...
I was waiting for some real substance, some real refutation, something profound to come out of Apollo's mouth...but his good-natured post ended without saying much. Allow me to explain. For those who can't handle it, this is a huge post...
Where have I attacked someone, for example, for mistyping words, or for their grammar? Have I been such a
bad person so as to dismiss someone's intelligence merely based on their word-count, word usage, vocabulary, and the like? Have I made a case, or even mentioned such little things as "hey, you typed this, it should be that..."? Please show me if I did!
When you look at my posts, indeed, when
I look at my posts, I see arrogance, extremity, dislike to the point of hatred you can call it; I see an enraged human being; I see gloom; and I will be the first to admit: I see simply
too much of a good or a bad thing being wasted. After all, is it not a waste? Even if it is good, it is clearly a waste! And if it is bad, well, it is an "innate" type of waste, a "natural" sewage...
But we shouldn't consider whether it is good or bad, should we? We should not judge the few insights I managed to pull, no matter how little...no, all that does not belong to us, does it? What belongs to us is this: good spelling, good grammar, no personality, staying within the bound of language rules (as in, quote only when you are quoting, and not when you are, say, being sarcastic or making fun of an idiom, like "down to earth.") - to put it in a way Apollo can understand it: we ought to judge a post not from its content, but from its appearance. Does it look good? Exactly how many errors does it have? 2? Maybe 3 or 4? Well, 5 is our limit. We object to anything else! Furthermore, does it use language in a different manner? Or does it keep up with what have been decided...because you know, there is nothing uglier than a man who breaks the rules of language - see poets, see Nietzsche, see Goethe, see Schiller. We don't accept such criminals here.
What's that you say? You want to speak about
the content within the post? Hell with that my friend! Hell with all of that. Again, our virtues and our ideal is the appearance: does it look good, or does it have that offensive quality about it? Does it offer happiness to our immediate needs, does it
please us? Does it affirm
us, for example, or does it affirm something else? Does it love us, does it "tolerate" us, or does it engage in our affairs? Because you know, a good post is always judged by how much it
affirms and says a good old
Yes to us and a big fat
No to anything beside us. Let us steer clear from any No-saying brats!
Apollo, you are inferior to me because of the way you attempt at refuting me. Gizmo's blatancy, direct hatred, at least, had some insights in them to
who I am. For example: he called me a "reject of society." Very true, by the way. He also called me "lonely," and that too could not have been any truer, and only coming from an insightful man. He said, for another example, that I will be the man who sits out in the cold watching others enjoy themselves in a warm, comfortable restruant, smiling and laughing with their families and friends - and in that, too, as hard it is for me to consume, as much of an outcast and a poor figure it makes out of me...indeed, as much as hurtful it is, I will still say "Yes" and that he could not have described my future any better. I can dig up the thread for you if you want, to show you what type of human I condone, even if that human hates me to no ends, as Gizmo. That he posses the ability to see into me, that is only rare. And it is a difficult task being seen-through - it is very difficult, very shameful too...it sends a message to one's self: "you are too shallow." And that is the message I received from Gizmo's conclusion of me.
Really! I shouldn't call Gizmo's distaste towards me "hate." Hate is blind - it hates simply because its instincts tells it to hate. And when you ask: why hate? It says: "I don't know, I just do." And it attempts to justify this by recalling how "Nature" implanted this hate in it, and how instincts are the only sure things we posses, and that, since they tell it to "hate," it will hate.
I have come across such
subhumans before. They are very common.
One of their qualities is that, once they attempt to show "why" they are hateful or in a state of dislike, they
only reveal that they are subhumans. For example: they will post what appears as a good post, even include some 15 quotes to "prove" their points...but, since they have no awareness whatsoever as to why they feel the way they do, the simply end up unmasking their nothingness, their valuelessness, shining with pride their subhumanity - they will say no much. Their reason lacks an insight, lacks a personality. You will see them look at the smallest things, sniffing for
anything in order to give a good personality to what is, from the beginning, only a child obeying his basest feelings. They will not be dissatisfied with the
ideas a person had presented, but they will be dissatisfied because of many things. Out of anger and past mishaps, for example. Out of envy, maybe. Out of a popular opinion, out of conformity, out of being contaminated by such opinions. All in all, they will never, or only very vaguely, bring to light how the ideas themselves are unsatisfactory - they will only lash out with blind rage without giving the slightest instruction. And with that, they will fail to see a single good in that which they attack, hence they are blind - they see only what is bad, what is inadequate...and if it does not exist, they will look for
anything, no matter how microscopic or irrelevant to the conversation or the growth of the argument...indeed, if not finding anything, they will even put their petty brains into awesome work, and using all their talents to
invent anything so as ot present it as: "Hello! And
this would be my reason for bluh bluh bluh..." And even those reasons, as aforsuggested, are laughable - they are like child's scribbling which you can only nod to and say "Oh! Wow! How great! How wonderful!," not out of the beauty of the scribbling, but out of generous-feelings, out of "encouragement," but never out of sincerity...
Apollo, in the end, I tell you this: I respect those whom I see worthy of any respect at all. Just before my "coming back" here I PMed Sageridder to make sure that he is not in any way disappointed in me, or my views - to make sure that what I say does not become a reason to break a friendship. If it does, you can count on it: I would stop. Sageridder may only PM me and suggest to me that he would like me to cool off for a while, and I will
bow, Nod, and without questioning remove myself from this. And let me add how Sageridder is a one who will readily disapprove of all that I am saying in my recent posts! That must come as a shock to you.
Another member who I have only become only so fond of recently is Dune Echo. The man disagrees with me like any of you, but he disagrees with a good reason, to the effect that he, in return, gives me insight to myself, to the extent that he
teaches me of how I am flawed, and not without a good taste either! I remember what I said one time: “Now that’s a moderator I’m willing to respect.” And I will say it again, but slightly different: now that’s a
human being I’m willing to respect. Now that’s a man-animal as a man-animal, in the very least, should
be.
I could speak of Gizmo once again, and his outrage against me. But I respect him.
Should I even bring
train to this little list of people? I don’t hold train as highly as the others, but at least he's a man with a slight sense of decency, who admits to me what he feels: that man will always be man, that is, will always be base and low, that our basest feelings are our instincts. It is a confession only a honest man can say, for, indeed, to many, baseness is almost a Nature of its own; an unsurpassable, indestructible and whole Nature as Nature is. Even other members, like Multani, have shown respect to train simply because of his honesty, because of his arrogant but right on the mark honesty.
Why do I respect these men unconditionally, even when one as Gizmo clearly states that he hates me and that he wishes me dead? Maybe that should be your question. Maybe. But it seizes to be a question, however, for I have already answered it through and through: that they offer a little reason, which you lack, through and through and through. Here I am looking at your vulgar (and by vulgar, here, I mean very average, very subhuman) post once again, and fail to see the slightest remark that is both constructive and rude; all I see is revenge, revenge, revenge; hate, hate, hate; attack, attack, attack…but only
one good reason I don’t see, only one attack on my ideas I don’t see. I see an attack on me as a person, and only as a person. Show me a little respect by, at least, admitting that I have stated few reasons towards my attack on America and Americans; I can point out to my examination of Nature, my examination of tolerance, for example…and those are only in this thread. There are more in older threads. But your attack, indeed, from its beginning towards its end, only attacks me as a person, and does not touch on the heart of my ideas, not even on the surface of my ideas and reasons...
Arrogant: therefore irrelevant.
Awkward with grammar, in fact, sloppy and childish, and ooo…he misspells!: therefore irrelevant.
“They don’t know much about you!” They only need to know
you and your past!: therefore irrelevant.
Italicize many words: it attributes a sense of irrelevancy!
But what about the
content, what about my few insights, my few suggestions? No, those are irrelevant to our judgment.
Content, after all, are not something Americans and subhumans strive for…
A final note to our dear Ferret here: please stop comparing yourself to me. We aren’t exactly alike. I am not an inborn American. I have a different type of pride and hotter blood – I come from a background of Muslims and hot-tempered fellows. My own relatives, related to me genetically, have not yet “grew out” of this phase – they, too, have this pride about them, this endless sense of superiority, higher taste, and all with good reason too. They didn’t
fall down like you have, supposing that what you say is in fact truthful, that you were anything like me at this age. We have our different goals in life, our different destinies…some of us fade, no matter how bright our destinies are, just like the stars – they burn away their miles all too quickly. Some of us take time to burn away themselves, to
collapse as you have. Others, and I have seen such people in history,
never burn away. They are the eternal stars in our skies. There are still other types of people…like: some never burn, they simply
decay – subhumans. Some are contaminated by subhumanity, and thus belong to subhumanity. The wheel of our destinies is as bright and as vast as the universe: we, as stars, burn differently – and thus we have our ranks: higher men, better men, good men, mere men, animals, subanimals, subhumans, Americans…etc…
