# 100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

## Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Antihuman on September 15, 2008, 06:23:47 AM

Title: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 15, 2008, 06:23:47 AM
I've had this on my mind for a while now, and I feel that this forum is a good place to get a discussion going.

We're all aware that our society operates based on a careful balance of clashing ideas which cannot be justified except through severe abstractions.  Anything that sounds good is right, even if it contradicts something else which is also considered right.

Of course it doesn't work.  One thing falls slightly out of place and you end up with a huge conflict for no reason.  The United States here is basically a monstrous construction waiting to topple.  We're trying to mix Legos, K'nex, and Mega Bloks or something.  You can't just put random pieces together and call it a day.  We are a nation that hates itself.  Everyone here has their complaints.  Fat morons like Michael Moore blabber on about nonsense while I sit here and theorize about my own nation's stupidity for other reasons.  Every race hates each other, and it's punishable by law to hurt someone's feelings by dropping a certain word based on their skin color.  Our worship of diversity is ridiculous.  We basically lay our lives on the altar to attain mediocrity, instead of forging a new path and taking a few blows on the way.

There's a few points people typically assert/ wholeheartedly believe because they have been force fed garbage through school.  These points become absolutes; they cannot be argued no matter what.  These include beliefs such as slavery was the worst example of the dark side of human nature in history, it's unthinkable that woman didn't have the right to vote from the start and so on.  The thing is, people ramble this stuff off without ever thinking about where such events are leading.  We are not becoming more tolerant or open-minded at all.  The ideal mind of today's society is, in fact, the most pompous, closed-minded thing I can imagine.  Nothing is acceptable outside of the All Things Are Equally Good, But Some Things Are More Equal Than Others motto.  All we are embracing is our own decline.  Humans are animals, that's all we are.  We cannot demolish/ equalize the roles of men and women.  We must recognize that people have certain roles and some are better than others.  In order for the world to function, we cannot all consider each other equal.

But this hints at racism, so maybe we should just sit around and talk about Martin Luther King.  Well, even Dr. King dreamt of a world where people were "judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." And though the colored almighty hath spoken, we are still not allowed to judge whatsoever.  Why is it so terrible to assume a sort of hierarchy among our species based on genetics?  Why can't a certain race of people be superior to another?  We are a result of evolution.  Doesn't it make sense that evolution is not complete?

Each man judges himself, and we merely perceive the results.  The content of a man's character truly is important, and not something we can overlook based on one's race/ gender/ religion etc.  It's a shame such things serve to cover up the genuine worth of a man.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: we hope you die on September 15, 2008, 07:19:56 AM
These are truths which most people know in the back of thier minds, but are too afraid to acknowledge it because it goes against the pre-conditioning we all receive in western society. This is just like the massive over population problems we are now facing, people know how to really deal with it, but it goes completely against democretic liberal thinking.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Goluf on September 15, 2008, 09:29:39 AM
But this hints at racism, so maybe we should just sit around and talk about Martin Luther King.  Well, even Dr. King dreamt of a world where people were "judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." And though the colored almighty hath spoken, we are still not allowed to judge whatsoever.  Why is it so terrible to assume a sort of hierarchy among our species based on genetics?  Why can't a certain race of people be superior to another?  We are a result of evolution.  Doesn't it make sense that evolution is not complete?

As a middle to upper class male of European descent (guaranteed at least 75% of the readership here at ANUS/CORRUPT) , this system is very easy to accept, because quite frankly we're at the top in many ways already. We are stronger, have faster reflexes, better spacial skills and on average more intelligence than women of our same demographic de facto. That's a pretty nice present from mother earth, even if European males can't compete in terms of social, verbal, or nurturing skills with the females.

Historically, people of our race and gender have accomplished the greatest things this world has ever seen. Even the Asians worship our classical music, 100% of the worthwhile material being written by males. Similarly with literature and art.

So in many ways, Africans, Asians, and Women do get the short end of the stick when such a system is employed. They simply cannot even compete in many areas, so they become frustrated. I've seen this myself.

Ideally, people would see their own incapacity for certain tasks and say "I'm a short skinny white guy from Poland, so I'll probably never compete in the N.B.A., because the blacks are taller and have twice my strength and endurance. Oh well. I think I'll go write some Mazurkas at my piano.".

I think this is partly why a lot of us go "WTF ARE PEOPLE BLIND???!!!!ONESHIFTONE!!!" when talking about race/gender/intelligence hierarchies. It's easy to justify a return to the food chain when you know you'll be at the top of it...
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Heydrich on September 15, 2008, 07:20:25 PM
Race is the final taboo of the western world. When it comes to race, we play games that would embarrass the intellect of children, ruthlessly employ rigid orthodoxies based on junk-science and lies, and generally pretend we don't see what everyone really does see...but denies. As H.L. Mencken once said, "The majority of men prefer delusion to truth." So it goes with acknowledgement of racial-types, inherent genetic differences and their attendant gifts and limitations, according to modern western "conventional wisdom".

We would rather twist our collective selves in knots, deny the obvious, trivialize the momentous and lionize the painfully mediocre or even utterly incapable, in order to keep the egalitarian lie alive. If the lie dies, western society and all it's filthy shibboleths about the glories of "diversity," equality and all it's similarly unctuous fantasies does too. And these same tactics and traits are employed in issues well beyond race as well, of course.

Such is the dysfunction of the west, and why most of us here realize this moribund, culturally bankrupt society needs to be euthanized and replaced/rebuilt post-haste. Race-denial is only one example of our willingness to swallow the lie that makes us feel good, rather than admit the uncomfortable or inconvenient reality or truth(see also, rampant-consumerism, environmental meltdown, modern feminism, globalism, etc.) But it is a particularly glaring example, as it is so obviously mendacious, it has created a whole new paradigm of self-destructive delusions taken as articles of faith. It's the new Christianity...

Of course, all resistance to this nonsense is condemned as "hate" "racism" and all that. This site is routinely accused of such sentiment by those too full of self-righteous indignation to even bother and read what most here really DO believe. Race is just one piece of the puzzle...but it is a huge one, as so much about the west is now defined in terms of relation to global "equality, poverty, healthcare, humanitarianism," and all those infamously noxious universalist frauds.

Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Anthem364 on September 15, 2008, 07:29:49 PM
So does that mean a mexican polish part russian person like me can't compete with the higher class of indo-europeans just because they are fully from their race?

personally, the raced-based nationalism thing disturbs me somewhat. While I realize it fully, isn't there a place for people of mixed race heritages? and how did they become to be, ya know what I mean? are races really that seperate?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Heydrich on September 15, 2008, 08:27:39 PM
So does that mean a mexican polish part russian person like me can't compete with the higher class of indo-europeans just because they are fully from their race?

personally, the raced-based nationalism thing disturbs me somewhat. While I realize it fully, isn't there a place for people of mixed race heritages? and how did they become to be, ya know what I mean? are races really that seperate?

Realistically, you are talking primarily about ethnicity, not race (although the term "race" was once commonly used that way) in the modern parlance(at least insofar as moderns admit race exists at all). Obviously the entho-nationalism discussed here is not the present reality for many today. Most of us, particularly in America are of some mixed ethnic heritage - rather like the "Good European" Nietzsche spoke of. But preserving unique ethnic groups and their unique cultures, etc., is still a noble, if ever more challenging goal - and this applies beyond just "higher class indo-europeans" naturally.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 15, 2008, 08:38:34 PM
personally, the raced-based nationalism thing disturbs me somewhat. While I realize it fully, isn't there a place for people of mixed race heritages? and how did they become to be, ya know what I mean? are races really that separate?

The whole thing isn't that easy to clearly delineate.  We can't necessarily say for certain that men of a particular descent are better than those of another descent 100% of the time.  Regardless, survival of the fittest does apply.  The whole "equal-opportunity" thing is ridiculous.  And quotas for colleges?  I don't see how anyone can benefit from empowering those who are objectively inferior.

It is true that saying this may be much easier because my race is apparently at the top here.  It is also true that the majority of other races who attempt to fight against the "stereotype" fail miserably.  Maybe they can stand out for a few moments in the world of today, but most of the work of certain races will inevitably be washed away as our society withers.  This period of tolerance defined by intolerance will go down as a gruesomely infantile landmark in history.  Our world is an apathetic organism fighting for its own entropy.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: 13X on September 16, 2008, 04:12:12 PM
Why is it so terrible to assume a sort of hierarchy among our species based on genetics?  Why can't a certain race of people be superior to another?

. . .

Each man judges himself, and we merely perceive the results.  The content of a man's character truly is important, and not something we can overlook based on one's race/ gender/ religion
etc.  It's a shame such things serve to cover up the genuine worth of a man.

- - -

Do you think that there's a "genetic hierarchy" or not?. . .
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: The Last King of Scotland on September 16, 2008, 09:02:15 PM
I'm a Filipino/Asian male of Austronesian descent (and not Malay, as some books would say); if these facts affect my ability to listen to metal or to achieve other things which are thought of to be restricted only to Caucasians, then somebody should provide the evidence regarding this. Although I respect the beliefs of other individuals who hold certain convictions about the supposed superiority of their race, gender, religion, ethnic background or music genre of choice and I know for a fact that anus.com is a website solely devoted to the advancement of the elitist ideals of Europe-descended groups of people and the destruction of our democratic and capitalist based society as we know it, I still post a message here every once in a while just because I enjoy discussing metal and like to read about subjects concerning this genre.

I am thus speaking not as someone who has swallowed the whole plethora of ANUS dogma, hook line and sinker (which I have to admit have some valid and relevant arguments concerning the world and our present rotten system) but as an individual who'd like to share his own opinion about the matter.

It seems to me that a lot of people here are taking this superiority of race too far. But in my experience and study of present world conditions and circumstances, it is not the race or blood relations of a man that determines his destiny or fate but this: COURAGE.

Without courage, no one would have the guts to pay the price to achieve one's dreams or ambitions. You see it everywhere, people who are genetically less gifted, men who'd end up in the SS's list of candidates for extermination just because they were born crippled, or blind or just physically fucked, rising beyond their limitations and doing what other more fortunate folks take for granted most of the time. That is because they had the BALLS to take life by the horns and just fight, fuck what other people say or think.

COURAGE could be a vital part of man's content of character and for people who insist on race or grouping of people as relevant to the evolution of the human species, I respect their beliefs but that would not absolutely prevent others who happen to have different physical variations from the Caucasian race to achieve what they want in life.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 16, 2008, 09:44:51 PM
Race and ethnicity are a function of environment, natural and sexual selection, and so forth. Geography is also an important factor, as it can isolate populations or create overlap.

Unfortunately, due to imperialism and globalization, a lot of people of ethnicites who would almost never meet if it weren't for the increasingly-sophisticated transportation technology were displaced for the sake of conquest, resources, and more recently, a job.

Regardless of this displacement, each ethnocultural group still has its own standards to live up to.

It's foolish to assume that people who aren't a part of it are to live up to your group's standards, and if they can't, they're automatically "inferior".

Likewise, it's foolish for a person who is not part of that group to try and live up to another group's standards.

This sort of thought stems from multiculturalism and being forced together with people of different ethnocultural origins.

Every group has its greatest achievers and its would-be rejects. Unfortunately, we have to keep those rejects around because our "universal democratic society" says that everyone is equal. The proud German-American man from Texas has to live among his NASCAR-loving, blue-collared, poorly-educated peers, but they're all people of similar background. His talk of preserving his heritage and culture are looked down on as "racist" or "old-fashioned", but the truth is they don't want to give up their simple, race-ignoring lives. The studious, athletic African-American boy has to deal with accusations of being "at risk" for a life of crime and violence because he happens to be an exception to the trend. It's a never ending cycle.

So, race, ethnicity, and culture are still a factor here. There's really no reason to resent yourself for not being able to live up to the Germanic ideal if you're Asian or Mexican; you have your culture has its own ideals. You may have been brainwashed into thinking that this is the definitive, universal ideal by the Powers that Be, but the only reason they did that is so they can have your wallet and still live in a world oriented toward themselves.

The fact still remains however:
Metal is a universal, cross-cultural ordeal. It's the product of being forced to live in the middle of our globalized and industrialized modern world, and many like-minded individuals share this freedom-of-thought offered by the music.

Being a Hessian transcends the factors of race and ethnicity, but you still recognize its significance in your life instead of completely ignoring it.

A lot of black metal is Scandinavian-oriented. Burzum, Bathory, and so forth.
Sepultura incorporated aspects of their lives as Brazilians into their music (particularly on their crappier albums).
There's a lot of examples.

As for being mixed, if you can meet, or even break the standards of your ethnic groups; then you're doing well. I don't know whether members of either group would accept you off the bat though, they really have no reason to (speaking from experiencing this myself; I'm fairly mixed), but chances are that if you live in a place with people of similar mixed backgrounds, with enough momentum, it can probably break off into a separate ethnocultural group of its own.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: The Last King of Scotland on September 16, 2008, 10:53:26 PM
"So, race, ethnicity, and culture are still a factor here. There's really no reason to resent yourself for not being able to live up to the Germanic ideal if you're Asian or Mexican; you have your culture has its own ideals. You may have been brainwashed into thinking that this is the definitive, universal ideal by the Powers that Be, but the only reason they did that is so they can have your wallet and still live in a world oriented toward themselves"

Does this mean that every member of your race has achieved the "Germanic Ideal"? Has everyone among you now possess the physique of a Swarzenegger or the genius of a Mozart? Isn't this so-called Germanic Ideal, in itself is not a natural monopoly of the white race but is actually a common yearning among all human beings? It is only the means to achieve this ideal that differs in each individual. Obviously, not every European could be a Conan or a Mozart (as attested by a lot of pasty faced, frail, fuck faced imbeciles from your own race) but like I said, it is the COURAGE of the individual, his willingness to fight the odds that make him truly human, that is more important than this hierarchy of races bullshit. Regardless if he is white, black, yellow because in the long run, these are merely irrelevancies.

Now we go to this "blind to the truth of white supremacy" argument. I hope some of you don't take this the wrong way but in my opinion, it is a great disservice to a lot of white people, even dangerous for them to perpetuate this mythology. Whoever propagated this white superman myth is truly forgetting something. To illustrate, there's this guy who wrote the Conan mythologies, Robert E. Howard. In his youth, Rob was a target for bullies, he was your typical nerd, very bright and intelligent, but his body was weak. The white superman myth states that all white men were born perfect (like Superman, right?) but if this is true, how come Rob has to work his ass off just to achieve a body builder physique (yeah, he grew up to be like your typical muscle bound Cimmerian)? Sacrifice, risk, discipline, the WORK ETHIC. That's what's missing from your equation, isn't it?  Even animals, through the process of survival of the fittest, know of this, it's something called competition but I don't think you buy into that concept, all of you were born instant winners right?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 16, 2008, 11:04:40 PM
"So, race, ethnicity, and culture are still a factor here. There's really no reason to resent yourself for not being able to live up to the Germanic ideal if you're Asian or Mexican; you have your culture has its own ideals. You may have been brainwashed into thinking that this is the definitive, universal ideal by the Powers that Be, but the only reason they did that is so they can have your wallet and still live in a world oriented toward themselves"

Does this mean that every member of your race has achieved the "Germanic Ideal"? Has everyone among you now possess the physique of a Swarzenegger or the genius of a Mozart? Isn't this so-called Germanic Ideal, in itself is not a natural monopoly of the white race but is actually a common yearning among all human beings? It is only the means to achieve this ideal that differs in each individual. Obviously, not every European could be a Conan or a Mozart (as attested by a lot of pasty faced, frail, fuck faced imbeciles from your own race) but like I said, it is the COURAGE of the individual, his willingness to fight the odds that make him truly human, that is more important than this hierarchy of races bullshit. Regardless if he is white, black, yellow because in the long run, these are merely irrelevancies.

Now we go to this "blind to the truth of white supremacy" argument. I hope some of you don't take this the wrong way but in my opinion, it is a great disservice to a lot of white people, even dangerous for them to perpetuate this mythology. Whoever propagated this white superman myth is truly forgetting something. To illustrate, there's this guy who wrote the Conan mythologies, Robert E. Howard. In his youth, Rob was a target for bullies, he was your typical nerd, very bright and intelligent, but his body was weak. The white superman myth states that all white men were born perfect (like Superman, right?) but if this is true, how come Rob has to work his ass off just to achieve a body builder physique (yeah, he grew up to be like your typical muscle bound Cimmerian)? Sacrifice, risk, discipline, the WORK ETHIC. That's what's missing from your equation, isn't it?  Even animals, through the process of survival of the fittest, know of this, it's something called competition but I don't think you buy into that concept, all of you were born instant winners right?

For the record, I'm not even "pure" blood, I'm a Mexican.

I hope you didn't misunderstand my post (though it seems you did), I agree with you, but I believe I've found a reasonable middle ground.

There are criteria that every culture selects as an ideal to uphold. You uphold courage, that's great, but that is on an individual level.

But perhaps your culture upholds a different value?

There are universally-admirable qualities among all races, I wasn't denying that.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: The Last King of Scotland on September 17, 2008, 12:42:07 AM
AIDS, I have nothing against you but I think the fundamental belief that some races are better than others is a great and utter fallacy. It would be more appropriate (as you have said, upholding courage is great but on an individual level) to judge superiority on an individual level than on groups of people. Declarations of superiority based on race or groupings of people are signs of insecurity, it is petty and patethic. The achievements of one man become the achievements of his people as time pass by but this does not in any way prove the superiority or worth of that group of people but as a matter of fact may even prove their mediocrity.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 17, 2008, 05:19:45 AM
Do you think that there's a "genetic hierarchy" or not?. . .

Yes, to some extent.  Other people here have pointed out that geography and environment are factors among other things.  It is perfectly fine to jusge a man based on the predicament into which he has forced himself while ignoring the color of his skin.  You can't overlook a man's shortcomings because he is a minority, for example.  Liberalism would habe you believe otherwise.

The human race is still undergoing evolution, though.  I guess that was my point.  Saying all people are equal is the same as saying "we're stuck in a rut, and society will never improve."  We need to praise the strong and shun the weak, rather than encouraging everyone.  That's what I like about this place, you guys get that in terms of artistic value.   The art of a certain time period documents the thinking of the age.  It's an important fragment in deciphering our evolutionary stage.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: esoteric on September 17, 2008, 06:13:53 AM

Of course it doesn't work.  One thing falls slightly out of place and you end up with a huge conflict for no reason.  The United States here is basically a monstrous construction waiting to topple.  We're trying to mix Legos, K'nex, and Mega Bloks or something.  You can't just put random pieces together and call it a day.  We are a nation that hates itself.  Everyone here has their complaints.  Fat morons like Michael Moore blabber on about nonsense while I sit here and theorize about my own nation's stupidity for other reasons.  Every race hates each other, and it's punishable by law to hurt someone's feelings by dropping a certain word based on their skin color.  Our worship of diversity is ridiculous.  We basically lay our lives on the altar to attain mediocrity, instead of forging a new path and taking a few blows on the way.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Many other western countries, and large non-western ones like Russia and China have no intention of following the US. They aren't willing to accept the massive incarceration rates and the toll on family relations and social cohesion, which comes with limited government control over the economy. The US has been trying to force the very values you are criticizing upon the world in the hope of universalizing them, but it hasn't work and won't work. There will be a big war over this sometime during our life, then finally people will realize the absurdities you are pointing out and build something better from the remaining fragments. What helps for me is to refuse to view the US as the most developed country whose status lies at the end of the road for all countries; it's just a particular brand of capitalism that does not work and will be brought to its knees like any other failed experiment in history, in due course.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: trickmaster_g on September 17, 2008, 01:18:34 PM
AIDS, I have nothing against you but I think the fundamental belief that some races are better than others is a great and utter fallacy. It would be more appropriate (as you have said, upholding courage is great but on an individual level) to judge superiority on an individual level than on groups of people. Declarations of superiority based on race or groupings of people are signs of insecurity, it is petty and patethic. The achievements of one man become the achievements of his people as time pass by but this does not in any way prove the superiority or worth of that group of people but as a matter of fact may even prove their mediocrity.

Hello, I 'd like to see if I could clarify some misunderstandings. Most people who preach white supremacy do so though poorly thought out arguments that focus on showing how others are falling within a given society. You are trying to apply what they say globally instead of locally. The ideas that they express (again poorly) can be applied to any individual within a given community not just whites. For example: I am not Japanese, therefore I would have a more difficult time adapting and developing within the Japanese society than someone who is natively Japanese. We are all PRODUCTS of our culture and our environments. We are designed though biology to function ideally within the confines of that said culture. When someone say whites are better the are stupidly trying to say that within the confines of white societies people of that particular ethnicity are superior to those that are not. So with this in mind, Yes, the English are superior in England, the Koreans are superior in Korea, the Germans are superior in Germany, the Israelis are superior in Israel and so on and so on. White Supremacists feel threatened because what makes their societies uniquely white is slowly being eroded away. Predictably they attack the symptoms - Divorce rates, illegal immigrants, other ethnicities, degenerates ... but the true problem, as pointed out in the articles on this site, is that European cultures are killing themselves. Those that realize this (the White Nationalists) are failing to address the fuck-ups of their own culture and are blaming everything else.

Do I believe that a white man is superior to a black man within European culture? Yes I do, for the reason that I have stated above. If that makes me a racist bastard then so be it. Black people cause so many problems within European society because they are not IDEALLY SUITED to that society. They are trying to live by the wrong standards themselves and we (the white man) are also holding them accountable to those wrong standards. The best solution to the problem is indeed separation. The black man will always depend on the capitulation of the white man to get himself head because he is at a distinct disadvantage from the start. Black's within the United States need to create their own society instead of having it handed to them. For more on this listen to the speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" by Malcolm X. Utterly amazing. He says everything I have obviously and much, much more. Abraham Lincoln would also be a good source. He talked extensively about Black repatriation to Africa.

Please do not think that I hate other races because I do not. I wish them success as much as I wish for my own. I just think that we need to be realistic about things. Check out one of the sister sites called Pan-nationalism and some of the articles on this one about Parallelism.

Thanks,
MIKE
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Boadicea on September 17, 2008, 01:29:57 PM

Antihuman-

I completely agree with you that faulty education and "tolerance" has lead to an enormous intolerance of dissent. Not even dissent, sometimes just an unpopular opinion. I find it interesting that most people in this country believe that America [and other Western countries] pass the "town square test" [if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society]. What?! If I expressed my personal views in a town square I certainly wouldn't make home for dinner that evening!

I agree also that people should be judged on their inherent value, their dignity, their character. But I have one problem with this, mainly that I believe xenophobia is both natural and beneficial. If you think what you have is no better than anyone else's, why value it? I'm not speaking as a white person in this, because I firmly believe that each race/ethnicity should be proud of its heritage [true individuality]. Multiculturalism is the venom that has weakened men's pride. CS Lewis wrote "we have created men without chests...we have castrated the foals and bid the geldings be fruitful". We strip away the very core of male pride: duty. Duty to their house, their bloodline, their people. Instead we say hey sure, be a mutt, it doesn't matter what you are but WHO you are inside. This is true, every man should be judged by his character, but shouldn't people be wary of what they don't know firsthand?  I find identity in the history of my people, my family...and I don't plan to do otherwise.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Heydrich on September 17, 2008, 07:58:34 PM
AIDS, I have nothing against you but I think the fundamental belief that some races are better than others is a great and utter fallacy. It would be more appropriate (as you have said, upholding courage is great but on an individual level) to judge superiority on an individual level than on groups of people. Declarations of superiority based on race or groupings of people are signs of insecurity, it is petty and patethic. The achievements of one man become the achievements of his people as time pass by but this does not in any way prove the superiority or worth of that group of people but as a matter of fact may even prove their mediocrity.

Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Beyond that, much of this thread has devolved into the typical moaning and groaning about white supremacy and what not. ANUS is not a supremacist movement white or otherwise - it is an elitist movement though. And mushy ideas about equality and uber-egalitarianism don't wash with most of us - it is as simple as that. That some of us are racially aware, or proud of what our people have accomplished in many respects should be no indictment of anyone else's people, nor does it imply we fancy ourselves a perfect race, or incapable or grand acts of stupidity and folly - if that last part isn't clear to you by now, you aren't reading this site very closely.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 17, 2008, 08:10:36 PM
We are designed though biology to function ideally within the confines of that said culture. When someone say whites are better the are stupidly trying to say that within the confines of white societies people of that particular ethnicity are superior to those that are not. So with this in mind, Yes, the English are superior in England, the Koreans are superior in Korea, the Germans are superior in Germany, the Israelis are superior in Israel and so on and so on. White Supremacists feel threatened because what makes their societies uniquely white is slowly being eroded away. Predictably they attack the symptoms - Divorce rates, illegal immigrants, other ethnicities, degenerates ... but the true problem, as pointed out in the articles on this site, is that European cultures are killing themselves. Those that realize this (the White Nationalists) are failing to address the fuck-ups of their own culture and are blaming everything else.

That's a good point.  I suppose I am guilty of looking at the symptoms you speak of and trying to trace the problem to its source, perhaps incorrectly.  It is true that there is a greater percentage of whites, and the majority of them are guilty of progressing the decline of our society.  Having other races as a part of our society is not the problem.

We strip away the very core of male pride: duty. Duty to their house, their bloodline, their people. Instead we say hey sure, be a mutt, it doesn't matter what you are but WHO you are inside. This is true, every man should be judged by his character, but shouldn't people be wary of what they don't know firsthand?  I find identity in the history of my people, my family...and I don't plan to do otherwise.

I completely agree with the sentiment about man losing his role as the hunter/ warrior.  It's a shame, but it its his own fault and most seem to prefer things this way.

Of course you can't ignore your own heritage.  It's when people try to force their culture into another that I see a problem.  I always found that whole "melting pot" concept to be a bit risky.  It never really works; you always get distinct segments which do not fit perfectly.  This is fine, so long as people realize not everyone agrees or even accepts everything they value.

And no, we cannot jump to conclusions based on a person's race.  I'm not just talking about bad conclusions, either.  I hope I'm not coming across as a white supremacist here.  I'm just interested in how the content of a man's character is relevant to his race and his position in the evolution of his species.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: 13X on September 17, 2008, 08:32:10 PM
Do I believe that a white man is superior to a black man within European culture? Yes I do, for the reason that I have stated above. If that makes me a racist bastard then so be it. Black people cause so many problems within European society because they are not IDEALLY SUITED to that society. They are trying to live by the wrong standards themselves and we (the white man) are also holding them accountable to those wrong standards. The best solution to the problem is indeed separation. The black man will always depend on the capitulation of the white man to get himself head because he is at a distinct disadvantage from the start. Black's within the United States need to create their own society instead of having it handed to them. For more on this listen to the speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" by Malcolm X. Utterly amazing. He says everything I have obviously and much, much more. Abraham Lincoln would also be a good source. He talked extensively about Black repatriation to Africa.

I understand what you're getting at.

BUT I CAN'T JUST FUCK OFF BACK TO AFRICA.

Makes about as much sense as having NEOPAGANS go take over the Cayman Islands or some shit because they don't want to accept the religion of their oppressors.

The system is BEYOND REPAIR and separation of the races WILL NOT DO SHIT. Maybe we can reconsider once catharsis is reached.

Until then, I will continue to thrive as best I can.

Also, just to be clear, WE ALL GET NERVOUS ON SUBWAYS.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: The Last King of Scotland on September 17, 2008, 08:49:59 PM

Posted by: Heydrich
"Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Beyond that, much of this thread has devolved into the typical moaning and groaning about white supremacy and what not. ANUS is not a supremacist movement white or otherwise - it is an elitist movement though. And mushy ideas about equality and uber-egalitarianism don't wash with most of us - it is as simple as that. That some of us are racially aware, or proud of what our people have accomplished in many respects should be no indictment of anyone else's people, nor does it imply we fancy ourselves a perfect race, or incapable or grand acts of stupidity and folly - if that last part isn't clear to you by now, you aren't reading this site very closely."

First, whoever said that I was for equality and as you said "uber-egalitarianism"? Life OUGHT to be difficult to separate the weak and the chaff from the strong and the grain (or gold it that's what you like) but I do think that in a supposedly "free society" everyone is entitled to his opinion. Just as some white men is entitled to his beliefs of supremacy, every non-European worth his salt is entitled to his determination and perseverance to succeed in life. Just as you have the right to slander and mock institutions which give other people the right to chart their own destinies regardless of their filial or blood origins, the deserving non-European has every right to achieve his dreams, even if those dreams happen to be traditionally thought of to be as aspirations restricted only to the white man. Note that I've written "the deserving non-European" because that is where our philosophies differ where you envision a "racial nepotism" regardless of merit or achievements whatsoever, I assure this collectivist theory does not work. If it truly works, how come the agrarian collectives set up by Stalin ended up as virtual failures.

"CS Lewis wrote "we have created men without chests...we have castrated the foals and bid the geldings be fruitful". We strip away the very core of male pride: duty. Duty to their house, their bloodline, their people. Instead we say hey sure, be a mutt, it doesn't matter what you are but WHO you are inside. This is true, every man should be judged by his character, but shouldn't people be wary of what they don't know firsthand?  I find identity in the history of my people, my family...and I don't plan to do otherwise."

First, man may have a duty to his family and his people but fundamentally, his duty should be to himself. Because if a man is a wastrel and has no responsibilty to himself, he could be a danger to his family and yeah, even to his people. Now what is this finding identity with the history of your people truly amount to? Does knowing that your ancestor was a rapist or a petty thief help you with your identity. It's typical isn't it, shove the negative traits of your ancestors under the rug while amplify that which is positive (even if the degree of blood relations is actually far, like saying Bill Clinton and Mother Theresa are actually related, huh).

Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: 13X on September 17, 2008, 09:18:24 PM
I agree also that people should be judged on their inherent value, their dignity, their character. But I have one problem with this, mainly that I believe xenophobia is both natural and beneficial. If you think what you have is no better than anyone else's, why value it? I'm not speaking as a white person in this, because I firmly believe that each race/ethnicity should be proud of its heritage [true individuality]. Multiculturalism is the venom that has weakened men's pride. CS Lewis wrote "we have created men without chests...we have castrated the foals and bid the geldings be fruitful". We strip away the very core of male pride: duty. Duty to their house, their bloodline, their people. Instead we say hey sure, be a mutt, it doesn't matter what you are but WHO you are inside. This is true, every man should be judged by his character, but shouldn't people be wary of what they don't know firsthand?  I find identity in the history of my people, my family...and I don't plan to do otherwise.

1. How does multiculturalism weaken a man's pride?

2. Upholding values laid down by previous generations is cool and all but copulating with a Hispanic woman isn't going to devalue any culture your people produced.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: 13X on September 17, 2008, 09:46:22 PM
The system is BEYOND REPAIR and separation of the races WILL NOT DO SHIT. Maybe we can reconsider once catharsis is reached.

For reference, I am not scared of revolution. I am just a REALIST. Globalization is reality. Eventually, we'll all be coffee colored -- which doesn't mean achievements of generations past have to be forgotten. The other way things could go is:

1. Everyone stays scared of eachother.
2. WORLD FUCKING GOES TO SHIT.
3. History repeats itself.

I'd rather thrive -- through sublimation (my professional work...) and distraction (music and the ecstasies of the female body) -- in the (cold, brutal, uncaring) environment I was thrust into at birth than live in a dreamworld. And fight the evils of IGNORANCE and GREED by SCARING THE LIVING FUCK (http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt) out of the powers that be. Just so I feel less helpless.

edit: Activism is depressing. Even when a revolution is successful, dumb people fuck everything up and newly established systems either implode or become parodies of themselves within decades.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 18, 2008, 01:27:32 AM
The system is BEYOND REPAIR and separation of the races WILL NOT DO SHIT. Maybe we can reconsider once catharsis is reached.

For reference, I am not scared of revolution. I am just a REALIST. Globalization is reality. Eventually, we'll all be coffee colored -- which doesn't mean achievements of generations past have to be forgotten. The other way things could go is:

1. Everyone stays scared of eachother.
2. WORLD FUCKING GOES TO SHIT.
3. History repeats itself.

I'd rather thrive -- through sublimation (my professional work...) and distraction (music and the ecstasies of the female body) -- in the (cold, brutal, uncaring) environment I was thrust into at birth than live in a dreamworld. And fight the evils of IGNORANCE and GREED by SCARING THE LIVING FUCK (http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt) out of the powers that be. Just so I feel less helpless.

edit: Activism is depressing. Even when a revolution is successful, dumb people fuck everything up and newly established systems either implode or become parodies of themselves within decades.

How is it "realism" if you're giving up on something that is an entire possibility? That's not realistic, that's fatalistic. Mankind lived for thousands of years while rarely encountering and mixing with different people that they can't respect and trust, and it can go back to that way if we don't quit like pussies.

Contrary to your belief, achievements of previous races will be forgotten for the sake of globalization, you're completely missing that entire facet.

And the reason why societies fail over time? It's like a purge and renewal of sorts for new societies to thrive. History runs in cycles.

It's reality; embrace it.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Goluf on September 18, 2008, 10:11:47 AM

Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Nope. Check out "Genie: the feral child". If everything was contained in genes and biological traditions, then we would have expected this girl to develop something akin to European, or at least humanistic behaviors. She didn't.

Culture and personal makeup are a connected circle. Without one, the other does not exist.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: scourge on September 18, 2008, 10:17:21 AM

Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Nope. Check out "Genie: the feral child". If everything was contained in genes and biological traditions, then we would have expected this girl to develop something akin to European, or at least humanistic behaviors. She didn't.

Culture and personal makeup are a connected circle. Without one, the other does not exist.

I disagree that a lone, isolated feral child without contact with others of her kind proves that culture's source is an empty vacuum. We need a case study where several such feral individuals and their offspring over generations are observed. But then again, man's own history is such a study. A uniquely cultured society is after all about the consensus exhibited by a group of shared heredity, not by a solitary person out of contact with like kind.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on September 18, 2008, 03:54:20 PM

Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Nope. Check out "Genie: the feral child". If everything was contained in genes and biological traditions, then we would have expected this girl to develop something akin to European, or at least humanistic behaviors. She didn't.

Culture and personal makeup are a connected circle. Without one, the other does not exist.

Are you implying that not only cant her and her race be Europeans but they cant also  be considered Humans? I also agree with Viridovix that a isolated incident such as this proves nothing.

Also genealogy is not culture. Culture is knowledge that is not inherent to the species being passed by some form of communication to subsequent generations accumulating over time.

This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

What people seem to be attacking is Globalization rather than multiculturalism because Europe does not seem to remember its culture, how do we expect foreigners to if they cant remember theirs. This new Global culture is all that exists in most industrial and technological nations. how can there be multiculturalism if most have forgotten what their own culture is?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Heydrich on September 18, 2008, 06:03:07 PM

Nonsense. Our cultures are a product of us - of our blood and tribes !

Nope. Check out "Genie: the feral child". If everything was contained in genes and biological traditions, then we would have expected this girl to develop something akin to European, or at least humanistic behaviors. She didn't.

Culture and personal makeup are a connected circle. Without one, the other does not exist.

Are you implying that not only cant her and her race be Europeans but they cant also  be considered Humans? I also agree with Viridovix that a isolated incident such as this proves nothing.

Also genealogy is not culture. Culture is knowledge that is not inherent to the species being passed by some form of communication to subsequent generations accumulating over time.

This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

What people seem to be attacking is Globalization rather than multiculturalism because Europe does not seem to remember its culture, how do we expect foreigners to if they cant remember theirs. This new Global culture is all that exists in most industrial and technological nations. how can there be multiculturalism if most have forgotten what their own culture is?

I don't disagree with your assessment but I also don't know that anyone was suggesting that the 'people/genetics=culture' equation necessarily occurs in a vacuum. Surely various "outside" influence may, nay will, absolutely influence culture over time - is culture itself not fluid over time to a large degree? Looking to history, it only makes sense geographically and anthropologically that the middle-east would indeed influence nascent European cultures and societies to some degree. But none of this negates the fact that the ultimate "product" (unique culture) at least insofar as we identify it in the modern era, is also largely genetically influenced.

Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: uvanimon on September 18, 2008, 10:05:43 PM
This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

You seem to confuse technology and civilization with "culture". Are you saying the ancient Germanics, Celts, Slavs, etc (or on a different note how about the Apache or I dunno, the conquering Polynesians) had no culture because they were a warlike people instead of a domesticated one?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Stranger on September 19, 2008, 05:16:20 AM

America isn't about the truth, it's about tolerance and acceptance. In this society, that trumps truth.

In their mind, you can see why it's the rational approach. You bring every race known to man into one country, and it won't function unless all are treated the same. Who is going to want to live in a place where they feel like second-class citizens?

I don't think one should look at this as a superiority conflict, because it's not. Europeans function best in their own society, as do Africans and Asians. The problem has been globalization. It's wrong for Europeans to indoctrinate Western values into the rest of the world. One look at America in the Middle-East is enough proof. We aren't the same. That much is clear. Yet, one race isn't superior to the other. I really believe that, and that is coming from one of European descent. If the Indian from Bolivia is enjoying life just as much as the Business man from Germany, who's approach is really better? Neither is, and both are equally successful. Technology isn't god, and the sooner we acknowledge that, the easier it will be for the rest of the world to understand that the European way isn't the way for all.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Galvanized on September 19, 2008, 12:34:34 PM
I believe that those who share your views are intelligent people.

However, when you pass from intelligence into megalomania,

I believe people vary in intelligence, but not racially.
Some are just better than others.

You may have begun to to percieve yourselves as intelligent, more so than most,
and from that, began to believe in superiority.

I believe you are wrong.

You are the defects.

Society is not brainwashed,
the nature of humanity is to create a method to deal with any economical concerns they may have.

Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Galvanized on September 19, 2008, 01:00:31 PM

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.

I am no critic.
You yourself have made the mistake of assuming that I was "lashing out".

W\hat I said is a representation of what I believe,
which is contrary to members of this site.
I hate the game, not the player.

So, my post was simply in combat to another clashing idea, lol,
And you've accused me of doing what you did to me.

Oh, and my use of death was meant to invoke no fear,
it is simply to state that a bullet will enter your skull as easily as a black's.
It was a metaphor to dis agree with the ideas of superiority.
That would make a lot of sense if nature did not organize the majority of its systems into hierarchies already. Some people are superior to others, hands down. Only a fool would claim that a rapist who spends half of his day watching kiddie porn is in any way equal to a contributing member of a community.

Trolls are fun, but are you really getting anywhere? I enjoy having my ideas challenged, but your arguments have been presented here an almost uncountable amount of times. What new ideas do you have to contribute? If you have none other than "OMG, LOLZ! EVR1S TEH SAM3 U DUMASS!" than you might as well leave now, or perhaps give the material at anus.com a more in-depth read.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Galvanized on September 19, 2008, 01:22:34 PM

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.

I am no critic.
You yourself have made the mistake of assuming that I was "lashing out".

W\hat I said is a representation of what I believe,
which is contrary to members of this site.
I hate the game, not the player.

So, my post was simply in combat to another clashing idea, lol,
And you've accused me of doing what you did to me.

Oh, and my use of death was meant to invoke no fear,
it is simply to state that a bullet will enter your skull as easily as a black's.
It was a metaphor to dis agree with the ideas of superiority.
That would make a lot of sense if nature did not organize the majority of its systems into hierarchies already. Some people are superior to others, hands down. Only a fool would claim that a rapist who spends half of his day watching kiddie porn is in any way equal to a contributing member of a community.

Trolls are fun, but are you really getting anywhere? I enjoy having my ideas challenged, but your arguments have been presented here an almost uncountable amount of times. What new ideas do you have to contribute? If you have none other than "OMG, LOLZ! EVR1S TEH SAM3 U DUMASS!" than you might as well leave now, or perhaps give the material at anus.com a more in-depth read.

You are the one lashing out.

Arguing over this is irrelevant, and frankly a waste of time.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 19, 2008, 02:54:26 PM
Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

See here, your philosophy is flawed.

The "way of thinking that allows one to pass through life with most ease"
is called fatalism. People who slowly die in front of the television employ the same way of thought as you.

"Why leave the couch? life is easier if you don't."

Making life "more difficult" in this case only makes the quality of life greater for everyone.

Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.

Is it not just a little amusing how this works?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Todessehnsucht on September 19, 2008, 04:37:38 PM
This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

Fuck off. European culture starts with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. They domesticated horses, invented the chariot, developed epic poetry and created a system of metaphysics that gives modern philosophy a dirt nap. They also created the most prevalent family of languages present on earth from Gaelic to Sanskrit. Yes modern Western civilization owes a lot to the middle east in the fields of medicine, engineering, chemistry, and so on. But often they were carrying on traditions started by other cultures. This is not, in any way, an attempt to take away the significance of any of these cultures. But to claim that Europeans have no culture of their own, is simply exaggerated white guilt. Especially when the earliest instances of monotheism, often characterized as being an Abrahamic trait, come from the Persians and Egyptians. You also make the mistake of referring to Northern Europeans as crude barbaric tribes devoid of civilization. Let me give you a hint, in ancient Northern and Eastern Europe.. they built primarily with wood. Wood rarely preserves well through time. The reason Romans and Greeks get more of a rep as great civilizations is because their building materials left a larger archaeological record.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Wraith on September 20, 2008, 08:18:46 AM
Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

See here, your philosophy is flawed.

The "way of thinking that allows one to pass through life with most ease"
is called fatalism. People who slowly die in front of the television employ the same way of thought as you.

"Why leave the couch? life is easier if you don't."

Making life "more difficult" in this case only makes the quality of life greater for everyone.

Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.

Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Quote
I play Pac-Man and I watch T. V.
I'm so happy 'cause it pleases me
I couldn't really ask for anything else
Maybe my own chain of Taco Bells

I'm perfectly happy right where I am
I could live forever in a traffic jam
It doesn't really bother me to breathe the poison air
I'd choke anyway, I don't really care

Sometimes I think about getting away for a while
But when I return I will be out of style
You may say I'm not an ambitious man
But let me tell you I've got some plans
Like there's a new car I wanna buy
And a video cassette recorder, yet I'm not sure why
I wanna get married and have three kids
'Cause I'm lonely and I've got a hard dick

Commuter Man
Commuter Man

—D.R.I. "Commuter Man"
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on September 26, 2008, 09:59:24 PM
This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

You seem to confuse technology and civilization with "culture". Are you saying the ancient Germanics, Celts, Slavs, etc (or on a different note how about the Apache or I dunno, the conquering Polynesians) had no culture because they were a warlike people instead of a domesticated one?

I did not anywhere say that warlike cultures are less than domesticated ones. Also technology and civilization are a part of culture and are not exclusive from it.  I think people are misunderstanding what I meant. I did not mean that European culture is a fake imitation of a real culture. I was simply stating that cultures are hardly created in isolation and most faces of western culture were created through outside intervention, either direct or indirect. Lastly I did not mean to imply that the northern European cultures were inferior but rather I meant that their culture changed from there tribal lifestyle to the monarchs of the middle ages because of external cultural influence.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: desidia on September 27, 2008, 05:43:17 PM
Quote from:  MY AIDS YOUR ARSE
Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.

Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Your way is, as you say, easier; are you more commendable, therefore, for taking the easy way?

In reply to the DRI lyrics: this is my problem with Punk. There is no attempt to acutally understand the individual involved. The office worker becomes a faceless cipher, a simple concept: yet office workers can be men concerned above all with providing for their family; putting themselves in situations which they personally hate, which hurt them deeply internally, in order to do so (and the business life is really no fun: think about what it actually entails). I have met examples of this. And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Galvanized on September 27, 2008, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from:  MY AIDS YOUR ARSE
Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.

Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Your way is, as you say, easier; are you more commendable, therefore, for taking the easy way?

In reply to the DRI lyrics: this is my problem with Punk. There is no attempt to acutally understand the individual involved. The office worker becomes a faceless cipher, a simple concept: yet office workers can be men concerned above all with providing for their family; putting themselves in situations which they personally hate, which hurt them deeply internally, in order to do so (and the business life is really no fun: think about what it actually entails). I have met examples of this. And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.
Well you could interpret that song as an attack against every single office worker in existence, or particularly the ones who are similar to the person mentioned in the song.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: desidia on September 27, 2008, 06:24:08 PM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Galvanized on September 27, 2008, 07:06:29 PM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.
The song never made any dogmatic statements about all office-workers adhering to that stereotype, so I never interpreted it in that fashion. I'm not particularly interested in a game of admitting who's right or wrong either; it seems to shift the focus of an argument to victory and less so to a better understanding.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Helmholtz on September 27, 2008, 09:58:12 PM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.

You're right, there was no reference to individuals...there was a reference to the IDEA expressed, that that sort of IDEA is common, and an attack on that IDEA.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 28, 2008, 04:48:10 AM
And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.

I hope you're in for a bit of a read, this actually makes sense.

http://www.ihatejobs.com/
http://www.ihatejobs.com/news/the_career_man.html

Quote
...We'll never see that ad, but maybe we should. We've been conned into trading our souls for the endless pursuit of money, often under the guilt-ridden guise of 'making a better life for our children.' But what good is it when our careers rob of us the time we'd have otherwise spent with our families. The career-man isn't a hero who 'takes care of his family'. He is the epitome of all that is cowardly and wrong with society; we ignore problems, jump in a suit, gather some money and run away, hoping they won't follow us as we don't really have a back up strategy.

Jobs were once means of supporting ourselves and our communities. People undertook a business (or worked for one) that provided a valuable service to the local community. Something valuable and necessary has been replaced by something for its own sake. People punch in and out of places where they shuffle papers that don't need shuffling and they sell things that people don't need. You'll see some people running around claiming the government channel drugs into cities as to keep the population unfocused and dumb. I disagree; maybe the government do want to do that, but they don't give us drugs, instead they make us get jobs under pain of being homeless and a social leper.

We could be that man, yet we merely questioned our current situation and found better solutions. Is it honorable to push a boulder up a hill, only to watch your effort go to waste as gravity brings it down, only to find yourself returning to the bottom in order to push it back uphill to let it fall yet again, ad nauseam? The motivations expressed in that song are fairly typical of those around us who don't see anything better for themselves. Admit it.

As you'll also find here on ANUS, we have a disdain for current "metal culture", or what you seem to be referring to as "metal fans", because it has been diluted by the idiocy as described so accurately in that song. We don't take too kindly to those around these parts. Not necessarily as to whether or not something is "mainstream" or "underground", because such a distinction is pointless, and because neither is a good indication of quality. In fact, radio or mainstream music, as plastic and boring as it is, is more tolerable than much of the garbage you can find in the underground, across all genres.

It's all in the search for the music of artistic merit, and here, particularly in metal.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 28, 2008, 02:06:20 PM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.

Even so, the stereotype exists because such people exist.  Anyone who fits the description of those lyrics has none of the honorable traits you are speaking of.

You are right, however, that a lot of bands (and people in general) say stuff like this in order to feel better about themselves.  I don't think that's the case here.  We have to pinpoint what is wrong with society in order to fix it.

It goes back to the survival of the fittest as a product of character traits with which I started this thread.  The man in that song will accomplish nothing in life.  In fact, the man you described who sacrifices himself for the sake of his family will likely do nothing more than support his family.  While this can be seen as honorable, chances are he will have no time to contribute anything else.  If, say, one of his children goes on to accomplish something great, maybe it can be said that he has done his job.  However, I tend to think the case is more often that his children will go on to struggle with their jobs to support their families.  These people are not the next stage in evolution of which I was speaking.  The backbone of our economy?  Maybe.  We do need the ordinary to justify the extraordinary to some extent.

I guess I'm starting to get into Raskolnikov's whole argument in Crime and Punishment.  But it applies.  We have to have the right mindset when we go about our lives.  Never settle for mediocrity; if you have to struggle to get by, why not struggle to overcome?  Those who are of strong character will do so.  These men are more than honorable, and are ultimately the ones we should recognize on an individual basis.  I have no problem with lumping the others into a stereotype if it applies.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Heydrich on September 28, 2008, 05:57:54 PM

It goes back to the survival of the fittest as a product of character traits with which I started this thread.  The man in that song will accomplish nothing in life.  In fact, the man you described who sacrifices himself for the sake of his family will likely do nothing more than support his family.  While this can be seen as honorable, chances are he will have no time to contribute anything else.  If, say, one of his children goes on to accomplish something great, maybe it can be said that he has done his job.  However, I tend to think the case is more often that his children will go on to struggle with their jobs to support their families.  These people are not the next stage in evolution of which I was speaking.  The backbone of our economy?  Maybe.  We do need the ordinary to justify the extraordinary to some extent.

The "Commuter Man" is just one modern incarnation of the same "herd" animal Nietzsche and others spoke at length about. They exist just to exist, as the herd commonly does - and in so doing, their lives lose any real meaning, their goals become stunted and selfish, their senses are dulled, their strenght is sapped by grinding monotony and laboriousness. You will always have these types(no doubt mankind always has). The problem as I see it, is that this domesticated herd animal has now become the ideal, the chief representative of a "successful" western man. Thus, the "Commuter Man" is a fraud, a symbol of a "success" that is really neither noble or terribly satisfying - unless one is fully satisfied by really large televisions, luxury automobiles, suburban McMansions, corpulent/lazy children, a CD collection filled with vacuous "adult contemporary" warblers, etc.

Actually, in many ways they ARE the "backbone of our economy." And that is why/how they makes such good slaves...they are fettered  to a monster of their own creation - and they live only to feed that same monster(with all the rubric about "providing for one's family and all that as a convenient distraction from the horrifying emptiness of their reality.) I know this condition well...I was once on my way to being there - indeed, I still struggle to fully escape from there! At least i don't have tubby kids, a big tv and bad CD's...

Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: esoteric on September 28, 2008, 06:58:50 PM
I think you are doing harm to your own argument by removing all content from the 'commuter man'. Consider the type of work he might do: One is a senior executive of a multinational corporation which maximizes profits by shifting production to where it can abuse the local population and environment with minimum legal and financial liabilities. The other is director of a research organization which advises governmental bodies on environmental impacts of its policies. Both might have large incomes, mansions and cars - both are commuter men, yet one is doing better work than the other. I might have focused on any two jobs at all, but what matters is what kind of work you do and how well you do it, with the bigger picture in mind.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Helmholtz on September 28, 2008, 09:12:37 PM
I think you are doing harm to your own argument by removing all content from the 'commuter man'. Consider the type of work he might do: One is a senior executive of a multinational corporation which maximizes profits by shifting production to where it can abuse the local population and environment with minimum legal and financial liabilities. The other is director of a research organization which advises governmental bodies on environmental impacts of its policies. Both might have large incomes, mansions and cars - both are commuter men, yet one is doing better work than the other. I might have focused on any two jobs at all, but what matters is what kind of work you do and how well you do it, with the bigger picture in mind.

Clearly the second one isn't doing his job well.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: desidia on September 29, 2008, 04:14:35 PM

I hope you're in for a bit of a read, this actually makes sense.

http://www.ihatejobs.com/
http://www.ihatejobs.com/news/the_career_man.html

I agree for the most part with the article (although the inefficiency of the current system is perhaps overstated; and implicitly compared with a non-existent past situation). The praiseworthy commuter man whom I cited earlier has surely made the wrong choice. But he can still be admired for his dedication.
But perhaps I am too sympathetic towards such people. Too much sentiment can cloud judgement. Yes their lives are essentially empty. Yes they are part of "the capitalist machine"; of 'the herd'. Empathy with them is perhaps a defensive strategy. I do not criticise their (in our opinion) failure. If therefore I fail then I can always judge myself in a similarly lenient manner. My standards are too low.
Of course, failure is the probable outcome for anybody who seeks to transcend the mass of humanity. It was  after all Raskolnikof's fate: wracked with guilt and nervous illness after the crime, he eventually confessed, but by then the punishment had already taken place. Like a good drone he had inflicted it upon himself. Such is my evaluation of the novel, in any case. Yet this is no reason for acceptance of failure: indeed a horror of it may be a necessary spur to success. Or perhaps a blind refusal to accept it as a possibility (but this must be innate).

One other thing: could it not be argued that an indicidual who truly embodied the 'Will to Power' born into the capitalist West would simply have made themselves as rich as possible?

Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Helmholtz on September 29, 2008, 08:37:30 PM

One other thing: could it not be argued that an indicidual who truly embodied the 'Will to Power' born into the capitalist West would simply have made themselves as rich as possible?

Possible, in fact likely.  But I doubt this individual would have contented themselves with simple tokens like money, and would have actually done something with it.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Antihuman on September 30, 2008, 05:06:16 AM
Possible, in fact likely.  But I doubt this individual would have contented themselves with simple tokens like money, and would have actually done something with it.

I agree.  Money doesn't directly bring about any sort of power unless the individual uses it to attain such.

Desida, you're right about Raskolnikov.  But he proved his theory correct, just that he was not extraordinary.  That was what I was saying to some extent.  The theory was that the extraordinary always go beyond the norm somehow; it is not something that can lie dormant for a man's entire life.  Therefore, it would follow that none of these "commuter men" (if a true fit to the stereotype does exist, which I am beginning to question) are extraordinary men/ have the Will to Power to the full extent.  Unless it can be said that such a position can be used to attain greater things.  Am I the stupid one, perhaps, because I am purposely seeking a living completely removed from the certainty of the commuter man's life?  It could (and has) been argued that I am.  But then again, I tend to think he who has the WIll to Power would be a bit of an idealist.

Nature balances everything out by striking down those who falsely try to rise above.  The slaves cannot escape their service, but why not die trying?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: My AIDS, Your Arse on September 30, 2008, 04:39:00 PM
One other thing: could it not be argued that an indicidual who truly embodied the 'Will to Power' born into the capitalist West would simply have made themselves as rich as possible?

Ayn Rand and her cheese triangles. (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=583469)

Egoistic objectivism ≠ Will to Power.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on September 30, 2008, 05:35:36 PM
One other thing: could it not be argued that an indicidual who truly embodied the 'Will to Power' born into the capitalist West would simply have made themselves as rich as possible?

The will to power comes from a detachment towards physical wants, much the same as in Buddhism. Capitalism is a form of money worship and ultimately dependent on physical distractions. A man who had the will to power would find no need to participate in a capitalist society.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: kontinual on September 30, 2008, 05:50:19 PM
The will to power comes from a detachment towards physical wants, much the same as in Buddhism. Capitalism is a form of money worship and ultimately dependent on physical distractions. A man who had the will to power would find no need to participate in a capitalist society.

The "will to power" concept is far more "neutral" than you are making it to be; it is a summary of the nature of human drive, not an ethos.  Everyone possesses it, some to a greater extent than others and always in different guises.  Saying that those who have obtained wealth do not have any "will to power" is nonsense -- they have a very distinct one dependent on material gain.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Pro Abortion on September 30, 2008, 06:17:14 PM
kontinual is right.  that being said, a philanthropist has a greater will to power than a miser.  the philanthropist uses money to "get things done."  the miser just sits on it.  money and wealth only has power when it is "out there" in action.  hoarding is a psychosis.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on September 30, 2008, 08:57:33 PM
This is true, perhaps I am conjuring up to many Zarathustras in my mind and not enough of anything else.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Pro Abortion on October 01, 2008, 07:33:31 PM
I'm with you though, Celt.  I have a tendency to want to shun money, economics and capitalism, myself.  But rather than shun it, we should understand it and critique it.  Intelligence and spirit will ultimately trump "wealth."  If your "wants" and "needs" are modest you have more time and energy to exercise your will to power in more creative ways than just making money.  Detaching oneself from physical wants CAN lead to much power - so there is something you what you're saying.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: MidnightStrength on October 02, 2008, 12:56:17 PM
One other thing: could it not be argued that an indicidual who truly embodied the 'Will to Power' born into the capitalist West would simply have made themselves as rich as possible?

The will to power comes from a detachment towards physical wants, much the same as in Buddhism. Capitalism is a form of money worship and ultimately dependent on physical distractions. A man who had the will to power would find no need to participate in a capitalist society.
I'm not sure if you understood the will to power well. This will was argued as the ultimate drive present in all (an argument against reproduction as ultimate goal), and this man in question clearly fits the upper tiers of one with a "will to power."
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on October 02, 2008, 05:36:08 PM
I'm not sure if you understood the will to power well. This will was argued as the ultimate drive present in all (an argument against reproduction as ultimate goal), and this man in question clearly fits the upper tiers of one with a "will to power."

I agree heartily that the will to power is a strong drive but I do not think a drive towards anything is the will to power. I have come to understand the will to power as a sense of satiety that is for the most part constant and also immune to physical discomforts. Nietzsche often described how hard simply living was and the will to power was an attempt by him to overcome his sadness and overcome his humanity. Nietzsche said he looks for the will to power where others do not look for it, among simple and spartan people. I think it is easier to imagine the potato farmer, the sheepherder and the fisherman containing the will to power over a monarch or a wealthy merchant. That is not to say that the monarch or the wealthy merchant cannot posses the will to power but if ever walk of life had just as much a chance of making a man strong then there is not much reason to dislike the modern western society, which I do so because it does not appear to be a good incubator for strong men.

And frankly if the upper tiers, as you described them of the will to power are consistent with the financial hoardings of the miser then it is certainly is a very frivolous concept that adds no meaning to life other that of insecurity and overcompensation rather than an overcoming and strength.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: MidnightStrength on October 02, 2008, 06:30:03 PM
I'm not sure if you understood the will to power well. This will was argued as the ultimate drive present in all (an argument against reproduction as ultimate goal), and this man in question clearly fits the upper tiers of one with a "will to power."

I agree heartily that the will to power is a strong drive but I do not think a drive towards anything is the will to power. I have come to understand the will to power as a sense of satiety that is for the most part constant and also immune to physical discomforts. Nietzsche often described how hard simply living was and the will to power was an attempt by him to overcome his sadness and overcome his humanity. Nietzsche said he looks for the will to power where others do not look for it, among simple and spartan people. I think it is easier to imagine the potato farmer, the sheepherder and the fisherman containing the will to power over a monarch or a wealthy merchant. That is not to say that the monarch or the wealthy merchant cannot posses the will to power but if ever walk of life had just as much a chance of making a man strong then there is not much reason to dislike the modern western society, which I do so because it does not appear to be a good incubator for strong men.

And frankly if the upper tiers, as you described them of the will to power are consistent with the financial hoardings of the miser then it is certainly is a very frivolous concept that adds no meaning to life other that of insecurity and overcompensation rather than an overcoming and strength.

I think that's what Nietzche definitely taught us, although I didn't really pick up that notion from The Will To Power in itself (the part about overcoming and strength I did). But again, in the case of the rich man described, he may simply be performing his function, and performing it greatly, without the thought of "oooh this will make me rich!!!!" To clarify what I mean, take the case of Warren Buffet. He's made his money solely off of investments. And even now, in a time of world economic crisis and overhype, he looked at GE and invested $200 billion. I imagine WB being more concerned with the action of investment, thinking "well, their methods look solid. Everything seems well thought out. I am making good investment." In his strive to perfect what he does, he has become the richest man, but that's secondary to what's more important to him. I'm speaking like I know him, but I think you get the point. Title: Re: The Content of Character Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on October 02, 2008, 08:35:53 PM I think that's what Nietzche definitely taught us, although I didn't really pick up that notion from The Will To Power in itself (the part about overcoming and strength I did). But again, in the case of the rich man described, he may simply be performing his function, and performing it greatly, without the thought of "oooh this will make me rich!!!!" To clarify what I mean, take the case of Warren Buffet. He's made his money solely off of investments. And even now, in a time of world economic crisis and overhype, he looked at GE and invested$200 billion. I imagine WB being more concerned with the action of investment, thinking "well, their methods look solid. Everything seems well thought out. I am making good investment." In his strive to perfect what he does, he has become the richest man, but that's secondary to what's more important to him. I'm speaking like I know him, but I think you get the point.

So do you mean a man with the will to power who just so happens to profit from his life without actually seeking wealth? I guess this posses a new problem with what should he do with the wealth that is earned?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: kontinual on October 03, 2008, 04:56:57 PM
I'm not sure if you understood the will to power well. This will was argued as the ultimate drive present in all (an argument against reproduction as ultimate goal), and this man in question clearly fits the upper tiers of one with a "will to power."

I agree heartily that the will to power is a strong drive but I do not think a drive towards anything is the will to power. I have come to understand the will to power as a sense of satiety that is for the most part constant and also immune to physical discomforts. Nietzsche often described how hard simply living was and the will to power was an attempt by him to overcome his sadness and overcome his humanity. Nietzsche said he looks for the will to power where others do not look for it, among simple and spartan people. I think it is easier to imagine the potato farmer, the sheepherder and the fisherman containing the will to power over a monarch or a wealthy merchant. That is not to say that the monarch or the wealthy merchant cannot posses the will to power but if ever walk of life had just as much a chance of making a man strong then there is not much reason to dislike the modern western society, which I do so because it does not appear to be a good incubator for strong men.

And frankly if the upper tiers, as you described them of the will to power are consistent with the financial hoardings of the miser then it is certainly is a very frivolous concept that adds no meaning to life other that of insecurity and overcompensation rather than an overcoming and strength.

Please stop over-complicating things and re-read what I and others wrote above.  The "will to power" idea is immune from these specific value judgments.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on October 03, 2008, 07:09:49 PM
I am well aware that the will to power is not a concrete form and that in order to "posses" it one does not use a list and tick the qualities they have acquired and the drive can indeed be manifested in a truly huge number of ways. Although I never thought of the will to power as being a summary of the human drive as I had always associated it as being the human ethos. Also as I mentioned in previous posts the will to power and wealth are not repellents towards each other. The confusion of that came from various misunderstandings on my part.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: desidia on October 05, 2008, 05:08:18 PM

I hope you're in for a bit of a read, this actually makes sense.

http://www.ihatejobs.com/
http://www.ihatejobs.com/news/the_career_man.html

From the above mentioned article: "Jobs were once means of supporting ourselves and our communities. People undertook a business (or worked for one) that provided a valuable service to the local community. Something valuable and necessary has been replaced by something for its own sake. People punch in and out of places where they shuffle papers that don't need shuffling and they sell things that people don't need. You'll see some people running around claiming the government channel drugs into cities as to keep the population unfocused and dumb. I disagree; maybe the government do want to do that, but they don't give us drugs, instead they make us get jobs under pain of being homeless and a social leper."

The present is here compared  unfavourably to an idealised past (a common technique): "Jobs were once means of supporting ourselves and our communities" etc etc, but now we're commuter men, etc etc. Strictly speaking, none of the author's statements are incorrect. Yes, in the past (but which period? the author sadly doesn't mention) people's work was necessary. For survival indeed: c. 1500, if a peasant was idle, his family would have no food and would starve. Now, the average cubicle monkey spends most of his time "shuffling papers that don't need shuffling": a task of no importance, he merely passes the time. But the author's implication is that things were better under the former situation. Wrong: I would rather be Dilbert than Piers Plowman; rather spend 8 hours in an office than 14 down a coal mine. But this is not the point. The point is that the current economic system has a certain amount of "slack" in it (and we are fortunate that is does). By which I mean, in Europe (or the USA) 200 years ago, the majority of the people had to expend most of their efforts simply in order to stave off starvation. Now, this is not the case. To a certain extent this is because modern technology has made farming and manufacturing more efficient; the fact that we use the inhabitants of the third world essentially as our slaves is another (but this is another topic entirely). THe bottom line however, is that nowadays people in the West have more "free time", more time in which they do not need to be attending to their most basic needs than ever before. In this, a peasant in modern England is as an aristocrat in ancient Rome. Even if he does nothing, he will not starve (this all is perhaps why a penniless modern Englishman can relate so well to  Tolstoy's novels). The question is: what to do with this free time? It makes life more complicated after all. If one has to spend twelve hours a day in the fields in order simply to live, there are no existential dilemmas. "What shall I do with myself? The answer is clear: you must toil or die!". Perhaps the author of the article envisaged a return to such a state for the majority. Pragmatically utopian. But this sheds no light on what to do now, with our vast amounts of leisure. Wasting this gift of time would be - pardon the expression - a sin. Spending it in pointless work however is obviously not the answer. But what is?
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: esoteric on October 06, 2008, 05:10:11 AM
I wouldn't call 4 hours a day minus weekend a 'vast amount' of leisure time. But isn't the problem precisely that our days are divided into 'work' and 'leisure'? We're so exhausted and disenchanted by our 8 hours of largely superfluous work that leisure means a night in front of the tv. Some people are lucky to have as their work a hobby they enjoy - then the division between work and leisure vanishes. These people are usually the most productive in what is officially their leisure time.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: desidia on October 06, 2008, 02:43:24 PM
I agree; work and leisure should ideally run together in such a way; an "ideal society" would be set up that all its members delighted in fulfilling their necessary function, would indeed wish for nothing more.
But I think I was unclear on what I meant by those in the modern West having a surfeit of leisure. My point wasn't that an office worker has more free time than a peasant (although meagre as 4 hours a day and a weekend may seem, historically speaking it is in fact an abundance) but that ALL of the office worker's time can be seen as free time. Unlike the peasant, work is for him a choice. He will not starve if he doesn't go to work, his lifestyle will simply be less lavish (although here we may have a distinction again between Europe and the USA: there is more welfare in the new world). Theoretically at least he could live on state handouts and devote his time to whatever purpose he wished.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on October 06, 2008, 10:00:25 PM
I wouldn't call 4 hours a day minus weekend a 'vast amount' of leisure time. But isn't the problem precisely that our days are divided into 'work' and 'leisure'? We're so exhausted and disenchanted by our 8 hours of largely superfluous work that leisure means a night in front of the tv. Some people are lucky to have as their work a hobby they enjoy - then the division between work and leisure vanishes. These people are usually the most productive in what is officially their leisure time.

Perhaps rather than thinking of ones work and leisure time as being the same and/or similar would it be better to say that those who's ethos fits their work would have more productive leisure time? Effectively the same as what you proposed but it allows one to undergo work, even if it perhaps not at all that enjoyable and still have leisurely activities that are meaningful. Say for example a garbage man likes to fish in his spare time and he applies the virtues of his fishing to his work (patience, stoic hardiness to discomfort etc) then he could have work and leisure which are very different but still have the ability to enjoy his free time in a "healthy" manner.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: death metal black metal on July 12, 2009, 03:42:46 PM
Well, even Dr. King dreamt of a world where people were "judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I think if society got back to this issue, we'd have a better ground for figuring everything else out. It seems to me that most people are thoughtless, and don't mind for example throwing a whole bunch of trash in the forest or trying to victimize or destroy someone who is doing something productive. In fact, they seem to thrive on tearing down anyone who rises above the herd. We see this in metal a lot where all the shitty local bands unite against the one local band that might go somewhere. Content of character determines who's worth saving, and if humanity has any brains, it will encourage these to produce our next generation of humans.
Title: Re: The Content of Character
Post by: Conservationist on July 15, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
Content of character is the one thing you can't fake with 5,000 myspace friends, a credit card and a 4chan meme.