Post by A piece of genetic Dreck on Jul 8, 2019 12:20:17 GMT
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'll try to be polite, because frankly, I hardly watched all of Mr. Orwoll's video and am already boiling. My avatar image is the ideal I strive towards as a Christian, but I guess I still have a long way to go. (It shows St. Maximilian Kolbe and reads "For Jesus Christ I am prepared to suffer still more.")
I find it first of all rather odd to suggest that you can "feel good" just by "reprogramming" yourself, which basically means to lie to oneself. How would that work, when suffering from an anxiety disorder and depression? If one's worldview does not allow for hope, i.e. if atheistic materialism is what one believes, like inmendham does and I did in the past, then how would you escape this? As I see it, only by becoming a believing (born-again) Christian, because this is really the only way I have been able to come to accept my horrid life in this evil (Gal. 1:4) and wicked (1 John 5:19) world, this vale of tears (Ps. 84:6).
This is also the position of the Catholic poet Reinhold Schneider: he wrote an essay against suicide as someone who attempted it himself in his youth and was often tempted to do it again.
But from an atheist perspective, there really is no reason to do anything at all, which is why I concluded that then I can just as well call it quits entirely. Morality without God is impossible. Schopenhauer knew this, famously declaring "Moral predigen ist leicht, Moral begründen schwer." Nietzsche knew it too and of course fleshed this out a lot. Dito Voltaire, even Sartre.
Put simply: if I don't like my life, if I lost the genetic as well as the environmental and historical lottery, and I do not believe in an afterlife and judgement -- then why would suicide not be the best choice? While I see Albert Camus as an intellectual midget, he was correct that the only real philosophical problem is suicide.
Camus was an atheist, but he obviously enjoyed his life because of his privileged position in life: he was intelligent enough to thrive and quite good looking too. Not a Schopenhauer in terms of brilliance, but good enough to write a few books that seem to have survived and made an impact.
My point is that Orwoll's view works for him, because he is good looking and has an IQ far above average. If I recall correctly, he cited some test where he scored around 142/143 that's equivalent to an IQ test.
He claims that most of you are average. Even if, so what? With an IQ of, say, 104 you cannot get degree in STEM, for example. And if you don't have the necessary diplomas, there is no hope of ever working anything other than simple, menial jobs.
I also wonder how being ugly plays into this. I mean, if you're ugly, and most people try to avoid you -- then this affects your confidence if you like it or not. Basically, being bullied throughout school can break you. The best option then would be to join a monastery, instead of living in the real world with all of its cruel competition. Be it for resources or women or whatever else.
Further, if one is ugly, like I am, and not very intelligent -- then where should I get any confidence from anyway? Even geniuses like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer hated their life; Schopenhauer found life awful, did not want it to exist; Nietzsche famously wrote “I do not want life again. How did I endure it? Creating. What makes me stand the sight of it? The vision of the overman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it myself / alas”."
I think Orwoll said that depression is the result of seeing oneself as being on the bottom of the hierarchy. But why do rich people kill themselves then? And why did Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, both extremely gifted, dislike their life?
Status certainly correlates with IQ to some extent. This might not apply to really high IQ, or UHIQ as Vox Day terms it, like Chris Langan, but in general, if you want to improve your status, an above average IQ is required. And if you don't have that? Then it's game over. Plus, good looking people are usually treated better and get promoted more often.
And "class" is something you most likely will never grow out of -- no matter how much more money you make than your ancestors, a prole will remain a prole. This is what Paul Fussell concludes as well in his "Class"; he also writes that the lower you go on the status ladder, the more bitter and resentful people are because they usually hate their jobs. Most of those jobs are tightly supervised, as opposed to jobs of the higher classes.
Fussell cites one guy: "I wish I was a lawyer. Shit, I wish I was a doctor. But I just didn't have it. You gotta have the smarts." (p. 45)
I mean, for someone who is fond of Plato, why does he throw out one of Plato's deepest insights? Namely: the truth and necessity of eugenics. The "race pope" Hans F. K. Günther even wrote a small book about Plato's eugenic ideas. Genetics is destiny. Even Schopenhauer was aware of heredity. And according to Robert Plomin, it's now even possible to calculate your IQ based on just your DNA, and this will improve more and more.
I stopped reading almost anything on the Alt-Right or however it is called because nowadays it's all about sex. Socio-sexual hierarchy stuff, the Alpha, Gamma nonsense. I do believe in a hierarchy, but it's class hierarchy, and that's mostly gone; Vox Day really disappointed me here, but I was already aware of his stance regarding celibacy. And the funny thing is that while he shamed the "MGTOWs", titling his Darkstream "Men going evil's way", he even acknowledged, in another Darkstream titled "Life is more than suffering", around 33:05 minutes, that "caution might be wise" if one wants to start a family and his genetically predisposed to psychotic mental illnesses. ( I see myself not as a "MGTOW", but as an undesirable, a loser, a low status male -- like Andy Nowicki.)
And yet, there is still a strong aversion among the Alt-Right to accept the necessity of eugenics. I mean, just study Kierkegaard's family: almost all of them were of a melancholy disposition. Not only his siblings -- Garff, in his biography, cites a melancholic letter never sent written by one of his sisters --, but also the son of his older brother was mentally ill and had to spent some time in a mental institution. One son of Kierkegaard's sisters was even at the mental asylum the same time his older brother's son was. So, their mental illnesses ran in their family, just like their mental gifts. Cf. the essay: "Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage" (Google Books)
I conclude with two aphorisms by the great Colombian Catholic Nicolás Gómez Dávila:
"We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us."
"We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest."
I'll try to be polite, because frankly, I hardly watched all of Mr. Orwoll's video and am already boiling. My avatar image is the ideal I strive towards as a Christian, but I guess I still have a long way to go. (It shows St. Maximilian Kolbe and reads "For Jesus Christ I am prepared to suffer still more.")
I find it first of all rather odd to suggest that you can "feel good" just by "reprogramming" yourself, which basically means to lie to oneself. How would that work, when suffering from an anxiety disorder and depression? If one's worldview does not allow for hope, i.e. if atheistic materialism is what one believes, like inmendham does and I did in the past, then how would you escape this? As I see it, only by becoming a believing (born-again) Christian, because this is really the only way I have been able to come to accept my horrid life in this evil (Gal. 1:4) and wicked (1 John 5:19) world, this vale of tears (Ps. 84:6).
This is also the position of the Catholic poet Reinhold Schneider: he wrote an essay against suicide as someone who attempted it himself in his youth and was often tempted to do it again.
But from an atheist perspective, there really is no reason to do anything at all, which is why I concluded that then I can just as well call it quits entirely. Morality without God is impossible. Schopenhauer knew this, famously declaring "Moral predigen ist leicht, Moral begründen schwer." Nietzsche knew it too and of course fleshed this out a lot. Dito Voltaire, even Sartre.
Put simply: if I don't like my life, if I lost the genetic as well as the environmental and historical lottery, and I do not believe in an afterlife and judgement -- then why would suicide not be the best choice? While I see Albert Camus as an intellectual midget, he was correct that the only real philosophical problem is suicide.
Camus was an atheist, but he obviously enjoyed his life because of his privileged position in life: he was intelligent enough to thrive and quite good looking too. Not a Schopenhauer in terms of brilliance, but good enough to write a few books that seem to have survived and made an impact.
My point is that Orwoll's view works for him, because he is good looking and has an IQ far above average. If I recall correctly, he cited some test where he scored around 142/143 that's equivalent to an IQ test.
He claims that most of you are average. Even if, so what? With an IQ of, say, 104 you cannot get degree in STEM, for example. And if you don't have the necessary diplomas, there is no hope of ever working anything other than simple, menial jobs.
I also wonder how being ugly plays into this. I mean, if you're ugly, and most people try to avoid you -- then this affects your confidence if you like it or not. Basically, being bullied throughout school can break you. The best option then would be to join a monastery, instead of living in the real world with all of its cruel competition. Be it for resources or women or whatever else.
Further, if one is ugly, like I am, and not very intelligent -- then where should I get any confidence from anyway? Even geniuses like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer hated their life; Schopenhauer found life awful, did not want it to exist; Nietzsche famously wrote “I do not want life again. How did I endure it? Creating. What makes me stand the sight of it? The vision of the overman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it myself / alas”."
I think Orwoll said that depression is the result of seeing oneself as being on the bottom of the hierarchy. But why do rich people kill themselves then? And why did Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, both extremely gifted, dislike their life?
Status certainly correlates with IQ to some extent. This might not apply to really high IQ, or UHIQ as Vox Day terms it, like Chris Langan, but in general, if you want to improve your status, an above average IQ is required. And if you don't have that? Then it's game over. Plus, good looking people are usually treated better and get promoted more often.
And "class" is something you most likely will never grow out of -- no matter how much more money you make than your ancestors, a prole will remain a prole. This is what Paul Fussell concludes as well in his "Class"; he also writes that the lower you go on the status ladder, the more bitter and resentful people are because they usually hate their jobs. Most of those jobs are tightly supervised, as opposed to jobs of the higher classes.
Fussell cites one guy: "I wish I was a lawyer. Shit, I wish I was a doctor. But I just didn't have it. You gotta have the smarts." (p. 45)
I mean, for someone who is fond of Plato, why does he throw out one of Plato's deepest insights? Namely: the truth and necessity of eugenics. The "race pope" Hans F. K. Günther even wrote a small book about Plato's eugenic ideas. Genetics is destiny. Even Schopenhauer was aware of heredity. And according to Robert Plomin, it's now even possible to calculate your IQ based on just your DNA, and this will improve more and more.
I stopped reading almost anything on the Alt-Right or however it is called because nowadays it's all about sex. Socio-sexual hierarchy stuff, the Alpha, Gamma nonsense. I do believe in a hierarchy, but it's class hierarchy, and that's mostly gone; Vox Day really disappointed me here, but I was already aware of his stance regarding celibacy. And the funny thing is that while he shamed the "MGTOWs", titling his Darkstream "Men going evil's way", he even acknowledged, in another Darkstream titled "Life is more than suffering", around 33:05 minutes, that "caution might be wise" if one wants to start a family and his genetically predisposed to psychotic mental illnesses. ( I see myself not as a "MGTOW", but as an undesirable, a loser, a low status male -- like Andy Nowicki.)
And yet, there is still a strong aversion among the Alt-Right to accept the necessity of eugenics. I mean, just study Kierkegaard's family: almost all of them were of a melancholy disposition. Not only his siblings -- Garff, in his biography, cites a melancholic letter never sent written by one of his sisters --, but also the son of his older brother was mentally ill and had to spent some time in a mental institution. One son of Kierkegaard's sisters was even at the mental asylum the same time his older brother's son was. So, their mental illnesses ran in their family, just like their mental gifts. Cf. the essay: "Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage" (Google Books)
I conclude with two aphorisms by the great Colombian Catholic Nicolás Gómez Dávila:
"We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us."
"We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest."