Might is Right

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

I hate to say it, but I think Ragnar Redbeard was right. Why do I hate this? I used to despise these philosophies. I used to think that the person who spouted this out was a psychopath. Psychopath or not, the majority of the things being stated are true. It’s tough for people who were raised believing in Santa Clause to except the harsh, brutal nature of reality. They simply do not want to believe that things can be that horrible. Sorry, but unless you can reprogram the DNA of animals to remove instincts, it’s not going to happen. There is no medical cure for psychopathy. Humans prey on the weak, therefore the solution is to discontinue being weak. In no way does that imply that it’s necessary to prey on the weak once you become strong, but the fact is that it is not possible to go through life without conflict. People are going to compete with you, whether you like it or not. If you do not defend yourself, you will be defeated. Psychological self defense is just as important as physical self defense, because most battles occur on the psychological level in modern times. I believe this to be the origin of MGTOW, where beta males were exploited for their weakness. Now we wish, as a group, to collaborate for the strengthening of the individual to prevent people from becoming victims of manipulation, exploitation, and slavery. No? Diplomacy doesn’t work with psychopaths. They only understand power. If good people want a just world, they must supersede evil people in power, at the individual level. That means strengthening and educating ourselves. There is no way around it. It’s our own responsibility. I wish you all strength, prosperity, and happiness, but you are not going to receive it unless you earn it by optimizing yourselves. This is as much a pledge to myself, as it is to the rest of you. Happy hunger games, and may the odds be ever in your favor.

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

Veniversum wrote:

Psychological self defense is just as important as physical self defense, because most battles occur on the psychological level in modern times.

Very true in my experience. A woman, and this was true in my former marriage, will use psychological attacks and gamesmanship to establish preeminence within the relationship. If you aren’t a beta, and try to point out just how alienating and destructive their behavior is, the behavior will be denied or justified. The path of destruction they leave in their wake is justified by the ends. What ever the hell the end is supposed to be.

Veniversum wrote:

Diplomacy doesn’t work with psychopaths.

This cannot be forgotten, even for a second, when forced to interact with the psychopathic female. Because of this, I believe that so many of us ghost. If the psychopathic female gets one inkling that you are a free man with an intellect that is unmonitored, they will set about trying to either harness or destroy you. The means of your destruction usually takes the form of destroying your reputation.

Thanks for the video post. I don’t agree with everything he says, but in the end he is offering advise wrapped up as sagacious pearls of wisdom. Advice had be taken or left. The worst thing a rational mind can do is to no at least hear what the other rational mind has to say.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

I was going to bring this up in your thread on Mark Passio’s Natural Law. The philosophical argument of an objective right and wrong is a debate we could have for a long time. It deals with questions such as afterlife that cannot be easily, if at all, quantitated. However, if we wish a free and orderly society, I think Natural Law is the basis of it. Don’t kill me, don’t assault me, don’t rape me, don’t come in my area, and don’t take my s~~~. I was thinking and noticed dogs basically follow these rules. I was thinking Dogs’ Law: don’t bite me, don’t hump me, don’t take my bone, and stay out of my yard.

Until a corporation has the power to enforce it, though, it begs the question whether it is truly natural. Dogs understand it, but the big dog does what the f~~~ he wants to do. So is not Natural Law in essence more Machiavellian than he would have you believe?

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Your own mouth will f~~~ your life up. Keep that thing shut and…
NEVER CONFIDE IN ANYONE.
thoughts?

This is absolutely true. As soon as you show any sign of weakness, most people will begin pecking you, just like chickens do when they see a wound on another chicken. At this point, I don’t even think it’s something that they think about on the surface, I think it’s subconscious. I remember telling *my BEST friend* my feelings once, and him mocking me for being weak. Weakness is a crime against nature that it punishes relentlessly from all sources it has available. I can’t tell you how many times I have been c~~~ blocked by my own friends. Most people do not want you to succeed, because of how it will make them feel about themselves. Once in a while, you meet someone, a friend, who is not jealous and will not stab you in the back, that wants to see you succeed and the feeling is mutual. However, it’s still not wise to discuss your weaknesses with that person either, because out of all honesty, we can never truly know another person. There simply isn’t enough time. I think the best strategy is to stay positive, and stay unaffected. The blessing of it all, is that with effort, weakness can almost always be extinguished. Of course, there are some ilnesses or injuries that can make a person permanently weak, but that’s for another discussion.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Snake wrote:

If we wish a free and orderly society, I think Natural Law is the basis of it. Don’t kill me, don’t assault me, don’t rape me, don’t come in my area, and don’t take my s~~~. I was thinking and noticed dogs basically follow these rules. I was thinking Dogs’ Law: don’t bite me, don’t hump me, don’t take my bone, and stay out of my yard.
Until a corporation has the power to enforce it, though, it begs the question whether it is truly natural. Dogs understand it, but the big dog does what the f~~~ he wants to do. So is not Natural Law in essence more Machiavellian than he would have you believe?

I agree with you about Natural Law. Adhering to it makes social relations much more stable, as well as establishing trust with our peers. It isn’t the responsibility of corporations to enforce it, it is our own. However, a critical mass of this particular philosophy should come about, so that people who enforce it on their own aren’t persecuted by the collective. There is no swifter, nor more righteous justice than that of self defense. Even the current laws mostly agree. The police are not going to serve and protect us. That myth needs to be quashed. Even the supreme court ruled that they are not obligated to. Rather, their function is to extort money from the populace, and ensure that economic independence isn’t achievable by enforcing unjust laws that they have limited, to no knowledge of. I bet you never met a cop who knows the 10 planks of communism. People who are parents have the responsibility to prepare their children to be strong and independent, and that includes rendering them capable of self defense. It’s a moral imperative. Self defense and survival should be of the highest priority. If a child bullies another child, and they get beat down, that should be the lesson. If they don’t, then they should receive corporal punishment. Likewise a child who is getting bullied should not only not be punished for defending themselves, but should be rewarded. Of course, the current establishment would blow up at hearing me say that, but when children were spanked they had a lot more discipline, as well as a lot more respect for others. I believe that overall experience led to a greater development of empathy during the formative years.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Im sorry op, but your post is tinged with that “blame the victim” mentality that secret libertarian globalist masontards have toward obvious conspiracies. It’s basically a man up post. You’re so manly you’ve gone full cirle and are back to blue pill tard.

I’m not really understanding you. Firstly, I do not blame the victim. That type of rhetoric is *exactly* what feminists say about rape. I am simply pointing out the simple and brutal truth that it is your own responsibility to defend yourself, and that you should. Far too often, it is the good people who are weak and that is why they are defeated. I merely suggest for people to strengthen themselves in order to prevent becoming a victim in the first place. “Libertarian globalist masontards?” How does that make any sense? A person who is a libertarian wants freedom on the individual level; you can’t be for that and simultaneously be seeking world domination. It isn’t possible to have freedom and tyranny simultaneously. As for being a “man” up post, maybe it is. My reasoning behind doing it is because I do not wish for anyone to endure the suffering that I have during my life due to being in a state of weakness. I was weak because I was not brought up to be strong, because I had no father, and my mother had lost her parents by age 15. I *was* a typical beta male created by a single mother. Strengthening one’s self is important because it also has health benefits, as well as psychological benefits. A person with more confidence in their capabilities is also more likely to succeed. Will you really foster weakness in people, especially good ones?? Will you really suggest to people that they shouldn’t render themselves capable of self defense? I can’t even fathom how you could argue such a case..

[Random GuyParticipant 8]

For all intents and purposes, that is just a reiteration of “The Golden Rule”. Though both iterations of “The Golden Rule” are valid. I won’t debate the morality of the second form of Golden Rule. Just it’s reality. The Golden Rule #1: Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

Golden Rule #2: He who has the gold makes the rules.

One is a moral code. The other is a statement of reality. However the second version is flawed. Because if it truly followed reality it would be something more along the lines of “He who has the gold makes the rules his wife tells him to.” I’ve heard over and over that men created the world. And that’s true. But in almost all circumstances that man did so because either his spouse let him, or was pushing his actions. Whether that pushing was direct or indirect is immaterial. Most men are comfortable living in the world as it is. It’s the desires of women and their inability to accept reality, that forces men to change things. Almost always for the betterment of women. Though frequently men’s situations got better as well as a consequence.

That’s why I not only disagree with feminism, and all feminists, but actively hate them. They deliberately perpetrate “The Big Lie”. It is not and never has been men that oppressed women. But women that are, and always have, oppressed men.

[Enjoy The DeclineParticipant 1719]

Veniversum, when I was small, I use to read up fiction books like Ronald Dahl(the children’s story author of books like “James And The Giant Peach” and “Charlie And The Chocolate Factory”) and Steven King(a horror story author of many books that turned into movies). I also subscribed to National Geographic magazine for one year in my childhood. Maybe if I knew how much I was wasting away on cr*p that did not even prepare me for how the real world worked and instead read non fiction books that helped better me, I would of been more better off sooner rather than later. Heck, even only having a subscription to Psychology Today magazine would do. But I guess that now lots of kids have the internet right from when they are born, so maybe those kids have a better shot of preparing at a young age for this now complicated world than I did.

"Question everything" - Albert Einstein

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Enjoy The Decline wrote:

Veniversum, when I was small, I use to read up fiction books like Ronald Dahl(the children’s story author of books like “James And The Giant Peach” and “Charlie And The Chocolate Factory”) and Steven King(a horror story author of many books that turned into movies). I also subscribed to National Geographic magazine for one year in my childhood. Maybe if I knew how much I was wasting away on cr*p that did not even prepare me for how the real world worked and instead read non fiction books that helped better me, I would of been more better off sooner rather than later. Heck, even only having a subscription to Psychology Today magazine would do. But I guess that now lots of kids have the internet right from when they are born, so maybe those kids have a better shot of preparing at a young age for this now complicated world than I did.

Precisely. I spent my childhood playing dungeons and dragons, so I read the lore a lot. I also read a lot of Piers Anthony, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, JRR Tolkein, and of course whatever they assigned me in my literature class in school. I would encourage anyone now to stick to philosophy, history, and nonfiction. Moreover, if I had a son I would want him to focus on science and disciplines that he could make use of like, electronics, mechanics, programming, etc. Those would provide a person with a marketable skill, and also enable him to craft a personal means for personal problem solving. I’ve seen the people who build their own houses now, and it’s amazing. One guy built a house for just over $2000 out of a shipping container that turned out wonderful. At least you know that when you read an electronics book, that there is likely no political agenda. We should have no loyalty to any government now, but rather intellectuals should go where they are treated best. I hope to leave the US by the end of the year, if the new POTUS doesn’t immediately catapult us into a war.

[Author]

Posts