Post-Petersonian Self Help

[august]

The more people try to cynically find any leverage they can in these fields the harsher they'll get, and the worse everyone's outcomes will get, even in the face of more and more effort. This is why plundering the commons makes you a nigger. Because you cannot see the consequences of your actions.

Maybe one of the most concise, fundamentally sound statements ever typed out on this site. It's basic math. Basic economics.

As I've said in various other contexts, this self-help stuff all ultimately falls short because it's not the individuals who need help, it's society.

Anthony Zizek.

You don't understand at all what he is saying. If you did, you'd never group his name alongside that disgusting retard, even if done as a joke.

It is society. The individual seeks help, but he does so in a way that mistakes the forest for the trees: he wants to be "happy" — but what does that mean? In the typical "self-help" seeker's mind, happiness is 'getting pussy' and 'making money'. These two things are the highest objects of desire in so many an individual's mind. Who does that sound like? Listen to any rap "song"... (Btw, ANAG, actually).

"Man is a rope" ... and self-help today often tells the individual, "don't look down!" In its current iteration, made for mass consumption, it's self-defeating from the start. Some of these mainstream gurus make millions of dollars peddling 'concepts' that are intuitive. Well, they should be intuitive. You should want to be healthy. You should want to be successful in whatever you do. Let's shill Petersonian-esque truisms, or Marcus Aurelius and The Art of War, to infinity so that the individual can improoove. The reason this falls short is because we're telling it to an entire multi-generational mass of men that are living in a society that imposes, both de facto and de jure, the opposite of tangible improvement on them. ("Men who have had their souls fed to the machine and are now spat on by it ... Women have endless contempt for socialised herbivore men and will NEVER draw a conscious connection between social pressures and the creation of these types." - anthony). Ironically, modern self-help only helps you to become a mindless striver. Fascism was, quite literally, designed to recreate society as a solution to this entire problem. 

Why are figures from antiquity always represented as the equivalent of a Handsome Thursday model? It wasn't because it was good for their """mental health""" or so that they could have "bitches on muh dick" ... the garbage they tell you to work out for today. It was because this is always the first requirement in being able to impose one's will to craft the society that he wishes to live in. The real "checks and balances" of actual democratic politics is that your "vote" is backed by the threat of strength and violence. At the same time, it is the experiential process by which one develops such physical and mental fortitude... the struggle that one goes through, not the end result, is the most important part of self-becoming, by the way. In a way, the concept of modern "self-help" is like me giving you the codes to the most powerful nuclear weapons, but you'll never be able to push the button, and you may never even realise what these codes are in the first place... because society.

[Guest]

If society is composed of niggers and caters to niggers, then does plunder one make one a nigger to niggers? Many things to ponder...

It's a ridiculous position because what you assume as so is not so.

[Guest]

In the many cases of requisitions made for war, it appears that all of those who requisitioned are now niggers.

Aristocrats are niggers, simple definition.

If you are not a communist, then you are a nigger.

[anthony]

If society is composed of niggers and caters to niggers, then does plunder one make one a nigger to niggers? Many things to ponder...

It's a ridiculous position because what you assume as so is not so.

It makes you a nigger, if that's all you're doing.

In the many cases of requisitions made for war, it appears that all of those who requisitioned are now niggers.

Aristocrats are niggers, simple definition.

If you are not a communist, then you are a nigger.

You're making a spin on my case now. Which you would recognise if you weren't a nigger.

If taking from society goes from a practical, selfish, and personal concern in the vein of self-improvement (become rich and impressive, even at the expense of others) to a collective goal ("war", you said it) you're now engaging with politics again. Because presumably purely selfish pursuits are not worth it under these circumstances and we need to correct social conditions. You're now saying what I did again but insulting me because you're an idiot. Or you're just spinning your idiot case in any direction that feels like it might score a point because you're a moron who isn't even taking this seriously.

[Guest]

The more people try to cynically find any leverage they can in these fields the harsher they'll get, and the worse everyone's outcomes will get, even in the face of more and more effort.

Cynically trying to find leverage = competition? What’s the difference?

[anthony]

The more people try to cynically find any leverage they can in these fields the harsher they'll get, and the worse everyone's outcomes will get, even in the face of more and more effort.

Cynically trying to find leverage = competition? What’s the difference?

Going to stab you to death in your driveway to take your morning paper. This is the aristocratic aryan way.

[Guest]

None of this implies murder would be legal, amthony. Duelling will though.

[Guest]

It is better to be a nigger in this case to be quite honest. And I am happy to be a nigger.

[Guest]

'Priests, professors, masters, you are making a mistake in turning me over to the law. I have never belonged to this people; I have never been a Christian; I am of the race that sang under torture; laws I have never understood; I have no moral sense, I am a brute: you are making a mistake.'

Yes, my eyes are closed to your light. I am a beast, a nigger. But I can be saved. You are all covert niggers: maniacs, fiends, misers. Merchant, you are a nigger; Judge, you are a nigger; General, you are a nigger; Emperor, old itch, you are a nigger: you have drunk of the untaxed liquor of Satan's still. This nation runs on adieu and cancer. Cripples and old men beg to be boiled alive. The smartest thing would be to leave this continent where madness stalks to provide hostages for these wretches. I enter the true kingdom of the children of Ham.

[Guest]

It's my duty to cares for the peoples you know, that's how a good person is. Oh, the people! The people! It's all about the people. I'm a good person, oh, oh, I'm a good person!

[Hamamelis]

... In the typical "self-help" seeker's mind, happiness is 'getting pussy' and 'making money'. These two things are the highest objects of desire in so many an individual's mind. Who does that sound like? ...

Ironically, modern self-help only helps you to become a mindless striver. Fascism was, quite literally, designed to recreate society as a solution to this entire problem. 

... At the same time, it is the experiential process by which one develops such physical and mental fortitude... the struggle that one goes through, not the end result, is the most important part of self-becoming, by the way....

Yes, this and Anthony's contribution are very apt criticisms of self-help attitude (pre-Petersonian if you will) - now what is the solution to this?
I think we're all mostly on the same page about the fundamental question. The two of you seem to be somewhat against the idea of self-help in the first place, while I think it's pretty useful to a certain degree, but when it comes to the limitations, we're all saying the same thing (I don't really get the nigger discussion so I'm going to nignore it).
Is the solution to introduce fascism? Why do you think Fascism would relieve this dilemma of social leverages? And if it does, can we introduce it gradually (create Fascist groups in which life can get better without "self help")?
I'd rather the debate go in that direction than to discuss whether everybody needs to get rich and laid, because, as I said, I'm pretty sure we already agree on that.

[Guest]

What are you trying to solve? On the one hand, plundering the commons is bad. On the other hand, the common man doing his utmost to secure some material end is also bad. Who is this fascist leader going to be that leads this rosy revolution (even if it is just local groups as you say.) What kind of man will he be? Some sort of perfect moral-fag? There is some vague posturing towards "I love the people" married with an utter hatred of normal people here. Apparently, anyone who has sex or makes money is a nigger. Stunning discourse. No, I'm being dis-charitable. As long as it's not "too much money" or "too much sex" it's pure albino.

Just become a based communist like Logo Daedalus and all these problems will be solved for you. It is what you people want for so desperately.

[august]

Is the solution to introduce fascism? Why do you think Fascism would relieve this dilemma of social leverages? And if it does, can we introduce it gradually (create Fascist groups in which life can get better without "self help")?

From My Autobiography, Chapter 3: "The Book of Life" by Mussolini:

It is a general conviction that good or bad friends can decisively alter the course of a personality. Perhaps it may be true for those fundamentally weak in spirit whose rudders are always in the hands of other steersmen. During my life, I believe, neither my school friends, my war friends, nor my political friends ever had the slightest influence upon me. I have listened always with intense interest to their words, their suggestions and sometimes to their advice, but I am sure that whenever I took an extreme decision I have obeyed only the firm commandment of will and conscience which came from within.


I do not believe in the supposed influence of books. I do not believe in the influence which comes from perusing the books about the lives and characters of men.
For myself, I have used only one big book.
For myself, I have had only one great teacher.
The book is life — lived.
The teacher is day-by-day experience.

The reality of experience is far more eloquent than all the theories and philosophies on all the tongues and on all the shelves.

From Parega and Paralipomena, Chapter 22: "On Thinking for Oneself" by Schopenhauer:

[§ 258] ... Scholars are those who have read in books, but thinkers, men of genius, world-enlighteners, and reformers of the human race are those who have read directly in the book of the world.

[§ 259] At bottom, only our own fundamental ideas have truth and life; for it is they alone which we really and thoroughly understand. The ideas of someone else which we have read are the scraps and leavings of someone else’s meal, the castoff clothes of a stranger.
The idea of another which we have read is related to our own that occurs to us as the impression in stone of a plant from the primeval world to the blossoming plant of spring.

Both of those excerpts, in my opinion, are better descriptions of self-help than pre- and peri-Petersonian attitudes, which I'd define more appropriately as "life advice" or something along those lines. Now, can we give a little ground and say that Mussolini may have been puffing and embellishing a bit? We probably can, I think. But at the same time, I don't think that it's a controversial view on this Forum to say that most people need to be led. After all, Mussolini did become The Leader, The Boss... and contrary to what the victor-approved history and slander tell us, I really believe that The Followers truly loved him as such. Duce ti amiamo. 

Schopenhauer says that it is only those higher types that choose to read directly from the book of the world. Thus, not everyone is going to be able to do this. But shouldn't they at least try as much as they can? There is a quote by Jonathan Bowden: "You can do a bit, but you're born to be what you are! And we should celebrate what we were born to be." The incompetent guest above me would do well to internalise that, as nothing about this is the wholesome chungusism that he (?) wants to believe that it is. He can 'serious hat' soyjak me and continue to bite the ankles of everyone here all he wants, because the truth is that he wasn't born to be a thinker, but rather a guest, a nigger, someone who will never understand. 

Anyway, Hamamelis, to your questions: I think that we need to be very careful when we consider the reintroduction of systems as they existed when respectively implemented in the first place, lest we'll end up kidding ourselves into thinking that solving modern problems is as simple as "retvrning". This, to me, is the problem of ideology on [a big part of] the Right that the left doesn't really have as much. There are many that think that if we just introduced bands of squadristi IRL then we could solve most of the problems that we have today. It's fantastical and, frankly, a bit immature in my eyes. Conversely, when we look at the left, we see people (so-called) that cling to a constantly evolving set of views and definitionless ""ideology"" (i.e., whatever they say it is) in order to justify an ever-increasing intrusion upon the average person's way of life. 

So it would seem to me that "to introduce fascism" outright is not the solution—nor do I believe that it would even be possible in the foreseeable future—but I don't think that this means that we can't take the core of what it was about to lay the foundation for something worthwhile. We should think about how the left, despite all its bullshit talk of kumbaya, is actually made up of all of the most jealous, selfish, and backstabbing types alive. Disgusting liars who only know how to exploit and molest the naïve of the world (both spiritually and physically...) for their own personal gain. We should also think about how Fascism was definitely correct in its response to this, and how those aspects can be used in a way in which the rising tide lifts all our boats. How can we cultivate an understanding of a similar sense of unity for a shared higher purpose that benefits the whole and not only the individual, while still benefitting the individual?



If it isn't currently possible to physically recreate this, I'd like to find a way to do so spiritually. I believe that there are some places that are worth trying to start. I'm just going to quote what I wrote out in another thread:

To that end, since my premise here is that these types of young guys seem to be attracted to characters that appear to reflect their personal situations, I think that it would be necessary to first find ways to foster real life friendships before making a bunch of friendless people wish that they had friends. I was surprised by the discussion of this in the shoutbox because -- as many here have recently expressed desire to rehabilitate forms of male bonding from antiquity -- no one mentioned anything about one that has existed and remained true for thousands upon thousands of years. That being, athletics. I'm not talking about watching niggerball on the TEE VEE and talking about it with braindead retards. I'm not even talking about going to the gym and lifting so you can be a cool "RW" "bodybuilder". Rather, I'm talking about the bonds that groups of men can form through sport by making a physical and mental sacrifice together with the sole objective being a shared desire to WIN. Few things come closer to the feeling of having a shared investment in accomplishing a goal than training for hours, months, years together, knowing that a tenth of a second is what might separate each of you, together as one, from victory or defeat. You'd be surprised how many never get to experience something like this. In both the winning and the losing, I believe one can find some of life's most valuable lessons that can only be learned as such. 





I believe you have to promote this first. A requisite that must exist before.

I know that you mention sports being a common quip. Though in my mind, the essence of athletics as described above is almost no different than that of my interpretation of Fascism: anti-egalitarian, homosocial (masculine), sacrificial, and so on. Perhaps most of us here are past the age to experience youth or collegiate sports. But since I agree with anthony that the problem is really one of society, I see no reason why we shouldn't consider potential solutions that would plant the seeds for those that will come after us.

[Hamamelis]

How can we cultivate an understanding of a similar sense of unity for a shared higher purpose that benefits the whole and not only the individual, while still benefitting the individual?
...
the essence of athletics as described above is almost no different than that of my interpretation of Fascism: anti-egalitarian, homosocial (masculine), sacrificial, and so on ... I see no reason why we shouldn't consider potential solutions that would plant the seeds for those that will come after us.

Great post, and nice pictures as well, thank you for the reply. I will have to think about it before I reply in depth, but for now, two things stick out about it: for one, to form a collective would resolve at least some of the open questions I have posed in the OP, as has also been alluded to in previous posts. It would need to be a collective formed by exceptionalism, and athlethic endeveaours are a good proposition in that regard. In general, my intuitive understanding of the mention of fascism in this context is always in connection to the fact that all group activities are prone to fake-and-gay-ness and the related infiltration by women. "Fascism" then is what happens if you heed Robert Conquest's 2nd law.
The other thing that I noticed, I liked less, but you might be right about it: our work might be for coming generations. I have not really considered that, and I'm not even sure I want to. Less in the sense that I don't want to shape the future and more in the sense that I hope to find something that works for me, as soon as possible.

[Guest]

You must do your work for the coming generations, to make sure that no one is having too much sex or gaining too many resources. This is fascism.