Sign into an existing account

I don't have the image, but I have the writeup (a little paraphrased, maybe):





No wait, I lied. I've got the image, too.

https://files.catbox.moe/sp0857.jpeg

I can only tell you what I’ve written on the subject, which is a hell of a lot more than can fit into a little greentext image.

~:~

The innately ephemeral nature of subjectivity makes it seem oxymoronic to even attempt to define it. Where a philosopher believes that truth exists outside the self, a sophist believes there is no truth but the self. Sophists believe that any other truth cannot be known; or, if it can be known, it cannot be communicated to others. Thus if truth cannot be “shared,” its existence is irrelevant. If truth does not exist, what purpose can there be to life? Pleasure. Without an external, fundamental truth to underpin one’s understanding of one’s place in reality (in nature, society, the nation, the family, etc.), an individual’s life is reduced to an “inland empire” of solipsism, narcissism, and hedonism. “I can only know what my body tells me,” says the sophist, “and my body tells me… candy’s good. So is sex. So is vegging out on the couch watching TV or playing video games.”

The appeal of sophism lies in its total repudiation of personal responsibility. It is pure, unadulterated selfishness, manifest as an ideology. ‘Unadulterated,’ indeed, seems to be the operative word, as sophistry is the desire for a state of perpetual childhood. When you are a child, you are stupid. Not as an insult to children, of course, but simply as a matter of fact. Children are unintelligent. They lack knowledge adults have spent a lifetime gathering, both pure information and experiences. The younger the child, the fewer the experiences, and the lower the chance it will be able to respond correctly in any given situation. This extends to interacting with the environment. When presented with an external threat–natural or man-made–a child cannot react with the speed or situational accuracy of an adult who has had decades to commit threat responses to reflexive memory.

Beyond this, children are physically weak. A child cannot defeat a grown man in a fight. A child cannot build a home or tend a field. A child cannot drive a car, earn enough to maintain a household (even if he could reach to clean the whole thing), or shop at the grocery store (novelty-sized carts aside). Children are susceptible to appeals to immediacy. Overall, a child is more likely to accept something small in front of him at the moment rather than something larger given to him an arbitrary time later. The inability to delay gratification is, by the way, a function of race, as well. Whites, even as children, are far more likely to reject a small immediate reward if a larger one is offered later. But all children are subject to their desires (and blind to or ignorant of the consequences) more so than adults, and children generally lack a mindset that tells them there can be “too much of a good thing.” The sophist never develops psychologically beyond the mindset of the child. A culture–economic, social, and governmental policies–developed by sophists is built around the only whims and desires children can understand–physical pleasure and instant gratification.

It may be surprising, but there are biological reasons a person can choose to refuse to accept the existence of objective truth. As the biology of an entire race underpins that nation’s behavior, so does an individual’s physiology underpin his higher-order thoughts. In the face of a 6’4”, 250-pound man shouting about his ‘right’ to take the possessions of other passengers on the train, a 5’1”, 100-pound woman, for example, will be less likely to speak up against it than would a 6’2”, 220-pound man. Just by reading the details of this scenario, you can understand how a confrontation between these individuals would end. Thus, you can also understand why weaker individuals would not want to draw attention to themselves. A far less apparent example–one which has only recently been proven–is the relationship between thought and fat.

Recent studies of human physiology have revealed that visceral body fat causes the release of a chemical signal that in turn overstimulates immune cells in the brain. The more fat you have, the more these cells are triggered to fight inflammation. This immune response causes the cells to attach to the neurons directly, inhibiting the brain’s ability to send signals within itself. In addition to harming cognition itself, excess body fat causes the total volume of the brain to shrink. Remember, brain volume is directly correlated with the capacity for intelligence. Intellectual development is directly correlated with the ability to engage in reasoning and the objective measurement of the world.

These are only two examples–one biochemically hidden and one visibly obvious. From them, we can still obtain a relatively clear picture of what can cause individuals to be physically (biologically) unwilling to defend the truth. The innate desire for safety causes people to avoid situations in which they feel they will be attacked by an overwhelming force. Even if that situation does not actually exist.

People who can’t physically defend themselves subconsciously parse information through a “consensus filter” as a safety mechanism. When presented with novel information, they do not ask themselves, “Is this true?” Instead, they ask themselves, “Will others in the social group retaliate against me if I say this is true?” This isn’t a matter of physical impossibility, such as in the case of excess visceral fat. These people are not incapable of dispassionately judging the information against a body of data to see if it is true. Their minds simply know that they can’t physically defend themselves. Therefore, their default response is to hold whatever position on the topic causes them not to have to mentally defend themselves, either. They’re afraid.

Sometimes this fear is warranted. Perhaps they don’t know enough about the topic to be able to determine the truth. Sometimes it’s not. Perhaps they do know what the truth is, but they’ve been led to believe they are alone in knowledge of the truth. Widespread propaganda campaigns designed to solely promote a false narrative assist in this effort. Maybe they think they’ll be shunned by their peers. Maybe they think they’ll be fired. Or imprisoned. Or worse. In the face of these fears–real or imagined–“Is this true?” becomes “Is it okay if I believe this?” and truth is abandoned in favor of “fitting in” socially.
This behavior makes the weak members of society extremely malleable to all forms of psychological propaganda, such as the exposure effect, the illusory truth effect, and the appeal to force fallacies. If every book they read, every teacher they hear, and every television or computer screen they see says the same thing, they will adopt whatever position is presented to them, regardless of the degree of absurdity or falsehood. Their brains interpret this overwhelming mass of identical information (the availability cascade fallacy) as “everyone in the tribe believes it, therefore it must be true.”

The sophist is incapable of self-reflection. Her body’s stimulus-response subconsciously governs her behavior, so her response to a given situation includes no questioning. Insofar as she thinks about her response at all, it is fleeting and only a reflection of the neurochemical (emotional) release her body experienced from the current stimuli. She does not ask herself, “Why do I think this way?” before reacting to the situation. To her, the only truth is the self. However her self–her emotions–reacted to the stimuli must have been the “right” way to react. If it wasn’t the right way, her body wouldn’t have reacted that way. From these thoughts and behaviors, we see the beginnings of higher-order “social organization” of sophism, such as they are. With pleasure at the core and individualism the highest level of “organization” allowed to exist, sophism creates a society of axiological hedonists.

Not only do women spend a lot of mental energy categorizing what can and can't hurt people's feelings, they're masters of abusing it. They can cut you like a knife with their passive-aggressiveness.

It doesn't need a picture.


Strong people ask themselves "is this right?". They follow their internal moral compass, even if it goes against the common social current.

Weak people ask themselves "will this be accepted?". The right is only externally decided by the group. This is an evolutionary survival skill.

The alpha male is capable of simply killing anyone who does not agree. He has no evolutionary advantage for compliant consensus. Beta males, women, and children do not have this luxury. They must be mindful of compliance to the tribes wishes or they risk being exiled or killed. This is also why moral relativity is so prevalent in a weak society.

Strong males have their own moral impetus. Others do not. That internal code creates guilt for going against it - even if no one else knows. Guilt is from within, and guides adherence to ones personal code without external influence.

Beta males, children, and women do not have this. They only have the fear of unacceptance. This creates shame. Shame is being caught by others. It is external only. This only drives proper behavior in a social setting.

For a tribe to work properly, there must be a strong morally driven male setting the tone for the others to follow. Without this you get chaos. It is science.

more like 'will this offend the dominant social paradigm and cause me the possibility of incurring negative social feedback'. they don't give a fuck about anyone's feelings, look at how they talk to men who are hard done by.

you are all niggerfaggots