Not only do I have to fight people like HaHaHa, who are without a doubt degenerate and worthy of nothing but a death sentence, but also people like you, who are apparently morally superior to Jokers of the world, but who nonetheless remain under their influence by insisting that they should be preserved.
What I call A MAGNIFICENT EXPRESSION OF FURY you call RAMBLINGS THAT ARE INSANE for no other reason than because I suggested HANGING as a punishment for criminals.
I do really want to believe that there is something more to it than simply the fact that I think that criminals should be punished harshly, because otherwise it is YOU and NOT ME who is insane.
Do you identify with criminals? Do you think that there is a bit of a criminal within yourself that you are not willing to give up on? Is this the reason you are so defensive about criminality in general?
WHY WOULD A NOBLE WANT TO PRESERVE THOSE WHO ARE IGNOBLE?
I am not a Spartan. I do not discriminate based on strength. I have nothing against the weak. I make no fun of the weak. I do not want to exterminate the weak.
I am not a member of an intellectual elite. I do not discriminate based on intelligence. I have nothing against the unintelligent. I make no fun of unintelligent people. I do not want to exterminate the unintelligent.
I am not a vain individual. I do not discriminate based on physical appearance. I have nothing against the unattractive. I make no fun of the unattractive. I do not want to exterminate the unattractive.
I am not a racist. I do not discriminate based on ethnicity. I have nothing against people of different ethnicities. I make no fun of people of different ethnicities. I do not want to exterminate people of different ethnicities.
I am not a mysogynist, nor a misandrist, so I do not discriminate based on gender either.
I am not a communist either, so I do not discriminate based on whether someone is a prole or not.
BUT I DO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON NOBILITY, AND I AM AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNOBLE, AND I DO MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNOBLE, AND I DO WANT TO EXTERMINATE PEOPLE WHO ARE IGNOBLE.
What is your problem with this?
I have no option but to conclude that you are simply BRAINWASHED and MADE TO FEEL ASHAMED OF SENSITIVITY, which is a trend nowadays, so I can understand, but I cannot accept, just as I cannot accept your claim that rape is not a bad thing UNLESS IT LEADS TO PTSD, for it implies that violence is less of a problem than suffering, which gives you a rank of hedonist, and hence pits you against me as an enemy to fight, not to mention the fact that you suggest that it is okay for a horse to rape another horse.
Here’s a question for you; What is more noble, being patient with people and sharing your wisdom and knowledge so that they can see a better path or become more noble… Or condemning everyone for their past mistakes, and degrading and debasing people who are less than you are?
If you met me in person and hung out with me, you’d actually be quite shocked, given what you said about me … It’s not really a class issue though, which if I may digress, shows you have less class than me, but it’s what you like when you get to know it…
It is much more noble to help than to destroy, that is true. However, to be ignoble means to cause damage to others . . . it does not simply mean being in need of help. For this reason, you must PROTECT the victims BEFORE you can attempt to HELP the perpetrator. Hence the need to push away, and if necessary, to destroy.
The problem is that, by refusing to offer resistance to their immoral behavior and instead opting to treat them the way a moral person should be treated, you are actively REWARDING and thus REINFORCING their immorality. You may think you are helping, but in reality, you are assisting him, and so, you are doing the opposite of help. You are saying “fuck you” to all those who are respectful (including yourself, since you’re a respectful individual.) You are doing NOTHING to protect them from such individuals.
Help should be offered only to those who want help. This person does not want help.
Respect should be reserved only for those who show respect. This person does not show respect, hence, he should be treated not with respect, but with disrespect. If he threatens to rape women, we should threaten to rape him.
We can offer him a peace treaty, but only under the condition that he renounces his immorality (at least in his actions, he may still discuss it in theory) and all of his past barbarisms. Only after accepting such a set of conditions should we proceed to attempt to help him i.e. to discuss with him the way one would discuss with someone respectful.
It is understandable if people find it difficult to offer resistance, but there is no justification for renouncing resistance. We could solve all of the problems in the world if only each one of us decided to offer resistance instead of coming up with cowardly rationalizations as to why we should not try to offer it at all.
Magnus has probably found a female he likes, and each time rape is mentioned he thinks of a female he likes being raped, so he responds like he does. Also, he wants to fit in with the society, and rape is one of the most morally reprehensible things to do in a society that is ruled by females and effete males, and even the threat of rape is evil, so Magnus must exhibit the same disgust that others do with regards to the subject of rape.
HaHaHa probably has no close female friends/family, and so he has nobody to empathize with if law and order crumble and women are threatened with rape. In fact, he can only benefit from it given his natural interpretation, as it would open up a new possible avenue for him to obtain access to reproduction and sexual gratification.
Everybody’s position on… everything is closely tied to their own particular circumstances, ranging from those they can somewhat affect, to those which are natural predispositions that can’t be altered.
A woman values her freedom of choice to use her sexuality as a tool to extract resources and attention from males she deems worthy, and to punish those who she deems unworthy with lack of access. Her vagina becomes both a carrot and a stick in this scenario, where she will allow you to pound away at it if you do her bidding, and if you do not, you will be denied. She will find rape abhorrent because it takes away the only power she has - sexual. So if she hears somebody is raped, she will instantly empathize with a woman.
A man who is incompetent and can’t find a woman the casual way will tend to grow to hate and despise women for rejecting him and/or ignoring him, and for using the standards women use to judge partners. That hate and indifference towards the well-being of women, combined with the pent up sexual energy, will lead to that male raping somebody. A male who is in a similar position to him, is likely to empathize more with the rapist than with the woman.
This is also why when you see rape being condemned it will usually be condemned by feminine reasoning that takes the peace and safety of society that is, ironically ensured by threats of violence and force, to be a default and ideal state of things, and anybody who disturbs with violence this holy state of lack of violence due to threats of violence will immediately be dealt with violence. And then we are supposed to believe that violence doesn’t underlie society… HAH!
But this is nothing more than defending the status quo. And the status quo can be many things, even totalitarian regimes can be defended with this reasoning.
You are supposed to repeat what the KT people are saying, and I believe that, given what I read of their philosophy, not even they would agree with you, though there is no doubt in my mind that they would happily endorse rape and any other kind of initiatory violence provided that the context is appropriate, so they aren’t exactly reflective of my thought either.
The threat of rape is evil not because I want to fit in within society, nor because I am afraid that a person I love will be raped, but quite simply because, unlike you, I value respect, and so I treat others the way I treat myself and the way I want to be treated by others.
You have no self-respect, hence, you have no respect for others. You’ve been bullied, you failed to offer resistance, so you submitted and became bully yourself. It’s really as simple as that.
Is there a sight more pathetic than that of a man who day and night gives free and paid lessons on the psychology of conformism all the while being one of the greatest conformists of all?
There isn’t.
And that’s precisely what I see when I read your posts.
To think that morality is learned, rather than innate, indicates an unspeakable level of conformism on your part, though not necessarily the complacent kind that simply follows what society instructs, but as is more often the case, the rebellious kind that “rebels” by doing the exact opposite of what society instructs.
You’ve been reverse-bluffed, imbecile.
Just because feminists are mistaken in certain regards does not mean that they are mistaken about everything.
The disgust one feels towards violence, which includes rape, but also any other kind of violence, no matter how subtle, is innate and something that each one of us felt with great intensity up until the point when we were corrupted through the bullying pressure to survive forced upon us by the over-protective Jewish mother that we call Nature.
I am disgusted by the mere idea of walking a dog on a leash – not to mention walking a dog on a tight leash that is the choice of the many – which is far less of a violence compared to her being raped by another dog.
My dog walking policy has absolutely nothing to do with fitting within society. Quite the contrary, in fact, I am placing myself in direct opposition to it, as noone allows me to walk a dog without a leash (where I live, at least) and as most people are annoyed by the fact that I actually CARE about the dog and does not force a strict control over her movement (many barbarians consider it to be weakness; apparently, you are supposed to beat the dog.)
And why do people beat dogs? Do you know the answer to that question? They beat them because their dogs have a tendency to embarass them in public. So who’s a conformist here? What do you think?
And why do their dogs have a tendency to embarass them in public? What do you think about that question? They embarass them because their owners bought them not because they wanted to home a homeless dog, but because they were in need of something that will provide them with entertainment. Their owners do not care about them because there is no reason to care about them and because they do not want to expend their energy caring about them. They ignore their needs, so when they decide to take them out once in a while, the dog naturally becomes wild and impulsive, which ends up embarassing their owners in front of their oh-so-precious friends, which then leads to “disciplinary measure” of beating them up until they become “good”.
They are irresponsible people. Kind of like you. Personally, I do not want to own a dog. It’s too much of a maintainance. The dog will suffer too much. I would rather focus all of my attention on those how make money by forcing dogs to reproduce against their will and then selling the pups for money. These people must be eliminated and then the homeless dogs have to be helped in some sort of way. But that’s another story.
I am no misanthrope, so my compassion for dogs naturally extends to humans, but only to those whom I consider to be noble, which is a quality I seek in every living being, not just in humans. My compassion ends with criminals. That’s when my aggression kicks in.
And you are one of these criminals.
This is all very different from tribalism which is a discrimination based on what is within your own tribe and what is outside of your tribe (e.g. ethnotribalism a.k.a. racism discriminates based on ethnicity, so compassion extends only to those who belong to your ethnicity, while ending with those who are of different ethnicity.) It is also very different from elitism which is a discrimination based on some survivalistic quality, such as intelligence or strength, that may no longer be used for the sake of survival, but that is nonetheless preserved for its own sake. It may also be based purely on social status.
With all that said, I think I should conclude this post by saying, yes, you are a rude imbecile.
Your concept of respect is one of a socially submissive beta afraid of retaliation. It’s what weaklings adopt because they have no choice but to do so. How you managed to incorporate it with your nobility talk and the slave/master dynamic you so frequently refer to without your head exploding would be an interesting subject to explore.
Clearly I touched a nerve when you responded to my 2 lines directed at you with such a long post.
