What to die for?

[M.2]

Culture is the hierarchical system of values of a people. 

Depending on culture, we call certain people heroes, others fanatics, just because they died for something they believed in.

For most of history, we have always known that while human life is precious, it is not the most valuable thing in the universe. People have always given up their lives or that of others in favour of other values. Socrates gave his life for truth, the 300 gave theirs for Greece, martyrs die for their sky daddy, the marine in the jungles of Vietnam died for... something, the alcoholic dies for his gluttony... etc

On a personal note, I do not trust anyone who would not give his dear life for some sort of ideal. I have more respect, more trust, and more admiration for the Jihadi who very well may blow me up tomorrow, than for the aerage pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kid who takes it out in the comment section on the Jihadi for being a "fanatic".

What is the value most worth your life?

[A4E]

I have more respect for Bill Clinton, than a muslim scholar who is too cowardly to do Jihadi according to the Quran himself, and is instead brainwashing young people to do it for him, which he knows is going to end their lives, and/or destroy any positive development within the families involved, and contribute to making all areas inhabited by muslims the most hellish places on earth.

And so what?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Culture is the hierarchical system of values of a people. 

Depending on culture, we call certain people heroes, others fanatics, just because they died for something they believed in.

For most of history, we have always known that while human life is precious, it is not the most valuable thing in the universe. People have always given up their lives or that of others in favour of other values. Socrates gave his life for truth, the 300 gave theirs for Greece, martyrs die for their sky daddy, the marine in the jungles of Vietnam died for... something, the alcoholic dies for his gluttony... etc

On a personal note, I do not trust anyone who would not give his dear life for some sort of ideal. I have more respect, more trust, and more admiration for the Jihadi who very well may blow me up tomorrow, than for the aerage pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kid who takes it out in the comment section on the Jihadi for being a "fanatic".

What is the value most worth your life?

A very interesting and thought provoking question and sentiment, and one I happen to agree with.

It's hard to say what I'd be willing to die for in the here and now because there's little to nothing I could consider worth dying for, let alone fighting for. My family is terrible, and while I love my mother I can't say with a certainty I'd "die" for her because, well, she did pick my dad and it's partly thanks to her my childhood is/was (I guess it ended recently) shit enough that if I was given the million-dollar question of "If I knew the first 18 years of my life ahead of time, and couldn't live beyond them, would I take them?" I know I'd answer vehemently "NO!". 

However, I can say there are two things at least that I value enough that I'd be willing to die for them; 1: My unborn children of the future and 2: My future wife and mother of those children. Neither of those things however exist in my life, and while I can say I'm living for the success, prosperity, and happiness of my progeny I can't say that's a value to die for so much as my animal nature and internal need for something worth living for.

While I subscribe to much of the Classical Liberal beliefs (i.e. Stefanism) I can't say I'd die for them. They aren't people. However they make life much more livable than, say, Islam or Feminisism or Gyno-Republicanism. 

Would I be willing to fight, or otherwise contribute to, the proliferation of Classical Liberal ( or specifically Capitalism, adherence to law and order, Christianity mono-culturalism, White Nationalism, etc. etc.) ideas and practice? Yes. And in many ways that's my career. However I can't say I'd be willing to die for an idea, because the idea has nothing in reality to make me appreciate the idea as more than a dream yet to come, although perhaps this dream had existed in the past, I can't say modernity is anything worth fighting or dying for.

Again it's a hard question, but one I think ought to be asked. It says a lot about a man (and woman for that matter) whether or not he's got something worth fighting and dying for. If he does, then he's a man of conviction and possibly of high moral character. If he doesn't, he's probably either depressed or a hedonist, or otherwise someone of inconsequential character.

Therefore, I'm thankful you'd bring this question to the limelight, but as to my answer...I say the thing I'm willing to die for is what's giving me purpose in life: Happiness, progeny, and the unicorn wife only a unicorn man can get. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Trying to see how I can "unhide" it.

[RichardY]

Socrates killed himself, imo out of contempt for people. No dying for anyone's sins, trolled them to the point they'd have him sentenced to death. 

I don't know if I'd give my life for an ideal. I might give it, if I were to be corrupted completely perhaps, tough question can't really answer it, if I were backed in an ideal by companions looking at history reasonably I'd have to, it shouldn't even be a choice . The real trick would be to endure pain and pleasure and not be corrupted, and to do so out of compassion.

Respect in that they the Jihadis are a credible threat, disgust and anger(contempt) that Western society is so decadent as to offer no resistance, even to undermine itself. Being European myself, I'm decadent, if I knew of a way to serve now, to prevent some of the chaos that is coming and still occurring, that would be something I'd fight for, but not alone and I lack the financing. Although I have done voluntary work for lodgings while backpacking and that would be fine.

"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Corinthians 15:32 (came across the quote listening to a book by Carl Jung).

 

Hope, that's about it, marginal compassion.

[Gavitor]

You are going to die regardless so why not strive to do the most good possible while alive and try to live as long as possible to continue doing good?

[Dad]

7 hours ago, Gavitor said:

You are going to die regardless so why not strive to do the most good possible while alive and try to live as long as possible to continue doing good?

What OP means is that "good" is highly subjective. What may seem good to someone else may be reprehensible to you and vice versa. 

 

Personally I think you should abandon values and focus on principles. A value is just something important to you. If you can manage to nail down your principles then what it is you value should follow naturally. 

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎05‎. ‎31‎. at 1:16 AM, A4E said:

I have more respect for Bill Clinton, than a muslim scholar who is too cowardly to do Jihadi according to the Quran himself, and is instead brainwashing young people to do it for him, which he knows is going to end their lives, and/or destroy any positive development within the families involved, and contribute to making all areas inhabited by muslims the most hellish places on earth.

And so what?

I think we are in agreement, but I have multiple questions regarding your post.
- What makes you think the muslim scholar is not going on jihad himself, and is doing so out of cowardice?
- What do you consider brainwashing?
- How do you know what he knows? Also... many muslim countries and communities actually support the families of jihadis financially, so they win I guess.
- What do you mean by hellish?

On ‎2017‎. ‎05‎. ‎31‎. at 1:27 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. A very interesting and thought provoking question and sentiment, and one I happen to agree with.

2. It's hard to say what I'd be willing to die for in the here and now because there's little to nothing I could consider worth dying for, let alone fighting for. My family is terrible, and while I love my mother I can't say with a certainty I'd "die" for her because, well, she did pick my dad and it's partly thanks to her my childhood is/was (I guess it ended recently) shit enough that if I was given the million-dollar question of "If I knew the first 18 years of my life ahead of time, and couldn't live beyond them, would I take them?" I know I'd answer vehemently "NO!". However, I can say there are two things at least that I value enough that I'd be willing to die for them; 1: My unborn children of the future and 2: My future wife and mother of those children. Neither of those things however exist in my life, and while I can say I'm living for the success, prosperity, and happiness of my progeny I can't say that's a value to die for so much as my animal nature and internal need for something worth living for. While I subscribe to much of the Classical Liberal beliefs (i.e. Stefanism) I can't say I'd die for them. They aren't people. However they make life much more livable than, say, Islam or Feminisism or Gyno-Republicanism. Would I be willing to fight, or otherwise contribute to, the proliferation of Classical Liberal ( or specifically Capitalism, adherence to law and order, Christianity mono-culturalism, White Nationalism, etc. etc.) ideas and practice? Yes. And in many ways that's my career. However I can't say I'd be willing to die for an idea, because the idea has nothing in reality to make me appreciate the idea as more than a dream yet to come, although perhaps this dream had existed in the past, I can't say modernity is anything worth fighting or dying for.

3. Again it's a hard question, but one I think ought to be asked. It says a lot about a man (and woman for that matter) whether or not he's got something worth fighting and dying for. If he does, then he's a man of conviction and possibly of high moral character. If he doesn't, he's probably either depressed or a hedonist, or otherwise someone of inconsequential character.

4. Therefore, I'm thankful you'd bring this question to the limelight, but as to my answer...I say the thing I'm willing to die for is what's giving me purpose in life: Happiness, progeny, and the unicorn wife only a unicorn man can get.

1. Glad we agree.

2. Is it correct to summarise that you are not willing to die (max fight) for ideas, but would be willing to die for the people entrusted to you? If so, what is actually wrong with dying for ideas?

3. Exactly what I think.

4. If you die for happiness, you would not be there to enjoy it. So how does that work? Do you mean that you would gladly die in the pursuit of happiness? And if so, what is happiness, and why is it worth more than your life?

On ‎2017‎. ‎05‎. ‎31‎. at 2:38 AM, RichardY said:

I don't know if I'd give my life for an ideal. I might give it, if I were to be corrupted completely perhaps, tough question can't really answer it, if I were backed in an ideal by companions looking at history reasonably I'd have to, it shouldn't even be a choice . The real trick would be to endure pain and pleasure and not be corrupted, and to do so out of compassion.

Respect in that they the Jihadis are a credible threat, disgust and anger(contempt) that Western society is so decadent as to offer no resistance, even to undermine itself. Being European myself, I'm decadent, if I knew of a way to serve now, to prevent some of the chaos that is coming and still occurring, that would be something I'd fight for, but not alone and I lack the financing. Although I have done voluntary work for lodgings while backpacking and that would be fine.

"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Corinthians 15:32 (came across the quote listening to a book by Carl Jung).

Why did you use the word "corrupted"? 

I am not entirely sure what your second paragraph says. Do I understand correctly that you would not really give your life for anything, but you would fight for something, were there something to fight for?
Also, why would you not fight if you were alone or underfunded? Do you fight only when victory is of great probability?

21 hours ago, Gavitor said:

You are going to die regardless so why not strive to do the most good possible while alive and try to live as long as possible to continue doing good?

Are you suggesting that we should do good, but not go as far as sacrificing our lives?
What would happen if your dearly loved ones were threatened with imminent mortal danger? Would you not risk your life for them? I think (very much hope) your answer would be "yes, of course", but then where do you draw the line?
So again, my question is: What is more valuable than your own life? Or is nothing more so?

[Gavitor]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Are you suggesting that we should do good, but not go as far as sacrificing our lives?

What would happen if your dearly loved ones were threatened with imminent mortal danger? Would you not risk your life for them? I think (very much hope) your answer would be "yes, of course", but then where do you draw the line?
So again, my question is: What is more valuable than your own life? Or is nothing more so?

Yes because I don't see why sacrificing your life is necessary to do good. Surely more good could be done alive than dead.

If my loved ones were in mortal danger would it not be better to remove them or the danger then die? If I die but fail to stop said danger how do my loved ones benefit from that exactly?

Risking your life and sacrificing yourself are not the same thing. So I'm curious why you lump them together?

No nothing is worth more than my life to me, because without my life nothing else would matter.

Also you may be willing to risk your life for something you hold in equal regard as your own life, Ie something you could not live without.

[A4E]

16 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I think we are in agreement, but I have multiple questions regarding your post.
1- What makes you think the muslim scholar is not going on jihad himself, and is doing so out of cowardice?
2- What do you consider brainwashing?
3- How do you know what he knows? Also... many muslim countries and communities actually support the families of jihadis financially, so they win I guess.
4- What do you mean by hellish?

1- He is alive. And busy beating in the talking points from the quran into young men, because the quran is apparently too weak and too unappealing and too long and too outdated for the young men to want to read it for themselves so that they can make up their own mind.

2- Hammering in the same phrases or paragraphs about something without letting anyone ask questions about it. And doing so in a place of perceived or recognized authority. I have seen that indian guy taking questions from anyone, but he just makes up stuff as he goes if someone asks a real question, like 'if men and women are equal in Islam, why does every lady have to sit behind all the men in this large concert size area?' His answer was somewhere along the lines of "Its nothing about anything, women have been placed in different areas before and its nothing to worry about."

3- Its called an educated guess. If you don't know sending a person to war is likely to get him killed, then he must be brain damaged or something... Sure they are promised a lot in the 'afterlife', but if there is so much in the afterlife, just go jihad yourself then and let the young men follow if they want. And yes I know the families are taken care of, but that is not a productive future, and not anywhere near having a man to support the family.  Its wellfare.

4- Going to a market place and not knowing if you are going to be blown to pieces, or run over by a peace truck.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Glad we agree.

Well, it's hard to be K selected and not occasionally think about these thngs.

 

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Is it correct to summarise that you are not willing to die (max fight) for ideas, but would be willing to die for the people entrusted to you? If so, what is actually wrong with dying for ideas?

Hard to say. I suppose my greatest value is my desire to improve the quality of life for my children and descendants, therefore the value I hold highest is "reverse-filial-piety", or the "worship" of one's own progeny. To die, like say in a war, to ensure the security of my progeny is indeed worthwhile, however to die failing to do so is ultimately shameful. I can understand lumping together risking death with straight-out-death because naturally it is preferable that I live than die, therefore the question is as simple as "would I be willing to die for a value?" And since my values are material, i.e. my children and their happiness, as well as my own happiness, I consider them worth dying for. However abstract virtues are not worthwhile, because if, for some reason, a virtue contradicts the betterment of my progeny then I am opposed, at least in that instance, to it. For example: honesty. If I were honest with a self-declared killer about the whereabouts of my children, then I am as evil as the killer in aiding him. Therefore in this instance lying is actually the morally right thing to do because principles such as honesty are really only values when they serve the best interests of my true value; "reverse-filial-piety". 

 

 

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Exactly what I think.

When you study history long enough, you come to admire most the martyrs, sometimes even more than the "successful" heroes. However I do have to say, I admire the "successful heroes" more as I increase in wisdom for they are the ones who do the most good. An easy example is Augustus relative to Napoleon (assuming for the sake of argument Napoleon was truly trying to protect French civilization and keep it good and righteous, which I believe).

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. If you die for happiness, you would not be there to enjoy it. So how does that work? Do you mean that you would gladly die in the pursuit of happiness? And if so, what is happiness, and why is it worth more than your life?

Good question. I suppose what I mean is that the paid I'd suffer internally for failing to meet my values is worse than death, therefore I'd rather die than betray my progeny. If there is a Heaven, I know I will go there if I do right as a mortal. If there isn't, well at least my progeny will enjoy a better Midgard than I did. And that thought counts for much of why I choose to strive for professional and personal success. 

I would not, however, be willing to die for hedonistic pleasures (in the long run. To some degree that's hard to say when I don't have a wife or children. For example: perhaps long-term gratification wouldn't be worth bearing for if I couldn't play video games, which to some degree simulate the joy of success in one form or another. However I'd be exaggerating if I said I'd rather die than go without pleasures, just that if there is nothing to enjoy for the years in which I am striving, I might go a little nuts and seriously consider stupid things like that. After all I have some r-selected traits that combat my K-selected ones).

I don't believe this question came out of nowhere, and am therefore curious: what would you be willing to die for? Or are you unsure about what to die for, and am therefore curious as to what others are willing to die for in order to find something so precious?

 

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎06‎. ‎01‎. at 7:22 AM, Gavitor said:

1. Yes because I don't see why sacrificing your life is necessary to do good. Surely more good could be done alive than dead.

2. If my loved ones were in mortal danger would it not be better to remove them or the danger then die? If I die but fail to stop said danger how do my loved ones benefit from that exactly?

3. Risking your life and sacrificing yourself are not the same thing. So I'm curious why you lump them together?

4. No nothing is worth more than my life to me, because without my life nothing else would matter.

5. Also you may be willing to risk your life for something you hold in equal regard as your own life, Ie something you could not live without.

1. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice your life. There are Macedonian and Hungarian police getting their heads smashed by third world migrants at this very moment in defence of the West.

2. I suppose the hungarian police could resign, go home, and move to a country that is not in the way of the massive horde of migrants, but most of them don't have the means to do that.

3. I would argue that yes, it is the same thing. Because if you are not willing to die, you are not really voluntarily risking your life. 

4. Ok, that's fair. But this only means that I cannot count on you when it comes down to defending the west, becaue you would probably just run away.

5. So you would risk your life for food, shelter, clothes, water, and if necessary, you would kill me to get it because you could live without me. Is that a fair way to put it?
To bring this into real life, I assume you are the person who during the siege of Leningrad ate his own children and lived, and I am the one who didn't and died.

10 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Hard to say. I suppose my greatest value is my desire to improve the quality of life for my children and descendants, therefore the value I hold highest is "reverse-filial-piety", or the "worship" of one's own progeny. To die, like say in a war, to ensure the security of my progeny is indeed worthwhile, however to die failing to do so is ultimately shameful. I can understand lumping together risking death with straight-out-death because naturally it is preferable that I live than die, therefore the question is as simple as "would I be willing to die for a value?" And since my values are material, i.e. my children and their happiness, as well as my own happiness, I consider them worth dying for. However abstract virtues are not worthwhile, because if, for some reason, a virtue contradicts the betterment of my progeny then I am opposed, at least in that instance, to it. For example: honesty. If I were honest with a self-declared killer about the whereabouts of my children, then I am as evil as the killer in aiding him. Therefore in this instance lying is actually the morally right thing to do because principles such as honesty are really only values when they serve the best interests of my true value; "reverse-filial-piety". 

I don't believe this question came out of nowhere, and am therefore curious: what would you be willing to die for? Or are you unsure about what to die for, and am therefore curious as to what others are willing to die for in order to find something so precious?

It's an honourable value to live and die for one's own. It's also the least of what we expect from men.

I am actually struggling with this question myself, and that is why I posted - to get some perspectives. I have risked my life before, and I remember being more than willing to die, but I also recall not really thinking much of it at the time. Meaning I wasn't consciously thinking "what I hero I am, I am going to sacrifice myself for something good". It was more like a reflex really. And I also noticed that I had a very low stimulus threshold for this stuff, as I often caught myself in the middle of a fight with my friends idly standing by valuing their precious lives. Some of the time it wasn't even a fight I had a lot to do with, I simply saw injustice and intervened. The reason I am conflating fights with sacrifice is because in a real fight in a violent society, you have a very good chance of getting hit in the wrong place and going into a come for a year, or possibly forever.

[Gavitor]

7 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice your life. There are Macedonian and Hungarian police getting their heads smashed by third world migrants at this very moment in defence of the West.

2. I suppose the hungarian police could resign, go home, and move to a country that is not in the way of the massive horde of migrants, but most of them don't have the means to do that.

3. I would argue that yes, it is the same thing. Because if you are not willing to die, you are not really voluntarily risking your life. 

4. Ok, that's fair. But this only means that I cannot count on you when it comes down to defending the west, becaue you would probably just run away.

5. So you would risk your life for food, shelter, clothes, water, and if necessary, you would kill me to get it because you could live without me. Is that a fair way to put it?
To bring this into real life, I assume you are the person who during the siege of Leningrad ate his own children and lived, and I am the one who didn't and died.

 

1. I disagree, those cops aren't doing a very good job if they are dying and more migrants are continuing to flood in. Like I said they would be better off alive than dead. Who will defend the west if everyone who sacrifices their lives dies?

2. Or they could just kill the invaders as they should be much better armed than them.

3. Whether you are willing to die or not is irrelevant, you will inevitably die whether you want to or not.

4. Not necessarily, running away comes with risk as well. Sometimes you have to fight to live. It's nice to see you make assumptions about me though.

5. You don't risk your life for food and water, without those things you WILL die. I don't necessarily have to kill you to get those things, and it may be beneficial to keep you alive because we can accomplish more as a group than alone.

I would not kill my children because i value their life as much as my own, if you died then chances are your children did as well or did they eat your corpse?

 

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. If you die you are no longer able to affect change, if you are alive you at least have the opportunity to try.

[M.2]

4 hours ago, Gavitor said:

1. I disagree, those cops aren't doing a very good job if they are dying and more migrants are continuing to flood in. Like I said they would be better off alive than dead. Who will defend the west if everyone who sacrifices their lives dies?

2. Or they could just kill the invaders as they should be much better armed than them.

3. Whether you are willing to die or not is irrelevant, you will inevitably die whether you want to or not.

4. Not necessarily, running away comes with risk as well. Sometimes you have to fight to live. It's nice to see you make assumptions about me though.

5. You don't risk your life for food and water, without those things you WILL die. I don't necessarily have to kill you to get those things, and it may be beneficial to keep you alive because we can accomplish more as a group than alone.

I would not kill my children because i value their life as much as my own, if you died then chances are your children did as well or did they eat your corpse?

 

6. I'll try to make this as concise as possible. If you die you are no longer able to affect change, if you are alive you at least have the opportunity to try.

1,2. Don't tell Juncker, but they are actually using live rounds on migrants, or at least hungary does. And no, they are not getting through anymore. There was however a mass attempt last month at breaking through the border, but that was stopped. So there is that...

3. I heard it makes all the difference in the police force or rescue services whether or not you are willing to die or not. There is this natural instinct that makes us hold on to dear life... Could be a factor.

4. Just trying to make logical ends. My apologies.

5. Earlier you said you would risk your life for things you could not live without. I thought you were referring to things you literally could not live without.

Lets stay with the Leningrad example here, since that is less of a hypothetical. And just to clarify, I am not asking what you would actually do if you had traveled back in time, rather I am asking what you would want yourself to do.
Yes, many children ate their parents and survived, then there were parents who ate their children, and also the people who ate other people, and lastly those that kept their integrity and died ...etc.

I think we may have found some common ground here. The topic of the thread is "what to die for", and I assumed that people die for things they value over their lives. But now you say that one also dies for things they value equal to their lives, like one's children as you say for example.

6. I am really trying to think you are not strawmanning me. Nobody WANTS to die. (Except for suicidals I guess.) That is a given. The question is whether or not one WOULD die if the situation demands it. There are such situation, right?

[Caley McKibbin]

On 5/30/2017 at 5:43 PM, Mishi2 said:

On a personal note, I do not trust anyone who would not give his dear life for some sort of ideal. I have more respect, more trust, and more admiration for the Jihadi who very well may blow me up tomorrow, than for the aerage pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kid who takes it out in the comment section on the Jihadi for being a "fanatic".

So you admire people that will burst through your door if you don't obey the state.  You should be delighted with the status quo.  Fanatics externalize the cost of aggression, making the state, other cults and war in general possible.  It's unfortunate for such a notion however that because fanatics are functionally cuckolds giving away their opportunity to procreate to those pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kids that those kids will be the ones left to rule and populate the planet while the fanatics simply erase their traits from existence.

[Gavitor]

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1,2. Don't tell Juncker, but they are actually using live rounds on migrants, or at least hungary does. And no, they are not getting through anymore. There was however a mass attempt last month at breaking through the border, but that was stopped. So there is that...

3. I heard it makes all the difference in the police force or rescue services whether or not you are willing to die or not. There is this natural instinct that makes us hold on to dear life... Could be a factor.

4. Just trying to make logical ends. My apologies.

5. Earlier you said you would risk your life for things you could not live without. I thought you were referring to things you literally could not live without.

Lets stay with the Leningrad example here, since that is less of a hypothetical. And just to clarify, I am not asking what you would actually do if you had traveled back in time, rather I am asking what you would want yourself to do.
Yes, many children ate their parents and survived, then there were parents who ate their children, and also the people who ate other people, and lastly those that kept their integrity and died ...etc.

I think we may have found some common ground here. The topic of the thread is "what to die for", and I assumed that people die for things they value over their lives. But now you say that one also dies for things they value equal to their lives, like one's children as you say for example.

6. I am really trying to think you are not strawmanning me. Nobody WANTS to die. (Except for suicidals I guess.) That is a given. The question is whether or not one WOULD die if the situation demands it. There are such situation, right?

1-2 Then I stand corrected, my point still stands that if live people are not there to stop them then the outcome would be different.

3. Again I pointed out there is a difference between sacrificing your life and risking it. Sacrificing your life means you will die as a result, risking it has the chance to live.

4-5. No worries

6. I didn't bring up wants, I said that if you die you can't actually change anything after. IE if you die and fail that's it, you don't get a second chance. If you live and fail you can at least try again.

What situation demands that you die?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

14 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

It's an honourable value to live and die for one's own. It's also the least of what we expect from men.

The least of? Meaning "we" expect more? In today's society any more is unreasonable. I would never risk my life for a stranger because chances are that stranger would want me dead either because we're politically opposite or morally opposite. In a world where evil people reign, and they reign because evil citizens enable them to, there is no virtue in fighting to preserve it. Typical virtues such as nationalism (at least in the sense of the nation as it stands, not what it could be, used to be, or ought to be) are madness because I live in a society that wants to literally enslave men and persecute Whites. Therefore the interests of myself are oppostional to the nation. 

However if the situation were reversed; if people voted for good instead of bad, and it is only the government that is bad (as they all tend to be) and people are good in spite of that, then patriotism would be virtuous because it'd be fighting for a good society. Fighting for an evil society is not virtuous, it is madness.

The reason why I consider my progeny to be my only true value is because most other moral values can be made relative due to this insane time we live in. 100 years ago it was virtuous to rescue needy women and white knight, because (at least from what I know) women were in general good people. However most women (and men really, I'll admit I'm a misanthrope) today are horrible people, therefore it is madness to want to rescue them.

Reminds me of one Swedish caller who was talking about his traumatized childhood, and when asked hypothetically if he'd rescue a female coworker from bears, he laughed and said he's rather she be eaten...

...And incidentally, my apathy, society's apathy, is in part a cause of our downfall. Perhaps I should re-evaluate what I consider moral and of people in general. After all if I can catch a missing screw in my words as I speak them, then I know I have work to do. However I still think question ought to be made: is it virtuous to adhere to traditional male virtues when society vehemently rejects us, abuses us, and may even put us in concentration camps if we further enable it? Think South Africa for a similar situation albeit far worse because the struggle is much more real there. 

I think this apathy will cause a societal collapse, and most likely that collapse will cause a civil war, and during that war suddenly there will be large groups of people with values willing to fight and die for them. I think that time both can and can't come too soon. It can because I'd like to be prepared and in a position of personal and familial security, it can't because it's inevitable and must happen for society to change for the better. 

Unfortunately I bet it'll come as a surprise to most people, maybe even we who try to keep track of such things.

14 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I am actually struggling with this question myself, and that is why I posted - to get some perspectives. I have risked my life before, and I remember being more than willing to die, but I also recall not really thinking much of it at the time. Meaning I wasn't consciously thinking "what I hero I am, I am going to sacrifice myself for something good". It was more like a reflex really. And I also noticed that I had a very low stimulus threshold for this stuff, as I often caught myself in the middle of a fight with my friends idly standing by valuing their precious lives. Some of the time it wasn't even a fight I had a lot to do with, I simply saw injustice and intervened. The reason I am conflating fights with sacrifice is because in a real fight in a violent society, you have a very good chance of getting hit in the wrong place and going into a come for a year, or possibly forever.

Reminds me of Stef's interviewing a guy with friends who literally acted as real-life-superheroes and after some digging Stef theorized the guy was purposely putting himself in danger because he wants to die.

Do you want to die? Are you re-actively putting yourself in danger because you want to die? Or are you really just a good person? Understanding the motives for our behaviors is important. 

 

 

 

[M.2]

20 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

So you admire people that will burst through your door if you don't obey the state.  You should be delighted with the status quo.  Fanatics externalize the cost of aggression, making the state, other cults and war in general possible.  It's unfortunate for such a notion however that because fanatics are functionally cuckolds giving away their opportunity to procreate to those pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kids that those kids will be the ones left to rule and populate the planet while the fanatics simply erase their traits from existence.

I have no idea who you are referri to where I underlined.
The second part is a fair point, but inaccurate in practice I think. Mr.Molyneux has talked about this many times - the white feather thing. In real life, women are attracted to those who are willing to give up their lives for something, and not to the chips-eating selfish fat kids. For example, in South Korea, they have cumpulsory military service. And the men who haven't served have a really hard time finding themselves mates. I bring up Korea, because the natural phenomenon is very vivid there, since they are constantly in imminent danger.

16 hours ago, Gavitor said:

1-2 Then I stand corrected, my point still stands that if live people are not there to stop them then the outcome would be different.

3. Again I pointed out there is a difference between sacrificing your life and risking it. Sacrificing your life means you will die as a result, risking it has the chance to live.

4-5. No worries

6. I didn't bring up wants, I said that if you die you can't actually change anything after. IE if you die and fail that's it, you don't get a second chance. If you live and fail you can at least try again.

7. What situation demands that you die?

1,2. Ok, I don't see why you think I disagree with you there.

3. I am having trouble understanding how you can risk your life without being ready to die. Maybe an example would help.

6. I am not sure how much you know about the Jesuit missionaries to Japan. The Japanese realised, unlike anyone else in the world, that if they eecuted missionaries, even more japanese are drawn to christianity, but if they let them live, and merely limit their activities, then they were seeing better results. So there apparently death was more fruitful for the Jesuits than life.

7. This may not be the example most close to your heart. The kamikaze pilots found it worthwhile to directly and deliberately cause their own deaths in favour of their empire. You may argue with their values, but it is hard to argue that they would have been more effective doing something else. A well-placed fighter plane can take out an entire destroyer, while it takes at least 3 torpedoes on average to deal the same damage, all while there is the chance of missing.

Another eample, which happens to be my favourite, was the last stand of the Swiss Guard during the sack of Rome of 1527 in defence of the Holy See. Yet again, you may not agree with their ideology, but it is hard to argue that they had another choice if they wished to hold true to their values.

14 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. The least of? Meaning "we" expect more? In today's society any more is unreasonable.

2. The reason why I consider my progeny to be my only true value is because most other moral values can be made relative due to this insane time we live in.

3. ...And incidentally, my apathy, society's apathy, is in part a cause of our downfall.  is it virtuous to adhere to traditional male virtues when society vehemently rejects us, abuses us, and may even put us in concentration camps if we further enable it?

4. Reminds me of Stef's interviewing a guy with friends who literally acted as real-life-superheroes and after some digging Stef theorized the guy was purposely putting himself in danger because he wants to die. Do you want to die? Are you re-actively putting yourself in danger because you want to die? Or are you really just a good person? Understanding the motives for our behaviors is important. 

1. I guess you have a valid argument, but there are still people in your country who find it worthwhile to enlist and fight and die for your country or whatever. How do you view them?

2. I see. So within your value system, your family is at the top. I can completely understand that.

3. Yes, here is my concern. In the east, people are still willing to die for their country, even though their society abuses them more, and that is why their culture is winning.
To your question, my answer is yes. I think that values are the most important values we have, and it is not supposed to be easy to adhere to those values. We need men with backbone especially at a time like this.

4. I think if I wanted to die, I would have died already. However, you do have a point. My father is a very courageous and bold man, yet he told me once that my lack of fear, however admirable it may be, must be balanced out with reason. Hence the post...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The second part is a fair point, but inaccurate in practice I think. Mr.Molyneux has talked about this many times - the white feather thing. In real life, women are attracted to those who are willing to give up their lives for something, and not to the chips-eating selfish fat kids. For example, in South Korea, they have cumpulsory military service. And the men who haven't served have a really hard time finding themselves mates. I bring up Korea, because the natural phenomenon is very vivid there, since they are constantly in imminent danger.

I'd add that the culture that's the most efficient in securing territory tends do so the best regardless of how it acquired it. Should the suicidal Muslims succeed in permanently breaking the European spirit and conquering the continent, then their race and culture will have succeeded. Anyone related to the martyrs would become the new aristocracy, at least in honor, and become the prime focus for mating. I wanted to say that because it's not cucking to sacrifice oneself for one's own cause or nation, so long as that person has progeny to survive him. I'd understand it on an individual level if the martyr-to-be doesn't have any children, since they're ending their branch of their gene pool by suicide-bombing or suicide-charging (to use a more war-themed example). 

However on a culture/nation/race level it's an overall victory so long as it contributes to their (successful) conquest of us. If they fail they're going to fail harder than the Germans in WWII.

 

 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

6. I am not sure how much you know about the Jesuit missionaries to Japan. The Japanese realised, unlike anyone else in the world, that if they eecuted missionaries, even more japanese are drawn to christianity, but if they let them live, and merely limit their activities, then they were seeing better results. So there apparently death was more fruitful for the Jesuits than life.

The Hidden Christians that retained the faith in the isolation period of the Edo era is a particularly inspiring tale. Although admittedly it's a tangent, although it does relate insofar as the Christendom of Japan would have died if the Hidden Christians didn't remain hidden until White folks came back with the Black Ships.

 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

7. This may not be the example most close to your heart. The kamikaze pilots found it worthwhile to directly and deliberately cause their own deaths in favour of their empire. You may argue with their values, but it is hard to argue that they would have been more effective doing something else. A well-placed fighter plane can take out an entire destroyer, while it takes at least 3 torpedoes on average to deal the same damage, all while there is the chance of missing.

It's hard to condemn them since they believed that in their deaths they would become guardian spirits protecting their family form genocide. In practice it's an awful tragedy because if they knew we Americans weren't going to exterminate them then many losses could have been prevented, however it did leave a strong message as to the will power of the Japanese spirit.

 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Another eample, which happens to be my favourite, was the last stand of the Swiss Guard during the sack of Rome of 1527 in defence of the Holy See. Yet again, you may not agree with their ideology, but it is hard to argue that they had another choice if they wished to hold true to their values.

 

Definitely a favorite example for me as well, however I think the Pope was captured and executed afterwards. What's worth re-evaluating is the honor of self-sacrifice if the cause itself either fails or is doomed to fail. I think we should pay more respects to those braves who succeeded rather than failed, like Charles Martel saving France and the Northern Spaniards from Islamic rule.

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I guess you have a valid argument, but there are still people in your country who find it worthwhile to enlist and fight and die for your country or whatever. How do you view them?

In general, I'm ambivalent. Most American soldiers are just single-mom-brats without direction, guaranteed to cause more trouble than prevent. However the man who truly wishes to die for the Fatherland, even if he's wrong in XY or Z, is still a man I respect because I am greatly attracted to men (and as a man, especially women) with strong convictions.

 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I see. So within your value system, your family is at the top. I can completely understand that.

Considering it's essentially the same value system, as I understand it, as the East Asians I think you ought to... 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Yes, here is my concern. In the east, people are still willing to die for their country, even though their society abuses them more, and that is why their culture is winning.
To your question, my answer is yes. I think that values are the most important values we have, and it is not supposed to be easy to adhere to those values. We need men with backbone especially at a time like this.

Agreed, however what they should be doing is not defending the West as it stands, but utterly destroying and replacing it with something better than ever before. Imagine AnCap or at least NatCap with all the associated good Classical Liberal principles forged into a hereditary monarchy (or at least a limited Republic) and ethnostate. Such a society would be truly worth dying for. If I knew my children or grandchildren would grow up in a world like that, one so alien to me growing up as a White minority in a White country, one where values are relative and ethics are loose, if I knew that...I'd gladly volunteer my fate and join whatever band of heroes was fighting for that. Sadly no one is, although parts of the ideal AnCap White Ethnostate mix is being advocated, I consider neither Spencer's Branch of the AltRight nor the modern Nationalist parties to be truly capable of uplifting and vivifying true Western civilization and building the utopia Christians and philosophers have always dreamt of.

I will emphasize: I consider it insane to fight and die for the current system, and therefore would never do so. However to fight and die for the ideal system, or at least a good portion of it, I'd say that'd be a worthy cause. Sadly no one worthy is rising up to the challenge. Chances are someone will, or else a champion from the opposition will win. Perhaps I'm not exaggerating in saying my progeny will be the future leaders of society. If I raise my children well, perhaps one of them will become the first American Kaiser and build all the great stuff I dream about. Of course that all necessitates that I be a good father and good exemplar. 

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. I think if I wanted to die, I would have died already. However, you do have a point. My father is a very courageous and bold man, yet he told me once that my lack of fear, however admirable it may be, must be balanced out with reason. Hence the post...

And I agree with him. Being fearless is not being courageous, rather it is being stupid. You should always fear the edge of a blade and the smell of gunpowder. However if you master your fear you should not hesitate in protecting yourself and your kin. The intelligence to be afraid and the courage to fight in spite ought to be every man's (and woman's, since if the men die it'll be the women protecting the progeny) personal goal.

In general I suggest you dedicate yourself to your kin first and foremost, and once you have become a man of means patron the group of people you wish to eventually rule society. If no such group exists, create the group. That, in general and vague terms, is my goal.

 

[Gavitor]

12 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1,2. Ok, I don't see why you think I disagree with you there.

3. I am having trouble understanding how you can risk your life without being ready to die. Maybe an example would help.

6. I am not sure how much you know about the Jesuit missionaries to Japan. The Japanese realised, unlike anyone else in the world, that if they executed missionaries, even more japanese are drawn to christianity, but if they let them live, and merely limit their activities, then they were seeing better results. So there apparently death was more fruitful for the Jesuits than life.

7. This may not be the example most close to your heart. The kamikaze pilots found it worthwhile to directly and deliberately cause their own deaths in favour of their empire. You may argue with their values, but it is hard to argue that they would have been more effective doing something else. A well-placed fighter plane can take out an entire destroyer, while it takes at least 3 torpedoes on average to deal the same damage, all while there is the chance of missing.

Another eample, which happens to be my favourite, was the last stand of the Swiss Guard during the sack of Rome of 1527 in defence of the Holy See. Yet again, you may not agree with their ideology, but it is hard to argue that they had another choice if they wished to hold true to their values.

1-3. There is a reason I make a distinction between risking your life and sacrificing it. Risking your life does not mean you are committing suicide. Sacrificing your life is literally committing suicide. Sometimes you risk your life because you know that you will die for sure if you don't. IE you have to fight to live.

Also when sacrificing your life you are not risking it, you are guaranteed to die.

6. Being persecuted by the Japanese is what helped it, I seriously doubt them killing themselves would have had the same affect.

7.What was stopping them from jumping out last minute? Also they lost the war...

I'm not familiar with this example, were they fighting or killing themselves?

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎06‎. ‎04‎. at 4:44 AM, Gavitor said:

1-3. There is a reason I make a distinction between risking your life and sacrificing it. Risking your life does not mean you are committing suicide. Sacrificing your life is literally committing suicide. Sometimes you risk your life because you know that you will die for sure if you don't. IE you have to fight to live.

Also when sacrificing your life you are not risking it, you are guaranteed to die.

6. Being persecuted by the Japanese is what helped it, I seriously doubt them killing themselves would have had the same affect.

7.What was stopping them from jumping out last minute? Also they lost the war...

I'm not familiar with this example, were they fighting or killing themselves?

1-3. Is the only scenario you can imagine of a person  risking their life when their own life is in danger, or would you risk your life for something else as well?

6. You are the one conflating sacrifice with suicide.

7. Jumping out last minute? I'll give you a minute to think about that.
I guess your point is that it is only worth risking one's life when success is guaranteed?

189 swiss guards remained on the steps of the basilica to ensure the escape of the pope, knowing they would die. Yes, they lost the war, but the objective of the swiss guard was not the war. But the pope survived, hence mission accomplished. So are the remaining guards suicidal idiots, and contrastly the 42 guards accompanying the pope smart for only risking their lives to the required extent?

[Gavitor]

15 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1-3. Is the only scenario you can imagine of a person  risking their life when their own life is in danger, or would you risk your life for something else as well?

6. You are the one conflating sacrifice with suicide.

7. Jumping out last minute? I'll give you a minute to think about that.
I guess your point is that it is only worth risking one's life when success is guaranteed?

189 swiss guards remained on the steps of the basilica to ensure the escape of the pope, knowing they would die. Yes, they lost the war, but the objective of the swiss guard was not the war. But the pope survived, hence mission accomplished. So are the remaining guards suicidal idiots, and contrastly the 42 guards accompanying the pope smart for only risking their lives to the required extent?

1. You risk your life for a variety of reasons, it's usually to gain something worth more than what you are risking. IE you hope to gain more than you would lose. The less you have the easier it is to risk your life.

2. To sacrifice your life is to literally give up or destroy your life which is the very definition of suicide.

3. Risking your life and sacrificing it are not the same thing, you keep switching it, why? You gave an example of sacrificing life and then asked about risking it. It's not a risk if you know for sure you will die. It's also not a risk if success is guaranteed.

4. Yea I think they are dumb throwing away their lives for the pope. This brings up a interesting point, generally people who are willing to sacrifice their lives are religious. likely because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

 

[M.2]

7 hours ago, Gavitor said:

1. You risk your life for a variety of reasons, it's usually to gain something worth more than what you are risking. IE you hope to gain more than you would lose. The less you have the easier it is to risk your life.

2. To sacrifice your life is to literally give up or destroy your life which is the very definition of suicide.

3. Risking your life and sacrificing it are not the same thing, you keep switching it, why? You gave an example of sacrificing life and then asked about risking it. It's not a risk if you know for sure you will die. It's also not a risk if success is guaranteed.

4. Yea I think they are dumb throwing away their lives for the pope. This brings up a interesting point, generally people who are willing to sacrifice their lives are religious. likely because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

 

1. To gain sth more than what you would lose... I suppose you mean a better life.

2. I am not going to argue over definitions you can look up in a dictionary. The only commonality between the two actions is the voluntary death. Besides that there are intrinsic differences. But I will accept your understanding for sake of argument.

3. I am not switching it. Since you refuse to say what you would sacrifice your life for, I ask you what you are willing to risk it for. You also keep arguing a point we agree on. I agree that risking a life is not the same as the occurance of death. I am arguing that one cannot risk their life without the willingness to lose it. When you make a bet on a sports team, you wage the money you would be fine with losing. Similarly, when a police officer signs up for a night shift, he is accepting the possibility that he may very well die of a gunshot. He is willing to lose his life.

4. I brought up the swiss guard precisely because they are a secular mercenary army. At least used to be in that era. Now they only recruit devout catholics.
Would you please clarify why you think their actions were dumb?

[Gavitor]

On 6/6/2017 at 1:11 AM, Mishi2 said:

1. To gain sth more than what you would lose... I suppose you mean a better life.

2. I am not going to argue over definitions you can look up in a dictionary. The only commonality between the two actions is the voluntary death. Besides that there are intrinsic differences. But I will accept your understanding for sake of argument.

3. I am not switching it. Since you refuse to say what you would sacrifice your life for, I ask you what you are willing to risk it for. You also keep arguing a point we agree on. I agree that risking a life is not the same as the occurance of death. I am arguing that one cannot risk their life without the willingness to lose it. When you make a bet on a sports team, you wage the money you would be fine with losing. Similarly, when a police officer signs up for a night shift, he is accepting the possibility that he may very well die of a gunshot. He is willing to lose his life.

4. I brought up the swiss guard precisely because they are a secular mercenary army. At least used to be in that era. Now they only recruit devout catholics.
Would you please clarify why you think their actions were dumb?

1. Yes, they hope to benefit in some manner which requires them to live to enjoy said benefit.

2. Definitions are important when trying to understand each other. Risking your life is not a voluntary death because the goal is to NOT die.

3. This is not always the case, people gamble things they don't want to lose all the time then get butt hurt when they lose. There are plenty of cops who refuse to enforce laws in no go zones because they don't want to die, why are these people cops when they are not willing to die?

4. I don't see the point. If they were a mercenary army are you saying they were doing it for money? why would you kill yourself for a reward you will not receive?

5. I'm curious though, instead of looking for a reason to die why aren't you looking for a reason to live?

[Caley McKibbin]

 

On 6/3/2017 at 9:47 AM, Mishi2 said:

The second part is a fair point, but inaccurate in practice I think.  Mr.Molyneux has talked about this many times - the white feather thing. In real life, women are attracted to those who are willing to give up their lives for something, and not to the chips-eating selfish fat kids. For example, in South Korea, they have cumpulsory military service. And the men who haven't served have a really hard time finding themselves mates. I bring up Korea, because the natural phenomenon is very vivid there, since they are constantly in imminent danger.

What women think about a corpse is of no consequence.  That interpretation is total nonsense.  Order of The White Feather was started by an old man and old hag far past fertility.  It's about dogma, not attraction.  Even if young women really did reject men for not enlisting, that's just a mundane case of self-inflicting harm for dogma like enlistment itself; it's extending the self-harm of enlistment to women.  The war political class knows that shame is not enough because not everyone is ashamed of doing useful things.  So young women are organized into a psychological army to fight against smart men.  Anyway, you never really explained how list-of-adjectives individuals are different from anyone else.  Everyone is lazy.  Everyone is selfish.  Fat people tend to die sooner like alcoholics.  To answer your question, escaping misery is the only thing I'm willing to die for.  Everyone is willing to die for a value: a value of dissatisfaction.  When I was training at a military base fitness center I said to someone, "You work like a slave."  He said, "I am.  I don't have anything else."

[M.2]

20 hours ago, Gavitor said:

1. Yes, they hope to benefit in some manner which requires them to live to enjoy said benefit.

2. Definitions are important when trying to understand each other. Risking your life is not a voluntary death because the goal is to NOT die.

3. This is not always the case, people gamble things they don't want to lose all the time then get butt hurt when they lose. There are plenty of cops who refuse to enforce laws in no go zones because they don't want to die, why are these people cops when they are not willing to die?

4. I don't see the point. If they were a mercenary army are you saying they were doing it for money? why would you kill yourself for a reward you will not receive?

5. I'm curious though, instead of looking for a reason to die why aren't you looking for a reason to live?

1. Got it. A life for a better life. Makes perfect sense.

2. Why do you think I don't know how important definitions are? I simply think your definitions are wrong.
Hold on... you think that sacrificing your life means that your goal is to die? Why do you assume that people risk their lives only not to die? Not dying cannot be part of your goal, because then you wouldn't risk your life. It all defeats the purpose in my view. If your goal was to not lose money, how could I convince you to bet on my horse?

3. I cannot argue for people who don't understand how life works.
They don't avoid no-go zones because they are scared of death, but because they have nothing to protect there anymore. Police serve the community. When the community doesn't need them, they don't serve.

4. I don't think they died to receive money, since it sounds as absurd to me as it does to you. Claiming they died for money is like saying that a captain stayed on his sinking ship for money. They died for the oath they took and for the reputation of the Swiss Guard Corps. Whether that is a worthy death, we can debate that. It was not an isolated incident either. Every european monarch up to the 19th century used to hire the swiss due to their reputation for dying on the job. Another notable event is when the french revolutionaries stormed the king's palace, where all the french soldiers fled, but the swiss remained to die.

5. Great question. I believe that we die for what we live for, which are our values.

8 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

1. What women think about a corpse is of no consequence.  That interpretation is total nonsense.  Order of The White Feather was started by an old man and old hag far past fertility.  It's about dogma, not attraction.  Even if young women really did reject men for not enlisting, that's just a mundane case of self-inflicting harm for dogma like enlistment itself; it's extending the self-harm of enlistment to women.  The war political class knows that shame is not enough because not everyone is ashamed of doing useful things.  So young women are organized into a psychological army to fight against smart men. 

2. Anyway, you never really explained how list-of-adjectives individuals are different from anyone else.  Everyone is lazy.  Everyone is selfish.  Fat people tend to die sooner like alcoholics. 

3. To answer your question, escaping misery is the only thing I'm willing to die for.  Everyone is willing to die for a value: a value of dissatisfaction.  When I was training at a military base fitness center I said to someone, "You work like a slave."  He said, "I am.  I don't have anything else."

1. I don't disagree with you on the feather thing, but it is no question that women do prefer men who are willing to surrender their lives for something else. And that seems perfectly in-line with evolution, since a woman needs a man to stand between her and a sabre-tooth tiger instead of running away. I never said I agree with it, it's simply the facts.

2. No, not everyone is lazy. I can't believe I even have to argue this. Mr.Molyneux, for starters, is surely not lazy. Lazyness is a behaviour, at least according to the Webster dictionary.
Whether everyone is selfish or not is a valid debate to have, although I would say that no, not everyone is selfish, and in fact, selfish people tend to be discarded from the gene-pool one way or another.

3. This is not meant to be a provocative question, as I am struggling with this myself: If you want to avoid misery, why don't you die? Often times I feel like this whole thing is not worth it.
How is dissatisfaction a value?

[Caley McKibbin]

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I don't disagree with you on the feather thing, but it is no question that women do prefer men who are willing to surrender their lives for something else. And that seems perfectly in-line with evolution, since a woman needs a man to stand between her and a sabre-tooth tiger instead of running away. I never said I agree with it, it's simply the facts.

That is two different statements.  Everyone prefers that everyone else is a meat shield slave.  This is not a special case.  I too prefer men (or women) that soak bullets for me.  But preferring people that die for indefinite purpose is generally contrary to that.  However, that is not relevant to sexual choice as anyone can be used as such.  In either case it's a moot point because there is no means to detect such willingness until the death has already occurred.  I'll try to explain this a bit.  If some women give out white feathers to men that don't enlist, not receiving one becomes the reason to enlist for some (or for all if motivation to enlist ultimately traces back to that as you essentially suggest).  You can't distinguish merely wanting to get a date from any other motive.  Women want men that do x, and men only do x because women want it.  Doing x is then functionally identical to being motivated solely by giving women what they want.  So your criterion culls to: women prefer men that want to give women what women want.

Side note: a man wouldn't even slow down a sabre-tooth tiger.  Tigers weigh up to 300kg and that ain't beer gut.

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. No, not everyone is lazy. I can't believe I even have to argue this. Mr.Molyneux, for starters, is surely not lazy. Lazyness is a behaviour, at least according to the Webster dictionary.

As normally used it is a malformed concept with no scientific value, like "greedy" and "racist".  But scientific meaning can be given to laziness as energy conservation, the composite of somatic feelings that make one reluctant to act, a fundamental necessity for survival.  An anti-lazy animal would quickly die off.

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Whether everyone is selfish or not is a valid debate to have, although I would say that no, not everyone is selfish, and in fact, selfish people tend to be discarded from the gene-pool one way or another.

It is already an ancient topic.  It follows from the meaning of self and the discovery process for intent.  The self is what decides to act.  So all action is selfish.  There is no means to determine that an action is not in self interest.  It's instructive to think in terms of logic gate programming.  A computer program decides what to do according to how the parameters fed into it are operated on.  "Self-interest" in the context of a program can only mean whatever operation it attempts to perform.  The brain is just another computer.

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. This is not meant to be a provocative question, as I am struggling with this myself: If you want to avoid misery, why don't you die? Often times I feel like this whole thing is not worth it.
How is dissatisfaction a value?

Everything is a value in logic gate terms.  There are types of dissatisfaction and degrees of each type.  All action is intended to reduce dissatisfaction.  The answer to the question: I might.  It depends on how the dissatisfaction value of living compares to the dissatisfaction value of dying (as the mental obstacle to being dead).

[M.2]

16 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

1. That is two different statements.  Everyone prefers that everyone else is a meat shield slave.  This is not a special case.  I too prefer men (or women) that soak bullets for me.  But preferring people that die for indefinite purpose is generally contrary to that.  However, that is not relevant to sexual choice as anyone can be used as such.  In either case it's a moot point because there is no means to detect such willingness until the death has already occurred.  I'll try to explain this a bit.  If some women give out white feathers to men that don't enlist, not receiving one becomes the reason to enlist for some (or for all if motivation to enlist ultimately traces back to that as you essentially suggest).  You can't distinguish merely wanting to get a date from any other motive.  Women want men that do x, and men only do x because women want it.  Doing x is then functionally identical to being motivated solely by giving women what they want.  So your criterion culls to: women prefer men that want to give women what women want.

2. Side note: a man wouldn't even slow down a sabre-tooth tiger.  Tigers weigh up to 300kg and that ain't beer gut.

3. As normally used it is a malformed concept with no scientific value, like "greedy" and "racist".  But scientific meaning can be given to laziness as energy conservation, the composite of somatic feelings that make one reluctant to act, a fundamental necessity for survival.  An anti-lazy animal would quickly die off.

4. It is already an ancient topic.  It follows from the meaning of self and the discovery process for intent.  The self is what decides to act.  So all action is selfish.  There is no means to determine that an action is not in self interest.  It's instructive to think in terms of logic gate programming.  A computer program decides what to do according to how the parameters fed into it are operated on.  "Self-interest" in the context of a program can only mean whatever operation it attempts to perform.  The brain is just another computer.

5. Everything is a value in logic gate terms.  There are types of dissatisfaction and degrees of each type.  All action is intended to reduce dissatisfaction.  The answer to the question: I might.  It depends on how the dissatisfaction value of living compares to the dissatisfaction value of dying (as the mental obstacle to being dead).

1. I, for one do not want everyone else to be a meat shield for me, only my male friends, to whom I am in turn also a meat shield. I don't want any woman or child to be a meat shield for me because they would be in my way, and they would do poorly in defending me (this goes for all the low-testosterone, lazy, manchild males too by the way).
About the feather thing: Yes, men have been doing exactly what women want since the beginning of time, otherwise they would have gotten no game. I see no reason to complicate this.

2. Doesn't matter. The german army stood no chance against the red army. That didn't stop them from fighting. This was back when german men still cared about their women and children.

3. Lazy is not supposed to be a biological term. It is and always has been a sociological term. And I would argue that it is indeed measurable. But this is a bit off topic, so Ill leave it at that.

4. An ancient debate indeed, and I don't think we are going to be settling it here and now, so I won't push this either.

5. "Reducing dissatisfaction" seems like an overcomplicated way of saying "pursuing satisfaction", but I am sure it is no accident that you used those particular words.

If I understood you correctly, you say that you are only willing to die for the lessening of dissatisfaction. How dissatisfied do you have to be to find death more appealing than life? Anything concrete?

[RichardY]

On 6/1/2017 at 3:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Why did you use the word "corrupted"? 

I am not entirely sure what your second paragraph says. Do I understand correctly that you would not really give your life for anything, but you would fight for something, were there something to fight for?
Also, why would you not fight if you were alone or underfunded? Do you fight only when victory is of great probability?

Been thinking a lot. I used the word corrupted because of two thoughts that came to mind. One was a video I listened to once on Youtube by Krishnamurti on corruption. The other was an ancestor I read about on Wikipedia that killed himself after 3 days as Lord Chancellor in shame on taking the office, compared to another ancestor that served 19 years and then retired.

If you know any organisations working in Eastern Europe that are being effective and are flexible(like FDR) and need volunteers/levy, message me/sign me up, I can divert 100% of my waking time towards the cause, I have done voluntary work in the past while backpacking. Or if anyone knows any organisations/groups in Norway, Sweden or Germany.

I'd like to have some impact, it took Stefan say 8 years + on Youtube alone to really make a major impact, not to say helping thousands prior to being noticed on a very significant level was not beneficial. I'd fight alone, but only with orientation and purpose. 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎06‎. ‎10‎. at 5:30 AM, RichardY said:

If you know any organisations working in Eastern Europe that are being effective and are flexible(like FDR) and need volunteers/levy, message me/sign me up, I can divert 100% of my waking time towards the cause, I have done voluntary work in the past while backpacking. Or if anyone knows any organisations/groups in Norway, Sweden or Germany.

I'd like to have some impact, it took Stefan say 8 years + on Youtube alone to really make a major impact, not to say helping thousands prior to being noticed on a very significant level was not beneficial. I'd fight alone, but only with orientation and purpose. 

Sadly I don't know what you consider a worthwhile cause. It all depends on what your values are.

I am a hardcore catholic, and I have spent a year with Jesuit Refugee Service of Hungary, but quite frankly I don't think they were doing a good enough job. That said all other refugee services are corrupt arms of the EU. I have also been in touch with the Sovereign Order of Malta, and they do some good work, although they have been corrupted a bit through the years. My father worked with the Red Cross, who are simply communists. My mother declined a job offer at the United Nations for pretty obvious reasons.

Perhaps you could get in touch with some youth nationalist movements in the UK, France or Germany. There have been sprouting up all around for the past few years. Or perhaps we can organise a crusading army along with the many thousand strong youth of Europe yelling "Deus Vult". I would gladly die in a crusade.

[Caley McKibbin]

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. I, for one do not want everyone else to be a meat shield for me, only my male friends, to whom I am in turn also a meat shield. I don't want any woman or child to be a meat shield for me because they would be in my way, and they would do poorly in defending me (this goes for all the low-testosterone, lazy, manchild males too by the way).

Getting in your way is what they are supposed to do, like how an army gets in the way of a king or president.  Little defense is better than no defense.  I can't believe you would want your friends to do this instead of strangers.

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

About the feather thing: Yes, men have been doing exactly what women want since the beginning of time, otherwise they would have gotten no game. I see no reason to complicate this.

Women are not able to detect specific motives.  So Stef's explanation makes no sense.  Complicated and correct is better than simple and wrong.

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

2. Doesn't matter. The german army stood no chance against the red army. That didn't stop them from fighting. This was back when german men still cared about their women and children.

Your case was that it is important for lineal survival.  However, standing in front of something that will not be stopped anyway does not help that.

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

3. Lazy is not supposed to be a biological term. It is and always has been a sociological term. And I would argue that it is indeed measurable. But this is a bit off topic, so Ill leave it at that.

It's not off topic when your topic is accusing people of being lazy.  So feel free to justify it at your leisure.  I suspect you would object if I said "Mishi2 is a grimy bastard, but that is a topic for another time."

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

4. An ancient debate indeed, and I don't think we are going to be settling it here and now, so I won't push this either.

Again, in that case you should not have made that accusation.

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

5. "Reducing dissatisfaction" seems like an overcomplicated way of saying "pursuing satisfaction", but I am sure it is no accident that you used those particular words.

I don't find 2 words complicated.  Those words are not particularly important.  Ludwig von Mises said this in Human Action:

Quote

 

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly [p. 14] happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care.

But to make a man act, uneasiness and the image of a more satisfactory state alone are not sufficient. A third condition is required: the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness. In the absence of this condition no action is feasible. Man must yield to the inevitable. He must submit to destiny.

 

On 6/9/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mishi2 said:

If I understood you correctly, you say that you are only willing to die for the lessening of dissatisfaction. How dissatisfied do you have to be to find death more appealing than life? Anything concrete?

I say that everyone is only willing to die to reduce dissatisfaction.  Let's just say I currently have a painful and de-energizing health problem in addition to a terrible mental state.  If I don't at least get medical treatment soon things will go down hill hard and fast and I'm starting from near the bottom.

[M.2]

12 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

1. Getting in your way is what they are supposed to do, like how an army gets in the way of a king or president.  Little defense is better than no defense.  I can't believe you would want your friends to do this instead of strangers.

2. Women are not able to detect specific motives.  So Stef's explanation makes no sense.  Complicated and correct is better than simple and wrong.

3. Your case was that it is important for lineal survival.  However, standing in front of something that will not be stopped anyway does not help that.

4. It's not off topic when your topic is accusing people of being lazy.  So feel free to justify it at your leisure.  I suspect you would object if I said "Mishi2 is a grimy bastard, but that is a topic for another time."

5. Again, in that case you should not have made that accusation.

6. I say that everyone is only willing to die to reduce dissatisfaction.  Let's just say I currently have a painful and de-energizing health problem in addition to a terrible mental state.  If I don't at least get medical treatment soon things will go down hill hard and fast and I'm starting from near the bottom.

1. I will take the liberty to guess that you have never been in a real fight. There are certain people who are simply not worth putting in the ranks, since they are untrustworthy. In a battle, discipline in everything. And distrust erodes discipline. Whenever I go into a fight, I go with my brothers or alone.

2. I will wait until you substantiate that claim that women can't detect specific motives.

3. Survival does not constitute only the life of an individual, but that of the species/tribe. The conviction that the germans had when they stood against the USSR was the same conviction with wich they rebuilt their entire country in 5 years. That conviction is gone now.

4. It is fair of you to ask me to substantiate my claim, so I will. However, since we do not agree on terminology, I don't expect to convince you.
Any person who speaks of Islam and the terrorists as if they were simply just a bunch of crazy fanatics who want 47 virgins, they clearly haven't done their research. And unless they have a family and 4 children, they have no excuse not to do their research, as the internet is accessible to everyone. Hence, having not put in the sufficient effort into a cause (fighting Islam), they are clearly lazy.

5. I stand by my accusation.

6. I think you are projecting. Do you not believe that some people die just to prove a point, or that some people die purely for ideals, or that some people die because they took an oath?

[RichardY]

On 6/12/2017 at 0:59 PM, Mishi2 said:

Sadly I don't know what you consider a worthwhile cause. It all depends on what your values are.

If there was a way to try and resurrect some semblance of western Civilisation again that would be good, don't really see many people doing that though, I think acting towards smaller local governments would be a start, perhaps where there is the most potential chaos ie Sweden and Germany. Values; lacking in any strong values, I know I don't like the shear volume of people in the UK.  With the way things are going in Europe I would like to get involved somehow, saw a group called the Identitarians, not many leaders out there. Failing that some more permanent volunteering abroad in a rural area, maybe I could become a Christian and be a missionary.

On 6/12/2017 at 0:59 PM, Mishi2 said:

Perhaps you could get in touch with some youth nationalist movements in the UK, France or Germany. There have been sprouting up all around for the past few years. Or perhaps we can organise a crusading army along with the many thousand strong youth of Europe yelling "Deus Vult". I would gladly die in a crusade.

I think the ones in the UK are bought out now or limited in effectiveness, maybe a few people actually doing good. In general though I think the UK as a whole is screwed, size of the population not helping at all. Not sure about on the continent, from what I've seen on the Internet Hungary seems to be the only the country with any effective focused self-preservation. I wouldn't mind helping out in one of the Nordic countries or Germanic countries, the language is at least easier to distinguish the sound of the language unlike french imo. I guess the only thing to do is contact people directly, word of mouth rather than Internet coordination. As for the crusade at this rate who knows.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎06‎. ‎15‎. at 4:59 AM, RichardY said:

If there was a way to try and resurrect some semblance of western Civilisation again that would be good, don't really see many people doing that though, I think acting towards smaller local governments would be a start, perhaps where there is the most potential chaos ie Sweden and Germany. Values; lacking in any strong values, I know I don't like the shear volume of people in the UK.  With the way things are going in Europe I would like to get involved somehow, saw a group called the Identitarians, not many leaders out there. Failing that some more permanent volunteering abroad in a rural area, maybe I could become a Christian and be a missionary.

I think the ones in the UK are bought out now or limited in effectiveness, maybe a few people actually doing good. In general though I think the UK as a whole is screwed, size of the population not helping at all. Not sure about on the continent, from what I've seen on the Internet Hungary seems to be the only the country with any effective focused self-preservation. I wouldn't mind helping out in one of the Nordic countries or Germanic countries, the language is at least easier to distinguish the sound of the language unlike french imo. I guess the only thing to do is contact people directly, word of mouth rather than Internet coordination. As for the crusade at this rate who knows.

I think this should make a thread of its own, or perhaps even a segment on the show.
You are not alone in Europe in wanting to do good, but having no idea how to do it. Americans have the luck of having elected Donald Trump before they were pressed to the fringes of society.

In Europe, there are a few examples to look for, that are of a strong preservationist policy. As you said yourself, Hungary is the loudest of these examples. But there are also some that don't get much spotlight, like Macedonia, Bulgaria, Malta, parts of Italy, Switzerland, Russia, and of course Poland. 

There is an event/festival upcoming on June 30th of the Youth for Christian Europe here in Budapest. It is being organised by the christian youth of Hungary and Poland. This might be of interest to you. As you know, Hungary and Poland are strong supporters of Donald Trump and of Brexit. There a lot of good people to potentially meet.

[steljarkos]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Mishi2 said:

For most of history, we have always known that while human life is precious, it is not the most valuable thing in the universe.

Ah yes, that mantra "human life is precious." I'm no longer sure what that means, when you factor in other parameters. Is human life more precious than, say, a dolphin's life or an elephant's life? To most people the answer is... "obvious". But why?

Ok, let's fast-forward to a bigger picture. It is now well established that the universe is comprised of trillions of galaxies: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought Ummm, that's like about 200 billion stars per average-sized galaxy, or roughly equivalent to the grains of sand in an average-sized bedroom (I performed the calcs some time ago)... per galaxy. Then multiply that by trillions. What proportion of these stars harbor life? My default null hypothesis is that life will always evolve on any planet where the conditions are "right" (whatever that means... I suspect that there are more "right" conditions than we currently assume).

And if size or the numbers don't do it for you, then consider the time scales. Humans live for, what... 80 years? To a sky-daddy the size of a galaxy, those 80 years are much less than a blink of His eye.

Or as another example... a photon of light moving from one node of its wavelength to the next node, a wavelength away, "experiences" about 10 years of a human's lived life (again, I performed the calcs some time ago... a rough kind of dimensional analysis where I tried to estimate how many years a human would live if they were the size of a photon, during one cycle of its life).

So if a human life is so utterly precious, given the size and time scales of an outrageously huge universe... or the ridiculously tiny time scales at the subatomic level...

I wonder if we're selling ourselves short with this preciousness of human life thing. What experiences are we denying ourselves in our obsession with the preciousness of our lives? What horrors are we exposing ourselves to in our fixation with saving lives at any cost? Surgery. Extending the lives of people on life support. Etc.

So many people begin their careers with high hopes, only to have their lives snuffed out too early, in an instant, due to misfortune. What of the preciousness of their prematurely terminated lives?

I'm talking perspective. To my way of thinking, lives lived with some higher ideal to believe in are more precious than those plodding, blue-pill lives grinding away for some banal materialism whose only objective in life is to collect stuff.

[M.2]

48 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

Ah yes, that mantra "human life is precious." I'm no longer sure what that means, when you factor in other parameters. Is human life more precious than, say, a dolphin's life or an elephant's life? To most people the answer is... "obvious". But why?

I'm talking perspective. To my way of thinking, lives lived with some higher ideal to believe in are more precious than those plodding, blue-pill lives grinding away for some banal materialism whose only objective in life is to collect stuff.

Your post touches very thoughtily on the underlying question of how precious human life really is.

It is clearly nigh imposssible to measure and quantify from an objective perspective. That said, we, from our subjective human perspective are in more less agreement that it is somewhat valuable. But then comes the question "valuable to what end?". This is where cultures and ideologies disagree. Some say two lives are worth more than one, whereas others say lives differ in value, and thus one life can be worth more than two lives.