Might and Power

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

This thread will consist of my thoughts and aphorisms regarding the philosophy of might and power.

So, as of recently, I have regressed ( in a positive sense ) to my initial mentality, when I first registered on these online forums: Might is right - the survival of the strongest. My Apollonian energies of intellectualism had gotten out of hand, but now the primal Dionysian energies are returning.

I’ve come to the realization that too much intellectualism leads to an atrophy of manhood. This isn’t always the case, but many times, it is; the ‘nerd’ is the embodiment of this: pure intellect and purely emasculated ( emaciated, sexually retarded, cowardly, socially awkward, etc ). The thing is that manhood is grounded in nature, in the Earth. Masculinity is primal; the act of philosophizing is a detachment from the Earth, floating above in the sky and silently observing with no connection.

To be a man is to be full of passion, full of raging energies; engaging the intellect requires one to disconnect and objectively reflect, to put aside those primal warrior energies.

( to be continued )

2

Work, Erik, work!

3

No, to be a man means to be in control of yourself, manhood is Apollonian.

Nerds have no self-control. They are neurotic.

4

The thing with the nerds is that they lack that fluid, Dionysian sexual energy. I wouldn’t say they don’t have self-control; many of them are very calculating and organized. They are robots; their movements and thoughts are dry and mechanical.

Elvis Presley: Dionysian sexual energy incarnate. Those nerds need some of that fluidity to balance out the Apollonian energy.

5

Indeed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Wl2r_VlhA[/youtube]

6

When I say self-control I mean biological self-control, not mechanical self-control. There is a difference between the two. Modern Apollo is mechanical, not biological.

7

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EBfxjSFAxQ[/youtube]

8

Elaborate on what you mean by ‘biological self-control’.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj0Rz-uP4Mk[/youtube]

9

Shortly.

Biological self-control: unrestricted interaction of drives.
Mechanical self-control: restricted interaction of drives.

The first is total, the second is selective.

Nihilists either have no goals or their goals are selective/inorganic. Selective goals are goals which do not embrace all of the drives but only a selection of them. Having no goals itself is a presence of multiple selective goals, each goal representing a minority of drives. This creates a fragmented, Frankenstein-like jack-of-all-trades identity, if one can call it identity at all. A presence of a single, dominant selective goal is what creates a specialist identity.

10

Genuine fluidity is a consequence of unrestricted interaction of drives. This leads to a unity of drives, and as a result of that, to a homogeneity of actions, where each action is tightly related to every other action. This is what gives people style and identity.

But fluidity can also be achieved through mental sheltering, by pushing away inhibiting drives. This is diarrheic fluidity, or what we call hedonism. A hedonist has no “recurring theme” in his behavior.

11

A non selective goal seeking drive, embracing biological not mechanical control, can not prioritize them according to value, because selection entails the arranging of goals according to value. So although it’s feasible not to use restraint to control

drives biologically, perhaps the mechanization of control grew out of this biological need to do so.

The limits drawn between various sexual objectives

for instance, has so far drawn between homosexuality as a norm and necrophilia. A
biological control in such a case may not be able to
desire acknowledge the difference.

It may not be even capable le to such control. A self
killing, during a masturbatory process, commonly known as auto erotic asphyxiation, is a frequent cause of death among adolescent boys. An Appolonian approach and control is much more able to think through the possible consequences of such acts.

12

Meaness and Masculinity

You’ve heard it said before that women are not attracted to nice guys, that they are attracted to jerks, well, it’s true, very true, and there is a good reason for it. You see, what exactly takes place, when a guy is mean to someone? To be mean is to assert your will, your force, upon someone else, at the peril of their own feelings. An example: a man is mean, when he cuts someone off from speaking to him, because he is not interested in what that person has to say. This act of aggression temporarily boosts testosterone —yes, meaness and testosterone are related. To be mean is to be masculine, do not be mistaken. To be mean requires one to be dominant.

Now, on the flip side, to be nice is to be unmanly. Kindness IS a form of weakness; when one is kind, they leave themselves vulnerable to exploitation, which is why one should be only kind to near and dear ones. It’s a healthy weakness, for lack of better words, when done amongst one’s kin; but among strangers, it is softness. When one is kind, they placate to the other, surrender their own will to that of another.

Many women will quickly lose attraction for you and dump you, if you are too nice; they instinctively know that kindness is weakness, that it’s associated with beta-males.

There is more to being a man than simply being mean, but do not give ear to those who seek to deceive you about meaness being weakness and kindess being strength.

Men are rude.

13

If we keep living on… you’re going to be kicking yourself for writing this, if we don’t, it doesn’t matter either way.

14

But there is a kind of kindness that is offered because the person giving it has an abundance of strength, will and power, and can therefore afford to be kind without this being in any way a measure of their constitution.

Kindness, the kind chosen to give by those who are satisfied, content and confident in themselves, is not a weakness.

Rather ironically, it would be an insult if anything; I am powerful enough to decide on a whim to do what the weaklings do because they must, and cannot do otherwise; be kind.

These people are peaceful only because they cannot be warlike… not because they choose to be so. If you chose, then you would be an abundance of power… because that would mean that you are capable of evil, but have the legislative power over yourself, your values, your drives, your appetites, to demonstrate control.

The kind one from weakness has no such opportunity, no such option, and is therefore less free. Freedom is an indication of power… not freedom in the metaphysical freewill sense… freedom in the state of being less restricted.

In turn, to be less restricted means that one is holding a center of power that is expanding and incorporating circumstances in the world and environment into it, rather than being neutralized…changed, affected and controlled itself, by competitive external forces and powers.

Genuine kindness is afforded by those who’s power could be horrible and over-dominating, not by those who are kind because they cannot be otherwise.

But there are very many degrees of this and probably an ‘infinite number’ (oxymoron intended) of interaction contexts between people in which this is operating.

For instance, John borrows money from Joe because Joe said fuck it, I’ll do it. But Joe isn’t doing it with strings attached. He is not doing favors because he thinks he should do favors for his own sake… make John happy so his happiness will be in Joe’s favor. That would indicate a dependence in some way to John. It would mean it was in Joe’s best interest to help someone else… rather than not having to help anyone else (the measure of freedom and independence… that being ‘less restricted’) and continuing to be sustained.

A kind gesture from someone who wants you to be happy because they need you to be happy is not as valuable as the kind gesture from someone who couldn’t care less.

You can like that irony. Go ahead, it’s okay.

p.s. I think I said the same thing like three times in this post. I just smoked some of that loud, so forgive me.

15

It was probably the male’s paternal care for the young that was the first form of kindness that was recognized by the female. In most other civil relationships there was cooperation, of course, but this is not the kind of kindness females recognize in the male and are attracted to. What you mean is that lack of assertiveness in social discourse. Kindness as the weakness of someone who cannot control the circumstances in their interactions with people. Perhaps women can intuit this as a case of what I mentioned above; he is kind because he cannot be otherwise. He is not powerful enough to dominate and control if he wanted. He is restricted, less free, less powerful. He depends on cooperating with people.

Wait, did I even say I think females are attracted to a kind of kindness yet?

[ smoke another one, Zoot ]

But you see what I mean. Shirley women recognize a form of kindness in men and are attracted to it because of its usefulness in bearing the load of child rearing.

16

This is not very manly though is it.

17

Having half baked ideas loosely based on Nietzsche’s PhD thesis is a bit gay.

18

You mean la gaya gay or homo gay?

If the latter, explain how one’s sexual preferences has anything to do with how they might interpret Nietzsche.

19

I came to the same realization at several points in my life. My philosophy is an expression of it. It came in a time where I had been forced by a relationship to be more of a kind and considerate person, a state which came close to killing me. I mean that literally, I won’t go into details about it but my energy was being drained and in the increasing danger I felt I was pushed intellectually to the notion of being as ultimately incompatible with the notion equal interests, which may be translated as ‘universal kindness’. Self-valuing was the result. Many people are only kind when they think they need to suck up to you, if they sense power, if they sense you are something they are not. Obviously this is true - and the only masculine thing to do is to assert this. It’s not in deliberately being mean, but rather in being indifferent, having the eye on something more important - the fire of immediacy, the ever present readiness to act and assert, this state of concrete power is the joy called man. Intellect does not have to stand in the way of it, but the world of human intellect as a totality certainly will, if it is regarded with deference.

It’s about choices, and at what level you make them. Do you think in universals or in particulars, do you think in morals or in values?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EYvQMDLZZk[/youtube]

20

See how the feminized male is affronted by brazen masculinity?

He instantly brings into play slave morality, accusing the aggressive male of being the one who is unmanly and homosexual, whilst he, who represents the establishment’s ideal male, feminized and compliant, a law follower and committed member of the herd, a cuck male, is the new alpha. Here we see plainly how Judeo-Christian ideals perpetuate themselves through a smokescreen of enlightened liberalism and Marxist logic.

Nature turned on its head.