragged Europe into the world wars, and proceeded to destroy all hitherto known society and replace it with this new thing, with eugenics at its core. Those who enabled eugenics and the wars are fucking assholes. Really though, if the Germans stopped their horseshit before this started and refused to enter a second round, the world is a very different place. Snuff out Hitler's faggots and put them down like dogs and we are spared a lot of unnecessary misery. Unfortunately, the movement for eugenics was a global one, infecting all countries and pushing nations to fight each other for the greater cause. It would have been impossible to root them all out.
>>203987
Stalin really is something that disproves much of what a middle class intellectual conceives society to be - a rough gangster who was known to be intelligent, attended seminary and showed a talent for backroom politics. There's an attempt to paint Stalin as a brute who didn't have the True Wisdom, mostly from Trotsky who was very much that kind of person, but Stalin wasn't an idiot and could keep his subordinates in line whether they were intellectuals or the really low gangsters in his cell. He came from a much different time, where the segregation of humanity into grades of civic worth was not yet a foregone conclusion. The post-war society was designed to root out anyone with such potential, so that careers would be streamlined and you had to pay tribute to the institutions to be anything.
Really, so much of what came out of 1945 wasn't handed down from on high by the gods, though it is portrayed like that. The guys running the American brain trust were really just some guys, often guys that weren't anything special until they were promoted for showing a small modicum of talent. The American aristocracy has always been grubby and nasty at the heart, despite the airs they put on about their brilliance.
I do think a lot of this comes from a habit of essentializing class and actually believing in the eugenic myth that certain people are destined for certain roles in society that are dictated by a few men, rather than what people are actually good at. It wouldn't seem unusual for literally whos to become prominent men, as long as they could be sold as the thing and had a bare minimum of political talent. Today, you don't need the political talent, and anyone with independent political talent is kicked out of politics or moves behind the curtain. The last American politician I saw that was really talented at being a public-facing politician was Bill Clinton, and he made a point of purging the Democrats of anyone who would challenge him and his dynasty. Obama represented a shift away from the president as imagined and created the media-savvy president who says all the trigger words on the TV and explicitly says he's going to move the government behind the curtain. It's a different talent set, designed for a country where the democratic forms are not just meaningless but something to be destroyed at all costs. Reagan was a similar sort of person for the right wing.
Revolution and the program it entails is inherently bourgeois and the project of a middle class. Rebellion, which the lower classes engage in out of dire necessity, is what they seek to eliminate. I've said before what the rulers fear is not a revolution from below or the middle class, but a Caesar from their own ranks becoming too powerful and starting something new. None of this concerns the lower classes, whose program has been very simple - get rid of these assholes terrorizing them, and ask questions later about how to keep such a world. That has never happened once beyond a very local level, and the game has been to eliminate that local level.
If you want to speak of "authority" you have to acknowledge that authority is not merely a matter of some temporal manna where you declare you are "bigga". Any complex society relies on spiritual authority, and this authority was destroyed systematically throughout the modern period, where before it was taken for granted that serfs would remain serfs. The genuine meaning of religion would be replaced with ideology and an empty narrative, because most of the people were to be dragged into the world of a thought leader or pedagogue and stripped from their native sense altogether. It's an insidious process and one that has yet to complete, and it's only now in the 21st century that ordinary people can see what this really was.
It was known in the late 19th century that the rising intellectual and technological institutions were the source of a lot of the problem, and so one of the movements that was aborted was a rejection of the coup that was underway at the highest levels of government. That coup was successful, dragged Europe into the world wars, and proceeded to destroy all hitherto known society and replace it with this new thing, with eugenics at its core. Those who enabled eugenics and the wars are fucking assholes. Really though, if the Germans stopped their horseshit before this started and refused to enter a second round, the world is a very different place. Snuff out Hitler's faggots and put them down like dogs and we are spared a lot of unnecessary misery. Unfortunately, the movement for eugenics was a global one, infecting all countries and pushing nations to fight each other for the greater cause. It would have been impossible to root them all out.
>>203987
Stalin really is something that disproves much of what a middle class intellectual conceives society to be - a rough gangster who was known to be intelligent, attended seminary and showed a talent for backroom politics. There's an attempt to paint Stalin as a brute who didn't have the True Wisdom, mostly from Trotsky who was very much that kind of person, but Stalin wasn't an idiot and could keep his subordinates in line whether they were intellectuals or the really low gangsters in his cell. He came from a much different time, where the segregation of humanity into grades of civic worth was not yet a foregone conclusion. The post-war society was designed to root out anyone with such potential, so that careers would be streamlined and you had to pay tribute to the institutions to be anything.
Really, so much of what came out of 1945 wasn't handed down from on high by the gods, though it is portrayed like that. The guys running the American brain trust were really just some guys, often guys that weren't anything special until they were promoted for showing a small modicum of talent. The American aristocracy has always been grubby and nasty at the heart, despite the airs they put on about their brilliance.
I do think a lot of this comes from a habit of essentializing class and actually believing in the eugenic myth that certain people are destined for certain roles in society that are dictated by a few men, rather than what people are actually good at. It wouldn't seem unusual for literally whos to become prominent men, as long as they could be sold as the thing and had a bare minimum of political talent. Today, you don't need the political talent, and anyone with independent political talent is kicked out of politics or moves behind the curtain. The last American politician I saw that was really talented at being a public-facing politician was Bill Clinton, and he made a point of purging the Democrats of anyone who would challenge him and his dynasty. Obama represented a shift away from the president as imagined and created the media-savvy president who says all the trigger words on the TV and explicitly says he's going to move the government behind the curtain. It's a different talent set, designed for a country where the democratic forms are not just meaningless but something to be destroyed at all costs. Reagan was a similar sort of person for the right wing.
>>203985
Kicking down to get ahead is the behavior of a country in decline. They usually get the other sped kids or the bottom rungs of initiates to blood themselves by attacking the honest and decent, and this is not random. It's arranged. I saw the teachers and authorities giving the signal to go after me when I was a kid, and this would be the majority of people starting shit with me. People who decided to go after me on their own initiative either had to be sanctioned to shit on others generally or figured out that if I ever caught them alone, I'd find a way to get revenge and make it not worth their while. I shouldn't have to be so unpleasant just to have a modicum of peace but that's how it is.
With the shit on the street, it was tied to drugs and because I'm not a druggie, I have to put up with shit. That was harder to stop, but eventually 2008 happens and most of those people are getting destroyed. I saw one get kicked out and I almost thought to kick him while he was down, just for some divine justice, but I was bored that night and decided to just laugh as I drank my sorrows away. I'm not going to weep when people who start that shit get got.
Kicking down to get ahead is the behavior of a country in decline. They usually get the other sped kids or the bottom rungs of initiates to blood themselves by attacking the honest and decent, and this is not random. It's arranged. I saw the teachers and authorities giving the signal to go after me when I was a kid, and this would be the majority of people starting shit with me. People who decided to go after me on their own initiative either had to be sanctioned to shit on others generally or figured out that if I ever caught them alone, I'd find a way to get revenge and make it not worth their while. I shouldn't have to be so unpleasant just to have a modicum of peace but that's how it is.
With the shit on the street, it was tied to drugs and because I'm not a druggie, I have to put up with shit. That was harder to stop, but eventually 2008 happens and most of those people are getting destroyed. I saw one get kicked out and I almost thought to kick him while he was down, just for some divine justice, but I was bored that night and decided to just laugh as I drank my sorrows away. I'm not going to weep when people who start that shit get got.
>>203969
>It's not hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, pacifism but people would still rather be assholes.
I don't get people who say this. It is hard to be nice. You have to suppress a murderous instinct whenever someone wrongs you. You have to retain the instinct to call people a fucking moron and realize that some people have heard something for the first time. You have to be diplomatic with people even when they're trying everything they can to not listen to your side because not being diplomatic right back just escalates things. Especially on the Internet, it's super easy and very tempting to go 100% dick mode. It IS hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, etc.; and it's EASY to be an asshole.
If it was easy, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have on this Earth. I don't know why I keep hearing people say, "It's so easy to be nice."
On a different note, not to you >>203969 , but just in general, I've noticed that a lot of people who say "I'm not into drama" are 99% into drama, and likewise people who say "It's easy to be nice" are 99% some of the biggest jerks I've ever met.
>It's not hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, pacifism but people would still rather be assholes.
I don't get people who say this. It is hard to be nice. You have to suppress a murderous instinct whenever someone wrongs you. You have to retain the instinct to call people a fucking moron and realize that some people have heard something for the first time. You have to be diplomatic with people even when they're trying everything they can to not listen to your side because not being diplomatic right back just escalates things. Especially on the Internet, it's super easy and very tempting to go 100% dick mode. It IS hard to practice mercy, forgiveness, etc.; and it's EASY to be an asshole.
If it was easy, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have on this Earth. I don't know why I keep hearing people say, "It's so easy to be nice."
On a different note, not to you >>203969 , but just in general, I've noticed that a lot of people who say "I'm not into drama" are 99% into drama, and likewise people who say "It's easy to be nice" are 99% some of the biggest jerks I've ever met.
>>204011
I thought of how to shorten/simplify my post:
It is hard to be nice: have you ever worked in customer service or retail?
I thought of how to shorten/simplify my post:
It is hard to be nice: have you ever worked in customer service or retail?
File: 1678975924379.png (459.23 KB, 1067x942, 1067:942, 1673991658664357.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>204011
>>204012
It's an interesting question how much the retail setting contributes to that. It may be crucial that the relationship is both unequal and the parties have different aims, as adversarial settings between equals often have high levels of decorum (martial arts, sporting events), or where both parties have the same aim (ballroom dancing), which isn't the case in retail. The point of disparity actually rests between the customer and whoever runs the franchise, but retail workers aren't paid enough to account for that disparity hence why it's a burden to be polite in that setting
>>204012
It's an interesting question how much the retail setting contributes to that. It may be crucial that the relationship is both unequal and the parties have different aims, as adversarial settings between equals often have high levels of decorum (martial arts, sporting events), or where both parties have the same aim (ballroom dancing), which isn't the case in retail. The point of disparity actually rests between the customer and whoever runs the franchise, but retail workers aren't paid enough to account for that disparity hence why it's a burden to be polite in that setting
>>203985
I'm not sure I can go with the "it's just instincts" explanation. In the case of humans from my experience rather than instinct it's the upbringing and environment that determines one's character. Normalfags weren't taught anything proper by their parents or teachers imo. Of course we could trace this chain back to infinity but you get my point.
As someone who grew up under the influence of a conservative catholic father some things that were natural for other kids seemed impossible to me and haven't even passed through my mind before I got to be among said normalfag kids. I never swore, never talked dirty, I learned to masturbate based on what others said in my class and thanks to the internet, etc. Maybe it's pretentious of me to say but I feel like I'd been better off without education. Being around other kids who were never taught to behave properly corrupted me too eventually on some level.
>>203987
>>204009
Stalin rode to glory on the back of Lenin, though.
>>204011
It's like this. Being an asshole = takes up extra energy. Being a nice guy = you preserve your energy. It's a matter of priorities, though. If you have the goal of being a good person set before you then it will be easy for you because you will think like the stoics, goods deeds themselves are their own rewards and you won't expect anything from life or others.
Live and let others live their own life, unless they are causing harm to you or others, then you are justified to defend yourself or others (self-defense or defending others can NEVER be an excuse for over-the-top aggression, cruelty or bullying others, many normos like to mention self-defense when they are acting like an asshole for no reason at all).
Other people aren't your enemies, if you strive for virtue and goodness then you will realize you opponent is yourself and your weaknesses. It only seems hard to you or others to live this way because society sets other values for us. Everything you watch, read or listen to is about being a selfish, cruel person who only cares about himself.
The best pacifier for aggressive thoughts is that "I could be in his/her place too". I mean whenever you meet unpleasant people. I caused others harm too, I can be annoying too, I can be cruel too so it's best to just forgive others when they are behaving this way too. Again, it's a matter of principles and what you want. You can choose whether you engage in the shitshow or stay clean of it.
I'm not sure I can go with the "it's just instincts" explanation. In the case of humans from my experience rather than instinct it's the upbringing and environment that determines one's character. Normalfags weren't taught anything proper by their parents or teachers imo. Of course we could trace this chain back to infinity but you get my point.
As someone who grew up under the influence of a conservative catholic father some things that were natural for other kids seemed impossible to me and haven't even passed through my mind before I got to be among said normalfag kids. I never swore, never talked dirty, I learned to masturbate based on what others said in my class and thanks to the internet, etc. Maybe it's pretentious of me to say but I feel like I'd been better off without education. Being around other kids who were never taught to behave properly corrupted me too eventually on some level.
>>203987
>>204009
Stalin rode to glory on the back of Lenin, though.
>>204011
It's like this. Being an asshole = takes up extra energy. Being a nice guy = you preserve your energy. It's a matter of priorities, though. If you have the goal of being a good person set before you then it will be easy for you because you will think like the stoics, goods deeds themselves are their own rewards and you won't expect anything from life or others.
Live and let others live their own life, unless they are causing harm to you or others, then you are justified to defend yourself or others (self-defense or defending others can NEVER be an excuse for over-the-top aggression, cruelty or bullying others, many normos like to mention self-defense when they are acting like an asshole for no reason at all).
Other people aren't your enemies, if you strive for virtue and goodness then you will realize you opponent is yourself and your weaknesses. It only seems hard to you or others to live this way because society sets other values for us. Everything you watch, read or listen to is about being a selfish, cruel person who only cares about himself.
The best pacifier for aggressive thoughts is that "I could be in his/her place too". I mean whenever you meet unpleasant people. I caused others harm too, I can be annoying too, I can be cruel too so it's best to just forgive others when they are behaving this way too. Again, it's a matter of principles and what you want. You can choose whether you engage in the shitshow or stay clean of it.
I have thought about this before, yes. The average person acts very frequently in antisocial ways - that is, in ways that are hostile and unkind to others, and generally for no good reason. Only issue with the post is "we". Who is we? I get the implication of the kind of person you're implying, but you won't reach your target audience in a place like this. Well, you'll reach some of it, but many more who don't apply. I suppose that's inevitable anyway.
>>204012
Yes and the problem was always the coworkers. Shoppers want to buy their shit and go home, or they get off on making others suffer. College towns make a point of humiliating the less than HS peons to let them know where the slaves stand. Those people find whatever way they can to humiliate someone - it's not about the job, because they go after me when I'm at home and want to walk outside to the corner store.
If your gripe in life is that customers want to buy things from your store, you don't have any real problems in your life and should stop being a pissant. Outside of people who were there purely to kick down for non-business purposes, the only problems I had were from coworkers, and the workplace is designed to be a eugenics program run by HR rather than actually do something productive. If we actually produced something worthwhile in this country, it would entail not allowing managers to do what they do. Managers being insane Reaganites would be dragged out and shot. They can only get away with it under conditions of severe depopulation, which is what neoliberalism and Nazism are. It's why the Krauts were utterly destroyed by the Soviet Union and dragged out the rot, because that's all Nazism and shit like it can do - shit up any country it infests, and then blame others for everything. If you had to actually produce under competitive conditions, you'd probably come to the conclusion that allowing managers this sort of insane death cult is intolerable. In an environment dominated by eugenics and depopulation though, the rot is incentivized, and those who do not comply with it are targets. That's always how Nazis roll.
It's not to say that capitalism was some sort of paradise - there is plenty of death and war and starvation. What changed in the 20th century is that those earlier conditions were no longer possible, but certain assholes decided they needed to keep up the death cult, so they invented eugenics to make people suffer. If people didn't suffer, they wouldn't see any reason on this Earth to surrender their bodies and whatever wealth they clawed from the rulers to this new slavery, and it would end with the current rulers all hanged at the least.
Anyway, you can never take human decency for granted or expect it out of people, but there is decency. If the world really conformed to what eugenics wanted it to be, it would be a far worse place, but such a thing would be an abomination and something would give.
Yes and the problem was always the coworkers. Shoppers want to buy their shit and go home, or they get off on making others suffer. College towns make a point of humiliating the less than HS peons to let them know where the slaves stand. Those people find whatever way they can to humiliate someone - it's not about the job, because they go after me when I'm at home and want to walk outside to the corner store.
If your gripe in life is that customers want to buy things from your store, you don't have any real problems in your life and should stop being a pissant. Outside of people who were there purely to kick down for non-business purposes, the only problems I had were from coworkers, and the workplace is designed to be a eugenics program run by HR rather than actually do something productive. If we actually produced something worthwhile in this country, it would entail not allowing managers to do what they do. Managers being insane Reaganites would be dragged out and shot. They can only get away with it under conditions of severe depopulation, which is what neoliberalism and Nazism are. It's why the Krauts were utterly destroyed by the Soviet Union and dragged out the rot, because that's all Nazism and shit like it can do - shit up any country it infests, and then blame others for everything. If you had to actually produce under competitive conditions, you'd probably come to the conclusion that allowing managers this sort of insane death cult is intolerable. In an environment dominated by eugenics and depopulation though, the rot is incentivized, and those who do not comply with it are targets. That's always how Nazis roll.
It's not to say that capitalism was some sort of paradise - there is plenty of death and war and starvation. What changed in the 20th century is that those earlier conditions were no longer possible, but certain assholes decided they needed to keep up the death cult, so they invented eugenics to make people suffer. If people didn't suffer, they wouldn't see any reason on this Earth to surrender their bodies and whatever wealth they clawed from the rulers to this new slavery, and it would end with the current rulers all hanged at the least.
Anyway, you can never take human decency for granted or expect it out of people, but there is decency. If the world really conformed to what eugenics wanted it to be, it would be a far worse place, but such a thing would be an abomination and something would give.
>>204039
The stoic "above the fray" pep talk is bullshit. There have been times when i felt just like you described but you will start to break at some point if constantly met with unwarranted hostility, lack of respect and derision. Try to do that zen shit in the real world everyday, not in your room or some comfy job
The stoic "above the fray" pep talk is bullshit. There have been times when i felt just like you described but you will start to break at some point if constantly met with unwarranted hostility, lack of respect and derision. Try to do that zen shit in the real world everyday, not in your room or some comfy job
>>204122
I did it all the time when I had to be around normals who often bullied me or at least tried to and it helped a lot. What's the use in getting worked up over negative shit all the time and over assholes being assholes? As I said, for me getting angry or plotting on revenge seems like a waste of energy, time and a cope ultimately but not the healthy kind of cope.
>>204100
That's exactly because most people are weak and their pov is twisted. From the weak person's pov mercy is insanity and weakness. Why? Because the weak are always concerned with self-preservation, they can't contemplate anything else. This is why people who grow up in poor neighborhoods often turn out to be psychopaths while those who come from well-off families are more chill.
"Kindness as a weakness" is a statement that is made by someone who learned that he mustn't show kindness because otherwise he will be hurt in some way. But strong people can get away with practicing mercy and doing good deeds because they are above others and they can't be hurt. This was Nietzsche's interpretation too on this subject.
I did it all the time when I had to be around normals who often bullied me or at least tried to and it helped a lot. What's the use in getting worked up over negative shit all the time and over assholes being assholes? As I said, for me getting angry or plotting on revenge seems like a waste of energy, time and a cope ultimately but not the healthy kind of cope.
>>204100
That's exactly because most people are weak and their pov is twisted. From the weak person's pov mercy is insanity and weakness. Why? Because the weak are always concerned with self-preservation, they can't contemplate anything else. This is why people who grow up in poor neighborhoods often turn out to be psychopaths while those who come from well-off families are more chill.
"Kindness as a weakness" is a statement that is made by someone who learned that he mustn't show kindness because otherwise he will be hurt in some way. But strong people can get away with practicing mercy and doing good deeds because they are above others and they can't be hurt. This was Nietzsche's interpretation too on this subject.
I'm not big into crab identity or 'culture' despite being a NEET and in this demo in many ways but I recently listened to the 'crab' podcast with Gio Panachetti. I only found out about it because Gio, an alt right adjacent guy, posted about it on twitter. I recommend it.
I'm not familiar with the fairly gay and annoying Foucault worldview, but he rendered the crab within that framework that was pretty persuasive and interesting. Actually I had a half dozen other ideas but I've lost my mojo sorry folks. It's weird listening to a podcast with advertisements from Progressive Insurance and Wendy's that also bandies about slogans like 'blackpilled' and purports to be some kind of investigation of this phenomenon. Like who the fuck is this bitch. (The host is a female)
I may listen to more out of curiosity but it's weird as fuck the direction this stuff has gone in in the past 10 or 15 years. It's way, way too 'mainstream' and there appears to be a cottage industry of mainstream journo/academic wannabe types who insert themselves as some kind of 'understander' who can bring, the way journos were doing with frog twitter, gamergate, and the online alt-right around 2014-2017. I can sniff out these carpetbaggers and got a strong whiff. Too lazy to get links sorry
I'm not familiar with the fairly gay and annoying Foucault worldview, but he rendered the crab within that framework that was pretty persuasive and interesting. Actually I had a half dozen other ideas but I've lost my mojo sorry folks. It's weird listening to a podcast with advertisements from Progressive Insurance and Wendy's that also bandies about slogans like 'blackpilled' and purports to be some kind of investigation of this phenomenon. Like who the fuck is this bitch. (The host is a female)
I may listen to more out of curiosity but it's weird as fuck the direction this stuff has gone in in the past 10 or 15 years. It's way, way too 'mainstream' and there appears to be a cottage industry of mainstream journo/academic wannabe types who insert themselves as some kind of 'understander' who can bring, the way journos were doing with frog twitter, gamergate, and the online alt-right around 2014-2017. I can sniff out these carpetbaggers and got a strong whiff. Too lazy to get links sorry