"...turns tyrant and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy..." - Jonathan Maythew (1750)
"Power is pleasure." - William Hazlitt (1826)
I've pointed out before more than once that the Manosphere definition of an "alpha" is that of a narcissist/psychopath - and there is nothing good about being one. They have no conscience, no guilt, no remorse, are incapable of love, and are motivated by an immense sense of entitlement, greed and a desire for power. Superficially they can be charming - a talent which they use to manipulate people, whom they consider things that exist for their sadistic pleasure. They're more monsters than human beings who always blame their problems on other people - use them as scapegoats..
And as I've also pointed out before, the word "monster" comes from the same root words as "demonstrate" or "warning."
By the way, you cannot turn yourself into a sociopath. And even acting like one will always have negative effects. Those who say they are "Dark Triad alphas" are lying - oftentimes (in fact always) because they don't know what those things are.
The dumber psychopaths/sociopaths end up in prison or executed (all serial killers are psychopaths) and the smarter ones become politicians (think Hillary Clinton, who shows a lot of sociopathic characteristics).
These characteristics have been noticed for a long time - and the Founding Fathers, who knew their history, well understood them. That's why they tried to found a country with the separation of powers, with a weak, divided government. It worked pretty well for a long time and even today works fairly well - compared to the rest of the world (which Richard Maybury refers to as "Chaostan").
This country was founded on political and economic liberty, which, for all its flaws, created the greatest country ever. And that is why half the world wants to move here.
Speaking of history, the past has shown that these conscienceless, power-mad people have always crushed the average man and woman into abject poverty - they've ended up being that "1%" living in idleness and luxury, living like vampires on the blood/taxes of their impoverished subjects. Remember - monsters?
Such people, I'm sure, would have loved using the concepts of the Manosphere to support them. "We're Alphas and all those disgusting, stupid, unwashed masses are Betas and Gammas and Omegas - we deserve what we've got and they deserve their horrible, wretched lives!"
The same rationalizations can be used by the believers in the mentally-ill, left-wing anti-Christian Jew atheist "Ayn Rand," with her beliefs in "producers" and "parasites" (how about "alphas" and "omegas"?) The latter which deserve to die by the billions (read Atlas Shrugged sometime. She blamed the world's problems on her "parasites" and used them as scapegoats to he human-sacrificed.).
It's most unfortunate that so few in the Manosphere know their history (I've found that that most of them are historical ignoramuses). Because if they knew their history they'd give up their beliefs in "alphas" and "betas" and "gammas" and "omegas" in a heartbeat.
Which, unfortunately, isn't going to happen. For now.
Being an "alpha" (ridiculous adolescent word) should be about being the best version of yourself you can be - that's why the Greeks, as I mentioned several times before, noticed that excellence (arete) leads to well-being and flourishing - (eudamonia). And the temporary, up-and-down nature of pleasure is not happiness and well-being).
Instead it's right out of a '60s copy of Playboy (or a '70s book titled How to Pick up Girls) - get girls any way you can! Dread Game! Aloofness! Lift weights! Chicks dig insane confidence! They can't help but love "Dark Triad psychopaths." Ridiculous. Narcissistic. Worse than that, it's pathetic.
"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature." - James Madison
"The blackjack mentality stops progress." - Richard Maybury
22 comments:
I wasn't aware that Ayn Rand was left wing. She was militantly hostile to any concept of collectivism, let alone anything like socialism or communism.
Perhaps you are using a different definition of left wing than the one I am familiar with.
Whatever you say about Rand, she was not left wing or socialist. Indeed, and there certainly are producers and parasites.
Socialists hunt in packs.
When my production and resources are take from me by force, without my consent, and redistributed to others, then those who do the taking, and those complicit in the benefits, ARE indeed parasites.
Rand believed in her "producers" as gods fit to rule society. She also believed
in the deaths of billions of those she defined as "parasites." That's left-wing.
Well, I think that is a distortion.
The producers were gods fit to rule their own lives and have the benefits and consequences of their own choices. No one elses life, but definitely their OWN.
And furthermore that those who do not produce cannot take from others, and must face those consequences--likely to be negative-- of trying to live off others.
I dont see any wish for millions to die, but to be responsible for their own choices.
To distort that into millions must die is exactly the manipulative logic the left uses to demand control of people lives.
There's no distortion. Fuck Ayn Rand.
Rand - whose real name was Alice Rosenbaum - wiped out hundreds of millions if not billions in "Atlas Shrugged." When all her "alpha" producers decided to withdraw
from the world.
In reality the world would continue as before and no one would notice these people not working.
Errr... like Venezuela, Bob?
I like Rand and have always considered myself a shithouse objectivist ever since I read Atlas Shrugged. It's a worldview my experience supports: the facts are what they are, perception is NOT reality, and stupid people that insist that it is can get themselves killed by insisting on it.
Rand - whose real name was Alice Rosenbaum - wiped out hundreds of millions if not billions in "Atlas Shrugged." When all her "alpha" producers decided to withdraw
from the world.
There is a world of difference between actively killing people and allowing people to die on their own by merely not having any involvement with them. By equating the two, you are implying that people have the positive obligation to keep others from dying (or killing themselves). Is this correct?
All her "producers" could move to Mars and it would make no difference at all to the world. It would go on as always.
The woman was mentally ill: Borderline and Paranoid Personality Disorder. Her own friends used to wonder if she was evil.
Oh, and a drug addict.
Some really excellent points here. Whether the so-called Red Pills will admit it or not, they actually preach Cultural Marxism too
http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/2016/06/red-pills-red-states-and-red-nightmare.html
As for Rand, the Fountainhead has the 'hero' committing a terrorist act against a building he designed, while Atlas Shrugged makes a hero of a pirate who sinks freight liners.
What these Alpha-boobs fail to understand is that true masculine strength has a purpose. Which is to defend those who are weaker from being preyed upon by those who believe that strength comes from enslaving the powerless.
Errr...Bob? Venezuela...?
The producers all left, the parasites ate the rich that didn't... and now they're having food riots and will kill each other over a stale crust of bread. America is collapsing under the weight of welfare slobs and entitlement scum as we speak.
Maybe she was a rotten person. Maybe she was an eeeeevil joo... whatever, but I am astonished that you despise her message Bob. Am I missing something...?
Having known people who actually knew Rand, I am well-aware of her personality flaw. Nevertheless, my question remains unanswered:
Are you saying that allowing people to die through their own actions by simply not having interaction with them and actively killing them are morally equivalent? If so, why?
Rand's beliefs were due to her mental illness. If all her "producers" died it would make no difference in the world at all. Her premises are utterly unrealistic and therefore no worthwhile can follow from them. Therefore your question cannot be answered.
"To distort that into millions must die is exactly the manipulative logic the left uses to demand control of people lives."
As opposed to the white nationalists who distort and manipulate and seek to demand control of the lives of "anti-whites", right, Cecil?
^You're hallucinating.
Glen Filthie, I think Bob does not like Rand because she despised religion. I've known others who've had semi-libertarian worldviews similar to Rand who, nevertheless, despised her. I do not despise religion. I believe in treating it the same way many of Heinlein characters did in his novels, that is with benign indifference.
Rand as a person certainly had her flaws (Barbara Brandon wrote extensively about her as a person in her book "The Passion of Ayn Rand"). Nevertheless I subscribe to much of her world-view. Rand (and Rothbard) are the only philosophers I know of who stated straight out that the individual is the owner of his/her own life and that interpersonal relationships are essentially horizontal networking between morally autonomous social "equals". I consider this to be the most "robust" philosophical defense of liberty. It assumes that the individual is inherently free and that the burden of argument is ALWAYS on those who seek to restrict liberty, not defend it. This alone makes Rand's world-view vastly superior to most others, regardless of whatever personality flaws she had as a person.
There are two flaws in Rand's world-view as far as I'm concerned. The first is her presumption that money is the measure of all value. it is not. The second is that Rand never considered pioneering to be a value in its own right. I consider pioneering (in the Turner/Heinlein sense) to be a fundamental value in its own right and agree with Robert Zubrin's assertion that all non-pioneering cultures (and world-views) are inherently pathological.
'As opposed to the white nationalists who distort and manipulate and seek to demand control of the lives of "anti-whites"'
Well you have that almost perfectly backwards to the reality. Projection perhaps.
Leaving people alone, allowing them to choose what they want, is not the same as insisting anyone be controlled.
Freedom means people get what THEY want. Otherwise you end with a country people want OUT of. The anti-whites do NOT want anyone to escape the world they demand. They imagine anyone who does so is 'controlling them'.
Hence 'diversity' means chasing DOWN the last White person. People with such an agenda must be accountable for that behavior. No???
That comment at July 11, 2016 at 4:52 PM was not mine, it looks like Cheechy Boy is butthurt again for getting his 7th/8th sockpuppet exposed.
John Zmirak did a good article on Rand's toxic self-absorption, "The Vanity of Ayn Rand":
"Rand's ideal of selfhood amounts to self-deification, fed by the pretense that the individual is wholly self-created, owing nothing to history, ancestors, neighbors, or the future... Rand's idea of the autonomy of the individual is so autistic, so clinically isolated from any real, human knowledge of how people grow up in families and cultures, that it recalls the lab experiments with baby monkeys raised by wire mothers... Rand bore fictional offspring who never fall in love, breastfeed, change diapers, or do any of the things that for a moment allow for the loss of self... It's telling that Rand simply could not visualize and convincingly depict a willing erotic surrender that didn't first need the use of force. No wonder she couldn't differentiate the impulse to engage in willing self-sacrifice on behalf of a needy fellow man from the hatred, envy, and powerlust intrinsic to every form of socialism."
For a funny take on Rand's nuttiness, check out Murray Rothbard's short play "Mozart Was a Red". Rothbard was kind of a crackpot himself, but unlike Rand, he had a healthy sense of humour. Initially an admirer of her philosophy, after visiting her inner circle to pay his compliments in person, and seeing her interact with her lackeys, he immediately realized she was a mentally unstable cult-leader. His thinly-fictionalized account of her bizarre behavior is pretty funny. For more laughs, have a look at a funny New Yorker piece, "Ayn Rand Reviews Children's Movies".
"That comment at July 11, 2016 at 4:52 PM was not mine, it looks like Cheechy Boy is butthurt again for getting his 7th/8th sockpuppet exposed."
Thanks, LAKings.
Cecil...
"Hence 'diversity' means chasing DOWN the last White person."
There is no white genocide taking place.
There definitely is white genocide taking place.
Yannow...it just hit me. Am I misunderstanding something, or is there a lot of overlap between objectivism and neo-reaction?
Post a Comment