Shame vs guilt isn't a west vs East thing (and the East is much healthier provided they did not emulate the west).
It's a female vs man thing. After all, a man fundamentally responds to a problem by solving it, and a female by seething about it. They might or might not succeed in either case, but that's what they're trying. And so the problem can be simplified further - men solve problems and females seek them.
Shame, like any other form of manipulation requires both sides have something the other wants. As females no longer even pretend they have value, this is not the case, so you can completely ignore their yapping and do what you want.
If you foolishly engage with them and then get falsely accused of wrongdoing, the real and tangible consequences of that, aka simpanzees swarming you matter, but the shame doesn't. In other words, they need leverage, so the real attack is do what I want or I'll harm you and the details are less important, especially since they are using words as magic spells.
The only objective "problem" as it were is that if you obviate shame long enough, you also obviate guilt. But given the specific manners this manifests, I don't see it as a real problem. Oh, some corporation is anti White, so you steal from it? Stealing from your enemies is based and there is neither guilt nor shame in doing so.
The feminine is weakest against itself so you throw the shaming right back at them? No problem here.
Yes, it results in plenty of emasculated soycattle, but it also results in a much smaller number of based men who are fully immunized against their subversion.
Yes, fair points there. I make a loose parallel of shaming and the East because Easter cultures are intensely matriarchal and hyper-feminized; yes, even Islamic ones. More so Islamic ones. Will publish a piece on that soon. Shame is caring what others think of you, which is a female complex. The West, at least when it achieved things, was more principle-based. Guilt is caring what your inner voice tells you, which is a more noble than shame. I can't wait to receive your comments and criticism on the next few pieces I'll be publishing. They are all on this subject. I anticipate you'll add valuable insight.
All caricatures of cultures are matriarchies. Usually they're honest, occasionally they're shadow. That said, it's clearly not that effective, as men started checking out of soyciety in the East first, because they face more pressure there. In the west, as long as you avoid the marriage meme you can take it easy. In the East, you are still burdened by existing family.
Most don't get that the Middle East is a matriarchy, glad you do.
But anything that is essentially appearances vs substance is females vs men, and this is no exception.
Let me respond to your first point: yes, if provocative displays of degeneracy are initiated against you, then yes, shame can be a valid morally justifiable response. Apparently I didn't communicate it well in my initial post.
Thank you for your comprehensive comment. Let me try to address your points:
1. You claim that a book promoting degenerate behaviour is "aggression against society." Is it? Isn't that the price we need to pay if we want free speech? By all means show disapproval and leave a negative review, but singling out the readers/writers of said books and publicly humiliating them shows a lack of conviction. Again, I make this point abundantly clear: if your ideals are so fragile as to be threatened by books, then they don't deserve to survive.
2. "Shunning people is only effective as far as communities go." I don't agree. Again, the problem with prevailing degeneracy is not the internet but the "elite" class hijacking state powers and using their massive resources to push all this. You not shaming is not the problem. You tolerating government is.
3. You point out that I engage in shaming too. Yes, ONLY as self-defense. Shaming is emotional violence. If you initiate it then you violate the non-aggression principle. Therefore, I can respond in kind (reciprocal violence) without violating the NAP. I make this clear numerous times.
4. Again you make a point about force. I have to keep repeating myself because people have a hard time understanding that NOT INITIATING force is not the same as NEVER USING force. In self-defense, I can use any level of violence necessary to defend myself. But the aggression or threat needs to be real and objective. You characterise me as subjectivist but your interpretations of what constitute aggression are subject to interpretation. In a stateless society, peaceful incentive-driven decentralised initiatives can form regulatory frameworks (much like how insurances were formed). No one ever claimed that free societies would not maintain their right for EXTREME defensive violence against anyone initiating aggression. But this is beyond what the human species is capable in its current evolutionary stage. I have such a hard time explaining these simple principles to people and they still choose not to understand them. Humans are more like bees than tigers, socialists to the core. And I think it's improbable for it to survive the next 2 centuries.
To recap: I am objective about what constitutes aggression. It is the other camp that subjectively defines what may or may not constitute aggression so as to dub their aggression as preemptive/defensive aggression. We all know how this plays out. I'll say it again: there is nothing more degenerate than initiating aggression. If your ideals are based on that then they aren't worth having, even if they are good.
Shame vs guilt isn't a west vs East thing (and the East is much healthier provided they did not emulate the west).
It's a female vs man thing. After all, a man fundamentally responds to a problem by solving it, and a female by seething about it. They might or might not succeed in either case, but that's what they're trying. And so the problem can be simplified further - men solve problems and females seek them.
Shame, like any other form of manipulation requires both sides have something the other wants. As females no longer even pretend they have value, this is not the case, so you can completely ignore their yapping and do what you want.
If you foolishly engage with them and then get falsely accused of wrongdoing, the real and tangible consequences of that, aka simpanzees swarming you matter, but the shame doesn't. In other words, they need leverage, so the real attack is do what I want or I'll harm you and the details are less important, especially since they are using words as magic spells.
The only objective "problem" as it were is that if you obviate shame long enough, you also obviate guilt. But given the specific manners this manifests, I don't see it as a real problem. Oh, some corporation is anti White, so you steal from it? Stealing from your enemies is based and there is neither guilt nor shame in doing so.
The feminine is weakest against itself so you throw the shaming right back at them? No problem here.
Yes, it results in plenty of emasculated soycattle, but it also results in a much smaller number of based men who are fully immunized against their subversion.
Yes, fair points there. I make a loose parallel of shaming and the East because Easter cultures are intensely matriarchal and hyper-feminized; yes, even Islamic ones. More so Islamic ones. Will publish a piece on that soon. Shame is caring what others think of you, which is a female complex. The West, at least when it achieved things, was more principle-based. Guilt is caring what your inner voice tells you, which is a more noble than shame. I can't wait to receive your comments and criticism on the next few pieces I'll be publishing. They are all on this subject. I anticipate you'll add valuable insight.
All caricatures of cultures are matriarchies. Usually they're honest, occasionally they're shadow. That said, it's clearly not that effective, as men started checking out of soyciety in the East first, because they face more pressure there. In the west, as long as you avoid the marriage meme you can take it easy. In the East, you are still burdened by existing family.
Most don't get that the Middle East is a matriarchy, glad you do.
But anything that is essentially appearances vs substance is females vs men, and this is no exception.
"appearances vs substance is females vs men". Agreed
Maybe the best essay I've read, on here. Really good stuff.
Truly, thank you. If you know anyone who is shame-based and suffering because of internalised shame, please share.
Yes. Plus, shaming is a way for those with internalised shame to vent their shame onto others.
Thank you again for your comment.
Let me respond to your first point: yes, if provocative displays of degeneracy are initiated against you, then yes, shame can be a valid morally justifiable response. Apparently I didn't communicate it well in my initial post.
Thank you for your comprehensive comment. Let me try to address your points:
1. You claim that a book promoting degenerate behaviour is "aggression against society." Is it? Isn't that the price we need to pay if we want free speech? By all means show disapproval and leave a negative review, but singling out the readers/writers of said books and publicly humiliating them shows a lack of conviction. Again, I make this point abundantly clear: if your ideals are so fragile as to be threatened by books, then they don't deserve to survive.
2. "Shunning people is only effective as far as communities go." I don't agree. Again, the problem with prevailing degeneracy is not the internet but the "elite" class hijacking state powers and using their massive resources to push all this. You not shaming is not the problem. You tolerating government is.
3. You point out that I engage in shaming too. Yes, ONLY as self-defense. Shaming is emotional violence. If you initiate it then you violate the non-aggression principle. Therefore, I can respond in kind (reciprocal violence) without violating the NAP. I make this clear numerous times.
4. Again you make a point about force. I have to keep repeating myself because people have a hard time understanding that NOT INITIATING force is not the same as NEVER USING force. In self-defense, I can use any level of violence necessary to defend myself. But the aggression or threat needs to be real and objective. You characterise me as subjectivist but your interpretations of what constitute aggression are subject to interpretation. In a stateless society, peaceful incentive-driven decentralised initiatives can form regulatory frameworks (much like how insurances were formed). No one ever claimed that free societies would not maintain their right for EXTREME defensive violence against anyone initiating aggression. But this is beyond what the human species is capable in its current evolutionary stage. I have such a hard time explaining these simple principles to people and they still choose not to understand them. Humans are more like bees than tigers, socialists to the core. And I think it's improbable for it to survive the next 2 centuries.
To recap: I am objective about what constitutes aggression. It is the other camp that subjectively defines what may or may not constitute aggression so as to dub their aggression as preemptive/defensive aggression. We all know how this plays out. I'll say it again: there is nothing more degenerate than initiating aggression. If your ideals are based on that then they aren't worth having, even if they are good.
Thank you. If anything, I aim to provoke ;)