The greatest book ever written

[Anonymous No.21627772]

48. Leibniz said that this is the best of all possible worlds, and Voltaire wrote an entire novel satirizing this claim. But what does "best of all possible worlds" mean, when the existence of "other" worlds is an absurdity, as far as we are concerned, and we'd be in no position to compare them even if it were otherwise? All it means is "I love myself", since in the definition of world the I is included, and is indeed what one refers to when one speaks of "the world", since the only aspect of "the world" that one can ever have experience of is oneself. "This is the best of all possible worlds" therefore means "I love myself", and to deride this means self-hatred.

91. The opposing viewpoints: Everything passes away, so nothing matters. This is nihilism speaking. And the retort: Everything returns, so everything matters. And this is Nietzsche speaking.

106. The higher you rise, both physically and spiritually — but mainly spiritually — the more all the creatures around you fade away and slowly disappear. Your parents, friends and relatives, not to mention the person in the street, become dead, can hardly be said to exist for you any more, while all the great figures of the past that all these shortsighted little creatures deem "dead", the philosophers and conquerors, gradually come alive, until one day they are all around you. You play at the higher level, where no one ever truly "dies", and where titanic forces are still waging their eternal struggle in which the pathetic little creatures all around you are not even important enough to be considered pawns; but dirt, atoms, nothingness.

127. Politicians lie, not because they enjoy it, but quite simply because, if they want to remain politicians, they have no other choice, for the subhuman will not tolerate the truth being so much as alluded to in his presence. Nothing funnier than subhumans decrying politicians' lying, when the man who would utter the simplest of truths — that, for example, no lifeforms are equal — would get zero votes. Subhumans see the entire world upside down, so when they complain that politicians lie what they really mean is that THEY DO NOT LIE NEARLY AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD (i.e. not well enough so that the subhuman will not figure out he's being lied to). The moral for politicians of the future — and I am a hundred percent behind it — is clear: they have to learn to lie better.

[Anonymous No.21627784]

180. I like machines as much as I like nature, if not more. This means: I like man-made things as much as I like non-man- made things. To say: "I don't like machines, I only like nature", would mean "I don't like man-made things, only non- man-made ones", which would be as much as saying "I don't like men", i.e. I am not a man — or at least not a very good one. TO NOT LIKE MACHINES MEANS TO NOT BE HUMAN. IT IS PRECISELY OUR CAPACITY TO MAKE MACHINES THAT MAKES US HUMAN. To be shouted at the ears of every luddite.

225. When all you want to do is survive, you goal is life (your life is your goal). When you want to dominate, your goal includes your life. Life in this case becomes merely another tool, another pawn to be thrown in the game at the appropriate time. Only the latter approach can achieve something. To merely remain alive is not much of an achievement, even insects can manage that just fine.

360. The PUAs' most hated concept is hypergamy and their most loved one solipsism. Their entire psychology is contained here. Hypergamy is hated because it signifies woman's natural desire to get the best mate she can get (which for any reasonably desirable woman would of course never be a PUA), while solipsism is loved because it helps the PUA become more confident by blocking out the rest of mankind from his mind and thus forgetting, for a while, how low on the totem pole he's standing. And the Mental Tower Defense game goes on. Keep building up those defenses, guys! Defense, after all, is the best offense. He who said the opposite clearly hadn't read enough PUAs.

310. What good would a photograph you've taken be if you've forgotten what's depicted in it? And what good would it be if you haven't?

[Anonymous No.21627801]

56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains. For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.
57. Which is why I say that true genius ultimately lies, not in proving anyone wrong, but in proving everyone right.

229. It's always a bright and sunny day on planet earth, it's just a question of having enough elevation.

[Anonymous No.21627810]

949. There are three tiers of thinkers. On the third tier you have people like Jordan Peterson. These people fare well enough when confronted with trifling issues—like whether a language should have ten personal pronouns or ten thousand, for example—and for this they are lauded by the rabble as geniuses. But when it comes to the genuinely tough subjects—the definition of truth say—they can talk nonsense for 20 hours without getting anywhere—and that's why their opinions on these subjects never survive the test of time: they are so confused and sprawling, while simultaneously worthless, that no one can bother memorizing them. If these people were a bit smarter they would not have opined on these subjects at all, but alas they're not, and thus the rest of us have to suffer their verbal diarrhea for a few years, until time wipes it all away.
Then we have the second tier, that comprises people like Aristotle, whose definition of truth, while next to useless, really, is at least concise enough to be memorable: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true". This is merely common sense transcribed in a kind of formula that makes autistic people feel they've understood something, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Aristotle was on the spectrum somewhere. All "analytic philosophers" are in the same boat/spectrum, and all their writings are equally commonsensical and worthless. But if the universe functioned commonsensically, why would we need geniuses lol? So these people are superior to the base crowd-pleasers like Peterson because they at least make a concentrated attempt at grappling with the big issues, and the results are at least readable, if not exactly useful. Their main use, however, is to function as foils for the geniuses; to serve up the balls that the geniuses will hit out of the park, so to speak.
And finally, on the first tier, we have the bona fide geniuses. Consider Nietzsche's "Truth is will to power". Doesn't it make Peterson's 20-hour verbal diarrhea on the subject seem ludicrous? Even more so considering the latter comes a whole friggin century after Nietzsche, and Peterson has read him? Not to mention the analytic autists, who still pathetically try to pretend that Nietzsche never existed.
And there you have the three tiers of thinkers. In summa, barely a few dozen people in the history of the species deserve to be carefully read from start to finish, and you won't find any of them on YouTube.

398. "Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings." Hahahaha. Those Indians are hilarious. Why don't you go set yourself on fire and see if anyone cares?

[Anonymous No.21627814]

976. It is precisely the most powerful things that are abused the most. Live streaming, social media, the internet: these are very powerful things. You either figure out how to use them, or they end up using you. Most people can't figure them out. And even abstaining entirely from using them is a form of failure to figure out how to use them, otherwise a hermit in a cabin in the woods would be the coolest human being ever. If you set up your social accounts right, there are no negative aspects to them at all. They are harmless little apps that facilitate communication on whatever terms you choose to impose on this communication. That is all. All that running around like a headless chicken screaming that Facebook is abusing you does is show to everyone... that you're a headless little chicken who can't figure out how to use a harmless little app for fuck's sake. Jesus Christ grow up.

979. At this point you might say, "If you side with the underdog by definition, why are you championing Western culture, and so on, which is a juggernaut on earth compared to other cultures?" You answered your own question when you said "on earth". Western culture may be a juggernaut right here, but is most likely an underdog in the galaxy, let alone in the universe, and therefore needs all the help it can get from us unless you intend to have African bushmen or Indian spearmen fight the aliens when the time comes. We need to strip mine the planet and lay down nanomachine factories from pole to pole, or else the earth is done. If you don't understand how this works, play the videogame Planetary Annihilation. That is mankind's future, not the left's low-IQ subhumans holding hands while singing kumbaya, nor the right's return to some past era that has already occurred and ended because we had enough of it thankyouverymuch. The future is STAR WARS. The future is PLANETS BEING ANNIHILATED because, as movies, novels and videogames show us, that is IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF FUN, and that's why science fiction is mankind's perennial favorite fiction genre (eight of the top ten highest grossing movies of all time are sci-fi). When the top ten grossing movies are about faggots holding hands while crying I will concede that mankind's done, but for the time being all signs still look extremely positive, so I'll keep fighting.

[Anonymous No.21627818]

981. Philosophers have done away with causality for centuries now, but commoners still believe in it. They see us and our writings as "absurd", or at the most "magical", but it's their causality that is magic. So let me try to explain one last time to you low-IQ buffoons why your Richard Dawkins Anglo Cabbage Head logic is dumb as fuck and you are dumb as doorknobs for still believing it in the 21st century. This is the last chance you'll get to grasp this, and if you fail to give this explanation to the roving gangs of murder-drones we'll soon be sending out, you're toast! So pay attention!
What is the cause of something?
It's something else.
But we've already agreed that everything in the universe is connected to and affects everything else, otherwise they
wouldn't be part of the same universe.
So the cause of anything... is everything.
But "everything" is precisely the definition of universe.
So the cause of anything is the universe.
But the universe cannot be pointed to as cause, because... it can't be pointed to.
The universe is not in your room, or outside your door, or even in the sky.
So it is magical thinking to believe that some thing caused something else, and that all the other things in the universe
had nothing to do with it.
So causality is magical thinking, which is fantasy, which is a desire, which is will.
You WANT that thing's cause to be that other thing, and that is all.
I can "prove" that Muslims created Western civilization if I want.
But I don't want to.
So I won't.
Think also of chaos theory and the butterfly flapping its wings creating a cyclone and so on.
Think also of the epistemological scepticism of Hume and Kant.
All these things say the same thing.
We are not logically entitled to draw inferences from circumstances. Just because something happened doesn't mean it
will happen again. Indeed, it's proof positive that it won't happen again before the next Recurrence! How can there be "laws" of "nature" in a universe in which repetition is impossible!

[Anonymous No.21627822]

1004. Nationalism as an ultimate ideology, as opposed to a temporary expedient, is so stupid even a child with elementary history knowledge could refute it. For pray tell, which nation managed to start out at the level of cavemen and reach all the way to modernity? Which nation managed to stay at the cutting-edge of culture for more than a few hundred years, at the most? Which race, for that matter? If you're determined to stick to a single nation or race or whatever other tribal group you fancy, you are doomed. And that insight too is contained in Heraclitus' flux concept. You either ride the wave, or you're drowned by it. And no wave lasts forever. So you better get good at jumping on to the next one. The West has so far managed this admirably, it's even the reason we're number 1; but there are no guarantees we'll keep it up forever, so it helps to realize it is a skill, and a vital one, and work at it as hard as we can. So let's keep working at it.

26. Whether it's chimpanzees hollering and grunting, religious nuts Koran- and Bible-thumping, or philosophers engaged in the most sublime and transmontane abstraction acrobatics, the end result is the same: In all cases feelings have been transmitted and a general course of action agreed upon; the particular forms in which this transmission can occur — whether via grunts, holy-book-thumping or complex and reasoned argument — are merely the different ways in which different species of lifeforms transmit feelings. The relative change in the complexity of the process is merely a reflection of the relative difference in the complexity of the lifeforms; the more complex lifeforms will naturally require a more complex process, all the way up to this book: the most complex book that will ever be written.

[Anonymous No.21627830]

68. People have a vast problem dealing with the notion of the inequality of men. But that the only reason for this problem is envy and resentment is shown by the fact that when it comes to other species, not only is there no problem, but inequality is taken as a given and the mere implication that, for example, a dog may be equal to a man is treated by everyone as proof of madness and cause for internment in mental institutions (and this is indeed how it will eventually be with whoever keeps insisting on the equality of humans and subhumans). And yet a simple substitution is all it takes to reveal the sheer absurdity of the business. Change "men" to "lifeforms" and the deeply reactive nature of the equality lie, the massive incapacity to unblinkingly acknowledge the simple fact that some men are superior, and even vastly superior, to others, stands revealed. For in the end it all comes down to DNA, since species are ultimately fictitious. "All men are equal" means "all DNA is equal". And the only answer that can be given at this point is: O rly?

230. "Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity! Subhumans: Standing Every Human Idea On Its Head Since The Invention Of Speech.

[Anonymous No.21627842]

80. The retards ask: "Where is the evidence for the inferiority of women?" And I respond: Where is the evidence that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Where is the evidence that it takes clouds for it to rain? Where is the evidence that pigs can't fly? It's all around us. Propositions so self-evident that the mere fact that retards question their validity almost constitutes evidence.

115. If you want to see what a subhuman really believes in, observe him at the moment of a medical emergency. Who is the first he thinks of, God or his doctor? Where does he first go, the church or the hospital? If he really does believe that his God is above the doctors, why does he unfailingly heed the doctors first in every case of need, and his God only much later, if at all? Therefore he believes first and above all in the descendants of Asclepius and Hippocrates. Why asking him is pointless, as regards the truth. What he believes and what he tells you he believes are two entirely different things. What he believes is what he feels will bring him most advantage (hence why he is being smart in believing more in doctors than in his God), what he tells you he believes is ONCE MORE what he feels will bring him most advantage: and this is DIFFERENT from what he really believes — i.e. in this case he wants to seem cool to you and of high morals: "Look, I believe in God", etc. To present all this to the subhuman and try to show him his hypocrisy one might as well try to talk the chameleon out of changing color: that ability is all the poor creature has to hide and accommodate itself in an environment filled with far more powerful creatures; if you are determined to be that cruel you might as well go ahead and kill it. Not to mention that you'd be asking for a degree of consciousness and self-awareness from it that the poor creature simply doesn't have. Does the chameleon know that it's changing color, or is it doing it completely unconsciously, in the same way that a wound heals, the stomach operates, etc.? Do chameleons think about their color-changing abilities, and discuss it among themselves, produce learned treatises on it, etc.? No more than the subhumans think about their beliefs and study whether they are at all consistent with their actions.

[Anonymous No.21627847]

137. "But how can you think so cruelly about children?" Listen up here, sister: Children will die, no matter what you do. Children have always died, and they always will die. That is how the world works. Because if children did not die, and there was some magical kind of effect whereby homo sapiens under the age of 18 were invulnerable and invincible, the world would not be so immersive, and those children would think themselves gods. Not to mention what would happen if a bunch of these invincible children decided to attack, say, the US's nuclear installations as a prank, to see what happens "when you press all those red buttons". So it's a good thing that young homo sapiens are not invincible, and a direct consequence of this is that they can, and often do, die. Let us therefore, for once, be glad that children die! Let us thank the gods that we live in a universe where children are not invulnerable! For God help us if they were...

138. (By the way, it is totally natural that women, by and large, are horrified by children's deaths. What is not natural is that men have been feminized to a degree that they effectively feel the same way, and that they have allowed women's narrowmindedness, which in itself, and for the purpose for which women have been shaped by evolution, is praiseworthy, to lay hold of the whole of society and tyrannize it with the values of small and petty creatures.)

[Anonymous No.21627855]

434. What is disgusting and repulsive about the masses of poor sick wretches who "seek happiness", then, is precisely this: that everything they say and do in their pathetic little lives is aimed at producing the tiniest of effects: nothing more than a change in the balance of molecules inside their energy-starved little brains; whereas the great and dazzling individuals who created and raised our species and culture out of this planet's primordial ooze were always aiming at producing effects OUTSIDE of them, by SHAPING their entire environment and us with it. (And note that this is the tombstone of "Eastern philosophies" and of any kind of thinking whatsoever which STOPS at inner, spiritual effects, instead of STARTING OUT from them, and expanding from there, as our kind of thinking and our philosophy aims at and champions.)

431. Misogyny, from Greek misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example. Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist", a "misdogist", because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't? And the same goes for "homophobia" (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), "race hatred", and the like.
But of course the subhumans' inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply "But no, you are not superior, you are inferior", which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman ;)

[Anonymous No.21627884]

445. To be completely and brutally honest, our philosophical attitude towards inferior lifeforms consists in doing whatever is necessary to rationalize away their concerns so that we can better and more effectively pursue ours. Whoever denies this is either an idiot, a liar or a hypocrite (in other words, he's not one of us).

477. "If intelligent entities from other parts of the universe exist at similar or superior technological levels to ours, would they draw the same or at least similar philosophical conclusions to us?" That is a very good question. And my answer is this. They better fucking do if they want to have any hope of withstanding our relentless, merciless onslaught.

[Anonymous No.21627885]

>>21627772
all of this is so shallow lmao

[Anonymous No.21627887]

>>21627772
It's like AI designed to be 99 iq was asked to mimic Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21627889]

459. Once you have understood that power is more important than happiness (which latter is merely a tool of the former, and not the other way around, as it appears from the inverted perspective of sick, declining lifeforms), the next thing you need to understand is that phrases such as "to seek power", "to want power", "to take power" and the like are merely subhuman misunderstandings of how power actually works.
If you seek power, it simply means that you don't have it (and therefore will never get it either, because power is something you give, not take).
If you want power, this once more means that you don't have it (and therefore once more will never get it, for the exact same reason I explained in the previous parenthesis).
If you take power, it simply means that someone is giving it to you, and is therefore the more powerful of the two, and will remain so for as long as you are drawing your power from him instead of bestowing it on him.
So how does power actually work? Take an extremely simple example from the physical sphere, where the mechanics are easier to understand. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, and try to figure out how he became so physically strong. The subhuman theory of power as something to be taken would suggest that Arnold took his power from somewhere, but from where exactly? From the barbells, perhaps? In this view, barbells would be magical instruments with the capacity for bestowing power on all those who... try to lift them, I guess. But if you or I tried to lift the kinds of barbells Arnold typically lifts, we'd get literally crushed. Not only would we not "gain" any power: we'd have to be hospitalized. We could of course start from smaller weights and work our way up, the same way Arnold did: but I have bad news for you here, sonny: we'd probably fail at getting to his level, or even anywhere near it, no matter how hard we tried. Far more genetically gifted individuals than us in this sphere have already tried this, after all, and failed: that's why Arnold won the Mr. Olympia contest seven times while scores of his closest competitors didn't. This means that the subhuman theory of magical power-bestowing barbells is false: if the barbells do indeed play a role in the strengthening of an individual, then at the very least this individual must be of a specific type that is CAPABLE of benefiting from their effect: he has, in other words, to be WORTHY of them, which is merely another way of saying that he has to be ALREADY STRONG.
QED: Power is not something you can take but something that you must give, and the only reason subhumans are adamant that it is the other way around is because they are so inherently and irremediably weak, that they don't have the slightest conception of it.

460. Therefore, it is not the "pursuit of Power" that we are interested in, it is the RELEASE of Power; the release into the rest of the universe of the power which we already have (…)

[Anonymous No.21627907]

>>21627885
558. We build our Overman, and the aliens build theirs, then they fight each other, and the Big Bang happens and we start over. "Is that it?" Yes, that's it. It is your shallowness that wants something "deeper" (i.e. something you can't understand), and it's my depth that wants something shallow (i.e. the opposite to me so that I can be destroyed in the process towards it and begin again). All the rest are excuses.

[Anonymous No.21627920]

>>21627885
>>21627887
572. Stupid, worthless and uneducated kids — average people — who come into contact with philosophy through my writings for the first time, and near-instantly turn into tinfoil-hat wearing boastful morons who can't even talk like normal people anymore but only in an absurd and monstrous parody of my writing style. I have been culling them from my forums for nearly a decade now, but they keep coming. I wonder how many thousands of them it takes to finally snag someone who is not retarded; who doesn't become even more retarded than he already is, by coming into contact with texts he has no right to and should, in an ideal society, even be physically restrained from reading.

[Anonymous No.21627944]

679. A thing that "makes sense" is a useful thing; something that we can use (therefore, the stronger one is, physically and mentally, the more things he can use, and the more that "makes sense" to him. For neurotics and the hysterical — like for example Sartre, Camus and other weaklings — everything is nonsensical; "absurd"). So the sentence "I love ice cream" makes sense, because it can be used to understand me, while the sentence "I cream ice love" is nonsense, because no one can figure out what to do with it. — Now take it to the level of the universe. For the universe to "make sense" to at least someone, it would have to mean that that someone could put the universe to use. But who could use the universe, if the universe is everything? It would have to be someone situated "outside" the universe, which is by definition nonsense. Ergo the universe doesn't make sense, and I didn't even have to leave my room or even put on underwear to determine this, my dear hard-working and hard-studying scientists, who will doubtless continue being perplexed by this idea because, despite the heaps of random stuff they read all day long, they don't like to read philosophy. (It makes them feel uneasy to see a genius lording it over their heads, without even wearing any underwear, so they prefer to look away and try their best to ignore him.)

[Anonymous No.21627991]

>>21627885
722. How completely opposed to us the subhumans are, even down to the most basic of principles! To be "reductive", for example, is an insult among them! It is a bad thing to be! And since all analysis is reductive — all abstraction, ultimately; all thought — since that is the purpose of it: to reduce the infinite uniqueness and complexity of the flux we find ourselves immersed in to a few solid concepts we can grasp, and therefore use — what the subhumans are doing with their denigration of "reductivism" is to denigrate thought! Even Baudrillard did it! That was his response to the Sokal affair! He had no better retort to their damning criticisms than to say, "They are reductive".
So if reduction is a bad thing, I guess the opposite would be a good thing, dear subhumans? An unrestrained expansion of our concepts, and ultimately our words? An inflation?
And that's indeed what pseudo-intellectuals do, who have dozens of words for every concept, churning out new ones every other day (or at least whenever they want to publish a new essay or book), and who, past a certain point, no longer deal in concepts any more but in pure words; in mere verbiage without meaning. Ethics is supposed to be a different thing from morals, for example (whereas it's just the Greek word for it, and woe to him who dares suggest we start using only the English version!)
So thanks, but no thanks, dear subhumans! Keep your empty verbiage to yourselves, and I'll stick to my reduction. I even plan to go as far as to reduce all concepts to just one: to what in physics is known as power; or, better yet, to the psychological version of it: to will.

[Anonymous No.21628015]

>>21627887
753. There's only one kind of person who can't tell that the genius is a genius: the retarded. The genius is a walking IQ test.

[Anonymous No.21628068]

830. It is in fact equality that would have been unfair, since it would render the accumulated effort of generations — both in the biological and cultural spheres — utterly worthless and superfluous. And that's why equality is impossible in the universe, because as we'll be seeing shortly, the words "fairness", "justice" and the like are synonyms of "universe". "What is justice?", the super-children of the future will ask. And their robotic tutors will reply with one voice: "The universe is justice", i.e. what actually exists and occurs, and not the delirious vindictive fantasies of the defeated, conquered and enslaved.

[Anonymous No.21628087]

love me an icy thread, seething subhumans inbound

>/lit/ thinks they can understand cryptic 19th century Nietzsche in original German
>/lit/ is actually too dumb to appreciate icycalm written in 21st century surfer vidya gama English (not even his first language)

[Anonymous No.21628127]

>>21628087
>Balkan video game addicts and internet scam artists are the real Ubermensch

[Anonymous No.21628133]

910. I need meaning = I want someone to tell me what to do. Same exact business as with "happiness", etc. When the ultimate goal is an abstract concept like "meaning" and "happiness" (or "good", "grace", "redemption" and so on), one can deduce weakness with utter certainty. Strength has concrete, external goals; weakness has abstract internal ones, for the simple reason that we have DEFINED strength and we MEASURE it, in physics as everywhere else, by looking for and comparing EXTERNAL EFFECTS (otherwise the Indian gurus, who routinely defraud their followers with bogus claims of "inner strength", would rule our societies instead of being laughingstocks of it). No valid argument can be advanced against the above; it simply "follows from the definition", as mathematicians say. The only question left to ask, then, is if you understand the definition. Do you?

[Anonymous No.21628163]

>>21628127
overflowing with ressentiment

>205. In a society of slaves the only type of noble man remaining is the criminal.

[Strange Love No.21628179]

Decent observations, lacks some deeper insight. Bit too edgy still. Ah well, might just grow up. :)

[Anonymous No.21628190]

>>21628163
>Based retard cites himself
I will grant that there is something poetic about the impenetrability of the simple mind

[Anonymous No.21628203]

>>21628190
thanks for the compliment, but i'm not icy :)

>there is something poetic about the impenetrability of the simple mind
indeed!

>17. Understanding goes from higher to lower, there's no understanding from lower to higher, only misunderstanding — some absurd simplification/falsification/reinterpretation of the signs. I am not talking to you, you just happen to be within hearing distance while I address the ones I am talking to. Moreover, there's no question of you disagreeing — or even of agreeing with me, since you can't even parse what I am saying. We are neither agreeing nor disagreeing; we are not even communicating. You are just flapping your lips; I am the only one here who's talking; and as I've just explained, and you've failed to understand, not to you.

[Strange Love No.21628213]

>>21627889

>460. Therefore, it is not the "pursuit of Power" that we are interested in, it is the RELEASE of Power; the release into the rest of the universe of the power which we already have (…)

Got that one right btw. Well, mostly ... simply "releasing" it can have unforeseen consequences. It needs to be directed, employed.

[Anonymous No.21628272]

>>21628213
The ability to direct oneself is another sign of being powerful, so even the “directing” is in fact a release of power. Unless you think intelligence isn’t power..

[Anonymous No.21628296]

>>21628179
>lacks some deeper insight
he says, while providing next to no insight

[Anonymous No.21628305]

>>21628179
>Bit too edgy still
>"Are there any refutations of icycalm's philosophy beyond calling it edgy?"

[Anonymous No.21628309]

358. "He may be right, but his tone renders his message useless to me" is merely a roundabout way of saying "I don't give a shit about the issues", whereas he who is prepared to write in such an aggressive tone that will repel most readers if that's what's required to get the message across is saying "NOTHING matters MORE to me than these issues".

[Strange Love No.21628322]

>>21628272

>Unless you think intelligence isn’t power..

Heh, good point! A power to direct a power after all. So what directs the power which directs the power ... the will to power alone? We can even skip the intermediate here. A predator can easily kill an antelope and the greatest retard can bash someone's head in with a sufficiently sized stick. Both are releasing power according to a "will", yet with little of what we'd consider "intelligence" involved. Just a release of raw power. So overall, one might say that in the end the will acts as a conduit for the power (as in a raw force directed for a purpose, one might even say it is merely "borrowed" and employed).

[Strange Love No.21628326]

>>21628296

>does not elaborate
>leaves

Hey, still here ... ;)

>>21628305

Bingo! So watcha gonna do about it, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.21628336]

>>21627810
>Aristotle is not a bona fide genius
Yikes

[Anonymous No.21628341]

>>21627818
>the universe cannot be pointed to as cause, because... it can't be pointed to.
The universe is not in your room, or outside your door, or even in the sky.
AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.21628344]

>>21627772
>First paragraph of post
>Literally the most horrendous misunderstanding of Leibniz I've ever seen
Geez that was an easy dismissal

[Anonymous No.21628347]

>>21628190
>"Also on literally any forum where he is discussed in an even remotely positive light the person that talks about him will be accused of being icycalm. It happens on /lit/, on /v/, on movies, philosophy, and video game forums. For some reason people are fucking paranoid about him. icycalm is the internet boogie man."

[Anonymous No.21628353]

>>21627818 #
>the universe cannot be pointed to as cause, because... it can't be pointed to.
>The universe is not in your room, or outside your door, or even in the sky.
I agree that causality isn’t ultimately real but this is an utterly retarded way of proving it. Maybe he should make like his idol Nietzsche and just post his opinions, leaving the arguments for people with braincells.

[Anonymous No.21628354]

>>21628344
754. Why did Leibniz hold that everything God does is rational? This idea — the so-called principle of sufficient reason — is the core of his philosophy. Start by asking what a reason is and why we like them. Because they are mental contructs — tools — that help us take hold of a situation and affect it, shaping it to our wishes. Reasons don't exist — we are the ones who invent them. "God only does reasonable things" therefore means "I want to understand God", which, if you understand what to understand means, might as well mean "I want to be God". — Not that Leibniz understood this.

Nor did you.

[Anonymous No.21628496]

>>21628353
He’s just poking at the redundancy of saying everything is the cause. Everything is the cause of everything. It’s tautological, useless.

[Anonymous No.21628524]

That would make math useless too, since equations are tautologies.

Do you math?

[Anonymous No.21628536]

>>21628524
This is the most retarded post in this entire thread, even more than the icycalm fags.

[Anonymous No.21628559]

>>21628347
>Also on literally any forum where he is discussed in an even remotely positive light the person that talks about him will be accused of being icycalm.
Yes, how could anyone be so paranoid as to think that an anonymous person posting nothing but verbatim quotes for (literal) hours on end could actually be the author of those quotes. Gosh, why can't we just "discuss" icycalm (by which I mean mass-paste his content with zero commentary or discussion)?

[Anonymous No.21628565]

>>21627772
>But what does "best of all possible worlds" mean, when the existence of "other" worlds is an absurdity, as far as we are concerned, and we'd be in no position to compare them even if it were otherwise?
This is a brainlet take as possible worlds refers to pontential, not actual worlds. See modal logic. Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.21628570]

>>21627772
My personal favorite:
>968. In the end, if it came to a choice between allying with religious nuts and Jew-bashers, or letting civilization go up in flames, I'd add wood to the fire and burn the whole thing down myself. Let civilization die if the only alternative is going back to the unthinking past. The alt-retards are entirely consumed by religious psychosis and anti-Jewish hysteria, and though I love their civil war plans—since I love war of all kinds, and I'd fight it even for no reason—I'd rather fight them first before turning my attention to their enemies. Hopefully that's where the Iron Man suits will come in. With a few of those, Thiel, Musk and a few of their friends and me could probably turn a few billion subhumans to ashes in a few days. It's either that or the drone army. Or we might have to use both if the subhuman apocalypse turns out to have been too big. Drones or a squad of Iron Men? Or perhaps the Matrix "fry their brains" plan I proposed before? Or more old-school methods like poison in the water supply? How will we solve the Subhuman Question [[[SQ]]], my dear human and superhuman friends? This is the issue that neither the left nor the right are discussing, naturally enough since [[[they]]] are its subject. But that's precisely the issue that will dominate the present century once this book is done and philosophy has ended. As usual, the left and the right are discussing everything except the only thing that ultimately matters: how we'll get rid of them so we can usher in the new era of superhuman supremacy.
I believe this is the peak of cringe.

[Anonymous No.21628576]

>>21628565
Based video game bloggers don't need to be familiar with the ideas they're critiquing. They just need to be able to type the words.

[Anonymous No.21628585]

>>21628570
>icycalm fantasizing about joining a team of Elon Musk's friends in iron man suits and blasting Nazis
He's literally an autistic retard lmao

[Anonymous No.21628590]

>>21628565
And what is a potential world, exactly?

[Anonymous No.21628673]

BBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

snnnnniiiiiiffffffffffff...oh yes my dear....sssnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff....quite pungent indeed...is that....dare I say....sssssssnniff...eggs I smell?......sniff sniff....hmmm...yes...quite so my darling....sniff....quite pungent eggs yes very much so .....ssssssssssssssnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiffffff....ah yes...and also....a hint of....sniff....cheese.....quite wet my dear....sniff...but of yes...this will do nicely....sniff.....please my dear....another if you please....nice a big now....

BBBBBBRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPFFFFFF

Oh yes...very good!....very sloppy and wet my dear....hmmmmm...is that a drop of nugget I see on the rim?...hmmmm.....let me.....let me just have a little taste before the sniff my darling.......hmmmmm....hmm..yes....that is a delicate bit of chocolate my dear....ah yes....let me guess...curry for dinner?....oh quite right I am....aren't I?....ok....time for sniff.....sssssnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff.....hmmm...hhhmmmmm I see...yes....yes indeed as well curry......hmmm....that fragrance is quite noticeable....yes.....onion and garlic chutney I take it my dear?.....hmmmmm....yes quite.....

BBBBBBRRRRRRRRPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT

Oh I was not expecting that…that little gust my dear….you caught me off guard…yes…so gentle it was though…hmmmm…let me taste this little one…just one small sniff…..sniff…ah….ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffffff…and yet…so strong…yes…the odor….sniff sniff…hmmm….is that….sniff….hmmm….I can almost taste it my dear…..yes….just…sniff….a little whiff more if you please…..ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffff…ah yes I have it now….yes quite….hhhhmmmm…delectable my dear…..quite exquisite yes…..I dare say…sniff….the most pungent one yet my dear….ssssnnnnniiiifffffffffffffffffffffff….yes….

[Anonymous No.21628687]

>>21628590
There are necessary and contingent things. Necessary things are things like the laws of logic and math and are true in all possible worlds. Contingent things like horses or you and I existing may or may not be true. There may be a possible world where your parents never met and you weren’t born or that horses don’t exist, because these are contingent things, but there can NOT be a possible world where round squares exist because that implies a contradiction. Now because it’s possible that you were never born or horses never evolved on earth doesn’t mean that there’s an actual world or alternate universe out there where you and horses don’t exist. It’s simply saying that these are contingent things. As far as the evidence is concerned there is only one actual world. In short, if anything is possible, you can say in modal logic that there is a possible world in which that exists, but that world is virtual, not real, it’s like a thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.21628704]

>>21628687
How on earth do you know what’s “necessary” and what isn’t? What even is necessity? Isn’t everything “necessary” because of the fact that it exists? How could it be unnecessary? Likewise, if something doesn’t exist, isn’t this just proof that it’s impossible?

[Anonymous No.21628718]

>>21628704
>there are anons on this board participating in philosophy threads who have not even glanced at an introduction to philosophical logic
OUCH

[Anonymous No.21628722]

>>21628687
>laws of logic
mental constructs. It’s easily imaginable that there could be an organism that has no conception of logical laws, and actually denies them whole-heartedly. For example, if it lived in a universe with a lack of consistent patterns compared to ours. Likewise, why can’t contradictions exist? What if there are organisms that see round squares all the time and have no problem with this description? Who are you to say this is impossible?

[Anonymous No.21628732]

>>21628704
I regret replying to you in earnest. What a waste of time. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.21628733]

>>21628718
>ancient philosophers believed it therefore it’s true!
lol right. And the proofs for god are completely sound. That’s why everyone accepts them so easily..

[Anonymous No.21628754]

>>21628732
>is asked difficult questions
>becomes uncomfortable and gives up
weak

[Anonymous No.21628759]

>>21627772
How does one reject metaphysics then use a metaphysical explanation (eternal recurrence) to justify it all?

[Anonymous No.21628769]

>>21628759
What do you mean by “reject metaphysics” and “metaphysical explanation” ?

[Anonymous No.21628843]

>>21628733
If you want to pride yourself on being completely unfamiliar with what anybody else has ever learned or written on a subject, you probably shouldn't come to public place and declare your own views on the subject correct

[Anonymous No.21628865]

>>21628754
You might want to pick an intro book on logic 101 if you want an answer to those "difficult questions" of yours.

[Anonymous No.21628889]

>>21628733
>Ancient
You really don't know anything about modal logic lol
>>21628722
This point doesn't even need to be debated, because going in this direction already diverges from the completely incorrect interpretation in the OP, which is what was being criticized.

[Anonymous No.21628929]

sup subs

[Anonymous No.21628946]

>>21628733
It's literally all based on the law of non-contradiction and you are profoundly embarassing yourself, please just stop posting for your own sake.

[Anonymous No.21628973]

you are an autistic faggot

this is icycalm speaking

stick your "law of non-contradiction" up your gay faggot ass

I can't even finish reading one of your gay faggot autism posts, let alone formulate a response that takes it seriously

[Anonymous No.21629008]

>>21628946
So where is my contradiction?

[Anonymous No.21629083]

>>21628929
Somehow I imagined you would show up. My laughter at the retards must have echoed across the valleys until it reached your mountain. Let’s keep laughing hahahaha

[Anonymous No.21629152]

>>21628843
>>21628865
>>21628889
I’m not even sure what you are so worked up about. If you think this world should be significantly different than it already is, then this must mean that YOUR life could be better, that you lack power in some way to achieve some goal. Even if reducing suffering is your goal, it is still YOUR goal, YOUR preference. And if seeing other people suffer makes YOU suffer, you naturally believe that your life would be better if only people suffered less. Therefore he who wants the world to be different (to live in an “alternate” or different “possible world), just wants to have his preferred conditions WITHOUT HAVING TO WORK FOR IT, since if he could achieve it himself, he would stop with this parallel universe nonsense. So it should be clear that, regardless of your autistic reactions to the little details of what icycalm said, the main point still stands, which none of you even bothered to address at all. Wanting to live in another world just means wanting to have a better life, period.

[Anonymous No.21629191]

>>21627772
Thank you for posting this. I have the entire thing saved into a notepad document.

[Anonymous No.21629205]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Orgy of the Will. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Nietzschean perspectivism most of the aphorisms will go over a typical reader's head. There's also Alex's tragic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterization - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Pre-Socratic literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these aphorisms, to realize that they're not just funny - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Orgy of the Will truly ARE subhumans - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the verity in Alex's catchphrase "DEATH TO FAGGOTS," which itself is a cryptic reference to Nietzsche's German epic Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Alex Kierkegaard's genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have an Insomnia tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - and even they have to demonstrate that they're within a cupsize of my girlfriend (preferably higher) beforehand.

[Anonymous No.21629212]

>>21629205
>There's also Alex's tragic outlook
what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.21629218]

>>21629212
>326. The future's not bright, the future's tragic. That's all you need to say to clear the room of futurists and other optimistic cattle. Would people of this kind have had any place at Thermopylae? Maybe in Xerxes' army! (which I hear was full of optimists, starting with the man himself). And their fate is precisely what the future of our dear futurists will be.

>332. Three levels of outlook on life. On the first, and lower, level, the blind optimism of subhumans. "In the future we'll all be equal and immortal! All desires will be immediately satisfied and no one will ever have to work!" On the second, higher level, the pessimism of the great men and the philosophers. "You brainless cattle! The world doesn't work that way! Not only will your utopia never materialize but the worst is yet to come!" And on the third and final level, the tragic feeling of the classical heroes, the greatest philosophers and the Overmen of the future. "The worst will indeed come, but only because we welcome it and want it to."

[Anonymous No.21629224]

>>21629152
Not a single part of this has anything to do with the issue here

[Anonymous No.21629226]

The reason they don't bother to address the topic at hand at all is that they aren't interested in it. They're just posting here out of annoyance that SOMEone SOMEwhere is interested in it. This is why you see me not even trying to engage them. Many years ago I figured this stuff out, and I am enraged that they are even posting at all on a subject they aren't interested in, clogging up the thread and derailing everything. Hence, my instinctive reaction is violence. DEATH TO THE FAGGOTS WHO ARE POSTING ON SUBJECTS THEY AREN'T INTERESTED IN.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21629245]

>>21629224
>no! It’s actually POTENTIAL world, not POSSIBLE world! This changes the meaning completely!!!
lol. subhuman stupidity is an endless source of laughter

[Anonymous No.21629288]

>>21629226
After years of dominating these retards I can think of one or two occasions when someone responded with “huh.. that actually makes sense” and seemed to have changed their mind, but these were people who already seemed interested in learning in the first place. It really does seem futile to convince these people, but it is all still amusing to me. Anyway, even if these people never change their minds over time (such as by subconsciously storing what they previously hated until one day they no longer have such a disposition and mistakenly believe that the thought originated within themselves, which is much easier to accept on account of their pride), there are still others lurking here. I know that I have an effect on others because I occasionally see them parroting my unique takes, word for word. But just the enjoyment of my obvious superiority is enough to keep me going.

[Anonymous No.21629305]

>>21629245
Yeah, it does. You have absolutely no idea what Leibniz meant by "possible worlds." It has nothing to do with "thinking the world should be better." I urge you to read a basic introduction to modal logic before sperging out any more than you already have.

[Anonymous No.21629329]

MODAAAAAAL LOOOOOGIC

MOOOOOOODAL!

MOOODAAALIIIITYYYYYY!

PLEASE SAVE US FROM THE AUTYSMAL FAGGOT-KILLING DRONES MODAAAAALITY!!!!!

-icy

[Anonymous No.21629390]

>>21629305
> It has nothing to do with "thinking the world should be better.
but that is exactly why Voltaire wrote Candide, revealing his self-hatred, which is icycalm’s main point you fucking retard. Leibniz only views this world as the “best” because it exists, because God seems to prefer it. And Leibniz, being content with God’s decision, believing that he is perfectly rational, has no complaints about this world’s existence. But again all this really means is that Leibniz is content with his own life. Even if he suffers, he can still rationalize it by reminding himself that God is perfect so even “evil” is necessary at times. But Voltaire has no such tool, he clearly hates the world and his experience of it. So you could respond to the real point here or just keep autistically screeching about modal logic

[Anonymous No.21629519]

He doesn't care about psychology and philosophy, and I don't care about "modal logic", whatever that is. That's why he's not paying attention to what I am saying, and that's why I am not paying attention to what he's saying.

There's nothing to discuss between us. Our interests have no crossover. But he is still posting in a thread about my ideas, whereas I am not posting in a thread about modal logic because I am not retarded.

[Anonymous No.21629525]

>>21629205
The subhumans can’t agree with him because he attacks most of their fundamental beliefs. Theists, leftists, anti-semites, luddites, nihilists, anti-natalists, moralists…that’s at least 99% of this website.

[Anonymous No.21629606]

>>21629519
Since you are here, I’m curious about to what extent you take seriously the “law of attraction,” manifestation, etc. On one hand it seems like a lazy way to achieve your goals, a method that anyone, even subhumans, could use to be successful, and so I’m hesitant to respect it even if it works, and yet if we are the creators of our reality, why should we not create what we want? Perhaps there is still a skill required here, something that might preserve order of rank, but I don’t think “faith” would encapsulate it completely. I haven’t thought too much about it and I’m wondering if you have and what your thoughts are.

[Anonymous No.21629764]

>>21629606
not icy, but hopefully this aphorism helps explain what i believe to be his opinion on the matter

>895. "Mind over matter" is sheer stupidity and laziness, as if the one was an entirely separate thing from the other and could jump "over" it for fuck's sakes. Rather, it is mind THROUGH matter; i.e. the mind does not magically manifest itself in the world, but—quite aside from the fact that mind is already matter (it's called the brain), it uses matter, it commands it, to get its will done. Reminds me of Schopenhauer denying that knowledge is power because power didn't just jump into his lap while he was sitting in his couch of its own accord due to his sheer intelligence. Not intelligent enough to get OUT of his couch and his home and put his vaunted intelligence to use! Intelligence my ass if you can't even figure that! And then pretend to regale us with how jaded you've become of your intelligence! Well, as it happens, we too have become jaded of your intelligence, buddy.

[Anonymous No.21629779]

>>21629764
I asked the question because of this section:

>935. In dreaming we have complete freedom, since we create the entire thing out of our own imaginations, yet while dreaming we feel as if it's being imposed on us—and that's precisely how our waking life works too, since there's no fundamental difference between the two conditions. But no one besides an Overman can understand this—that everyone is in fact creating his own reality at every moment, and is thus the complete master of it, with every last detail of it fully belonging to him. Not even humans understand this, or could ever understand it, though I will still try to explain it to them in the last chapter, among other ultimate ideas, but expect me to fail spectacularly and to engender wide disbelief and horrible misinterpretations.
>With Overmen, actually, it even works the other way around, since, precisely because we are so deeply aware of how we are causing everything around us in the waking state, we are perfectly willing to believe in our apparent powerlessness while dreaming, and just go with the flow. That is how we take a break from being the cause of everything: by dreaming that we are powerless.

[Anonymous No.21629855]

>>21629779
>but expect me to fail spectacularly and to engender wide disbelief and horrible misinterpretations.

in this part of §935, i believe Alex is referring precisely to ideas such as the law of attraction. i believe he would agree that such ideas being true would ruin the "great game" of life, that if such a thing as the law of attraction were true, life would be a poorly designed game. overmen "cause everything around [them]" because of their mastery over the will to power, that is mind through matter, not through something such as the law of attraction.

>112. Nietzsche: "What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice."

[Anonymous No.21629926]

>>21629855
That’s reasonable. Though it could be argued that the Overman is the only one who is able to manifest what he wishes, because he is the only one who truly thinks himself capable and deserving of it. If the average person tried to manifest their dreams, they might fail because subconsciously they know they aren’t worth it, and since they don’t want to manifest that guilt along with their dreams, they can’t manifest the dream at all. Also, the belief in causality and determinism can be another hindrance, which the Overman is not susceptible to. He doesn’t need to know precisely HOW he gets what he wants, the universe bends its rules for him, because he creates the universe. So these things might explain why some people are able to manifest thousands or millions of dollars while others can only manifest a free coffee. But you could also argue that the “manifestation” doesn’t occur at all, but that the people who are confident and believe that they can manifest are the ones who are already powerful enough to attain their goals naturally, and so they attribute their success to manifestation when it was just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Again, the subhuman doesn’t think he’s worth anything, and believes in strict laws of causality and science etc. so if he fails at manifesting then he will just blame his lack of belief — a clever way of preventing blasphemers of manifestation. So it becomes a difficult thing to test, and it may be the case that manifestation is literally true for some, but not for others.

[Anonymous No.21629952]

Good discussion.

The subhuman who "fails" at something, wanted to "fail". You can figure that out by going near them and trying to help them. They will reject you ten times out of ten. If they want to get something done, on the other hand, they will get it done even if you marshal all your forces against them.

I have a whole huge section towards the end about that.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21629966]

Subhumans don't have the dreams they say they do. They're too dumb to accurately figure out their own desires. That's why they need psychoanalysts.

It's almost pointless discussing subhuman agency. They have almost none. They just whine about everything at all times in case they can trick people into giving them free stuff and doing their work for them. It's abysmally wretched once you know what you're looking at. That's why their views on everything are so wretched. It's practically blasphemy analyzing their "desires" next to the overman's. They are basically not even conscious. It's like you're trying to psychoanalyze a cat. It's just a cat, who gives a fuck what it wants, it's my pet and it will do as I want.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21629983]

I've no idea what "the law of attraction" is. The name sounds dumb though, so I don't feel like even googling it.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21629990]

>>21629952
>>21629966
>>21629983
this is the kind of analysis that changes the course of history. thank you icy, i'll be resubscribing soon.

[Anonymous No.21630004]

Fantastic.

[Anonymous No.21630021]

>>21629990
I just tried subscribing, I had to pay through patreon but the main site redirects to PayPal, which doesn’t seem to be working right now. So how do I make my account?

[Anonymous No.21630065]

Patreon will do fine. I saw your pledge. I appreciate the support. I hope you'll find the content interesting, I am to about 300 aphorisms that aren't on the frontpage now, so it's quite some reading. Just sit tight and you'll get your credentials.

I would very much like to make all aphorisms public, but I can't afford to. If I get rich some day, I will make all the content public.

Let's hope crypto goes up lol.

[Anonymous No.21630092]

P.S. I don't mind people sharing locked content. The paywall simply motivates the wealthier people to sign up so they don't have to deal with bs like pirating or hoping someone will copy-paste what they want to read when they feel like reading it.

So if someone subs and then pastes my content all over 4chan, I don't mind, it's free advertising, and it will drive a few more wealthy people my way.

And I prefer dealing only with wealthy people, to be honest, it's much more pleasant.

[Anonymous No.21630182]

>>21630065
Cool, I’ll be waiting.

Have you ever written about open individualism? Before I read Nietzsche I was drawn to the idea that we are all the same being, identifying with consciousness itself, etc. but with eternal recurrence it is easier to identify with myself to infinity. Also, the whole basis of open individualism is to affirm utilitarianism as a practical moral system, since OI says we are actually every being that has ever existed. But I don’t really care about reducing suffering anymore. Still, I wonder if there are any knockdown arguments against OI itself, which seems to be a decent solution to the problem of personal identity, which Hume explained pretty well I think.

Either way I don’t believe in non-existence, death doesn’t really exist. Life must go on. But if my experience of THIS body is somehow an illusion and I am also the experiencer of all other lifeforms, even those who live at the same time that I do, well, then I guess that’s all the more reason to exterminate the subhumans.

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21630183]

Is it meant to be read in this voice?

[Anonymous No.21630216]

The idea of being anyone other than myself horrifies me.

That's my refutation of "OI".

Actually, I'll put this in an aphorism, thanks for bringing it up.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21630228]

I called this aphorism "Closed individualism" lol.

There are so many weak ideas to troll in the history of philosophy, it basically never ends.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21630262]

>>21630228
that’s fitting, considering that is actually the common name for the opposing view.

An anon has been spamming the “vertiginous question” recently, which is just a more fundamental question: “Why am I THIS person at THIS moment? Why am I not someone else?” But this is not much different than asking why one rock is not in the location of another rock. I think these questions all come down to the hard problem of consciousness, which in my experience is easily the most challenging problem in philosophy, if not the only challenging problem in philosophy. I assume the brain does produce consciousness, maybe through electromagnetic fields or something complex that we don’t understand, but explaining how subjective experience arises is still mindboggling.

But why do we even care about how consciousness works? What if there is no explanation? We already know how to manipulate our consciousness anyway, and that will only become easier in the future. So even if we could create consciousness from scratch.. what’s the point? We can already do that through sex, which is what you’ve already said, but more broadly, about life rather than consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21630296]

That question had never even occurred to me.

Right off the bat it sounds sick to me. I'd look to prescribing some meds at that point, rather than trying to engage with his question.

If you accept that rocks are conscious too, the problem of consciousness largely disappears. It only appeared when we assumed that only we have it. But all of us don't have it to the same degree, and so the rock has some too, and then we don't have to worry about its "creation". It is simply everywhere.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21630343]

915. I am a gay nigger.

[Anonymous No.21630351]

>>21630296
>>21630296
I agree, it’s the emergence of consciousness that is the main problem. Retards obsess over consciousness being “non-material” and being unable to emerge from the material, and so on.
It makes more sense that consciousness is fundamental and that it didn’t suddenly appear through evolution. I guess it doesn’t really matter though.

Have you ever tried nofap and do you recommend it for the average man? By nofap I mean not just abstaining from fapping but also not constantly looking at women on a screen and giving yourself blue balls.

[Anonymous No.21630358]

>>21630351
When I say “average man” I mean that there seem to be some men who seemingly gain nothing from nofap, while others do. I’m not sure which camp is bigger and what causes the difference exactly. Some men are naturally better in every way compared to a weak man on 100 days of nofap, but surely the strong man would be stronger if he did the same thing, no?

[Anonymous No.21630372]

I have on my to-do list an essay titled "In praise of porn and masturbation". It will go on both Orgy and Endgame.

No ETA, but it's... coming.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21630407]

>>21630372
well if there’s anyone that could make me look forward to reading such an essay, it’s you.

going to sleep, tchau

[Anonymous No.21630562]

>>21628354
This is just Feuerbach's man and God. I've never seen this guy say anything very original. I don't see how he "transcends Nietzsche."

[Anonymous No.21630621]

>>21627772
Refuted by Charles Sanders Peirce. Also read Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver.

[Anonymous No.21630664]

what is this

[Anonymous No.21630677]

>>21630664
Known scammer who found his niche by using a cult of personality with video game reviews.

[Anonymous No.21630690]

>>21630677
Why does this all read like sophist schizo babble? Is there a point?

[Anonymous No.21630697]

I didn't realize this dude writes so much about women.

[Anonymous No.21630700]

>>21630690
That's his cult of personality. He's been doing it for years and achieved a very small following from it. Most people don't take him seriously (lolcow).

[Anonymous No.21630743]

Didnt read any of that spiel. Candide is very funny and I recommend everyone to learn French and read it.
>Tfw no red sheep

[Anonymous No.21631142]

>>21630690
You’re too stupid to understand it, apparently

[Anonymous No.21631321]

>>21630743
>I recommend everyone to learn French and read it.
or you could read 300 books in the same amount of time

[Anonymous No.21631485]

>>21630743
>>21630697
>>21630690
>>21630621
>>21630562
not an argument

[Anonymous No.21632495]

>>21629212
Read his works.

[Anonymous No.21632553]

>>21627772
All this slave talk seems to slowly take the term further and further away from its original meaning. Now it just means normie who doesn't contemplate, criticize, or have convictions.

But humans deserve nothing less than actual subordination to the monarchical overman. Therefore subordination is not contemptious but good.

[Anonymous No.21632577]

>>21632553
The most contradictory statement I have ever seen written in earnest. Good job, you deserve a medal.

[Anonymous No.21632861]

>>21632577
How?

[Anonymous No.21632866]

>>21627907
>>21627920
>>21627991
that's so so gay

[Anonymous No.21632874]

>>21632866
Homosexuality is objectively bad, yes. But that is not homosexual

[Anonymous No.21633219]

I understand the allure of behaving like icycalm, because it satisfies some infantile narcissistic desires. What I have trouble understanding is the sycophants who follow him. Are they compensating for an absent father, or what? What is it that attracts them to self-appointed Heroic figures who are very obviously retarded?

[Anonymous No.21633232]

>>21633219
I’m a genius and a “narcissist” so I simply respect him because he thinks a lot like me. The fact that you think he’s retarded proves that you’re the retard. You can’t even explain why he’s dumb or show why he’s wrong on anything

[Anonymous No.21633266]

>>21633232
>You can’t even explain why he’s dumb or show why he’s wrong on anything
On the contrary, this thread already documents a very obvious problem with both his own thinking an his followers on modal logic. In particular icycalm dismisses "other worlds" as an absurdity despite literally not knowing how the term is typically understood today:

> But what does "best of all possible worlds" mean, when the existence of "other" worlds is an absurdity, as far as we are concerned, and we'd be in no position to compare them even if it were otherwise?

Notice that this rejection of the possible worlds framework does not contain actually contain a substantive analysis. He just declares it absurd, an appeal to incredulity. Surely, if an intelligent person finds something unintelligible, their first response would be to try to see if there's some explication of Leibniz's idea somewhere that helps communicate it. And indeed the study of modal logic by Saul Kripke proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that talk about "possible worlds" can be understood as obeying specific rules of formal logic. So the phrase "possible worlds" has been given a perfectly intelligible formal grammar.

Naturally, a substantive rejection of the possible worlds framework would involve making objections to this formulation. But for people who play video games and skim wikipedia articles, it suffices to say

>that's absurd, you're subhuman, i'm a genius

and then wistfully shake their head at the naiveté of other people while they boot up their emulated copy of Final Fantasy Tactics

[Anonymous No.21633313]

>>21633266
So a possible world follows the formal laws of logic. But what about worlds that don’t? How do you even know that our world follows formal laws of logic? What are laws? Where are they? Can you see them? And if there are other worlds that follow the formal laws of logic… then why do we not say that they actually exist? After all, if they have no contradictions, then what is stopping them from existing? But to say that they exist or don’t exist is absurd, since we have no way of knowing about their existence. Either they are “connected” with our universe, in which case we can interact with them, meaning they are actually just a part of our universe (everything), or we can’t interact with them whatsoever. But if you can’t interact with or perceive something (past, present, and future), it practically does not exist.

So what’s the point of all of this, exactly? To talk about flimsy proofs for God?

[Anonymous No.21633386]

>>21633313
>So what’s the point of all of this, exactly?
Often in philosophy, the goal is to examine some pre-theoretic idea or concept and see if it can be made rigorous, or useful. In this case the question is whether our everyday intuitions about what is possible or impossible are sensible. For example, for thousands of years people were trying their hand at the geometric problem of "squaring the circle", i.e., constructing a square with the same area as a given circle using only a compass and straight edge. Eventually, it was proven that this was mathematically impossible. Because it's impossible, it would be pretty stupid to keep trying to do it.

On the other hand, some things seem "possible" but don't happen. Sticking with the example of mathematical theorems, a person might try to prove Fubini's theorem, but fail. But it is nevertheless possible to prove Fubini's theorem--people do it all the time. So a person will necessarily fail to square the circle, but only contingently fail at proving Fubini's theorem.

For a long time there was skepticism about these concepts of "necessity" and "possibility", expressed especially by Quine. There were specific technical problems with trying to show how they could be incorporated into logic (in particular, modal logics were not "extensional"). On this basis people began to seriously doubt that there was anything meaningful about statements of possibility and impossibility, despite how intuitive they were.

Kripke revolutionized the field by introducing so called "possible world semantics" which overcame the technical problems identified by Quine and others. Now there was a way to make formal distinctions between impossibilities (like squaring the circle) and contingent falsehoods.

Maybe you think this is all too academic, and who cares whether some particular math problem is "impossible" or simply difficult. But remember that our modern technological lives depend on systems developed using these mathematical systems. If we had no way of ruling out certain mathematical proofs as impossible, we would have no way of stopping ourselves from wasting time trying to invent things that cannot exist in principle.

[Anonymous No.21633475]

>>21633386
It seems clear to me that the “possibility” of x just means that a human would not go insane if x happened. Maybe there are organisms that are perfectly fine with contradictions, and everything is possible to them. So to talk about “possible worlds” just means “if our world were different in this or that way, would I be able to intellectually tolerate its existence?” So in the context of talking about the best of all possible worlds, this just means “of all things that could happen that seem logically coherent to my monkey brain, I would prefer that world the most.” Which really just means “I would prefer that LIFE.” Leibniz doesn’t actually mean this, however, whereas Voltaire does. According to Leibniz, any world would be the best world if it existed, so his usage of “best” is quite meaningless. Even if he doesn’t strictly mean “I love myself,” the fact that Voltaire says this world is not the best means that his experience of the world is not the best, and to want the world to be different is no different than wanting oneself to be different, since you could just as easily achieve the same goal. After all, Voltaire knows that other people are content with this world, and they have happy lives, whereas he doesn’t. Nietzsche said “the best of all possible worlds” really makes no sense, as no world can be objectively “best.” It just depends on the person making the judgment, which has everything to do with their own experience and preferences. To want the world to be different, to want to live in an alternate reality, to want God to have made the entire past different, and to change even you, shows a lack of power, an inability to shape your environment for your own benefit. For someone like a theist, who only believes they need to have faith in God, the world could have much more suffering and they could simply tell themselves that they still have “power,” because they can still go to heaven and all the suffering will have been irrelevant.

Now icycalm didn’t go through this elaboration, but it is the same conclusion. And all the autists fixated on his QUESTION about the meaning of possible worlds, claiming he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as if that takes away from his point about Voltaire anyway. Subhumans just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing

[Anonymous No.21633547]

>>21633475
Leibniz doesn't subscribe to psychological egoism, so "what I prefer most" can't be what he intends to convey by "best". Leibniz believed that the goodness of things lied in the extent of their perfection, which in humans is the development of certain capacities somewhat in line with Aristotelian virtue. Leibniz further believed that a thing's "right" to exist was grounded in its fitness, that is, it's degree of perfection.

So when Leibniz said that this is the best of all possible worlds, he was not claiming that this was the world that "his monkey brain" would get the most pleasure out of. He was saying that this is the world in which those things those things that exist, considered all together, most develop the capacities that secure their right to exist.

Leibniz even goes so far as to say that an individual could correctly judge that they would be better off if they didn't exist, but that their nonexistence would make the world as a whole less good (that is, less perfected). So clearly he does not think goodness is reducible to the evaluation of the individual.

[Anonymous No.21633599]

>>21633547
There is no way for a human to judge the objective “perfection” of the universe. This is just nonsense. What does it mean for the world to be perfect? You can only believe it’s perfect by believing in God, and that he would only create a perfect world. But even then, that doesn’t explain what “perfect” means in this context.
>he was not claiming that this was the world that "his monkey brain" would get the most pleasure out of
That may be so, but Voltaire’s criticism basically assumes this is what he meant, which is what icycalm was really responding to. But again, as I said, Leibniz is content with this world, so it is easy for him to say this is the best of all possible worlds. He has no option but to be content with God’s decisions. If he were a depressed atheist then he would not come to the same conclusions, because ultimately he is not using logic to talk about the best of all possible worlds. It is all emotion. So yes, Leibniz loves the world and himself, whereas Voltaire hates the world and himself.
>He was saying that this is the world in which those things those things that exist, considered all together, most develop the capacities that secure their right to exist.
gibberish
>Leibniz even goes so far as to say that an individual could correctly judge that they would be better off if they didn't exist, but that their nonexistence would make the world as a whole less good (that is, less perfected)
sure, if you already assume that this world is perfect and any change would make it imperfect. Either way there is no reasonable argument for these conclusions. It all comes down to this:
1. Assume God is real and perfect
2. If this world exists, it must be perfect since God created it
3. Since I want to glorify God (and go to heaven), I should be content with this world and affirm God’s perfection
4. I am happy with this world (and even if it were different, I would still be happy)

[Anonymous No.21633641]

>>21633547
>>21633599
So yes, Leibniz loves himself and Voltaire hates himself. Leibniz doesn’t want a different world because he doesn’t need a different world to be content. What this really means that HE does not need to be different. On the other hand, Voltaire wants the world to be different because he doesn’t have the power to be content with his life. To blame God for the world is typical resentment. Rather than thinking about how to shape the word according to his preferences, he just wishes everything was magically different. And since we know that other people do not have this same unhealthy desire, Voltaire is the problem here. Nature is indifferent, the world is not “good” or “bad.” To hate the world is the same as hating your own perception of the world, your desires, and your inability to satisfy them. The reason you cannot see this is because you believe in the fantasy of objective truths and values.

[Anonymous No.21633669]

>>21633599
>>21633641
I don't know why I bother effort posting in these kinds of threads. You clearly haven't read anything by Leibniz and have no intention of trying to understand his views. I don't know why you think this makes you look smart.

[Anonymous No.21633679]

>>21633669
not an argument. Thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.21633699]

>>21633679
You aren't critiquing Leibniz because you don't know what his position is. When I tried to explain his position your reply was:

>gibberish

As you say, "not an argument". And your four propositions that you say it "all comes down to" are just an ass-pull, bearing no meaningful connection to anything Leibniz wrote. It's clear the only thing you know about Leibniz is that he apparently said "this is the best of all possible worlds", and you decided to just run with whatever thoughts enter your head in response to that, rather than read anything by Leibniz to understand what he meant or why he believed what he did.

It would be very easy for you to prove me wrong: Just reply with an description of Leibniz's views, as he would describe them, and some reasons he gave for believing them. And then explain why those are mistaken. You can't do this, however, because you don't know anything Leibniz ever said.

[Anonymous No.21633739]

>>21627772
Since icy said he doesn't care about people pirating his paid content does anyone here mind just copy-pasting the entirety of the orgy of the will up to date into a word document and then transforming it into a pdf and posting it here? I'd be most grateful.

[Anonymous No.21633783]

>>21633699
I only critique the use of objective values, like saying the world is “perfect.” I don’t disagree with his logic. If God exists, and is perfect, and omnibenevolent etc. then it makes sense that this world would be the best world, even if we don’t understand why. But this doesn’t take away that there is still a subjective valuation going on here. For Leibniz thinks that God is omnibenevolent, and wants to maximize “goodness” for humans. So Leibniz believe that even the evil and suffering that he experiences is ultimately for the best, especially considering he’s a Christian and thinks he’ll go to heaven. So Leibniz is content with this world, he views suffering as ultimately a necessary thing, he wouldn’t want things to be different. He loves the world, and wouldn’t want it to change, and neither would he want himself to be different. Whereas Voltaire is full of resentment and weak and wants everything to change.

[Anonymous No.21634005]

>>21627772
I don't like Icycalm. He is so full of himself. He is also very rude. I am going to kidnap him and rape him one day. Then he will know who 'God' really is. He has some paypigs on Patreon. I have an army that is willing to do my bidding.

Also none of his philosophy is useful—the culmination of his genius is a theory in picking up women. That should tell you everything you need to know about this joker. He is like if Andrew Tate learned how to write, all style but no substance.

>But can you refute him???
There is nothing to refute, no claims are made in half of his aphorisms. Nothing but word vomit of totally incorrect things, that to refute them all would require more effort than the claims which were made. I've critiqued his aphorisms multiple times on /lit/, I even messaged him on Twitter before (he blocked me), and I think it would be far more better that I simply ignore his banal screeching passing as 'philosophy' because it is not even worth giving him the satisfaction of attention.

[Anonymous No.21634016]

>>21633783
>For Leibniz thinks that God is omnibenevolent, and wants to maximize “goodness” for humans
From Stanford
>Leibniz argues in numerous texts that it is parochial to think that human happiness is the standard whereby the goodness of worlds is to be judged. A more reasonable standard, according to Leibniz, would be the happiness of all sentient beings. But once we admit this, it may turn out that the amount of unhappiness in the created realm is quite small, given that for all we know, the sentient beings on Earth might constitute a very small percentage of the sentient beings created by God. Here Leibniz includes not only preternatural beings such as angels, but also the possibility of extraterrestrial rational beings.
[Theodicy 19 (H 134–5; G VI 113–4)].

[Anonymous No.21634024]

>>21634005
Bump my thread some more, faggot.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634026]

>>21634005
>Also none of his philosophy is useful
Ridding oneself of resentment is pretty useful. It’s also useful to understand why humans behave the way they do, why they have various beliefs and principles. I was pretty anti-semitic and somewhat pessimistic about politics before I read him, now I don’t really stress about these things. I also feel more manly, as his philosophy is peak masculinity.
>There is nothing to refute, no claims are made in half of his aphorisms. Nothing but word vomit of totally incorrect things
totally incorrect things should be easy to refute

[Anonymous No.21634032]

>>21634016
my bad… “all sentient beings” then

[Anonymous No.21634119]

There is a reason pop philosophy is not peer reviewed. There is nothing new, and the fallacies are so obvious that no one wants to waste the ink on critique. Until someone actually gets the attention of the academy and is published by a reputable press, I wouldn't waste my time on them.

However, for my two cents, you are all using the word "aphorism" wrong.

These are in no way aphorisms. They are blogposts.

[Anonymous No.21634134]

>>21627920
Hahaha this is half of Nietzsche fags!
>I wonder how many thousands of them it takes to finally snag someone who is not retarded;
For many I think Nietzsche is their self help (or I suppose this icy fellow in this instance), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when they then parrot all of his ideas and strive to be an ubermensch they've already failed.
The ubermensch just is, or at the very least, isn't just someone who read Nietzsche and became an ubermensch because he read something.

[Anonymous No.21634214]

>>21628015
If everyone is smart as they say they are, does the retard even exist?

>inb4 "muh dunning-kruger"
Doesn't explain and obfuscates the problem

[Anonymous No.21634303]

>>21634214
He's using basic scam artist tactics.
>Trust me, bro. You'll be a genius if you listen to me!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

[Anonymous No.21634318]

>Bump my thread some more, faggot
/lit/ is used by the same 50 people. I don't care if you are on the front page of this board forever. Everyone who uses this website already knows you are.
>>21634026
You are not going to rid oneself of resentment from reading philosophy. In fact I would say having to rid oneself of resentment is just as bad as having it in the first place. The feelings which created such resentiment still exist, you have only adopted the values which you were critical of, i.e a hypocrite.

Now what is resentment? Often it is confused as simply rationalizing one's feelings of inferiority by condemning an external object for the subject's impotence. But one component is missing in this simple categorization of resentiment. That is 'envy'. Why is envy essential for resentiment? It is because in order to feel quantitively inferior, one most also value the same measure of the external object which is being blamed for the inferiority. For example, the individual resentful of wealth values poverty over money, he still values money however he values the inverse of wealth 'poverty is good' , 'wealth is bad.

Now you are saying that you have grown out of anti-Semitism by ridding yourself of resentiment. That is, not only have you never opposed Jewish values, but that you were envious of them and adopted them yourself! This only means that you were a Jew yourself, and your resentiment was simply self hatred at your ineptitude at being a Jew.

It is spiritual Jews like yourself, and that Jew Walter Kaufman who accused the NSDAP of resentiment towards both monopoly capitalism, and of course the Jewish race. That is, in your Jewishness you extoll money to be an objective value, and that one can be a master and value it, or a slave who resents it.

But this is of course far from the truth, now when I speak of the values of the NSDAP I speak of it not in individuals, not even in it's programs, but in it's form. I can best summarize it in this quote from Hitler:

>[...]we do not say to the rich people "Please, give something to the poor." Instead we say "German people, help yourself!" Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor. Everyone must have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade. If one should say, "Yes, but do I have to sacrifice a lot?" That is the glory of giving! When you sacrifice for your community, then you can walk with your head held up high.

Of course the Jew, in his self interest cannot see this. For the Jew, the spiritual Jew is only interested in himself. The concept of SACRIFICE is alien to them. For they are only interested in advancing themselves, in a community they are of course alien to, and do not belong.
>now I don’t really stress about these things
You have comfort! This is in fact where all decadece proceeds from... the 'stress' from politics has made you tired! Now you must rest.

[Continued in the rest]

[Anonymous No.21634349]

>>21634026
>>21634318
>I also feel more manly, as his philosophy is peak masculinity
There is nothing less masculine than being a parasite. That is what the philosophy of Icycalm amounts to. Reap as much enjoyment as you can from life, for there is no higher value than the self! It is the philosophy of Epicurus in new flesh. Icy is a liberal, though he imagines himself to be not. Because Liberalism is not what it says itself to be, it has never cared for the virtues which it preaches, all that it has ever valued- all it has ever cared for was the 'self'.
>totally incorrect things should be easy to refute
Yet people spend hours of their time on the internet arguing whether the earth is flat or not. It takes less effort to take a shit than it does cleaning up after it.
>>21634032
There is no fully sentient biological being, only varying degrees of sentience.

[Anonymous No.21634361]

>>21634318
>you have only adopted the values which you were critical of, i.e a hypocrite
People change their minds and values, retard. I used to think money wasn’t important, that I didn’t need it, etc. but now I do. So no, I was not a Jew the whole time. But thanks for the compliment.

[Anonymous No.21634373]

Icycalm -->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions

[Anonymous No.21634382]

>>21634361
The reason for anyone to be anti-semetic in regards to Jews and money is their avarice. That means of course, you do not think avarice is a bad quality anymore. i.e a Jew.

[Anonymous No.21634393]

>>21634382
>That means of course, you do not think avarice is a bad quality anymore. i.e a Jew
Yes. And?

[Anonymous No.21634424]

>>21634318
>For the Jew, the spiritual Jew is only interested in himself. The concept of SACRIFICE is alien to them. For they are only interested in advancing themselves, in a community they are of course alien to, and do not belong.
You could say the same about humans in relation to other animals on the planet, or the colonizing whites throughout history in relation to the other races. What do you expect Jews to do, exactly? Stay weak? To act AGAINST their self-interest? Of course the weakling wants to take away power from the stronger, to criticize him and make him feel guilty, so that he can have the power himself. You sound like a black man complaining about white people.

[Anonymous No.21634468]

Jews taking advantage of Whites to advance Jewish power isn't selfish. The dude complaining about Jews is just a faggot, and dumb as a rock because he can't even see that Jews are a group. They even have a country now. How dumb do you have to be to scribble all that rubbish but fail to see a WHOLE COUNTRY. But he said 50 people brows /lit/, which is false. 50 is just the highest number he can count.

Everyone here is subhuman except my couple of readers, and even these couple of readers need to check their ego a bit because I am seeing unwarranted claims from them.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634505]

>>21634393
It means that you are a defender of mammon, and thus a Jew. You are an enabler of the most greatest act of avarice, Usery. You must seek out Dante, and ask him where the place of the Userers are in this world.

Where Dante is mistaken, is that hell is not some place one goes to after one dies, it a real physical thing which exists on this Earth. One need not be an amateur scholar of history to know what happens to Userers, time and time again, over and over, in the cycle of history. They meet hell. And you will live to see it.
>>21634424
Retard, an animal that has opposing interests to my own must be removed. You are at the very least noble enough to admit that the Jewish spirit is alien to the Aryan one.
>What do you expect Jews to do, exactly Stay weak? To act AGAINST their self-interest?
This is the very thing that has built civilization, moron. The warrior who dies in battle does not have his self interest in heart, but the interest of whom or what he is defending. Must I remind you of the origin of the word 'ἥρως'

But you are of course a decadent animal yourself, to laugh at what the warriors have called 'virtue'.
>Of course the weakling wants to take away power from the stronger.
But the Jew has never had power over me! I simply and easily remove them. I have neither called them immoral. I simply called them alien, and that they must be removed.
>You sound like a black man complaining about white people.
How stupid you must be that you think I am talking about Judaism as if it were matter and not a psychological state.

>>21634468
>Jews taking advantage of Whites to advance Jewish power isn't selfish.
This is again, not even what I said. But reading and metaphor is clearly not your strong suit.

Jews as people are not even a group. Not even the Jews in Israel. Get 10 Jews into a group and you will get 20 different opinions. But when I speaks of Jews, I speak of the love of money, and of course avarice. This is of course what all anti-semites oppose, whether they are conscious of it are not.

[Anonymous No.21634535]

>>21634468
>Everyone here is subhuman except my couple of readers
Exactly the kind of manipulative behavior I was talking about. This is what scam gurus do.

[Anonymous No.21634564]

>>21634505
>But when I speaks of Jews, I speak of the love of money, and of course avarice. This is of course what all anti-semites oppose, whether they are conscious of it are not.
Well I would rather have money than not have money, but it isn’t the only thing I value in the world. Personally I want to raise children that are much better than me, and this will require a decent amount of money to make things go smoothly. Also, technology is improving and in my lifetime there is no telling what we will have. I’d like for my descendants to be powerful enough to utilize these technologies, or to move to different countries if they are safer, or to be the ones colonizing other planets, etc. Money is power but it isn’t the only type of power, nor does it last as much as the other types. And I would gladly sacrifice myself for those I love, especially my own children, or for some ideal. But all sacrifices are ultimately self-serving anyway.

[Anonymous No.21634594]

-Writers have readers, and that is bad.

-Influential writers have devoted readers, and that is bad.

-Writers having an income is bad.

-Jews are bad.

-Guys, what about modal logic?

That is why everyone posting here will is nameless, and will remain so. You aren't in the least interested in anything interesting, and mankind will never forgive you that.

In 10 years you'll still be discussing me. In 20 years I'll be namedropped in every thread. And still no one will ever know any of you, because you will never contribute anything. Apart from bumping my threads, that is. Which is a decent contribution to be fair, all things told. So keep bumping please.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634634]

>>21634594
>Influential writers have devoted readers, and that is bad.
Yes. There's nothing wrong with someone reading what you wrote. Devotion to a scam artist is bad. Reading Deepak Chopra is fine. Being devoted to him is not. Think for yourself.
>In 10 years you'll still be discussing me. In 20 years I'll be namedropped in every thread.
This is delusional. Do you have any evidence this is the case? No, you're just begging the question. This is something that many homeless people do because they're mentally ill.
You're right no one will know me either. However, I don't make it a goal to be known, but you do. My goals are something else entirely. That makes you a failure in that regard, not me. I don't mind bumping your thread; it doesn't affect me.

[Anonymous No.21634669]

>>21634564
>Well I would rather have money than not have money, but it isn’t the only thing I value in the world. Personally I want to raise children that are much better than me, and this will require a decent amount of money to make things go smoothly.
I can assure you no amount of money will raise a decent a child. One need not look far at the kinds of spoiled entitled brats being born into money creates. All great things are born from resistance, that is pain.
>or to move to different countries if they are safer
Why would your decendents need to move to another country in order to be safe? Could it perhaps be from your refusal to address a problem unfolding in front of your eyes?
>Money is power
Money is no power, just as a hammer or a gun is not power. Money is an object, that is useful only as a means of exchange. If there was no need for exchange, then money would have no power, just as a hammer has no power for when you need to screw an object in.

Of course, you do not know how money works, for if you did we would not be having this silly conversation. The master is not he who has money, but he who creates it, and to understand that you must have an understanding of political economy. I have alluded to it multiple times, but you are still not understand. What I can guarantee you, in the form of my understanding of PROBABILITY, your decendents will not see a penny of what you create. Money can never by virtue, Musk is a billionaire, yet his son turned out a tranny.

One of the most lamentable things that the disease of money has brought, was the death of the community. It was once seen as a necessity in the 'good rearing' of children. No amount of money will ever buy you this.

>>21634594
Don't you want kids? At this rate you are going to die alone. You are almost 50, you are going to end up raising autismo children. Children conceived by men over the age of 45 struggle in intelligence tests.

[Anonymous No.21634681]

>>21634669
Damn. Sounds like he's trying to cope for wasting his life hence his wishful dream of eternal recurrence. He's spent decades trying to be known, but his Twitch streams and YouTube channel get literally 0 views. How pathetic.

[Anonymous No.21634694]

>>21634669
>I can assure you no amount of money will raise a decent a child
It helps to have the highest quality food, money for sports, music lessons, etc. When I was in high school I didn’t even have a car, I ate like shit, couldn’t play sports, etc. Money certainly would have helped.
>One need not look far at the kinds of spoiled entitled brats being born into money creates. All great things are born from resistance, that is pain.
if I had money to drive a car and get to practice on time and play sports, I would have experienced a lot more pain. But instead I just sat at home, in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing. Youre retarded for assuming that I would just use money to spoil my kids, or that money can ONLY be used to spoil kids. It can also make it much more easier for them to suffer in the most constructive ways.
>Why would your decendents need to move to another country in order to be safe?
Who knows? It is better to have that option regardless. Do you disagree?
>Money is no power, just as a hammer or a gun is not power.
Then give me your money. This shouldn’t take away your power, right?

[Anonymous No.21634698]

>>21634634
For 17 years there have been threads for me all over the internet. It's a sure bet there will be for another 17. Moreover, they are picking up steam. 10 years ago there weren't any threads saying "This is the best book ever." But now there are.

You're too dumb for the most basic of future projections. But you're just about smart enough to keep bumping icycalm's thread. So keep going, you're doing good. Don't let me down. I am counting on you.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634715]

>>21634698
I know about future projections like the Lindy effect. You're going to be talked about in another 17 years in the same sense Chris-Chan is talked about, that is with mockery and pity. You're not even as popular as Chris-Chan. You have 0 YouTube views and 0 Twitch views after years.

[Anonymous No.21634735]

It was fun until the causality one. He makes no sense on the matter and falls into the same pit he condemns Jordan Peterson - two opposites: flattering the audience or insulting them, both for the same reason

[Anonymous No.21634742]

>>21634694
>It helps to have the highest quality food
If you live in a first world nation 'high quality's food is not any more expensive than unhealthy food. There are poor people in third world nations who have better diets than first world ones. They may not be able to afford internet, or even western clothing, but they can afford a garden which produces it's own tomato's or wheat from the local market. Again, 'money' or 'purchasing power' hardly has anything to do with it
>if I had money to drive a car and get to practice on time and play sports
You do not need money to play sports LMAO you need a friend and a can to kick.
>But instead I just sat at home, in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing
And you think money would have fixed that? LMAO. If you had money you would have found another excuse not to do it. I had men in my family, they were fond of body building. They did not have weights and could not afford them. They filled jugs with sand in order to lift them, and lift they did! No dumbbells or bench press required.
>Youre retarded for assuming that I would just use money to spoil my kids, or that money can ONLY be used to spoil kids.
You already sound spoiled since you are blaming all your problem on money instead of your own impotence. The apple does not fall far the tree.
>I wanted to but I could not
Is the crux of your post.
>Who knows? It is better to have that option regardless. Do you disagree?
Yes because I don't run from problems I contain them with my strength.
>Then give me your money. This shouldn’t take away your power, right?
It wouldn't. I don't even have money, I only have debt!

[Anonymous No.21634768]

>>21634742
I don’t feel like nitpicking all of this bullshit, and some of what you said was correct, for example I could have found a way to exercise at home, though at the time I didn’t really realize how important it was, and wasn’t very motivated. You can say this was my impotence, I agree. And yes I agree it’s not necessary to be wealthy to have successful children. However, it is simply better to have money than not have it. You never know what you’ll need it for, accidents happen. Special opportunities arise. What if my son is a chess genius and wants to have private lessons? That takes money.

Also, having more money is generally attractive. I can attract women without money, but maybe I can do better by having money, thus ensuring better genetics in my children. I shouldn’t have to explain all of this.

>It wouldn't. I don't even have money, I only have debt!
congratulations, I guess

[Anonymous No.21634787]

>>21634715
You are posting in a thread about how my book is the best book ever. Where is the mockery and pity? Who is Chris-chan? Why are you more knowledgeable on this Chris-chan than I am on Nietzsche? Isn't that more pitiful than any pity you ascribe to me?

Bump my thread again. I want the exposure. And do it fast. I am impatient. I already got one subscriber from this thread and I would like another one. I am flying to Sweden later this month and I have expenses.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634804]

>>21634787
I'm posting in a thread made by one autist on an anonymous Japanese anime website about a delusional video game reviewer's funny aphorisms. What's pitiful is being an egomaniac but not having anything to show for it. Nietzsche was popular while he was alive and a reputed scholar in a reputed institution and personally knew reputed people, not a scam artist playing with entertainment and sharing memes with a very small group of chumps.

[Anonymous No.21634815]

New aphorism I just posted. I'll make sure to upload one a couple times a day, to keep this thread going, and hopefully attract some more subscribers. Website address is http://orgyofthewill.net Subscribe link is at the top.

Please keep bumping this thread throughout the day. Let's keep it going for as long as possible, guys. Thanks.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634819]

>>21634768
Who was Paul Morphy's trainer? If your kid had the makings of a chess grand master it's not going to be a lack of tutoring which stops them from advancing. Tutors buy you time, but nothing more. I need not make an exhausting list of chess grand masters who came from poverty. Chess also, will likely not pay the bills and your kid will still need to have some other means to support himself. Your money would not make any difference in your child's ability to become a chess grandmaster, just as throwing money into public education will
not potentially turn any child into a Goeth or Leibniz.
>but maybe I can do better by having money
Women always regress to the mean. To the average. Children of great men even moreso. It is so often you will find that the children of an Einstein will never be an 'Einstein'. Genius can never be inherited. It never has been. The only thing you can really pass down, is talent: through discipline.

All the money you have is debt as well, but even that is not necessary for me to explain.

[Anonymous No.21634824]

That's not true. There have been children of great men that ended up being even greater. Alexander was one. His father was awesome, but the child even awesomer.

It's just a matter of finding a great wife and having many children. Even better is having MANY wives and many children. The more you throw the dice, the better your chances. The Renaissance was made by 100 people. If I had 10,000 children, they would take over the planet.

People still don't fully grasp the power of genetics, but very soon they will. Musk is already ahead of the curve with like 10 children or some shit. In the near future, you will see the rich competing on this. It will get wild, buckle up.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634828]

>>21634819
>just as throwing money into public education
Let me guess, buying private education also won’t make a difference, right? Fuck off

[Anonymous No.21634836]

Where did the modal guy go? Come back dude. Tell us more about modals.

Also Chris-chan. I want to hear all about him.

Come on, guys. Don't let this thread die. Psot more. Psot harder.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634854]

>>21634824
Great men are not geniuses. Genius requires one to have universal knowledge, in music or mathematics for example. It is why I bought up Goeth and Leibniz. Talent can be passed on, genius cannot. I do not know of any philosophical tract or symphony a Napoleon has composed. They cannot, because they posses talents, gifts, but not genius.
>If I had 10,000 children, they would take over the planet
Try having one first.

>>21634828
It won't. And the way things are going, private education will be illegal for you and your progeny. Your children will be cast away for thinking the wrong thoughts.

[Anonymous No.21634867]

>>21634854
"Universal knowledge", good talk.

"Talents aren't gifts." Nice obfuscation.

"Try having one child first." I will, and there will be threads about it, and you will post in them, and get me more subscribers, so I can pay for the child's private education. Thanks.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634879]

>>21634854
Why this fixation on geniuses? If my son is even half as intelligent as I am, then with my parenting, he will be successful regardless.
>talent can be passed on
Right, so you admit it’s a good idea to look for good genes in a woman, which can be more easily acquired by displaying your good genes, and wealth is one such display. But go ahead, be poor, go fuck a retarded girl with retarded genes, I’m sure that will work out.

[Anonymous No.21634888]

And make sure to get your retarded child to post in icycalm threads! I can use the bumps!

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634903]

>>21634867
Yes, you must posses universal knowledge in order to be a genius. Half-wit. You out of all people should know this. Being gifted in one or two things does not make a genius. Being a military commander does not make one a genius. One must know quite literally EVERYTHING in order to be a genius. 'Great men's the conquerors as you so call them are from it. In fact they are, most of the time: criminals. With drug problems (see Alexander's own alcohol dependency)

Please see §185 in Volume 1 of Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.

>Talents aren't gifts
Again, how are you this bad at reading. I know you're ESL but you should have no problem with reading basic sentences.

I said one can posess a talent or a gift, (meaning both are equivalent) but not posess genius.

Anyway I would get on the child thing ASAP, your time is running out, and if you live in a western country you are also dealing with microplastics which effect your sperm count.
>>21634879
If your son was half as intelligent was as you were then he would have some sort of developmental disability, as you are not even half as intelligent as I. You haven't even figured how money works yet, and no I am not going to explain it to you either.

[Anonymous No.21634905]

>>21634903
>are from it
Far from it.

[Anonymous No.21634921]

The funny thing is, he thinks I read his posts.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634925]

>>21634903
>as you are not even half as intelligent as I.
Then you should have no problem beating my score on Block the Pig (316). Pro tip: you can’t

[Anonymous No.21634937]

He reads everything I write, he just runs away when he has nothing to say. As he always does. Because he is a coward.

-God

>>21634925
Find some chink who will beat it and go discuss philosophy with them.

[Anonymous No.21634941]

>>21634937
>Find some chink who will beat it and go discuss philosophy with them.
But if you are more intelligent than I, it should be easy for you to prove it. So go ahead.

[Anonymous No.21634944]

This will be especially enjoyable to those who hate seeing my army grow.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634955]

>>21634941
Try learning the laws of operation of the real world first. Maybe then you wouldn't have to pursue distractions like money, when you should really be pursuing power.

[Anonymous No.21634965]

>>21634955
funny you mention distractions, you just diverted the topic away from proving your intelligence. How hard is it to keep a pig from escaping? You just have to think ahead. Come on, I want to see you fail.

[Anonymous No.21634966]

Tell us more about the operation of the real world. Everyone here wants to learn this from you, Anon. You're the reason we're here.

-icy

[Sage No.21634972]

"my army"

Does your army even have weapons? How do you expect your 'army' to do it's duty—let alone engage in combat, when you speak ill of sacrifice? Your 'philosophy' leaves much to be desired...

-God

[Anonymous No.21634980]

>>21634972
>225. When all you want to do is survive, you goal is life (your life is your goal). When you want to dominate, your goal includes your life. Life in this case becomes merely another tool, another pawn to be thrown in the game at the appropriate time. Only the latter approach can achieve something. To merely remain alive is not much of an achievement, even insects can manage that just fine.

[Anonymous No.21634983]

>>21634965
I don't want to play your stupid mathematical game. I do not see any value in it. There are chess grandmasters with midwit IQ.

We can even say, for sale of argument your IQ is higher than mine. But IQ itself is only one metric of intelligence. We an even go further and say you have more brain power than me in all areas. Yet what does this prove in our discussion? I only called you stupid because you are pursuing things I see no value in.

[Anonymous No.21634988]

>>21634980
And pray tell, what will you die for?

[Anonymous No.21634996]

Guys I am going out for a bit. Please don't let the thread die. If the thread is up on my return, I will reward you with another token of my brilliance.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21634997]

"Tell us more about the operation of the real world"

"With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that design might cover their face,
with usura
hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luz
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,
with usura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly
with usura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
with usura the line grows thick
with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling.
Stonecutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom
WITH USURA
wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no gain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St. Trophime
Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man’s courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
CONTRA NATURAM
They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet
at behest of usura.

Usury: A charge for the use of purchasing power, levied without regard to production; often without regard to the possibilities of production. (Hence the failure of the Medici bank.) "

[Anonymous No.21634999]

>>21634983
That’s a shame. I was wanting some competition. It’s a bit boring be the best. I was actually hoping you would beat me.
>I only called you stupid because you are pursuing things I see no value in.
You could only call this stupid if we shared some common goal, such that by following my values instead of yours, I wouldn’t attain my goal as well as you do. In that case you should elaborate. But to say that a mere difference in values implies a difference in intelligence is retarded.

[Anonymous No.21635010]

>>21634988
my children/wife

[Anonymous No.21635024]

>>21634999
>But to say that a mere difference in values implies a difference in intelligence is retarded

Again, see my suggested passage to Icy from Schopenhauer.

>It is this removal of the personal equation which leaves the genius so maladapted in the world of willful, practical, personal activity. By seeing so far he does not see what is near; he is imprudent and “queer”; and while his vision is hitched to the stars he falls into a well. Hence, partly, the unsociability of the genius; he is thinking of the fundamental, the universal, the eternal; others are thinking of the temporary, the specific, the immediate; his mind and theirs have no common ground – and never meet.

Not only is a different kind of intelligence guaranteed, but a completely kind of brain. Do you suppose that the near sighted person, who lives only in the present values as the far sighted person who lives beyond it?

>>21635010
You are only bringing into the world more slaves if you are submissive to the money power. See also, the Canto I posted from 'ol Mr. Pound.

[Anonymous No.21635041]

Guys... you're supposed to be talking about me. Come now. Make sure there is at least once mention of icycalm (or icy) in every post.

Now I am leaving for reals. But I'll be back. Don't go anywhere.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21635061]

>>21635024
>Do you suppose that the near sighted person, who lives only in the present values as the far sighted person who lives beyond it?
Again, you must be implying some common goal between us, as if my being “short-sighted” will be a detriment to me. I could just as easily make a similar criticism about you. You’re not making yourself clear, which is strange, because you say you’re highly intelligent. So I’ll be waiting on you to explain how exactly my values contradict each other and why I will suffer because of it.

[Anonymous No.21635079]

>>21635061
I didn't say your values are contradicting one another I am saying you are a slave and your wife and children will also be slaves and I have told you time and time again to look into how money operates. I posted you an excerpt from Ezra Pound, which should lead you to Eustace Mullins and many other critics of the modern monetary system. I already gave you two. John Law’s Money and Trade or Fullarton’s Regulation of Currencies are also great places to start. If you are interested in something more Modern Richard Werner has many great papers you can start with.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

I cannot be more lucid than this. I have already spoonfed you enough. There is a war that has been going on for centuries and you are not even aware of it.

[Anonymous No.21635092]

>>21635079
>your values do not contradict
>you are a slave
The logical inference is that I have no problem being a slave, and that it aligns perfectly with my values. You could only criticize me if you thought I could fully satisfy my preferences by NOT being a slave, but then that would prove you’re retarded and contradicted yourself. So why are you criticizing me?

[Anonymous No.21635098]

>>21635041
if I get my account I’ll make a thread about your works every day (or less, if desired). And I’ll just focus on one paragraph per thread, unlike this thread

[Anonymous No.21635102]

>>21635092
>The logical inference is that I have no problem being a slave
No it isn't. A man who desires to be free (which I am assuming is you) yet himself is a slave is not contradicting himself, moron

[Anonymous No.21635112]

>>21635098
Go suck his cock while you're at it too.

[Anonymous No.21635119]

>>21635112
You jealous? It's only $25 bro.

[Anonymous No.21635122]

>>21635119
>Mmmm cocks
(You)

[Anonymous No.21635128]

>>21635102
>A man who desires to be free (which I am assuming is you) yet himself is a slave is not contradicting himself, moron
But you literally said that I’m stupid because of my values. You implied that I’m a slave because of my values. Get it straight, dumbass. I’ll give you one more chance to speak clearly
>>21635112
that doesn’t appeal to me. Posting these threads is fun though

[Anonymous No.21635180]

>>21635128
>But you literally said that I’m stupid because of my values
Correct.
>You implied that I’m a slave because of my values.
That is not what I said. I said you are a slave to money, which is not actually money at all, but credit issued to a borrower as a promise to pay it back, a loan which must be paid back with principal (interest) of some other loan because about 97% of the money supply is created as bank loans, making repayment of that loan dependent on another loan's Principal and so on, ad infinitum, creating an ongoing volume of Perpetual Debt which can can neither shrink nor slow down otherwise it will result in a crisis. Of course this is only the beginning of it, but you have no idea what I even am talking about do you? Why should I spoonfed you when you have no idea what I am talking about? I recommended you some literature. Perhaps you should do some reading, to understand why you are a 'slave'.

[Anonymous No.21635227]

>>21635180
Oh no! Whatever shall I do to be free??!!!

[Anonymous No.21635254]

>>21635227
Begin with nationalizing your credit institutions and dodging CIA bullets. Of course, you need power to do all that, which entails weapons, ammo, men, and of course an ideal... as freedom always does. The price for freedom will entail far more suffering than slavery.

[Anonymous No.21635923]

"OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE HANGED ALL THOSE TRAITORS BY NOW", scream all the midwits on Gab and right-wing sites today. And it makes for good pep talk, but it's false. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have hanged anyone if they were around today, they would be posting on Gab along with the rest of us. Maybe some of them would have run for office—and failed, because too many fags, as well as niggers and beaners, to allow a real man to rise to the top.

Flash back to ancient Greece, where coups where happening every other weekend. Taking over a city-state was literally a weekend affair: people did it with their friends for fun. We're talking about towns with 10,000 citizens. Maybe Athens had 40,000, plus women, children and slaves. That hardly qualifies as a city today, maybe a town; and all the rest of Greece were villages. How many bodyguards would the ruler have? A dozen? You could kill all of them with a few buddies, and no one would know for days. "THOSE WERE REAL MEN", you say. Buddy, send me back to ancient Greece and I could take over a town with my videogame clan NOW.

People are making wildly unrealistic comparisons. If you storm the US Capitol today, you'll have thousands of police and National Guard on your ass IN MINUTES. Within hours you'll have the military, and THE ENTIRE PLANET WILL KNOW. You will be targeted LITERALLY FROM SPACE. Even a rogue faction within the military itself would struggle to achieve anything, and you want random civilians who aren't even allowed to organize to somehow pull it off? It's suicide!

Google how many Brits the Founding Fathers were up against. And they were spread all over the country, and had to SNAIL MAIL communications between themselves. Merely to ask for reinforcements from London would take WEEKS. And all the Americans were hardy frontier folks because life back then was tough and there were no programming jobs. And both sides had the exact same weapons. Under THOSE circumstances, I would be probably leading the charge instead of posting enraged aphorisms on a website that no one reads.

[Anonymous No.21635928]

>>21635923

Things are orders of magnitude harder today, AND THAT'S WHY THE SITUATION IS SO INTERESTING. The complexity of the situation we're facing is RIDICULOUS. Consider that in Weimar Germany—which is another era that's being compared to today—at least everyone involved were Germans who wanted the best for Germany and the German people even when they disagreed on how to achieve that, while half the people in our midst today ARE ALIEN TRAITORS WHO HATE US AND OUR ENTIRE RACE AND CIVILIZATION. It's not just the leaders who are betraying us today, it's half the population with the same passports: the non-Whites of course, but even worse the liberal Whites who are ruling them. The Founding Fathers were only facing the Brits, and the National Socialists were only facing the Communists; today we're facing HALF OF SOCIETY if not more. And if we win... or get anywhere near victory... expect all the rest of the White nations to fall on us, and good luck with that.

It's almost impossible for anything to happen today because THAT'S how strong we have designed our security systems. We brought all this on ourselves. First we made our system unassailable, and then we quit worrying about it and let the effeminate and the aliens rise to the top and run the show. And now they're strangling us. Our own masculine brothers in the security forces will gun us down, if we try anything, because we have taught them to not think and simply take orders from the politicians. And now the politicians are fags and non-Whites. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

At the same time, we shouldn't blame ourselves—or anyone else for that matter. We're in entirely new territory: no one has reached this level before. And like every higher level in a good game, it harbors new dangers, but also new opportunities. It's interesting and exciting as fuck! If something were to happen today, it would be biblical! Think for a moment what kind of war the Founding Fathers were fighting. The Brits were their brethren, and gentlemen to boot. War between such highly civilized people was more like a game, a chess match. But WE WILL BE FACING ARABS, MEXICANS, AFRICANS. If anything happened here, IT WOULD BE BRUTAL AS FUCK, LIKE FUCKING WARHAMMER. We're talking APOCALYPTIC VIOLENCE, drone-bombings, tactical nukes going off, mass torturings, mass graves. I can't wait! Some nights I dream about it! But I am not going to throw my life away by going out into the street and attacking the first fag or non-White I see. That's a fine gesture for what it is, I am not knocking the people who do that, it's understandable and to an extent necessary, and it's inspirational; but it's just prologue.

I want to play in the main event.

From http://orgyofthewill.net §1364. The main event

[Anonymous No.21636017]

You always know how to make me chuckle Icy. Fortunately for me I am not surrounded by Arabs, Mexicans, and Niggers. Even in our largest city you would find great difficulty in spotting one of these invaders.

Even better, we have a weak government which the population despises. All I need to do is walk in and brush off the cockroaches out of parliament. Chances are, I will lose, and I will be killed, but death is a preferable alternative to slavery.

But you can go, waste your time away with your videogame clan, distracting yourself with what is unfolding before your very eyes— I will spend time with *my* clan, organizing, training, and polishing our machine guns.

You better pray a missile from space kills me, because that is what it will take to keep me from coming for your ass.

-God

[Anonymous No.21636071]

>>21635923
>>21635928
>>21636017
AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA AAAAAA HAHA HAHAAAA AAAHHHAAA

i don't know which of you delusionally autistic faggots make me laugh more

this is the best fucking thread on /lit/

[Anonymous No.21636090]

Thanks

-God

[Anonymous No.21636437]

>>21628929
where are the other comments? Or is this whole site a scam and you just talk with yourself?

[Anonymous No.21636621]

>>21636437
>no response
not only is he a narcissist, but a schizo too!

[Anonymous No.21636734]

>>21627772
>mfw it's been so long since shock jocks (eminem, maddox, opie and anthony, jackass, etc.) were mainstream that people can peddle this shit as new

[Anonymous No.21637038]

Can people keep posting more of the paywalled ones?

I have never forgotten the below one

>40. Star attraction, movie premieres, sports events, red carpets and gala openings: the eternal war between depth and appearances. But there is no war at all between them, since the purpose of depth is to create a stronger, and thus more beautiful, appearance; to transform itself into appearance. Those who scorn appearances and evangelize depth are precisely those who are incapable of much, if any, depth: the pseudo-intellectuals, which is why it is by no means an accident that all of them are ugly.

[Anonymous No.21637145]

>>21637038
only icycalm can share content behind the paywall because he doesn’t actually let anyone access the site. It’s just a scam

[Anonymous No.21638017]

>icycalm talks about being remembered
>only followers are random autists
>paywalls everything so there is zero acces
>the second he dies no one will be there to keep his website(s) running
It's really funny he talks about people not using technology correctly. He should have realized long ago that videos were the way of the future. That is why a completely nameless Neo-Objectivist guy who makes anti-Star Wars videos is more relevant.

[Anonymous No.21638290]

>>21628704
I don't understand the final sentence. Could you elaborate? It seems to me like many things now exist which in previous times were not only impossible, but even unimaginable. This comment thread and this website, to name two.

[Anonymous No.21639030]

>>21637038

>>21637038
>Anonymous 02/09/23(Thu)15:03:05 No.21637145▶


Which ones locked behind a paywall would you want? Let me know.

This mirror has all of the names of the different aprhoisms from orgyofthewill.net behind the paywall: https://s6hxs-7iaaa-aaaag-qbgeq-cai.ic0.app/

Here's aphorism §1047. The ultimate orgy of the will in full so you don't think I'm full of shit:
Why is the Big Bang an explosion and thus a destruction of everything including therefore whatever/whoever caused it? It can't be compulsion because the Big Bang is the greatest power in the universe, hence there's nothing to compel it, ergo it must be will, and precisely this is the ultimate orgy of the will. "Every great thing is the cause of its own destruction, via an act of self-cancellation..." The Big Bang is the very mechanism of the Eternal Recurrence, and note that Nietzsche wrote this HALF A CENTURY before Big Bang theory was conceived. He wasn't trying to EXPLAIN some astrophysical phenomenon with this theory—since nothing at the time had been observed that was demanding such an explanation—so he didn't TAKE this theory from anywhere, he simply CREATED it out of thin air (out of cultural observations that could have been interpreted in countless other ways than how he interpreted them), and lo and behold, the astrophysicists "discovered" it half a century later, entirely independently, since they hadn't read a word of Nietzsche... So what's going on here? Whose will precisely is the ultimate orgy of the will if not the will of those who dreamt and thus "discovered" it? You say, "It is the will of future people with the technology to power it", but would those future people have created this technology without Nietzsche and the astrophysicists inventing the concepts of the Big Bang and the Eternal Recurrence for them? Would they have created this technology out of nothing? If you think so, you don't understand how technology is created.

from orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.21639039]

>>21639030

Learning how 4chan works in real time here, what I meant to upload was this image

[Anonymous No.21639678]

>>21639030
1013

[Anonymous No.21639955]

1013. Soaring Higher

As the structure of civilization soars higher and higher, its foundations must dig deeper and deeper to support it. The height the supermen reach is necessarily proportional to the depth of weakness of the subhumans who support them, and is unthinkable without it. "If we were so small, it's because giants stood on our shoulders." When the last of the subhumans are exterminated, and their functions are completely replaced by machines, this will make for a nice epitaph on their final mass grave.


from orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.21640022]

why don't you put your book up for sale, you retard, have no interest in staring at a screen reading walls of text

[Anonymous No.21640078]

>>21640022
>have no interest in staring at a screen reading walls of text
you spend all day reading walls of text on this site

[Anonymous No.21640083]

>>21627772
Liebniz was reddit and Voltaire ripped him a new one.

[Anonymous No.21640101]

where's the epub?

[Anonymous No.21640444]

>>21639955
Thanks. 1037

[Anonymous No.21640468]

>45 posters
>229 posts
>alive for three days and counting
Icy, we think you're cringe, we think your fans are cringe, we think your writing is cringe, and it makes no sense to do marketing here.

I mean for the love of God, just look at this impotent high-school tier power fantasy >>21628570.
How old are you now? 40? Jesus Christ man.

[Anonymous No.21640479]

>>21640468
>doesn't even have the test to sage
keep bumping the thread faggot

[Anonymous No.21640493]

§1037. "Spirituality" zombies and their "cosmic forces"

And what about those who believe in "spirituality", in a "cosmic force" of some sort? Believing in a force means "I am weak", because the force itself that you believe in does NOT believe in a force, it believes IN ITSELF. The force says I AM a force, not I BELIEVE in SOME OTHER force. "Spirituality" zombies are weaklings who are however too smart to keep going with the ancient anthropomorphized fairy tales of God as an old man with a beard and penis. They're not naive and dumb enough for that, and that's why they turn God into vague "spirits" and "forces" and so on, and worship the philosophers (i.e. the real gods) with generic psycho-babble instead of reading our books and trying to understand us. In short, they are a better sort of people than the religious ones, but not by much.

from orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.21640756]

>>21640078
not really, i haven't read any of the blocks of text you've been spasmodically posting here for days.
publish your book or shut the fuck up. do you want readers, or do you want money? looks a lot like you're only after money.

[Anonymous No.21641138]

>>21640493
Thanks, I’ll just do one more
>1087

[Anonymous No.21641639]

Icycalm please give your readers more recommended books beside the ones you've already mentioned on your site.

[Anonymous No.21641658]

>>21641639
Start here

>241. There's always a single concept to be found at the bottom of every philosopher's philosophy. With Heraclitus it's flux, with Schopenhauer will, with Stirner the ego, with Kierkegaard faith, with Nietzsche power, while with Baudrillard it's seduction and with me immersion. But what is the quest for power if not the way in which the immersed ego maximizes its influence in the flux by having faith in itself while following its seduced will? And I could easily add Plato's forms, Spinoza's Nature, Hegel's spirit, and all the rest. Hell, even Wittgenstein's silence (via way, perhaps, of Shakespeare) will have a place in my elaboration of the ultimate form of thinking by the time I am done. My masterstroke will be the inclusion of even all the abortive half-concepts and pseudo-concepts floating around in the swamp of the subhuman brain — they too will have a place in the grand scheme of things (though as befits the ideas of small, tiny creatures, theirs will naturally be a very small, very tiny place) — and all the rest, beyond that point, will be silence.

[Anonymous No.21641806]

1087. How it all ends


First only free White male adult citizens could vote, in ancient Athens.

Then only free White male adult citizens who were landowners could vote, in the early days of American democracy. This was actually an improvement over the Athenian model.

Then the land requirement was scrapped, and poor people could vote too.

Then slavery was abolished and blacks could vote too.

Then women were also allowed to vote.

Then the citizenship requirement was dropped and foreigners could also vote.

Soon enough non-adults will also be allowed. The age limit has been continually dropping ever since ancient Athens, where it was 20.

Finally, nine dogs, one cat and three goats have been elected to office (many of them as mayors) in the US so far in the 21st century. Not merely voted, but elected. Google it.

I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out that all this ends with fire.

Woe to this great city! And I wish that I could already see the pillar of fire in which it will be consumed! For such pillars of fire must precede the great noontide.

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

from orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.21642315]

Icy, is this the future of humans?

[Anonymous No.21642564]

>>21627772
What the fuck

[Anonymous No.21643510]

The start of my autobiography. I've been meaning to get back to it, I've only written this little intro but have a hell of a lot to write. It will be blended with the aphorisms, and should double the pagecount. I think the book will clock in at 1000 pages at least. The point of the autobiography in a philosophical work is to show how poor everyone's lives are compared to mine, which is why they couldn't be philosophers, and why the greatest book ever HAD to come from me.

-icy

[Anonymous No.21643753]

This is without the doubt the cringiest edgelord shit I've ever seen on this fucking site.

If you are trolling: well done, but you should probably spend this creative energy on something more productive.

If you are serious: you are beyond delusional and should unironically speak to a mental health doctor.


Either way, this post has made me reflect about all the edgy shit I've said in the past and it makes me cringe.

I'll save some of your aphorisms because the sheer depravity that speaks from them will entertain me for years to come.

[Anonymous No.21644137]

>>21643753
>unironically speak to a mental health doctor

you have to go back

[Anonymous No.21644611]

>>21634594
Actually i googled my username and my old forum pal from 11 years ago mentioned me last year

Also I'm quoted several times on the praise for orgy page which basically ensures my place in the annals of history

[Anonymous No.21644700]

>>21634824
Musk can't make a single thing other than rockets and governmental financial investment that turns out well. You're just getting tricked by him because he's a nerd who has skimmed a few sci fi novels.

[Anonymous No.21645122]

>>21638017
To be fair video essays are pretty much unilaterally dogshit and they only exist because humans like human noises in the background

[Anonymous No.21645194]

>yet another edgelord who read Nietzsche once and now thinks he's the Übermensch

[Anonymous No.21645997]

godammit i'm dying this got to be trolling

[Anonymous No.21647634]

>>21641138

Feel free to request more. I'm saying this to you and to anyone who's interested in seeing more aphorisms.

Here's another one:


§1068. Force versus power and the purpose of philosophy

What's the difference between force and power? Laymen and even philosophers use these terms interchangeably, and I've probably been guilty of this in places where it doesn't matter (usually for literally purposes, to avoid repetition and make the text sound better), but ultimately it matters philosophically, not only in physics, and a lot, so we should clarify it. Have you seen those X-Men movies where Professor X stops time? He can still move around and do whatever he wants, but everyone and everything else is paused. Now imagine a fight between a midget and a massive bodybuilder. Of course the bodybuilder can generate tremendous amounts of force, but what if the midget could pause time like Professor X? He could take his time finding a stool, setting it in front of the bodybuilder, then climbing up there and pushing a needle in the bodybuilder's eye, then unpause time and win the fight. He doesn't even need to pause time; as long as he can move extremely faster than the bodybuilder, he can win despite the force disparity. That's a demonstration of a tiny amount of force—whatever little it takes to push the needle in the bodybuilder's eye—overcoming a massive amount of force: the bodybuilder's. Power equals work divided by time, and since work is force times distance, power is essentially force over time, so you can generate huge amounts of power even from a little force, if you can do it QUICKLY, i.e. faster than your opponent/environment (and your environment is ALWAYS your opponent at the end of the day, which is why environmentalism is a decadent movement). In fitness circles this effect is called "explosiveness", and is the difference between the "strengthlifting" lifts like the bench press and deadlift, and the "explosive" lifts, like the Olympic lifts like the snatch and the clean and jerk. So a champion strengthlifter may be strong as an ox because he can generate massive forces, but a champion Olympic weightlifter is far more powerful because he can generate far more power, and these two related but distinct qualities are prized differently by different sports and types of physical activities: the faster-paced the sport or physical activity, the more that power and explosiveness matters. So a strong but slow friend of yours would be ideal to help you move house, but not to run a sprint or play a basketball game, and so on.

[Anonymous No.21647637]

>>21647634


How does all that relate to philosophy? Well, for starters, it gives you an idea of why the Big Bang is so important: it's the most powerful unleashing of energy we are aware of as all energy we know of derives from there, and you can see that in the absurdly small time intervals in which it took place, unthinkably small intervals of the order of ten to the minus thirty or forty seconds. How much force caused the Big Bang? An absolutely tiny amount, "a random quantum fluctuation in the void" as quantum physicists hilariously put it; and yet that tiny amount was so explosive—i.e. happened in such a short time—that it created the four types of force we are now aware of: electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. And if in the future we discover more types of force, those too will be found to have arisen from the Big Bang, because where else could they arise from lol?

So you can see everywhere in our culture, including in our best art, power being praised over and above force. Sheer force is sheer stupidity, and that's how David beat Goliath, or the Rebel Alliance blew up the Death Star: because, though they had a tiny amount of force at their disposal, they knew precisely how to apply it.

The moral of all this? Force is well and good, but you have to know HOW to use it: i.e. WHEN and WHERE to apply it, which is of course an analytical problem, i.e. an intellectual one. And that, dear reader, is what philosophy is about: turning force, via the intellect, into power, with the Big Bang being the apex of this phenomenon, and therefore the apex of philosophy: the culmination of all our philosophical efforts: nothing less than the creation of the universe. Which just so happens to be quite a fitting mindset for a god, no?

from orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.21648068]

>>21645997
Knowing /lit/, I doubt it.