Karma: The kingdom of Hell is within you

https://lonerwolf.com/karma-kingdom-of-hell/

Modern men:

But what about the Kingdom of Hell and the Devil?   Are they inside of us as well?

My experience is that Hell is not a flaming hole under the earth.  Hell is actually a spiritual place of torment that we carry around everyday.

The clean slate is a Boomer lie. You carry round a knapsack of sin and that’s your life. I don’t blame people for believing this falsehood without thinking about it – the Papacy was destroyed the moment they took bribes to ‘forgive’ sins. In the Bible, nobody can forgive but God and you won’t know until you die and it’s never, ever certain. It takes great pains to point this out. Many people who seem good are going to Hell, it’s all about the heart.

The pure of heart go to Heaven.

Video: James Fallon, psychopathy and the dead amygdala

Is this an old drum? Yes, it’s made of human skin. Deal with it.

We’re going into virgin ground, it’s going to be creepy. You’re used to it with me, with me, the questions get asked and nobody can say I’m braindead, at least. We’re trying, here.

Cut to 14 minutes in if you already know who this is.
Limbic system generally, deep cortex, and the amygdala structure referenced first.

This is intentional. From a lecturer, order matters.

Reader, pretending to care:


“It’s not something you can get used to”
louder for the naive psychopath worshipers at the back.
You cannot train it, it’s dead.
“It’s, it’s – The first part that develops, the cortex, in an infant”
“Before puberty: They’re full of emotion, or full of- morality.”

You might note similarities in the way he expresses himself, and the way I express myself.
Academese, mon amis.

He means there is only id and superego, devil and angel, “the orbital cortex is intimately connected to the amygdala…”
“In a psychopath, there is NO SENSE OF MORAL REASONING.”
So you can’t be moral and use psychopathic techniques.
It’s physically, biologically impossible.
You don’t get to claim to be a cool-headed psycho, but also a really nice, prosocial guy with a strong moral compass.
They have NO principles, that IS their principle.
Everything is totally, 100% selfish.
There are “impulsive” people with weak orbital cortex (DS: need training) that shut off “but they know what they’re doing is wrong.” Hedonists, this is very important. That is why they hide it, the personal and professional splinter, that dissociate compartmentalization. It also preserves the ego, as well as public persona.
In psychopaths, ‘morality’ doesn’t connect as something to countenance, it literally isn’t anywhere in their head.
They can predict other people probably care, but this is if you ask, if you plant the seed and make them think, referring to the hypotheticals of the interactions they’ve had with neurotypicals.
“A kid is really moral, oftentimes, hypermoral.”
I can see where he’s going but fear of punishment, a little different.
Naturally, he can’t see the difference.
Children have a strong sense (moral absolutism) because they are so weak and helpless. They see it clearly, good/evil and don’t rationalize excuses to be a shitty person like adults often do to ‘save face’, in part because no one would listen anyway. They’re not allowed excuses, only to obey the rules.
Where it’s “turned off” is epigenetic switching.
A psychopath has no instinct for what’s right. A latent psychopath still doesn’t, but they’re less inclined to act out, the
so-called successful sociopath. They can comply with the right authorities.

“Ethics is the rules of the game, psychopaths really know the rules of the game. They understand what you think and can therefore, play off it, but there’s no INNER sense of morality.

Empty, hollow, dead inside (that part of humanity).

Culture brainwashes you out of what natures instructs.

We know now Plato was correct, more than anybody, where you’re born with an innate sense of morality, you don’t have to tell a kid ‘don’t steal, don’t kill…’ they know it, we know now that you don’t have to be taught languages, you’re ready, your BRAIN is ready when you’re born.”

Fetal psychology?
Could this be the answer?
Could this be a form of birth defect when maladaptive to its Darwinian environment? In the extreme cases?

The same thing with beauty, there’s an innate sense of beauty so-“

I love how that’s the next thing he immediately latches onto.
I wanna see those studies, God-damn… imagine it…. but what would psychopathic art be? An instinct for corruption, decay and ugliness? It’s the deepest heart of emotion, so it must be the flipside.
Beauty must be limbic too, right? It’s gratifying to see my own thoughts align with other intelligent people.
“We accept instincts in animals but we’re not above that. No, we’re not. That’s innately there.”
The correct term is biological determinism.
The evolutionary stages of the fetus in the uterus is also BD.
SJWs are all about opposing any form of it, that’s insane. Completely disconnected from the biological realities, since all of biology, to be philosophical and technically accurate, all of biology is deterministic. It all grows in a precise pattern like chemical crystals, there’s a process and structure – you can’t have a diamond that isn’t related to graphite. Deterministic. Rare word outside of ivory towers, like reductionistic; related in practice. We can reduce a human to cells, human cells are deterministic of the human species, we grow from those stem cells.

See?
Back to instinct.
“Unless that area doesn’t develop, and it’s NOT THERE. It’s a kind of a blind spot. For morality, in psychopaths, it’s NOT There.”

Brain damage? I suppose most variations must be… depending on the rest of the structure, naturally.

“But the ethics they can learn and they use it against you.”
The antisocial rely on everyone else being prosocial. Predators rely on nice docile prey, even intraspecies predators, well, especially those.
In game theory, if you never punish, even the supposed Good players take advantage of you.
In a fake game where the stakes are ego.
Golden Rule involves reward AND punishment, at the same intensity. If your understanding of the Golden Rule isn’t 2+2=4, action and consequence, then you have understood it wrong.

I’m going to stop at the 20m mark, please read the book and watch the rest yourself, I wanted to show – since I haven’t for a while, that there is sound academic backing for some of the things I’m saying.

They sound off because I’m not lying – school was.

Dr Fallon has also done TED among other things, he gets around.
He shows it’s possible for someone with that brain to be a productive member of society.
Great guy.
You can find interesting write-ups.

RETURN TO FREUD.

YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

Come to the Dark Side, the cookies are choc-chip.

We have biological correlates now, you can’t resist us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientist-related-killers-learns-psychopaths-brain/story?id=21029246
“Conscience and a sense of morality and impulse control lie in the limbic system and in the orbital cortex in the brain, according to Fallon.
“They connect and inhibit each other not unlike the super-ego controlling the id,” he said. “It’s the interface between the intellectual mind and the emotions attending to them.”
Fallon’s brain scans show low activity in both regions of the brain.
“No behavior is really evil or bad — it’s all contextual,” he said.

[what moral relativism was initially, Darwin]

“There is a time for sex and a time for killing, when someone attacks the family. But it’s done in context. The orbital cortex adjudicates the idea of morality and interacts with the amygdala’s drive to eat, drink and screw. There would be mayhem if it didn’t exist.” [which label do I cite? degeneracy, moral decay, dysgenics, dyscivics et cetera et cetera]
As a neuroscientist, Fallon said he always believed humans were ruled solely by their genes and not their environment in the nature versus nurture debate.
“I never took it seriously,” he said. “I was the poster boy for genes causing everything. But I had to eat crow and say I was wrong.” [he wasn’t though, it’s still natural and not manmade in CAUSE]
His personal story was the subject of a TED talk that went viral on YouTube in 2007 and he even had a guest role on the television show, “Criminal Minds.” Fallon was contacted by literary agents last year to write a book about his experience.
He blames abuse in the first three years of life, combined with biological features that turn off serotonin in the brain, leading to psychopathic violence.”

Loudspeaker: Epigenetics is still genetic.

The clue, is in, the name!
If political left-wingedness has a defective, atrophied, shrunken amygdala (lower volume, to put it clinically), that puts them closer on the Spectrum of Development to a psychopath, I find it funny he’s a moral relativist who stresses his own safety, moments after discussing revenge.
They think you don’t notice their slips. You’re not allowed to question their authority, think Cartman.
Serotonin, again, implicated, again…
I’m tired of being right. So, so tired…
Why are so many lefties needing to be on SSRIs? In good times, historically novel?
What happens when the meds aren’t made?

Here’s the emotional reaction of a neurotypical to violence, in colour.


Literal coldness in the psychopathic. Cold, hard reasoning. Calm in a crisis, calm enough to coolly kill you.
No emotion.

In the ABC article;
“I don’t have special emotional bonds with those who are close to me –– I treat everyone the same,” he said. “I am involved in a lot of charities and good works, and my intentions are good for the world. [he lives here] But I don’t have the sense of romance or love I am supposed to have for my wife. It’s not there.” [broken pair bonding, faulty attachment mechanisms]

I’d love to see Dr. Fallon and Anonymous Conservative interviewed by Stefan Molyneux.

A girl can dream.

I’m gonna throw out a theory here, while I’m here.

K-types have well-developed orbital cortex pathways.
In the future, there will be no leader, moral or otherwise, who doesn’t need to provide this proof of moral agency.
Otherwise, no one will trust them not to screw the ingroup.

Think of the scope of this information, it changes everything.
It needs to become public, it will eventually.

I wonder if there’s a hyper-K version with mild psychopathy (to protect one’s own) and strong conservatism in the amygdala?
Can we genetically engineer for this? Where can I sign that petition?

Multiculturalism, atheism induced by brain damage

No, really.

Old but 24K gold.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-in-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html

TLDR

“By shutting down the threat-processing centre of the brain, scientists weakened people’s faith in God and made them less prejudiced”

They merely weakened it, you’d have to be totally brain-dead to obliterate it.

I’ve heard from reliable sources there are ongoing experiments to drug people to make them less ‘racist’. How long do you think until those reach the water supply? I wouldn’t be shocked if that were a side-effect of sodium fluoride.

In a way, the r-types are trying to help us by converting us. It’s like a religion (of peace): convert or die. From some of their psyche, we’re crazy for rejecting their hedonism; the free money, easy sex, harmless drugs, friendly immigrant neighbours and ‘open’ way of life. If everyone is like them, everyone will be happy. Hm.

Why wouldn’t people want to be exactly like them? This is why outgrouping hurts.
Like a toxic friend, if everyone in their social circle sucks, nobody sucks. Emotional vampires suck out your potential.

Every cult is based on hedonism. Without the goodies and promise of power, they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass.
Atheistkult is based on the idea that your life has no conditions on your behaviour. It’s also LaVey Satanism. I haven’t told them this.

This is good news. WHY?

Well, if they can weaken the brain, temporarily, it is possible to strengthen it in the same way.

And that, my friends, would be completely, utterly permanent.

The brain cannot devolve.

The Boromir Strategy of opposing Cultural Marxism and PC diktat

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-boromir-strategy-as-advocated-by.html

There is a false belief that we must possess the same faults as the Left to win. That we must harbour the rapist, the pedophile, the deviant and the criminal if they are effective at parroting what we like. That we must harbour evil and its potent force of degeneracy because the shit is flecked with gold. Thankfully, the majority of us see through this falsehood. For example, if there were plenty of evidence that a certain PUA were a rapist by the legal definition, we would be foolish to hold such a person up as a moral authority at a time when we need good leaders more than any.

Spiritual leaders must be pure. We already have hypocrites in power.
There is no such thing as an atheist that understands faith. If they understood it, they’d have it.
There is no such thing as a bad person with the right to lecture the good. There is nothing to learn from these people who willingly made many mistakes and continue to expect respect for evil deeds.

Know them by their fruit. They were a toxic influence then and it was easier to resist. Once a cheat, always a cheat. Once a liar, how can you trust them? Once a criminal, how can they speak of law with respect?

The Nazi stuff, while funny for rhetoric, is ultimately self-defeating. It makes people switch off. We’re tired of hearing about it. The fact the supposed Alt Right is defending ardent socialists makes me gag.

It worked on a rhetorical level to speak like them. To disempower their linguistic tricks by overuse.

The point is idiots didn’t get the joke in mockery, so we see genuine emotional appeals as fact like “If I can’t judge feminists, they can’t judge me by calling me mean names like misogynist, they’re the real sexist, they’re misandrists! Now I can ignore everything they ever say!”

No wonder the feminists mock them for this, they deserve to be! They’re doing the same BS.
It’s like the shit test myth, it’s a way for them to feel desirable even when in the midst of rejection.
In this case, it’s a way to feel reasonable when reason is literally on their side already.

Playing victim is a big one. Nobody is ever going to believe the normal white man is a victim. They’re too loaded in the historical stakes, they have various privileges handed to them like average IQ score. This makes the losers of the group especially humiliated, so they attempt to ‘flip the script’, while also feeling innately superior as part of their group, which doesn’t work. Contradiction Central. You can’t use SJW tactics seriously unless you are an SJW. Even they aren’t really serious, they never agree on anything.

For example, saying social science is BS then using all their studies and terms e.g. social frame, social script, evolutionary psychology stuff, it’s embarrassing to be associated with these people, it’s like a logical feminist looking at one next to her at a rally doused in her own period blood with regret.

jury nodding yes

They mistake the arguments for powerful in themselves. They support victim culture. If only SJWs accepted those premises, it wouldn’t matter IRL.

They accept the evil premises e.g. we are all biologically equal, when the Burden of Proof is otherwise on them, and then try to make special appeals to exceptions.

It doesn’t work.

Let them feel the full weight of the Burden. And if you MGTOW, actually GO.

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

As for faith, societies are built on spiritual belief in the future. It’s the only way they can survive. Narcissists don’t like God as a Father Figure because he’s bigger than you, you can abandon him and he makes rules that interrupt your hedonism. I saw the funniest article from a supposed redpill site claiming the Alt Right was bad because it wanted to ‘police’ men. Imposing positive expectations that lead to a good world are a burden on a selfish hedonistic failure. They won’t even accept good rules, as their complaints about the evil postmodernism are from bad faith, they want personal Special Snowflake exemption as much as Sandra Fluke wants exemption from the expense of her own baby-killing.

Ask them one simple question: Was the Sexual Revolution a good thing?

If they say yes, they side with Cultural Marxism from hedonism. The societal impact has been ruinous to anyone with a clear conscience to sift the evidence. CM would never have taken hold without that, ahem, carrot. It pacifies men and keeps women distracted from settling down too by wasting their time on ‘bad boys’ that 50s movies told them to like. Prior to the 50s, the idea of women preferring the Bad Boy would’ve been stupid.
These losers in the manosphere explain away their failure to attract women as a defect in the women themselves. Plenty of men are happily married, it’s you dudes.

A town of Patriarchs they claim they desire would beat them to death for negging their daughters. They want to be treated like indulged brats just like the people they hate so much, and that’s why they hate them, the narcissism of small differences. A Patriarch for President would tighten drug law, curb binge drinking, reduce sex tourism and tighten rape law.

However, we must practically show people the way first and reverse the political damage that actively inhibits spiritual good. Once the path is clear, faith will naturally creep back in, once financial interests are abolished. Otherwise, people only hear the propaganda. Two-prongs is the best approach because the practical reality differs from theory, where spirit is always a higher concern, quite literally.

Good comments on a linked post.

“Thus the great harm of the manosphere is the way that it warps one’s worldview. The ultimate effect of being a regular consumer of the manosphere is that’s one’s view regarding sexuality, and men, and women, becomes satanic and joyless.”

A cheap squirt of endorphins, I’ve seen it described.
Casual sex for cheap people.

“The Left has sought to prohibit – and even legally proscribe – white / Christian / European national pride (and hatred of their opponents) precisely because the Left wants whites / Christians / European nations to stop resisting, lie down, and die.”

They fear the power of family. You can’t have a family without unity and you can’t have unity unless you oppose the forces driving them apart.

There is a difference between pride and not being ashamed to live and do good (righteous pride). They are actively shaming the good.

False proclamations of love

http://www.ellopos.net/politics/kalomoiros-papacy.html

“Those who speak the most of love towards man and humanity, of peace and union, are precisely those who hate the most their neighbor, their acquaintance. They love man the creation of their own imagination; they do not love man the reality. This worship of the idol «man» is in reality narcissism; it is the worship of the ego.

It would be naiveté, therefore, if one were to believe that the pacifist disposition that characterizes humanity today proceeds from love. These words about love are hypocrisy and self-deception. This desire for peace proceeds from loss of ideals, from fear, and from love of comfort. It is the desire to be left in peace to enjoy the good things of this earth.

(hedonism)

It is the conventional co-operation for acquisition of goods which each person separately would not be able to acquire. It is a universal understanding upon something which has become the passion of the whole earth: sensualism and materialism. It is a product of necessity.

(sexualism, sensualism is an art thing)

The peace of which the world speaks is an unconditional capitulation of everything good and sacred and great, and the dominance of pettiness, mediocrity, and lukewarmness. It is the blotting out of the personality of individuals and of peoples. It is a marmalade of compromises and calculations, a sea of hypocrisy, indifference for truth, betrayal of everything holy and sacred.

War is a terrible thing, a result of the fall of man, and no one is about to praise it. But the peace for which the world is haggling is something infinitely more fearful. A fever is a very unpleasant thing, but it shows at least that the organism is reacting against something bad which has entered it. The peace which they wish to bring is not, unfortunately, that which comes from the victory over evil, but that which comes from defeat. It is the feverlessness of a corpse.”

I can’t find more of this but I want to read it. It deserved a place here.

What better way to take pride in the fall of your envied superior enemy (wrath), than to lust for his woman, steal his money, eat his food and enjoy the show (sloth) as he kills himself because you told him to, orders of the Secret Puppet Master, deceiving him as an act of love?

Satan is aka The Great Deceiver for a reason.
If I had to choose just one to exist, I wish there’d be a Hell so these people would burn in it. Words of goodness easily lead to evil deeds.

“I kill you because I love you.” The mentality of a psychotic parent who murders their child.

The r-types who aren’t self-aware to the K-shift (and become Paper Ks using conservative language to turn us against one another and ignore them in the fray, instead of leftist) will double down on the love talk as people are robbed, raped and murdered.

Did I say will?

That’s already happening.

teadrinking sipping pretentious sarcastic bitch mmhmm not my problem lol

Mill’s Liberty and do you have a right to ruin my life, indirectly?

I doubt those quibbling the scholar epithet (tongue-in-cheek, as you can plainly see) will claim to have noticed posts like this…

omg really wtf go away no audrey

I was reading around to a trounce a feminist at a cocktail party and this happens to be bizarrely applicable 150 years hence. I don’t usually read philosophy, most of being modernist trash. This selection is worth reading.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights;”

Such as the right to have a non-cheating spouse.
There is more respect for a girlfriend/boyfriend arrangement than a marriage nowadays.

“and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.”

Violating the spirit, not the rule. Common with narcissists. Technically, I did nothing wrong, they’ll say, because I did nothing illegal.
Good people will disapprove of bad people and this has never, nor shall ever, make us bad in turn. To be discriminating is a compliment. Judgement is a core component of thought.

“As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Natural consequences are not oppression – common sense.
The problem being that modern man doesn’t stand the consequences. Deadbeat dads, rapists getting off on technicalities, being rude but toeing the line to antisocial, these things used to be dealt with, as they should. By allowing them to continue, we encourage others implicitly and the problems get worse. For example, without rap culture, men and women would be far less rude to one another in this century. Rappers talk about respect because they can’t get it. The entitlement mindset originates from these people, who think they can treat everyone like dirt because reputation is a white thing. Cat-calling is a black thing. Wolf-whistling isn’t insulting, it’s like applause. Anyone being rude to women in the street is acting black, whether they admit it or not.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.”

The manosphere’s PR problem that killed it.
PUA too.
Why’s it always the same people? They are deficient, pick a trait.
Degenerates and deviants are deficient people.

“Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.”

IRL detour since you seem to like the gossip. It was aimed at me so it’s legit to bring up. Skip ahead to the next quote if you like, but this childish BS is the reason I don’t defend them from misogyny claims anymore.
Their first tactic upon being warned (so they can’t play naive later) is to project. Not SJW but bird brains nonetheless, they always project. They keep calling me a man, hilariously, because of the quality content I produce (they believe no woman can ever be smarter than them, screw statistics), and their White Knight instincts would kick in otherwise, and …what was it? The most shared one was the baseless caricature of a fat ugly woman in her 30s living in Moscow because I praised Putin once, can you make a random guess what the person levying it looked like?

evil smirk cheeky cavill

Not this, that’s for fucking sure.

Single. 30s. Fat. Ugly. Does nothing but sit behind a keyboard and bleat about the flaws in others. Instead of hiding from it like he would and expected, I trumpeted it, because it isn’t true. It serves to make the speaker look like a liar. I love how ugly people call beautiful people ugly (not that he’d know for certain but perhaps he sensed from my prose). We laugh it off, it’s confusing. You wouldn’t dare look in our direction in public and we both know it. Looks are a curse, a distraction from being taken seriously on any topic. We also have to put up with these losers negging us on the reg. It never works. Ever. Negging is an implicit admission that 1. they think we’re superior and 2. they’re insecure just by looking at us. Why would that work? I’ve never seen a proof. I think they’re ruining one another’s chances to scupper the competition because a lot of them turn into super-sweet charades of themselves around us. Ignore the data that beautiful people have higher IQs, we expect it. We’ve been accustomed to bitchy rumours since childhood (oh a random guy online says I’m stupid, I guess the psychometrics must’ve been wrong, puh-lease).
It isn’t true so it doesn’t hurt. They fail to understand this because the insults lobbed at them are generally entirely accurate, it’s the veracity that stings. Names don’t hurt, unless it’s descriptive, unless it hits home. They so spoiled by social media they think they can speak to people however they like (including cultural betters like upper class Europeans, Know your place, plebians) without being matched back, as if freedom of speech singularly applies to those Starting It. Their assumptions are wrong. Polite is not nice. We treat as we find. A doormat is disrespected by 3rd parties for weakness, women especially must verbally defend themselves moreso than men because we cannot do so physically. They understand none of this, however painstakingly you explain.

ItjOKBM

Another kept trying to call me rude because he randomly tried to start a BDSM roleplay/sexting session around how he’d spank me. My relatives would kill him for that, or at least beat him to a bloody pulp, but over the internet he figured he was safe from any reproach or call-out. I’m a lady, and he knew that, and knew I’d never be comfortable with those sort of things. Ever. Even from a husband I’d suspect there’s something wrong with them, repressed rage. Clinically disturbed people enjoy the sadistic discomfort of others and their social harm often presents as insidious boundary-pushing like this. Without permission, any of this, I want to assert, I randomly get pages of explicit material ordering me to do various things, that I would happily report to the police as harassment, when it was a clear fetish he was getting off on and this was about the third or fourth time he’d mentioned it. Previously, I’d made it clear I didn’t care for those topics, personal ones, and assumed it had registered after an apology. I ignored the attempt and took the High Road, the highest possible road although I came to regret it, hoping it was a drunken mistake but knowing better, and we haven’t spoken since, good riddance to bad rubbish. I didn’t reply, you can’t get more feminine than that. You’d think these people would stop trying to cause social harm at this point. Didn’t stop him from setting his friends on me like a 13yo schoolgirl and they’re persisting in randomly trying to start drama up again, to try and use my reaction against me (while decrying it when Anita does it). Yeah, I’m the problem here, right? You keep coming back to my material, I remind comments who emptily complain on their behalf. I’d initially met both parties with sweetness and sympathy (my regular politesse) I soon found they didn’t deserve, so I withdrew it quietly, and this American-spat nonsense is their way of trying to get my attention again and in a twisted way, back on speaking terms. It won’t work because I’m more intelligent, yet that’s hardly saying anything. Once you’ve ruined your reputation as worthy of politeness, it’s gone, like virginity.
Back to liberty. That was too wordy, sorry.

It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.”

In Europe, you aren’t. Not among the old vanguard. New Money is easily offended. Their position is new and must be defended by offense. The upper class, moneyed or by blood, are wonderfully un-PC, note the Queen’s recent comments on rudeness of the Chinese only this week. It’s in our culture to express the truth. Nice and nasty. Nasty truth is a public sport, see Blackadder.
To a woman on an official visit, Prince Philip said “I would get arrested if I unzipped that dress!”.
Real genuine English people are like this. We don’t pull punches.
SWPL and other Americans think we should be push-overs because they believe Hollywood and they’re sanctimonious tosspots i.e. I heard “You have a Queen, you should be polite!” from a tourist who grabbed me.

Where do you get this? Americans don’t get to use the word rude to us, okay? Odds are you infringed on a dozen rules of etiquette before we said something, you deserve it. Take ya medicine.
You guys have the Puritanical speech culture, not us. Our monarch is famous for swearing in private. Bess is brutal.
We dragged Cromwell’s corpse through a street to gamble, swear like sailors and celebrate Christmas.

“We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates.”

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

“We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.”

One of my favourite parts. “He has no right to complain.” The proof of wrong is in the mirror.
They won’t respect themselves, they shouldn’t expect respect. This simple and the way people are raised with common sense.
People who self-abuse (food, sex, rest, things required for life taken to extremes) or are self-destructive in behaviour get no sympathy from the silent majority. First time, certainly, fifteenth? Get out of here. They always say the same thing, that we’re deliberately hurting them and making it worse. No, we’re cutting off the enabling teat, the milk of human kindness. Tough love.

Remember when oppression was used in the correct context? Ostracism and shame work because they crave popularity, being feeble individually.

Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury—these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment.

And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.

A reputation isn’t unjust if your actions earned it.
He did X, is not a slight, it’s a fact.
Therefore he is Y type of person, has some grounds to it.
Z, we must avoid his rot, may be fair too, if a danger is presented and the warnings are clear.
People have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one’s share of advantages; the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character:”

Real deviants. Who harm their social group.
Devaluation is something they get off on, little known fact.
It’s like a list of flaws commonly found in adjacent parts of the internet. The anger outs them. Like their SJW enemies, they cannot take a joke. The narcissism of small differences.

If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him.

This only works after the first time, or first few times, to be liberal. If they ignored the proscriptions passed down in childhood, why would they listen as a selfish, closed-minded adult? Better to mock them and how they deserved it, for correction. Gentle but effective.
Even excessively liberal judges give stiffer sentences to repeat offenders.

He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere benevolently by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe.”

No clemency.

Degeneracy is a character defect. A core fissure of flaws. It cannot be scrubbed out, they’ll keep sucking the marrow from the good until the leech is detached from its host, and this leaves nothing of aid for the other good people. As we see in compassion fatigue, goodness, compassion and charity are a finite resource. They are natural nomads because nobody will put up with them, frequently abandoned by their family, most of their friends, or they have a psychopath’s rotation that last about two years because they too, have it up to here. If only people came with dust covers and reviews. If evidenced, Peeple would’ve been a fine idea. It would reintroduce the social considerations of a high trust society where word gets round.

“The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead. And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government?

Act like a child, claim paucity of agency or naivety, have the restriction in freedoms OF a child.

“I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.”

Don’t tell the MGTOW/MRA that fathers are responsible for their families too. In fact, as men, the gender roles posits more responsibility than women could ever require.
You see why I go on about fake moral authority? If you can’t mind your own business, your hypocritical advice is unwarranted and unwelcome. You are fit to have an opinion but not to dispense it. Would you take diet advice from the obese? Why take advice on morality from a pervert, one who perverts the rules of decency – and for fun?
These people dispense pretty words on doing what you like without attention to duty. In a society, you have duties. Deal with it.

“In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence.”

Few vices are entirely private.
You used to be able to fine cheating spouses and their lovers. You want the cream? Pay for the pussy. They expect to have the benefits of the husband (cooking, cleaning, rutting) without the duties, see a pattern in the entitlement?
The problem with society isn’t stupid people. It’s that we, the rest of us have to live with them and make allowances for them like children, then we are expected to show sympathy to hedons. Ancient hedons were more like modern stoics actually, they had clear limits and rarely indulged, except when they did, they weren’t guilty about it. That’s the reason. Not that vice or indulgence is innately a good. The ancients, however tawdry their society, never went to this extreme of dopamine-drowned stupidity.

If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penaltieswhich cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals,”

Nanny State.

“in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority,”

Too many edgy people using insults without a place.
The Right isn’t exempt from false pride.

“and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II, to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans.”

Reverse psychology.
Stupid people do it constantly, thinking they’re so clever.
They want me to be good, so I’ll be bad, I’ll show them being bad is good! They can’t trick me into doing what’s bad for my self-interest!

High time preference personified.

We have a saying you Yanks might like.

“Leave ’em to it.”
It means we let them go and get themselves into trouble, but we won’t rescue them.
We won’t lift a finger. We absolve ourselves of responsibility for them.
I think one of our cultural misfires is self-help. It makes people determined to misbehave. You can’t self-help unless you’re a therapist.

“With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

They out themselves, as with liars who make things up about their imagined enemies.
If you’re in the right, you won’t need to lie.

These people used to keep it to the underground. It was never out, in the open and public. They could never brag and the media derided them (they love salacious gossip like the Americans now). Those who aren’t ashamed of past misconduct are as bad as the Kardashians, they twist it into a point of pride. Again.

facepalm leslie howard

As if they’re whiter than white, more good than the people who’ve been good this whole time.

“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings…But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

“These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others.”

Ironically, those ‘philosophers’ slag off women for being emotional, irrational and having no ability to argue.
Projection Parade. The lust lies.
Here’s the SJW pseudologic:

“The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.””
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.”

Nope, you are 100% fully responsible adult. Responsible for oneself. Nobody else is more responsible for you, than you.

For those who signal all they like about degeneracy;

“It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized.”

Sorry America.

“So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.

A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it.

If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.”

The Black Pill.

If you admire or fear your inferiors, they win.

Elsewhere he wrote about suppression of opinion, and noted there are three beliefs: false, half-true and entirely true.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Ironically, I got that one from wikipedia.
Similar text wall, same chapter as top, here: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Choices connotes consequence.
If you consent to a choice, you consent to the risk of bad consequence, and you must accept it as gladly as you would have done the good, to take your lumps because welcome to adulthood, everyone does.
R-types have one thing in common. They want to be celebrated for existing.
Even their opinions, in their grandiose mind, are worth a living. Hang market demand.
However, a logician would correctly assert that one should place like opinions in a book and charge for that instead. The readers would get a higher quality for a cheaper price, a physical product, the author more money, yet the frauds on places like Youtube never do this because people wouldn’t read their books. Why? People want their free opinion to laugh at them. You don’t pay the village idiot to be a clown because he isn’t trying, it isn’t work for him.

I sourced these third party quotes.

millnaturalconsequences millnaturalconsequences2

As well as this, a little later is the jape.

Spencer’s hedonism committed him to the view that life is worthless in the absence of pleasure or happiness.” pp.104 Hayek on Liberty, Third Ed.
I have never seen a better definition of hedonism or the r-mindset. Kudos, Sir.

They want freedom – from consequences.

laughing lol haha liar liar

That’s a good one.

Link: The Western Way of love

https://aeon.co/essays/russia-against-the-western-way-of-love

It’s lust or limerence. There is very little love in the West.

They consider people as interchangeable, nobody is special. Decisions are rationalized, they aren’t rational. Having a rotation of people isn’t a choice, it’s an addiction to the thrill of a new prospect. Narcissus going speed dating to get that high of being admired for the first time again and again and again. Using the other person AS a mirror.

This observation from Mann’s novella Death in Venice (1912) encapsulates a great cultural leap that occurred somewhere close to the beginning of the 20th century. Somehow, the Lover pushed the Beloved from the centre of attention.

Atomised units in a swirling cosmos.

The divine, unknowable and unreachable Other is no longer the subject of our love stories. Instead, we are interested in the Self, with all its childhood traumas, erotic dreams and idiosyncrasies. Examining and protecting this fragile Self [DS: ???] by teaching it to pick its affections properly is the main project of the Regime of Choice – a project brought to fruition using a popularised version of psychotherapeutic knowledge.

Navel-gazing bullshit.

Rieff describes him as ‘anti-heroic, shrewd, carefully counting his satisfactions and dissatisfactions, studying unprofitable commitments as the sins most to be avoided’.

That isn’t love, that’s work. Hedonic profit. You can’t be a Scrooge with real love.

The psychological man is a romantic technocrat who believes that the application of the right tools at the right time can straighten out the tangled nature of our emotions.

Men have never been the romantic sex. Their revulsion for courtly love, their open contempt for romance alone (no sex), demonstrates this better than their appeal to their own vanity as if it’s something possessive (henceforth the best Romantic heroes were written by women and popularized by them). To this day, romance is still considered a Female Genre!