Is Hate the deepest principle of all things?

What the group is saying is that no authority can govern collective investigation. Not that genuine insight has been achieved. Rather, the investigation of the group is draw to it as its only standard.

It’s trivially cogent that nothing like “‘sound arguments’ or ‘assertions coupled with justification and evidence’,” can ever be a standard, since the question of what they are could never be answered, or, of who is to say when they are there. That could only remain a rule. Or, at best, something judged by the standard of the better minds, using them as the rule.

Academic? I suppose I could have used more urban slang or something, but that’s everyday speech, not even approaching grammatical.

Most authorities think their assertions genuine insights. Some genuine insights do not persuade. Some mere assertions do persuade. Assertions of rosy, loving mammys and stepins, are based on little experience or knowledge of what is shown to those who can kill you on a whim. Put that hate outside of love, if you want, but it hasn’t worked. The only ones who listen are those who should not.

In my experience, hate is most compatible with disdain. But hate is more addictive, like cocaine, the user depends on it, would not give it up for anything, alows it to drive him. By choice! Though if choice where tested, hate and cocaine would both win. But that’s the trick of them, they give a feeling of power that commands choice, happily given, forcefully taken.

They may be the happiest human beings around. Not in the usual sense of happy, but the addict sense of happy. A giddy sort of freedom.

Disdain is different. It is neither a choice nor offers it. It is less understood, because everybody hates, but a select few feel disdain. This is my experience, anyway.

Disdain allows the hateful to act, because it is disdainful of its victims. Of the hater too, but it is like hating is disdain for the lower classes.

The main difference is that hate is born of love, also a lower class affection in my experience. Of expecting others to return feelings and acts of goodwill. Meanwhile disdain is born out of pride, out of expecting others to show bravery in all and any sphere. The hate master will inicially seem brave, thus offputting disdain. But it is soon revealed that hate promotes more daring than bravery, obviously, as long as the action is vengeful, never for daring’s sake, so it is also a more limited daring.

But in a deeper way, a less conscious one, hate allows disdain. Because disdain enjoys the weak being put in their place, though itself would never sully itself so.

Better love and bravery if they can be found. Not together, as bravery is loftier, but in a similar way as the above they are retrofeeding.

Needless to say, the hater is uncounsciously the one that feels most love, and the disdainful the one most capable of bravery.

Thanks for all the fish. That is what disdain thinks of hate.

The revenge of disdain is nurture. The revenge of hate is forcefeeding.

Nurture is opposite of bravery, force feeding of love.

In both cases it is revenge in that it reshapes the world, one who is not vengeful does not do this, it is a violation of people’s preferences. Also in that in both cases it brings no satisfaction, the hallmark of revenge.

The reason destruction is the aim of neither is of course that there is no such thing as evil, no central point to destroy. Destruction occurs as a side effect. The vengful always run into the truth that they themselves are the closest thing to evil.

The group regards the view that slaves hated their masters as false and it has something to do with academically produced ideology which comes into the daily discussion of everyone. The group has given, above, several reasons not to believe that. The group wastes the group’s time by ignoring what was written, and writing without responding to it.

The group means by hate, in the most clear case, the rejoicing in cruelty one feels in causing pain with no need for a concern with self defense. In a certain sense, human being hate stones on this view. Hate is a kind of fullness of disrespect, but one which is great in that it feeds the one who hates and gives them their life. For instance, in the release of stress the alpha animal has, in openly and freely abusing the weak.

The lion is the king of the beasts, the human is the one who hates existence to the hilt.

The group appreciates this word of the group, which is in keeping with what the group had in mind.

Perhaps this word of the group is so, the group says: is disdain equivalent to a kind of self reserve? In self reserve, one has not the enjoyment of the relief of stress. But, if anything, a greater stress.

The group says, in this sense disdain seems much like the sense of invulnerability. Ergo, it is far from the absurd academic (liberal-democratic ideological ersatz) notion that hate is bound to its own fear of the hated thing.

For instance, the “watermelon grin” which is the demeaning of the hated black man, to such a level that he loves his masters, and grins when granted their favor, the favor of the ones he loves. Since here one sees the profundity of the vile situation which the sanctimonious idiot academic ideology utterly occludes. This is very visible if one sees that the feelings of segregation era South, of resentment and some hate, for the white southerner, is already outside the slavery situation proper, already marks a break in it and the cusp of transformation on the objective surface of social life.

The group says, in this sense, a second disdain, that of bravery and hate, points away from hate’s disdain to self struggle and painful truthfulness of the inner vision.

The group says, it would be fatal for the one who has hate in the core of their being, to encounter love in their field of vision, or as part of their frame of mind. Then they would slump over, give way, lose all intensity of their attempt, cease to laugh when the other falls, become dissipated and begin to love as the salve of all.

The group likes this distinction of cruelty.

The disdainful are disdainful of cruelty. Cruelty is only undertaken by those who expected goodwill in return for goodwill and got some more ancient abuse than cruelty instead.

Disdain does not seek release because it has nothing to be released from. There is no stress, stress being a consequence of hard work. Self reservation may be a tool of the disdainful to encourage engagement. The disdainful are too disdainful to think that any could make use of what is reserved, it is only reserved to cause temptation into bravery in those that may or may not have the stuff for it.

A disdainful man will usually have stated quite clearly all his positions which uninteligability served to create his disdain.

In the same way that love would undo a hateful man, bravery would instantly undo a disdainful one.

The group can accept the first sentence, since the disdainful may even disdain to rejoice in cruelty. But, the group can not stay with the second statement. This is out of keeping with its conception of cruelty, and also of hate. Cruelty is sheer delight in ruthless use of the other, it has no connection to a crestfallen disillusionment or anything of the sort. The lion is surely not a disillusioned beast, but it smiles within the center of its heart, laughing deeply at the kill which it toys with. The kill had never been contemplated under any other concept, but the exaltation and enjoyment of the cruel one.

The group finds this much too Marxist and academic. It is sheer fancy motivated by ideology, an attempt to manipulate or coerce a political opponent. It has no basis outside the university department and the apostles therein claimed and sent out into the world to fight for it. And then, of course, those it trickles down on in the popular discussion derivative on those sources. This is very bad of the group to suffer such cheap tendentious confections to enter its fold.

Bravery more often accompanies disdain, and fosters it. Think of Socrates, the most disdainful of them all. He who set aside all the goals of the others, their αγροίκος σοφίᾱ, bumpkin science, in full self-independence. Seeking to know himself.

To set aside even the joy of the lion, sheer cruelty, has something unbearably high in it. It almost seems divine. However, it turns towards what is more difficult by far.

There’s no crestfallenness about it. It is more like a waking up, a new and improved understanding of the world.

Lions are not cruel. It is not the anguish of the victim that they relish, but their own ability to prevent their escape, the joy in their own hunting instinct. The victim has no feelings in their mind, only escape plans. Cruelty relishes pain, only something recognized can be relished.

Regarding disdain, it is daisdainful because it has never been forced or even challenged to exert its strength.

Socrates was not disdainful. Proof of this is that he cared what people thought. Disdain is Diogenes. No exertion was required to prove Xeno foolish.

But Socrates was a cynic, and knew of the cynic tradition of disdain, and imitated it to impress and convince his interlocutors. That was the farce.

Bravery is where strength challenges its limits to appear. So when strength is at full exertion.

A lion, for instance, would be incapable of sistematic, calm, unemotional torture where the enemy is fully bound. But this is the high point of cruelty. Cold disection of the feeling of pain in his enemy.

Some might think that an undound victim is better for that victim feels also the pain of feeling he can escape.

But the truth is that being fully bound before the intention of inflicting the most possible pain is far more horrifying and sublime.

Lol, but a Leo would think the unbound is better. For the reasons I stated above. There is no vengefulness in lions.