Sodomize
The Weak
Since “sodomize the weak” has become the unofficial motto of this site, and we rarely make such things official because formalization leads to accelerated decrepitude, it makes sense to explain why these three words encompass the single bit of philosophy that every sane person needs.
We can first attend to the origins of the term, which is found in the song of the same title by the German grindcore band Blood, taken from its album O Agios Pethane. The lyrics may be revelatory:
Far away from the city
Far away from civilization
A secret farm full of obscure persons
And full of weak cattle exists
Every morning the farmfather
Satisfied himself with the cattle
SODOMIZE THE WEAK creatures
Fatigo – it’s an everflowing plague
No escape from the penis of dead
No hope for all the dead chicks
Crucio – the same procedure everyday
The same thing the whole night
Sometimes, when travellers enter the farm
They won’t return from those pervert people
Get strangulated by the evil farmers
Get buried somewhere in the desert around
Sort of a mishmash of themes from horror movie and literature, these lyrics express a classic trope, which is the stationary predator who lies in wait for the clueless, foolish and oblivious. Much as in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, these predators allow the stupid to stumble along and, because they are lost in a world of themselves, fail to notice the signs of a vicious victimizer waiting to pounce.
Since the song itself has little to do with the phrase that has become our motto, we must instead dissect — not deconstruct — the term. “Sodomize” is a verb that in the heterosexual West implies subjugation and dominance, where “the weak” is part of a binary opposite, which means that the stronger are subjugating the weaker. In other words, a Darwinistic view: the more apt must dominate the less apt.
This amounts to a general defense and praise of elitism, since the implication of “weak” is that something stronger will take its place. For the most basic definition we can turn to a dictionary which gives us:
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite [for example] elitism in choosing new members
At this point, we have an organic version of the bubble sort: that which is better rises, and that which is less-better falls. This gradually sets up a hierarchy by comparing all to all, such that actual order is achieved with the best on top and the others arrayed appropriately below them, as one would find in a well-functioning military, business or academic unit.
How do we define the best? If we are intelligent, we do not, but instead recognize that it has two general attributes: competence and the related ability to discern what is not just utilitarian-adequate but also “good,” in the sense of improving life as far as can be. We want not just those who are effective, but those who improve the qualitative nature of the situation around them as well.
In other words, if you set up a computer with a billion virtual objects in it of unequal positions or characteristics and give them each the instruction to sodomize the weak, you will shortly end up with a highly organized arrangement where the most powerful objects are on top. If those are also wise, the order will be beautiful, elegant, awe-inspiring and so on.
This is how nature works. Your planet gets hit by an asteroid or virus and the dinosaurs fade away, but they are replaced by new creatures with the ability to survive such things. These creatures start as dumb rodents, but after millions of years of sodomizing the weak, you end up with majestic horses, humans who make death metal, whales (the ocean not SJW kind) and panthers.
Through this view, we can see how in life, all questions are of quality beyond the initial start point where one comes up with a new idea like mammals or human civilization. The basics become apparent immediately, but then there are details — …an endless sea of details… — which, depending on their degree of coordination, determine the quality of the result.
Some see history as linear, but for those who see it as cyclic, the story of humanity is much like the story of the Garden of Eden: a working way of life is found, then human arrogance abolishes it, kicking off a story as humans attempt to return to the state of mind that enabled the golden age.
The same can be said for The Odyssey: a clever man launches himself on a journey, sabotages himself with arrogance or “hubris” as the Greeks might have said, and then must come to a state of mind where he has reverence for the simple life he once led and the purpose he has there. Then, he can return home, which is not so much a place as a point in his consciousness.
Ironically, what returns Odysseus to a state of mind is recognizing his place both above and below different parts of his world. He retreats from his position of being willing to anger the gods, and escapes the mentality of letting his cleverness take over from his sense of orientation toward wisdom, but also becomes willing to let other foolish people pursue their own doom through arrogance.
This shows us the complete cycle: a balanced and harmonious existence, interrupted first by war and then by human pretense, is beaten out of the protagonist through a series of adventures in which he sees many awe-inspiring lands but realize they make him long for his home more than anything else. The return home is a return to sanity, health, love and family.
He comes to this point in part through a “sodomize the weak” perspective. His fellow sailors are not the men he is, and so they manage to screw up, flake out and otherwise bungle their way through the adventure, which results in all of them being destroyed. In addition, Odysseus spares none who stand in his path, ending the story with a massive bloodbath of ingrates.
Sodomize the weak is alive in The Odyssey and in fact could be said to be one of its central themes. The higher must rise, with gods above men and cannier men above the oblivious stumbling oafs below them. And then, in the service of this order, no amount of bloodshed is seen as a bad thing as Odysseus subjugates the stupid, merely clever and parasitic around him.
We know the basic approach of life that makes a healthy society — leadership, hierarchy, order and purpose — and this has never changed since the dawn of humankind, nor would it change for a new species of intelligent animals or even robots. These are mathematical patterns that will emerge in any group that rises above the mediocre norm.
People are in general delusional and self-destructive because they tend toward personal wants and get tunnel vision regarding those, missing the big picture including the need for order and their place within it. Being thinking creatures makes us tend toward solipsism because our brains perceive themselves more strongly than signals from the world around us, and language and symbol have the same effect.
Throughout history, good times are destroyed by this tendency of humans to want to “make their mark” or seize power, and they offer “alternatives” which are in fact deviations from what produces the good times. For their individualism the rest of society pays, often times with its life as an independent entity.
We can see this same pattern in metal. Fools decide that instead of demanding high quality metal, they will support “innovation” that consists of mixing existing hipster genres into metal, and declaring that this may not be better, but it is “new” and “different” so it is more important. These of course are always lies.
In addition, there are many who will demand the surface traits of what came before with none of the spirit, and in doing so they place method above goal, and miss out on the fact that purpose and content are what make music great, not style. They murder whatever they admire by turning it into low-quality versions of itself.
For years this site and its predecessor warned against the risk that metal would be assimilated, or infiltrated with the technique of and therefore absorbed by, rock and punk music. These more accessible forms are naturally bigger sellers and easier to understand, so making “metal-flavored” versions of them is more popular and profitable than making metal, for labels and artists.
It seems blasphemous to say this, but humans are delusional because of their big brains. Their tendency is to be self-destructive. In groups, they make terrible decisions because they react to problems as social questions, not consequential or results-based choices. Results-based choice requires a purpose and an assessment of what has actually been achieved in physical reality, not just human perceptions.
Elitism addresses this problem by recognizing the low quality of most human decisions. It suggests that instead of accepting low quality, we promote higher quality above the lower and as such, create an economic incentive toward quality. In this way, instead of rewarding people for trivial participation, we only reward high-quality participation, guaranteeing that we get more of it.
Here we encounter another taboo idea: competence by those in power benefits us all, so the solution to power is not to try to abolish it, but to make sure the right people get into power, i.e. the competent and wise, which includes moral and aesthetic wisdom. Even the most incompetent person does better by having someone more competent than him above him.
From this we reach another idea: our problem in life, like all human questions in life, are fundamentally qualitative. We benefit when people take ordinary life and improve it in quality, not change it in form, and only the competent can do that. This is why the competent must be promoted above the rest: they will improve the quality of ordinary life.
This points to the mystical second half of the notion of realism which is understood by few. The first half of realism is that we measure our actions by results in reality, not by human perceptions; the second half is that while we know how to measure, we need to know what to aim for, and so we need some kind of goal so abstract and yet applicable that it fits in every situation.
With that idea, we enter the quasi-mystic side of realism, which is transcendentalism. In this philosophy, we look at nature and the order of the cosmos to discover an underlying logic to life itself. Then we re-apply this to ourselves, bringing our intuition in line with the order of the universe, finding both a superior reasoning and a greater sense of purpose.
In this mindset, we are not just aiming for utilitarian realism, but a sense of “the best” and “the most true and good” that we can find in life itself. This is qualitative thinking taken to its ultimate extreme: if we can measure by quality, we know that “better” is an ongoing goal never achieved, but also the only sensible goal if we always want quality to improve.
This in turn points to something every metalhead will understand. Life should be pleasurable. This does not mean hedonism, but the sense of well-being one achieves when our time on Earth is exchange for things we find meaningful. Sure, there may be some beers and barbecue in there too, but our fundamental goal is a sense of existential pleasure at the process of being alive and our place in it.
Only elitism can achieve this. Only by pushing down the less-good so that the more-good can rise can we achieve a state of existential well-being. We have a binary choice: either we make the best rise, or by default, we allow the less-good to rise, and then they push down the more-good and subjugate them, essentially “sodomizing the strong.”
The world in which the weak rule the strong is one that is ugly, crass, idiotic and pretentious, much like our current time. Those who have less intelligence and wisdom tend to be highly social creatures, always focused on the external self composed of universal things like bodily urges and social impulses.
On the other hand, if you sodomize the weak and promote the strong, the ensuing world is less ugly, more elegant, more intelligent and more realistic; the strong still have a long ways to go, but not as far as the weak must go. The strong are reflective, or focused on unity of self and world.
This is why the fundamental philosophy of nature, metal and any other rare sane person is “sodomize the weak.” We either evolve by pushing down the bad and pushing up the good, or we degenerate by allowing the bad, which is more numerous than the good because it is easier to produce, to rise above the good. There are only two choices.
Tags: darwinism, sodomize the weak, sodomy, transcendentalism
“…riding down the unhorsed Saxons and spearing and clubbing them and leaping from their mounts with knives and running about on the ground with a peculiar bandylegged trot like creatures driven to alien forms of locomotion and stripping the clothes from the dead and seizing them up by the hair and passing their blades about the skulls of the living and the dead alike and snatching aloft the bloody wigs and hacking and chopping at the naked bodies, ripping off limbs, heads, gutting the strange white torsos and holding up great handfuls of viscera, genitals, some of the savages so slathered up with gore they might have rolled in it like dogs and some who fell upon the dying and sodomized them with loud cries to their fellows…”
– McCarthy. Blood Meridian
But are journalists in any position to sodomize other than a pontifical pounding? And if they aren’t, are they calling to have their ANUSes viciously invaded?
The “elite” of prior centuries, they inbred with the others until they all became violent pyschopaths fraught with ailments. They sometimes spread their defective seed to the lesser classes & you end up with idiot rapists like Bill Clinton (mother was a hooker, father was David Rockefeller). Maybe there is a point where humanity wasn’t meant to pass…. Or maybe that’s just man returning to what they are supposed to be, slightly stupid & very horny, throwing pleasantries out the window taking what they want. If this is the case hopefully the resulting offspring doesn’t look like Chelsea Clinton, as it would be a dark day for humanity (and erections).
Thoughts to ponder.
Look within to find what is good, and without to find how to further it
Many people perceive a false dichotomy between utter equality and selfish anarchy in which the strong abuse the weak for sadistic pleasure.
I think that every one should honour those above, and offer a hand to those below.
Offering a hand doesn’t necessarily mean making them comfortable; it means to give them the opportunity to become better.
This way, every one becomes better, which is good for every one.
People need to stop being jealous of the heroes, the champions, and the geniuses. They should instead honour them, and bask in their glorious deeds.
And lastly, we have a responsibility to our descendants to make them as good as possible. There is naught good about weakness or stupidity, so why make our children weak and stupid when we can make them strong and wise?
I support eugenics for humanity. Cultivate the race now.
We don’t have to kill the retards. We can just prevent them from breeding, and encourage the best to breed more.
If I am at the bottom 50%, I will accept not breeding. It’s what’s best for humanity.
Nazis running wild, oooooh (as Rob Halford would put it)
Oh day-dreaming is so cool, forced sterilization programs, now could you please elaborate how the fuck do you plan on actually achieving this –> in the real world <– ?
People should be focusing on efficiently promoting real values and convincing the mob, through propaganda, that they should respect, submit, and contribute (if they can) to such common ideals, for the better of all of us.
That's it – the rest is stupid day-dreaming which ignores real horrors of violent conflict that always arise when bullshit utopias are promoted and never achieved.
All of it has already been done. We just have to change the parameters.
For example: To be allowed to drive, you must acquire a driver’s license by proving that you are capable.
This is because driving doesn’t only affect you, it affects all drivers on the road.
If you are a retard who can never learn to drive, then you will never be allowed to drive. You won’t be killed and fed to the pigs, you won’t be tortured, you’ll even be taken care of. But you won’t be allowed to drive.
We can do the same in other areas.
There are a lot of “retards who can never learn to drive” on the roads. That’s not the same as “dog-and-pony show for the entity handing out licenses”.
Leaving this aside, I’d expect the practical outcome of an attempt like this to end up pretty much like the society Ayn Rand described in Anthem, IOW, a stagnant tyranny driven by the vested interests of mediocrity, or, using yet other words, so-called »socialism« as put into practice in Russia and its satellites in the last century, at least if the attempt was made on a significantly larger scale than “a tribe”, a few dozen related families.
The “need to push down others” is particularly problematic: It will install an ‘officer caste’ of people excelling at exactly that and nothing else.
A society needs its executioners too, especially competent ones. Its a profession like any other.
This is the most sensible approach to improving the world. Reward people for meritorious acts and attitudes. No one is entitled to anything beyond this recognition; eliminate the superstitious myth of “rights”.
This is going to fall down miserably in practice because »meritorious acts« require an individual to be in a position where acts with effects beyond ‘self’ or some relatively clandestine circle are possible. This usually necessitates a priori approval of the indivdual by an already established member of the hierarchy, IOW, requires this person to make a guess on what future acts of the individual will probably look like. Which basically boils down to “do I like this guy”. And then, you just end up with the entirely usual “social skills essential, anything else nice to have”.
Even this already assumes that the person making the assessment at least tries to base it on some idea of ‘objectively sensible’ instead something much more common, say, “Could this become a future rival?”.
There are no good systems. There are only good populations. Every human in any system is like a cell in a body. All of them have to be good, and all of them have to work together.
Some would say that a good ruler imposing his will is a good system, but that still requires a good population, even if it’s a smaller one ruling a greater one, because the ruler(s) must still be good.
If you give democracy to Somalia, they will still rape children, eat albinos, and rob each other.
But if every one in a society wants the same things, they can co-operate toward achieving them.
“It’s not realistic because the mob won’t accept it” is bad reasoning. Find others who want what you want, and make your own mob. Start your own culture and society with them.
This is something that leftists can`t grasp. It doesn`t matter where you migrate some population, or what draconian systems you concoct, or how much handouts you give, the end result will always be the same. Hands-off policy is the best solution to most of these man-made problems.
This hints at another problem with the text: The idea that people can be linearly sorted based on some criterion is way too simplistic (one could call it “in a very American way too simplistic”). A good general isn’t necessarily a good fighter pilot and there’s no reason why he’d need to be one (or vice versa).
What I was really trying to get at, though, is that there is no such thing as »a good population«. Even when assuming the best case, that is, people who are actually trying to fullfill a role honestly and seriously instead of just chasing their own advantage in whatever way seems suitable, they’re still only people. They will make wrong descisions, possibly catastrophically wrong descisions (the peloponnesian war is a classic example of that) and even despite they “honestly and serious …”, they won’t be able to achieve that. They will find perfectly valid looking (to them, at least) reasons to treat their buddies, spouses, familiar members etc preferably even if they really shouldn’t.
And this “best case assumption” is by no means realistic: People are bad. Groups of people are worse.
“They will find perfectly valid looking (to them, at least) reasons to treat their buddies, spouses, familiar members etc preferably…”
Nepotism could be viewed as nationalism, only on a smaller scale. Obviously putting someone incompetent in a high position is not such a great idea. Unfortunately today we have too many useless positions for such people. A sort of qualitative filtering mechanism is required.
Funfact: Jews are known for their nepotism to the detriment of their host.
Some individuals are worse than others.
Some groups are worse than others.
I obviously don’t know everyone. However, after three decades of almost uniformly bad experiences, I don’t socialize with people anymore except in very controlled circumstances or very casually and I stay away from all organized social groups as I’ve found them to be all the same (in certain negative respects) so far.
Yes, but dear Rainer:
YOU’RE A FUCKING ROBOT
No, you are. That’s why you find others everywhere.
you’ve got to be kidding me, so you’ll hand out a ‘licence to reproduce’ to people and you actually expect people are going to readily accept this – in a democracy, where the majority rules ? this might work if you tie it up to environmental issues (overpopulation), but when will that ever be a thing.
but by all means, go ahead and do it and promote it and please let us know the results, if you survive and all.
I think the focus should be on educating the young class, making traditional values ‘cool’ again (if possible) and subverting the dominant narrative, as has been successfully done through trolling by the alt-right. at this point the propaganda war is more important than outlandish solutions that have precisely 0 chances of real implementation before 2030 or the next great war.
Hol´ up there lil` nig.
Who said it has to be democracy?
Tell us ’bout uour plans to get rid of democracy…
Excellence is highly desirable, but it scares most. You are right, the boogeymen need to get busy.
Lots of talk about how people suck and nothing about compassion for your fellow man.
Every significant spiritual teacher throughout history has espoused compassion as a core tenet of their teachings. Did they all have it wrong?
Your writings are obsessed with Darwinism and the inferiority of others, and rarely touch upon any other facet of the human condition. It makes me suspect your heart has been through terrible distress and has yet heal.
And no, I don’t mean the blood pumping kind of heart, silly! I’m talking about your emotional center!
Just know that if you ever need an ear to listen, a shoulder to cry on, or a pair of arms to wrap you up and hold you tight, I’ll be there for you! <3
Lube up, Gandhi.
It takes more inner strength to be truly compassionate (not the crocodile tears pretensive liberal variety) than it does to simply give up on humanity and declare everyone useless from the safety of your isolative existence.
Living inside my own anus is a nice proposition…
Speaking of which, genocide is a time proven practice, the only problem is that there hasn’t been enough of it.
C’mon SYAaWS, I know this isn’t the real you. You’re putting up a wall of trollish edginess to seal yourself off from the truth. What truth, you ask? I think it goes without saying.
You can open up, it’s OK! I don’t bite!
Then what am I!?
Who the fuck are you!?
Well, I don’t know this for sure, but I’d say you’re an only child and/or have divorced parents and/or have an otherwise less-than-ideal family unit. There must have been something anomalous during your formative years for you to think of genocide as a good thing.
As for me, I was raised by a great family and I journey across the internet spreading love and peace.
You have shown me true light, I must repent from my genocidal ways now!
Genocide is a bad thing and must be stopped, I know now what I must do. I must genocide all those that do wrong to other… yes that`s what I MUST DO!
Every significant spiritual teacher throughout history has espoused compassion as a core tenet of their teachings. Did they all have it wrong?
Yes. If you’re compassionate, worthless people will first take advantage of you and then kick you in the face as a thank you because they’re certainly not.
You have mentioned in multiple posts that you get bullied a lot. I think this may be clouding your judgement. And I never said you shouldn’t be judicious about what kind of acts might flow from your compassion.
You have mentioned in multiple posts that you get bullied a lot.
I certainly didn’t.
To be fair, their understanding of Darwin is poor.
All popular understandings and opinions are wrong.
I love articles like this one. Thanks Brett!
“Der Mensch ist ein Seil gespannt zwischen dem Tier und dem Uebermenschen”.
All his grand designs are terminally flawed.
If they weren’t he couldn’t execute them.
If he could, he’d sooner or later succumb to the urge to add a blinking light.
I believe Iron Mike summed it up best: “I’ll fuck you till you love me, faggot!”
Faggot.
Lobotomise the weak
Euthanize the freaks
.blink { animation-duration: 1s; animation-name: blink; animation-iteration-count: infinite; animation-timing-function: steps(2, start); } @keyframes blink { 80% { visibility: hidden; } } .huge { font-size:88pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; font-family:arial, helvetica, verdana, calibri, sans-serif; line-height:1; margin:0px !important; padding:0px; display:inline-block;}
Hug
Your Mom
Just introduce a government program to pay people $500 if they get sterilized. The need for population control is widely recognized as a problem by intelligent people of every political stripe.
Actually, many European countries have a slightly declining. 1.8 children per woman in Sweden, for example.
It’s only certain countries who are breeding at unsustainable rates.
But I agree, we don’t need more people, and we should stop raping the land to make room for a perpetually growing population.
have a slightly declining birthrate*
We also might want an economy that is not dependent on growth…
Does this only account for native Swedes, or…
Yes, only native Swedes.
Should also be said: Interesting read, though.
Sterilize the slaves so they can live without consequence to their actions! They fear death and bemoan punishment for their shitty service. All men were once sons, not many become fathers.