This thread will be in tribute to primal masculine nature, the beast.
As an introduction, I think it should be made, patently, clear that civilization [ I.e., the conventional, modern notion of it ] is a relatively young phenomena; for thousands and thousands of years prior, tooth and claw was the name of the game. If anything, civilization is a cosmic pretense, a farce upon a world of natural brutality. Man, at his very core, is a monster - a beast of prey; civility is nothing more than an inhibition upon this primordial, ferocious energy. People will, most likely, come on here and plaster this thread with malarkey about the " Noble-Savage", but anyone who has looked at nature objectively, or anyone with common sense, for that matter, will perceive the inherent cowardice and inanity of that position.
1.
The Natural World
“The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error.” - Might is Right
The greatest wisdom, in my opinion, originates in nature; we emanate from it, we live in it, we are it. If you want to, profoundly, know yourself, just go into the wilderness and observe. Conventional “wisdom” will have you believe that nature is a sort of heavenly paradise, an idyllic wonderland. But this couldn’t be further from truth. Yes - nature, certainly, is aesthetic in many regards, but that is a rather minuscule veil upon a dimension of raw brutality, the proverbial agon. The Judeo-Christian framework paints nature out to be, originally, a pure and benevolent paradise, until man’s inquisitiveness corrupted it. Charles Darwin came along and crushed that phantasmagorical notion to shards, instead bringing forth a more realistic and lurid description of nature: exploitation, appropriation, gore, war, brutality, deception, cunning, survival of the fittest.
This subject is an affinity of mine; I’ve written about it in the past. But I plan on making this thread a more formal and up to the hilt conglomeration of my prior ramblings.
Is this meant as a sort of ex cathedra string of your posts, or is discussion invited here? This is a discussion board, so i will assume the latter for the moment.
I would like to question the following assumption you seem to be making in your post : that from darwin it follows that man is brute, warlike etc…
Darwin wrote a book about how he thought species evolved. He was looking for more general princples of how this could have happened. It was not meant to be a description of nature in general, and doesn’t necessarily say a lot about the nature of man.
Survival of the fittest is a principle that applies to the evolution of species, not to the psychology or nature of those species per se. So although the principe applies to how cows evolved, that doesn’t make cows bloodthristy ferocious animals… in fact some people claim to have seen cows eating grass!
Since Darwin doesn’t imply what you seem to think it does, i think you need to present other evidence for this beastly nature of man.
Yes, it is meant as an ex-cathedra, but I will respond to legit. questions/points sometimes.
Darwin was a sort of catalyst to amoralism. He never, really, advocated for it, say, the way Ragnar Redbeard did, but his works, surely, effected the collective psyche in shattering the old abstemious ways of the Puritanic. He was a precursor to Ragnar Redbeard, the man who, really, deified the fight for existence and the beastly nature of man.
2.
The Most Prideful Animal of All
The very anatomy of man conveys his boldness; defying the lessor, more slavish stance of walking on all fours, he stands on his two feet, erect - defiant.
Is not the entire history of mankind infused with war, bloodshed, domination, servitude, brutality and so on? Let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room here; man is a carnivorous beast, not an angelic Christ. Religions, morals, ethics, codes of honor, laws, etc are meant to tame the monster that is man. Even all those contrivances do very little, from a larger perspective, in subduing the beast. The natural man is brutal and warlike; he takes what he wants by hook or crook. He doesn’t bow down to codes of honor; he makes codes of honor bow down to him. Honor is his tool, not him the tool of honor.
Traditional notions of the relationship between man and woman are too romantic, too quixotic. Both genders use each other, exploit each other for their own carnal and evolutionary reasons. We can throw sprinkles on the muck all we want, but reality doesn’t yield to idyllic, wishful thinkings. Woman is the natural property of a man; he supports her and protects her, just like his own children. She submits to his power and authority, seeing that she is inferior. This power relationship is a microcosm of cosmic order, i.e., gravity - gravitation. The weaker force becomes subsumed within the stronger. Women, in general, find this whole process extremely erotic. Is it no wonder that we hear so much about females having rape fantasies, being prone to the stockholm syndrome, being attracted to serial killers, and so on? This is a reflection of the female psyche in general. Females crave, better yet, females DEMAND that a strong and dominant male take them by force, whether that be directly with brute force or the inherent charismatic force of his persona. The relationship between man and woman is, really, a master and slave relationship.
A personal account: My girlfriend read the notorious 50 Shades of Grey book. Ever since then, she has been begging me to be a sort of BDSM master to her. I’ve heard of that subculture before, but never really thought too much of it, until my girlfriend expressed her thoughts on it. We experimented with a few things, like chocking, leashing, disparagement, whipping, and so on. At first, I was reluctant to do this; I didn’t want to do serious damage to her, but after getting in the groove, I started to like it - it felt natural even, like it was suppose to be this way. It got me thinking on evolutionary psychology, how it makes sense that females have a latent masochistic element to their psychologies, a coping mechanism meant to deal with the primeval ways of rape, pillage, and plunder. Feministic psychologies are ardently against this natural relationship between man and woman. They even try to invert the nature of the relationship, as I’ve noticed often. But, as I’ve said before, feminism is an anti-nature ideology. It’s kind of pathetic, because not only do they ruin man’s natural right to dominate, but they also spoil the female’s pleasure of submitting to man.
3.
Satanic Invocations
Now, this will be the first time I, really, share this with others; I usually keep this aspect of myself occult. But since, most likely, I will never encounter any of you in my daily life, I feel a certain security in letting the cat out of the bag. That faggot Satyr might claim that this is some existential " need " to expose myself, but most of us here at ILP know he is an overcompensating effete little fuck. But I digress. Ever since I was 11 years old, I’ve been fascinated with the devil and serial killers. My friends in school used to call me " El Diablo", due to my morbid fascination with gore and Satanism. When I was 14 years old, I had a branding ( Yes, a branding ) of a Satanic pentagram pressed on my deltoid. It remains visible to this day. After that, I started to go out into the wilderness to toy around with demonic talismans and invocations. I might go into detail, another time, about my experiences with that, but to amalgamate this with the subject of the thread, I still to this day perform invocations in order to accentuate the beastly aspect of my self. I don’t believe in a literal Satan, but I do believe in the psychological power associated with that name/figure. Death metal music also is a great form of accentuation in this regard; it is destructive masculine energy incarnate par excellence.
Have you considered the possibility that with your fascination for blood, gore, violence and the devil, you are not as a-moral as you maybe would like to think?
In Nietzschian lingo, evil is an invention of the weak. It is how they came to view the strong… or maybe better how they painted the strong. This picture is supposedly not exactly an accurate respresention of the strong, but rather a demonization (or a moralising if you will) in order to turn the tabels on them.
By glorifyng that picture, instead of condemning it, maybe you are still viewing things in an essentially moral (distorted) context,… and not beyond good and evil.
Glorifying the image of the pentagram? Well, yes, most people would call Satanism " evil " obviously. But I don’t subscribe to that superstitious duality of good and evil. I am Nietzschean in that sense; above good and evil. Instead of using the word evil, I use the word " natural "; Nature is Satan’s church, Nature is Anti-Christ.
4.
The Hunt
Acquiring a fine maiden is akin to hunting an animal. Some like to call it " Sexual predation “.
There is an ancient greek myth about a sovereign huntress named Artemis. In the context of the myth, there are two types of hunters that go after her. One is called the " Noble-hunter” and the other is called the " Stomach predator “. The noble hunter would roughly translate into a modern day beta-male, or " nice guy”. The" Stomach predator " would translate into an aggressive Alpha-male. Now according to the myth, the sovereign huntress hunts the stomach-predator for, well, looking at her with his stomach. But the thing about myths is that, often times, they are not in accord with reality. In reality, the stomach predator often gets his way with the sovereign huntress, as she ineptly slips and shoots herself in the foot with her own arrow. In her crippled and defenseless state, the stomach-predator devours her.
I understand you to say ‘Yang’ energy has been the dominant energy force since the beginning of time. Perhaps the ‘dawn’ of ‘Yin’ energy as the dominant energy force is just around the corner.
You’re not understanding what he’s saying. Satan is not natural, Satan is fictional. In other words, the strong man is not satanistic, he’s demonized (i.e. misinterpreted so as to make the person misinterpreting feel good about themselves) as satanistic. You’re basically submitting to the Christian image of the strong man, and for this reason, you aren’t really beyond good and evil – you are merely evil (but not even that lol.)
Basically, you have to learn to make a difference between a strong man (i.e. man living beyond good and evil), an ideal man as conceived by Christians (i.e. “good” man) and a strong man as (mis)interpreted by Christians (i.e. evil man.) Your ideal is not the strong man, nor the “good” man, but the strong man as (mis)interpreted by Christians.
There is too much emphasis on destruction in your ideal.
Seems elementary to conclude that ‘Yang’ energy as the dominant energy force was necessary to bring us … the human species … to where we are today. Should ‘yang’ energy continue to be the dominant energy force the trajectory seems equally obvious.
Although I am not a Satanist, I worship nothing except perhaps nature, would a Satanist necessarily be any more evil or immoral than say what a christian is capable of - or anyone else for that matter. Worshipping Satan or Lucifer, who are really one and the same, I think, doesn’t necessarily mean that someone will be evil/destructive - ad continuum. Many of them I feel, including the so-called witches, are simply after controlling their environment, finding another way to live. Perhaps belief in their old god does not work for them anymore so they go elsewhere. Perhaps its the community of others which they crave.
“True” evil - the pathological kind, is not so natural…it’s more above the [super]natural. A tsunami, an earthquake, destructive natural forces can be said to be “natural” evils but that’s just a perception. They are not evil just natural. True evil is fully conscious of its need and desire to be destructive, to inflict pain, it thrives on it and feels ecstacy over it.
That is certainly something to be pondered. You left one thing out, the noble hunter comes along, sees what is happening, the noble hunter unable to bear such an unfair fight, joins with Artemis and together he and Artemis manage to subdue and kill the stomach predator. They get married and his head now hangs on the wall in their great hall.
Tributes to the beast in my life are adventures where I get in trouble and meet my true self and notice how strong and hard I am because I have to survive. I like that. Normally I sometimes think I am maybe soft, a bit. But concerning necessities I am hard and quick and intelligent and all of the men who love life are much more hard and quick, and often they have better mental capacities when they are threatened by nature. The welfarestate is nice and all but it kills the adrenaline.
Good foots to raise adrenaline and testosterone levels are? I know testosterone beef, broccoli. No soy sauce because it makes estrogen.
Let e read uip on adrenaline see if its a goodable cocktail
I think you are misconstruing my position; I don’t believe in a literal Satan and I don’t view philosophical satanism as demonized, ironically. The Christian views Satan as abhorrent, whereas I view Satan ( The concept ) as noble. It’s, really, just word play ; my philosophy is, essentially, Ragnar Redbeardian " Might is Right " with a dash of Nietzscheanism here and there. But honestly, with all due respect to Nietzsche, I think he was pusillanimous juxtaposed with Redbeard. Even in regards to their writings style, Redbeard hails more lightning and thunder.
Magnus wrote:
No, as prior mentioned, I don’t see the " strong man " akin to the way the Christlings do. The nuances are confusing you, which is somewhat understandable.
Arcturus wrote:
Ha! Good alternative scenario.
Hmm that’s interesting. What are your thoughts on the frenzied euphoria the tiger feels when mauling another organism to pieces? Would you consider that evil? Now compound that with, say, the euphoria a serial killer feels when slashing and killing a victim.
The sort of satanism that I subscribe to is nature based.
That word " evil " is loaded with a whole slew of varying connotations. I prefer to just disregard it. As I said before, I like the word " natural " instead, hell, even the word " brutal " is more apt. Satanists are, basically, amoral - so, yes, It would make sense that they would be more capable of committing acts conventionally deemed " evil ".
What did Ragnar Redbeard say? The Wiki says he’s an amoralist and a “psychological hedonist”. Both are massive red flags.
Morality is not determined by physical might, it is determined by intellect (i.e. it’s not an arbitrary selection imposed by physical force.) After all, morality is just a set of behaviors people stick to in order to preserve themselves.
Nietzsche, for example, wasn’t amoral, he was simply opposed to Christian (im)morality. Redbeard, on the other hand, appears to think that “anything goes”. He appears to think that obedience is a bad thing and disobedience a good thing – but only a slave would say such a thing.
Masters aren’t characterized by their physical might (gorillas are characterized by their physical might, but just look what happened to them), they are characterized by their ability to organize. They are COORDINATORS. Furthermore, they are not destroyers, they are builders. Destruction for them is merely a means to self-preservation and construction – nothing else.
So tell me, why would such a man associate himself with destruction? Or “evil”? Or “beasts”? Or “animals”? Why would he associate himself with weakness?
Makes no sense. There must be something very wrong at the bottom of such philosophy. You can say “it’s just a wordplay”. I won’t believe you. The choice of words is not random, there are always some reasons behind it.
You should read that book " Might is Right ". It’s only like 180 pages, but chock full of thunderous truths. If you like Nietzsche, then you will, most likely, love Redbeard. Yes, I saw that wiki description before, too, and it’s erroneous in spots, e.g., the " psychological hedonism " part. Here is a link to a PDF of the book:
Since you haven’t read the book yet, this false dichotomy is understandable. Might isn’t merely in regards to the physical; it includes the mental, spiritual, etc. The intellect is an even greater force than the physical.
Correct - Nietzsche wasn’t amoral, but rather immoral, that is, immoral to Judeo-Christian values. Yes, Redbeard thinks that anything goes, that it’s " right " to acquire power by whatever means. I’m not sure if I would say that he thinks that obedience is bad and disobedience is good in such a black and white polarity, but he, surely, does, in general, glorify disobedience as the mark of the virile man. And that makes sense, since it’s more of a feminine disposition to submit to authority.
This is a tad myopic, in my opinion. It seems like you are sticking only to the intellectual aspect of might. As I said before, might encompasses all forces, physical and non-physical. A man who has mastered his body, e.g., body-builder or martial artist, conveys an ordering aspect to his becoming; bodily hypertrophy brought about by activities, such as weight-lifting, requires a certain intensity and endurance characteristic of the strong, or master. Physical power is an ordering of anatomical energies.
Well, the destruction aspect of this thread has more to do with iconoclasm, as opposed to, say, blowing up buildings and all that jazz. Creativity is def. included in here. Animality isn’t an inherent weakness. Here is a quote for you to chew on:
“The highest specimens of the human race are not those
of lamb-like dispositions, but those in whom the soul of
the lion predominates-in whom angry passions rage. They
are not men who conform easily to rules, regulations, laws.
The ideal man is ever a man of a rebellious and ungovernable
nature; he whom no law can reign over and no master terrify. The word obedience is not in his vocabulary. He looks with scorn upon the petty rules ond petty idols of the petty millions-but knowing that he is in a dangerous minority he thinks and acts and says nothing-not even to his freind. In him is the spirit of the lion. He prowls. He masters others and is not mastered.”
I never said that. What I’m saying is that you (and Redbeard) appear to be placing way too much emphasis on physical might.
Obedience and disobedience are neutral: their value depends on the context.
So when a person glorifies disobedience it’s a massive red flag to me, because only slaves glorify disobedience (since they are enslaved, you see, which means that their obedience is destructive, that their instinct of self-preservation is not strong enough to resist disobeying themselves.)
For everyone else, obedience is a virtue and disobedience a vice.
I am not. I am simply saying (or rather, implying) that the intellectual aspect of might is the most important aspect since its job is to organize all other aspects.
Well, I’m a weight-lifter and boxer, so yeah, I def. place emphasis on physical power. But that’s not all. I’m all for augmenting the mind, too, I just haven’t, really, got around to explicating that aspect yet.
Yes - I agree that their value depends upon the context. But the thing about being a master or slave is that the positions aren’t static; a slave can become a master and master can become a slave. It’s often the case that people are born into slave-like conditions and disobedience is required in order to attain some sort of mastership.
This is something worth elaborating on. Compassion, kindness, altruism, etc are not inherent weaknesses. Though the beast of prey is fierce, he isn’t, entirely, merciless; his compassion is given sparingly to those that merit it, not to the entire world unconditionally, like some meta-physical harlot. Christians love everyone equally, heathens don’t.
In this thread, you may find the I often, seemingly, shun such qualities. But it’s not because I find them to be inherent weakness, as I said, but because they are often harlotized by the masses. Too much kindness makes one into a gimpish slave - too much brutality turns one into a chaotic monster. I believe that one should be brutal to his true enemies and compassionate to his true friends. The beast has a close circle of friends, but lives in a large and hostile world, so it only makes sense that he will be more hard than soft.
Actually, as a visionary once related an actual story of his involvement with the monster, the monster appeared to him, in a rage of excrutiating weakness, and at first he was so terrified by this image that he sought out the nearest well in the neighborhood, well
it was actually someone’s pool, and wanted to drown himself. Next, that failing, cause you simply cannot drown yourself, he walked into a non descript house
and asked for a butcher knife , so he could go out in
that way. That didn’t pass too good either, so finally he just ran away ran and ran in the middle of the night, cause he instinctively felt that the couple who
were watching late night tv were alarmed by the
intrusion, and would call the heat on him.
He fell into a thorny bush to the accompanied chorus
of bullfrogs, who started to talk to him. Suddenly he
was hit by , an idea, like a bolt of lightning it hit, and it suddenly occured to him the beast was trying to say something to him. It never said a thing really, it
just as in a siren song gave him subliminal burning
bush type messages.
Well, the beast whipered in his ear, and he could not see it, but quckly felt a sudden desire to look BEHIND
him, and lo and behold, devilish looking hell puppies were tugging at his pants. He was mortified, and as soon as he tried to make a motion to pet them they
disappeared.
Then the sudden realization came to him of what
needed to be done. He recited the rosary 10 times ,
while genuflecting, and raising his eyes unto the starry night, the outlines of the mushroom clouds falling on the eternities of the cities of the red night
disappeared.
“Save mankind,” he churned out these pitying verbal
exultations, his forlorn eyes tearfully beseeching the
everlasting, help the little puppie angels and especially THE ONE/ who has been cast, as of by LOT, into the abysmal.
At that his soul again reigned with the triumph
redemptive power, his will now surging heaven ward,
through the mist of the early rising dawn.
When i first saw this power, the amazing power of
the forsight of recognition, Eric, i could not be but
amazed at the semblence evil with it’s cousin and nemesis.
Then IT said in a very lowly and mysterious voice,
“how now, brown cow”, Whereupon the master said to him (allen)- “It’s all about the milk”
You left one thing out, the noble hunter comes along, sees what is happening, the noble hunter unable to bear such an unfair fight, joins with Artemis and together he and Artemis manage to subdue and kill the stomach predator. They get married and his head now hangs on the wall in their great hall.