Weakness

"Don't be proud to be strong
Don't be afraid to be weak"
-Unknown song

It's become a cliche of the self-help gurus that weakness is, far from being a shameful thing to be demolished, has value.

This dates back to the Christian rebellion in morality, when the dispossessed and weak declared themselves the children of God - and the self-possessed and masterful the children of Satan.

"Blessed are the meek" simpers their Saviour "for they shall inherit the earth"

It would seem that the smelly little saviours of humanity keep coming back to this one vice - weakness.
Could it be that this serves their purposes?
Women, traditionally having little value outside of domestic servitude, have had this value firmly propounded to them. Witness Ingrid Bergman, playing the otherwise edgy and courageous antifascist Ilsa Lazlo, collapse in tears and beg her former lover to take care of her in "Casablanca".
61 years ago, the reverse would have been unthinkable. A man built his status as 'man' upon the weakness of the women around him.
Fast forward to now, feminism having taken a hammer to the ideal of feminine weakness. Its slaves bear it triumphantly aloft - may they be crushed by it! We should now hope that a new ideal, of strength and proud self-reverence, will rise from the ruins.

Not happening. While the impulse towards power and strength is ineradicateable, we're constantly bombarded with messages to be "good".
To be "nice".
To be "humble".

The rabid right and the limp left meet in this - American culture is too violent, too wild, too savage. We should learn co-operation, sweetness and humility in order to reach the promised land of...well, of niceness. And built into this promised land is the need to romanticise and celebrate weakness.

Show vulnerability! Show sensitivity! Show weakness! It's okay!

Show contempt. Let's celebrate, not eradicate, our instinctive dislike of the weak.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First off, this is hard to post against because you have so many good points, but I'd just like a few points cleared up.

Wouldnt the only value they now posess, is the value that allows them to be easily controled? Couldnt what the "self-help" gurus be seeking, is a following which they can continue to make a living off of, rather then a following that no longer needs them?

When kings ruled the earth, and the majority followed while a miniscule minority led. The weak were declared by the minority to be children of god, for the reason of controling them. The self-possessed, and masterful still ruled them all. The dispossessed and weak just learned that in a time when they feared god, their weakness was rewarded, so they passed on their weakness to their children, and let the cycle continue.

All the stong die fighting for the rights of the weak.

But when has the saviour of humanity ever been weak? Could a saviour of humanity be weak, and still have the ability to save humanity? Who started the whole, "the meek shall inherit the earth" ? Someone who was unsatisfied with the role the meek were playing in society? Someone who recognized that the meek were living off the back breaking labors of the strong?

Of course it does. All the sayings of course, were made by people who were dissatisfied with the role the weak were playing, and were trying to assert more of their personal power over them.


[qoute]Women, traditionally having little value outside of domestic servitude, have had this value firmly propounded to them. Witness Ingrid Bergman, playing the otherwise edgy and courageous antifascist Ilsa Lazlo, collapse in tears and beg her former lover to take care of her in "Casablanca".
61 years ago, the reverse would have been unthinkable. A man built his status as 'man' upon the weakness of the women around him. [/quote]

I agree.

While men become weaker, subserviant beings, to the power of the doorway to the womb.

The only message i have recieved is to work for power. To control my fellow human. To be better then everyone else at what I do. To be in control.

You cynical bastard, i love you.

This is where i have run out of ideas, but i'm going to close with, Yes, show your contempt for the weak.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How I wonder where they keep the mold from whence these Neitzchian spin-offs are sired........

* sigh *

While its all very well true that its brawn that gets the job done, its not like it hasn't been said before. From philosopher, to political theory, to diplomacy its all been sucked up by the isms and now its all a tangled nest of been theres and done thats.

I too fell into the vorex and rallied to those theories in vouge, but it does little more than make the thinking man sound like a half Napoleon if he does nothing more than rant about it. When's the last time you grabbed half the world by the hair?

In short..............whatever.

There's not much stock in vesting too much in sounding like a rabid Clinton or a watered down Rand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To Xev who wrote: "we're constantly bombarded with messages to be "good". To be "nice". To be "humble".

Humble never. Good when convenient. Nice by nature.

You wrote: "The rabid right and the limp left meet in this - American culture is too violent, too wild, too savage. We should learn co-operation, sweetness and humility in order to reach the promised land of...well, of niceness. And built into this promised land is the need to romanticise and celebrate weakness. "

The promised land of niceness is the utopian ideal of civilization and as unattainable as changing the basic nature of humanity...which in itself is not nice and never will be. Niceness and sweetness are the shallow luxury of civility. The same nice folk would become rabid beasts the moment chaos fills the air and if they didn't they would hardly survive.

Show vulnerability! Show sensitivity! Show weakness! It's okay!

Yes and it is okay. How else would the strong be able to sift them out?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some Enigma song went like that I think. Dont talk of being nice you dont know how too be . All you do is attack me in other threads. Weakness? dont we all have our strenghts in some way?

 

And there we have a lovely example.

 

well its kind of ironic that one of this biggest mouths on this forums comes and talks about being nice. Read her\his other threads.

 

PacingYourName, you are utterly fucking stupid.
You do realize this, don't you?

I am advocating the very OPPOSITE of niceness.

 

Fafnir666:

Nobody ever took you aside after recess to tell you to be nice to little Johnny?
You never had a pastor lecture you on the value of trust and humility?

It's different for a man, I'll admit, but I'm sure you've heard some tripe about the goodness of goodness and vulnerability.

Gendanken:

Yeah, so I just finished reading the Geneology.
*Grins sheepishly*

Lucysnow:

I have nothing against civility. I do dislike the shallow hypocrisy of those who ply the virtue of weakness.

There should be limits.

 

Well its a lie Xev. No one was put here to be 'nice'. Surely you have no problems living without hypocrisy and identifying fools. I say let them be nice, humble and weak. Let them cry and disclose their wounds...how else would we know where to apply the salt?

Really though I wonder about this show of vulnerabilty and humility. Its just a ploy, I think some just stoop to conquer. So few people are GENUINELY nice. The folk feign niceness and goodness. Its all bullshit...like the bellhop who says "Thank you, thank you very much sir" when really they want to shove the dollar right up the asshole.

 

Why so cynical all of the time? Do you really think that interst in one's self is the motive of all human conduct?

 

Realism?

The vast majority, if not all, YES. Absolutely.

Prove me wrong. (that is an honest request. I would actually WANT someone to prove me wrong on that.)

The question is, "Should it be?"

 

the strong dont nesciserily fight for the weak. to fight for others is a weakness.
fighting to gain controll of others is not so much so.

nietzhe (spelling?), ive been looking for some good stuff by him. could u recamend any?

 

ok let me give a try. what about love and lust.?
pure love makes you to ignore your self-interest.
100% lust makes you to ignore your self-esteem and what not..?
these two bring drastic change in human conduct.

 

Lust? Lust is about a selfish as you can get.
When people act out of lust, they put all reason aside and simply do whatever they can to their own satisfy physical urges.

Love is debateable.
Love can be seen as a selfless or a selfish concept.
When you love someone you (hypothetically) put your lover's needs before your own.
However, you have a few things to consider.
1.) How many acts that you witness in the world at large are inspired solely by selfless love for another?
2.) When acting out of love, you are putting the needs of your lover ahead of the rest of the people in the world because of your own personal connection to them and desire to see them happy. Isn't that also a somewhat selfish act? You are placing the desires of those you desire above the desires of others that you have no vested interest in.

 

Somebody's been reading Nietzsche and his interpretation of Homeric Greek morality. Wasn't such a strong individual in the face of death though was he? Unlike Socrates, who died a far nobler death. I guess he found out that reality bites, unlike his empty romantic "ubermensch" rhetoric.

 

Seen such physical urge defeats all other interests firmly built around self.

yes, pure love is rarity. but that does it.

Seen people hate themselves for what they are doing for their lovers. But anyway they do it for love. ofcourse when the selfishness takes back seat everything & everyone connected with it become insignifcants except their loved ones. again its rare.

 

Theres a difference between being told to do so, and recieving their message, while I have hear this, the undertones have alwayus been, "you are doing the right thing", "keep it up", "the only reason i say this, is because it is my job to do so", even teh weak are contemptous towards themselves and others, and only advocate weakness to feel like they are worth more then they are, to belong to the crowd.

 

Everyone, in his heart of hearts, is a pragmatic, machivellian, self-serving beast, regardless of his own possible acceptance or denial of this.
When men are kind to their inferiors, they are simply ensuring their own safety.

The urge to aid and comfort the weak is actually the urge to avoid the vengeance of "the weak"'s burly older brother.
You treat the weak nicely so that those who are stronger than you will treat you in like fashion.

The urge to worship is actually the urge to avoid the wrath of the cosmic "older brother," God, whose incessant, dire threats of perdition are quite convincing.

You see, if you don't comply, we weak people will cry to our big bro, God, you know, and he'll cast you lickety-split into the infernal pit of hades . . . SO THERE, you big bullies.

The celebration and advocation of weakness as a worship sprung from that very statement of piety (the aforementioned drawl on God and bullies).

As Western religion was emerging, it was evident that one should prefer earthy weakness to earthly strength, since weakness allows one to be obeisant with little difficulty.
If one is weak, one will galdly imbibe the common doctrine and moronic mantras eschewed by our "holy texts." By being weak, and thus gullible, one gets a free spot in heaven.

However, the strong have a notable predilection for exploiting the weak, whether or not they have malice for them. This is a sin, and, ergo, the strong are prone to sin: it's hard to get to God if you're strong.

So why be strong at all? It may convey earthly happiness, but it'll also ensure an eternity of anguish.
According to Western religion, it is better to be dull and impoverished and simple than to be illustrious and prosperous, simply because weak people go to heaven and gifted people go to hell.

HAHA, we weak people win! Finally, the strong suck! Yipeee, God likes us, and he hates you virtuous people! You suck! You suck!
Poor churls RULE! Prodigies and intellectuals suck! Yipeee! Be happy you're an idiot or you're effeminate, our you're incompetent! it's ok, cause you're goin to Heaven!


Yeah I think its self-explanatroy. It's just a dellusion to help the self-esteem of all those poor fucks in the world.

 

It's about controlling the natives

Weakness first of all, is somewhat difficult to define. Certainly the context is key. Playground antics are corrected because kids need to learn how to control themselves. We ARE trying to have a "society" here ya know.

Are you weak because you were bullied, or are you weak because you couldn't control yourself and stop bullying people?

That said, the weak minded need to be controlled. If you are weak, you WILL be controlled by definition. You will simply attach yourself to whatever bullshit movement is sliding by and catches your particular brand of needy attention.

The strong are the lucky few, but find themselves disenfranchised because they think for themselves... automatically detaching from whatever bullshit movement makes them sick as it slides by.

And so it goes.

Often strong minds fall to weakness of narcissistic egomaniacal fantasies. Being strong enough to think for one's self is no excuse for cruelty. Sometimes strength is defined by compassion.

Either way, the natives get controlled. The strong control the weak because the weak recruit them to do so.