The brave man is ever generous. frank, outspoken, dauntless. His brow is open-his step fearless and firm-his bearing self-poised, leonine. He looks at you without a tremor-sums you up at a glance, and in business affairs, his "word of honor" is more binding than Shylock's sealed bond.
-Ragnar Redbeard, "Love and Women and War"

The idea that modern society lives contrary to nature has held a place in western thought since Rousseau advocated his theory of the "noble savage", holding that man as he is in nature is instinctively good. Living in a primitive state, with few wants but food and shelter, men are naturally equal. Inequality was borne when man's natural tendancy to better his condition led to the formation of civil society, and human interdependance was formed.

Rousseau sees the formation of civil society as, on the whole, a good thing. Later thinkers - in particular the Romantics - were not to take such a pleasant view of "progress". The trend of society, especially towards industrialization, was seen as a degeneration, leading to the atrophy of man's spiritual sense and the dominence of sickly humans unable to exist outside the confines of industrial society. Rather than look forward to the rosy future predicted by the technocrats, the Romantics idealized past societys, especially the middle ages and the folk cultures native to their countries. The trend culminates in the thought of Nietzsche, whose philosophy ends with the ultimate "overman" - a transcendant hero who lives as the barbarians did, "beyond good and evil".

Later thinkers indebted to the Romantic tradition stressed transcendance less and nihilism and domination more. The hero becomes the warrior, whose nihilism is not so much a rejection of current values as a reversion to the coda of "might makes right". Ragnar Redbeard is among these thinkers, who have gained predominance as the main counter-current to technocratic and humanistic thinking.

Yet their nihilism - attractive as it may be to a certain type of person - cannot be appropriately labelled as such. Ultimately, arguments of right fail when confronted by force. Redbeard applauds this as being part of the natural order, but fails to see the implications for his own thought.

In our world, constructed as it is, the businessman dominates. Men attempting to live "in submission to none" and in accordence with Pagan ideals are jailed in one way or another, women attempting to live in suchwise are simply ostracised. In either case, the power of the herd is secure.

The glorification of superiour force leads to pale ideology. Redbeard engages in a good amount of chest pounding, but one can be damned sure he lived in a way that would be looked upon with utter disdain "brave fighter" he applauds. Rebellion leads to impotence or martyrdom, which is another way of saying masochism.

Thus we are left with the amusing paradox of having to rebel against rebellion. The truely noble face the third path of nihilism, not simply the acceptance or reversion of values but the negation of ideology itself.

True freedom resides in the mind.

Very good thread Xev!
Now I know why many men-children, on this Forum, are taken by you, either hating or loving you, as an expression of their reaction to your magnetism of inner power.

In our world, constructed as it is, the businessman dominates. Men attempting to live "in submission to none" and in accordence with Pagan ideals are jailed in one way or another, women attempting to live in suchwise are simply ostracised. In either case, the power of the herd is secure.
Many take their consumer choice as a sign of liberty and cannot see that their liberty is confined within a framework of moral and judicial rules that impose a code of thought and behavior.
They take their ability to stroll across their jail-cell as proof of freedom and they can’t even perceive that their needs and desires are manipulated and guided by social forces and institutional powers.
This is more evident in how the word ‘ambition’ has come to bear the restricted definition of economic ambition whereas other forms of ambition-physical, spiritual, intellectual, experiential- have been minimized or discredited as second-rate ones.
The system needs disciplined, well-behaved, upwardly mobile automatons to grease its wheels and the fact that this leads to lard-assed, beer-bellied, imbeciles who can understand economics and status but nothing else besides is of no concern.
Capitalism remains healthy when there is a constant flow of money and what better way to ensure this than by creating superficial, unthinking, morons who associate happiness with materialism and contentment with wealth?

It appears that the independent mind, the powerful and noble mind is forced into one of three choices:
1- Use his mind to play the game and to submit to the prevailing rules.
But this can lead to feelings of shame at having given in or emptiness at having spent ones time and energies pursuing social goals that cannot satisfy his/her higher needs and goals. It forces a loss of dignity that can be unbearable.
Plato warned that most worthy of being ‘philosopher kings’ in his ideal city state would be corrupted and sidetracked by practical issues and would use their intellectual powers towards superficial social goals in search for the hedonistic ideal.
2- Discredit life and the living altogether and attempt to rise above the throng and the rat-race by denying, through asceticism and self-sacrifice, inner instincts and desires.
Here the noble mind finds gratification only in attaining power of ones self and in acquiring a position of supremacy over those that are victims to their mown needs.
This second choice has been the most popular amongst the noble and has sparked the creation of religions throughout the world. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and so on are all nihilistic expressions of dissatisfaction with the world and with life.
3-Fight back and stand up against the forces that attempt to subjugate it.
This more aggressive and non-compromising choice can lead to a life of criminality and/or solitude, referred to by the conforming masses as eccentricity and weirdness.
This warrior stance is by far the most courageous and noble choice but inevitably concludes in self-destruction or isolation.
A less extreme form of this choice can be self imposed solitude and anti-social behavior.

This is cute, "Ragnar and the Businessman" got 15 views and no replies, "Ragnar and the lesbian co-eds" has 54 views and 2 replies.
Then again, even I prefer lesbian co-eds to businessmen.
Moving on....

David Mayes:
This is true to an extent.
"The mind is its own place, and can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" exclaims the rueful Lucifer.
Other hand, controlling the body does lead to controlling the mind. It is over-romantic to think that a free mind in an enslaved body is truely possible.

Wanderer:
They take their ability to stroll across their jail-cell as proof of freedom and they can’t even perceive that their needs and desires are manipulated and guided by social forces and institutional powers.

I think you call it - taking the blue pill.

Capitalism remains healthy when there is a constant flow of money and what better way to ensure this than by creating superficial, unthinking, morons who associate happiness with materialism and contentment with wealth?

Associating contentment with wealth and material possessions is natural for any organism, I think. I used to make the error of thinking of society as something alien, and current values as something imposed. I agreed with Rousseu, that man was naturally spiritual and noble in a state of nature.
Lots of books about chimpanzees and human history changed that.
Current society must be understood as a natural phenomena. I cannot stress this enough.

It appears that the independent mind, the powerful and noble mind is forced into one of three choices:
1- Use his mind to play the game and to submit to the prevailing rules.
But this can lead to feelings of shame at having given in or emptiness at having spent ones time and energies pursuing social goals that cannot satisfy his/her higher needs and goals. It forces a loss of dignity that can be unbearable.

Precisely. The benefits - wealth, social power, the ability to fuck with people - are outweighed by the loss of dignity and the sheer tedium required to gain wealth and status.
The degree and kind of power we reach for indicates the degree and kind of our soul.

2- Discredit life and the living altogether and attempt to rise above the throng and the rat- race by denying, through asceticism and self-sacrifice, inner instincts and desires.

This is where I disagree with you and Schopenhaur. Instinct is good, and self-denial can lead to hypocrisy just as well as to transcendence.
Look what happens when the sexual urge is sublimated. A very few are able to more completely comprehend the beautiful, but the history of Christianity shows that it generally leads to sadism.

What I object to is not the natural desires of man - granted, some ought not be indulged in - but the way they are channeled by society. Self-denial should only be a path to self-artistry.

Here the noble mind finds gratification only in attaining power of ones self and in acquiring a position of supremacy over those that are victims to their mown needs.

A noble solution.

3-Fight back and stand up against the forces that attempt to subjugate it.
This more aggressive and non-compromising choice can lead to a life of criminality and/or solitude, referred to by the conforming masses as eccentricity and weirdness.

Which was my comment about men being jailed, women ostracised.
One becomes a mead-hall hero, who speaks quite eloquently of his courage and fighting while he is safe, but does not actually battle.
The problem is that it's not even a lack of courage, simply a lack of worthy battle.
One would simply become a martyr.
As I've said before, a rebel attacks the values and institutions of her society. In doing so, she is branded a lawbreaker, an outsider, and accordingly punished and excommunicated.
Society thus displays its control in the punishment of the rebel, and its values by excommunicating one who violates them. By punishing the rebel, the values and penalties for violating them are reified for the benefit of the sheeple.
Even by defying society, the rebel implicitly confims its foundations – and when punished, becomes a canvas upon which it manifests.

They have everything down so insidiously.
I myself often resort to fantasies of the destruction of society, where I might die well and earn a place in Valhalla rather than simply survive. This will not happen - it is all too well entrenched. Warlike virtues degenerate into idle fantasy.

It is this passivity that I object to in Redbeard, although I share it. Survival ultimately demands a third way, in which compromise is understood to be a normal and healthy property of every successful organism, yet despite compromise the soul remains noble.

Associating contentment with wealth and material possessions is natural for any organism, I think. I used to make the error of thinking of society as something alien, and current values as something imposed. I agreed with Rousseu, that man was naturally spiritual and noble in a state of nature.
Lots of books about chimpanzees and human history changed that.
Current society must be understood as a natural phenomena. I cannot stress this enough.

It is perhaps natural but foolish to stop there.
Man is by his/her nature materialistic because his sensual perceptions dictate it but a ‘higher man’ should strive to go beyond this level of lucidity and see what lies behind the sensual perception.

This is where I disagree with you and Schopenhaur. Instinct is good, and self-denial can lead to hypocrisy just as well as to transcendence.
Look what happens when the sexual urge is sublimated. A very few are able to more completely comprehend the beautiful, but the history of Christianity shows that it generally leads to sadism.
I am not promoting or recommending this second option of denial, I am only stating it as another choice.
It is that most intellectuals have chosen this option that is at the root of all that is wrong with the world today and why intellectualism is in decline.

It is this passivity that I object to in Redbeard, although I share it. Survival ultimately demands a third way, in which compromise is understood to be a normal and healthy property of every successful organism, yet despite compromise the soul remains noble.
A noble soul only subjugates itself to that which will raise it to new heights and is selective in its desire to participate and belong.
Discrimination is a sign of nobility.
Whores and sluts dominate in all spheres of modern life.
People that will give themselves to all and everything just to feel wanted or safe because they lack the inner strength to deal with the possibility of solitude or to fight alone.

David Mayes:
This is true to an extent.
"The mind is its own place, and can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" exclaims the rueful Lucifer.
Other hand, controlling the body does lead to controlling the mind. It is over-romantic to think that a free mind in an enslaved body is truely possible.

Xev you're talking to a genuine philosopher, not one of the usual suspects from this playground.
Now please explain the freedom you have in your life?...LOL, you're a puppet like most others, a puppet to the imbeciles who control society according to their opportunistic agenda and the insanity of modern industrial society.

The idea that modern society lives contrary to nature has held a place in western thought since Rousseau advocated his theory of the "noble savage", holding that man as he is in nature is instinctively good. Living in a primitive state, with few wants but food and shelter, men are naturally equal. Inequality was borne when man's natural tendancy to better his condition led to the formation of civil society, and human interdependance was formed.

While I certainly have an attraction to 'barbarism', you have to keep in mind that the barbarians didn't necessarily 'enjoy' the harsh world they lived in. Rousseau is romanticizing, what he speaks of is not reality. What is the life of the 'noble savage'? It is a life where infant mortality is 80%, where people live in constant fear of changing weather, where men must eat their own family when food is low. I don't necessarily disagree with your idea of naturalism, I just find the idea of the 'noble savage' a bit unwise.

You don't know what you have untill you've lost it.

Hastein:
Oh, I don't either. Of course whether the savage was noble (I actually don't give much respect to Rousseau) would depend on his culture and level of development.
But note - my standard of living is high above, say, Sigrid Storrada's or Leif Ericsson's. But is my mental (spiritual) standard high above theirs? Sigrid fought the Christian missionaries, Leif explored new and unknown places. What's left for me, video games and movies of exploration and conquest?
Perhaps I'm talking shit, I just woke up.

And now I'm awake:

My point is that I'm paying for my higher standard of living with a decreased sense of living. I don't say, we should go completely back to the wild - technology is innate to man. But valuing human life and comfort above all else leads to the sort of world we are living in now.

Wanderer:
It is perhaps natural but foolish to stop there.
Man is by his/her nature materialistic because his sensual perceptions dictate it but a ‘higher man’ should strive to go beyond this level of lucidity and see what lies behind the sensual perception.

I doubt anything "lies behind". It's more a matter of how one percieves and analyzes sensual perceptions.

It is that most intellectuals have chosen this option that is at the root of all that is wrong with the world today and why intellectualism is in decline.

The questing instinct is being rooted out of acadaemia.
No more do we have the renaissance ideal of a master of humanities, who could range the cosmos with their mind, but instead a pallid scholar who can say more and more about less and less.

But note - my standard of living is high above, say, Sigrid Storrada's or Leif Ericsson's. But is my mental (spiritual) standard high above theirs? Sigrid fought the Christian missionaries, Leif explored new and unknown places. What's left for me, video games and movies of exploration and conquest?
Perhaps I'm talking shit, I just woke up.



Oh no, I agree. Comfort dumbs people down to an extent and people often don't appreciate the mind blowing innovations and luxuries that they have. Even a walk in the park can tell you that much. Are you a big fan of Hastein the viking as well?

And they become weaker - why put on a sweater or just handle the cold when you can turn the heat up? Comfort is taken for granted, something I try to wean myself of.

Hastein who sacked Rome, only to find that he'd sacked a small and relatively prosperous city? That's symbolic of a lot of things.
Although as a woman and something of an Odinist Sigrid appeals to me most.

And they become weaker - why put on a sweater or just handle the cold when you can turn the heat up? Comfort is taken for granted, something I try to wean myself of.

I take long walks in the woods at night during winter. Trying to stay warm makes me feel aware of my mortality and the cruelty of the world beyond the walls.

Hastein who sacked Rome, only to find that he'd sacked a small and relatively prosperous city? That's symbolic of a lot of things.

Yes, it was the city of Luna. He pretended to convert to Xstianity and die, then hopped out of the casket and killed everyone. I enjoy the story because it amazes me how many places he managed to sack without being killed.

Although as a woman and something of an Odinist Sigrid appeals to me most.

She was the queen of poland for a while, correct?

Did you hear about that Barbarian show on History Channel? It comes on tonight, and the first show details the life of Harald Hardrada.

Hastein:
I take long walks in the woods at night during winter. Trying to stay warm makes me feel aware of my mortality and the cruelty of the world beyond the walls.

Aye. Discipline is something I strive for, so I fast or I force myself to walk instead of taking the bus. How can you appreciate pleasure if you don't know pain?

Yes, it was the city of Luna. He pretended to convert to Xstianity and die, then hopped out of the casket and killed everyone. I enjoy the story because it amazes me how many places he managed to sack without being killed.

That I like, very ingenuous.
The Vikings, I have read, often won battles by pretending to retreat, only to lure their enemies into a suprise attack. Could really learn a lot from them.

She was the queen of poland for a while, correct?

Yes.

Did you hear about that Barbarian show on History Channel? It comes on tonight, and the first show details the life of Harald Hardrada.

Interesting.
I actually wanted to post something I've written about Beowulf (the epic) but....I figured it'd be a waste of time.

The Vikings, I have read, often won battles by pretending to retreat, only to lure their enemies into a suprise attack. Could really learn a lot from them.

This behavior certainly wasn't exclusive to the Vikings. U.S. Grant had a clever trick called "sidling to the left", where he would attack, retreat, then attack again over and over until Lee's forces were thinned. I also beleive there was an Irish town in the Rev. War that pretended to retreat. When the Brits ran up the hill, the Irish came back down with bayonetts.

How can you appreciate pleasure if you don't know pain?

I might be wrong, but isn't that the theory of transcendence? People who deprive themselves so that their senses become stronger?

I actually wanted to post something I've written about Beowulf (the epic) but....I figured it'd be a waste of time.

Go ahead, at least I'll read it. PM me if you want.

You certainly seem proud of your heritage, even if it seems completely foreign and alien in today's world. That is something I can respect. What nationality(ies) are you?

Hastein:
This behavior certainly wasn't exclusive to the Vikings. U.S. Grant had a clever trick called "sidling to the left", where he would attack, retreat, then attack again over and over until Lee's forces were thinned. I also beleive there was an Irish town in the Rev. War that pretended to retreat. When the Brits ran up the hill, the Irish came back down with bayonetts.

I liked Ethan Allan's guerilla techniques against the Brits. Really, I don't think there's any way the American Revolution could have ended in British victory.

I might be wrong, but isn't that the theory of transcendence? People who deprive themselves so that their senses become stronger?

I don't recognize that theory by that name, but I think it's a common enough idea. I figure - there are two kinds of asceticism; life denying and life affirming (borrowing a bit from Nietzsche here)
Life denying is what the Christians or Muslims do, denying the body because it is filthy for them, or because they reject life.
Life affirming is like what the Jains or the masochists (I don't mean the whips and handcuffs sort, but in a more spiritual sense) do, denying certain things in order to reach a higher level of consciousness or perception.

You certainly seem proud of your heritage, even if it seems completely foreign and alien in today's world. That is something I can respect. What nationality(ies) are you?

Mix of West Slavs on my mother's side and Germans and Scandinavians on my father's. So, I'm something of a mutt.

Proud? I like the values; honor, loyalty and bravery. There's not much of an outlet for that now, but when I've lost sight of those values I've ceased to live a good life and wallowed in impotent aggression and self-pity. It's as much a matter of survival as it is of pride.

I liked Ethan Allan's guerilla techniques against the Brits. Really, I don't think there's any way the American Revolution could have ended in British victory.

Really? America lost 96% of the battles. We would probably still be saying 'God save the queen' if it weren't for the French and the local natives. Regulars are essential for winning the war, not militia alone.

After watching the barbarian show, it seems that the Mongols used this tactic of retreat and return, which provided the model for all future military experts.

Ok, this is all off topic.