Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Perhaps Loki was onto something

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Perhaps Loki was onto something

    In the hit 2012 movie The Avengers, the Norse trickster god Loki threatens a crowd and makes them kneel before him as he delivers a speech about what he thinks of the human race.


    “Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”


    As I was watching the movie, I was properly outraged at the character’s assertions. I remember thinking that he was going to be surprised at the fighting spirit inherent in the human race.


    But as I sit here tonight watching the Democrats across the country systematically stripping away the self-defense rights of their ‘subjects’ one state at a time and being praised by their sycophants for doing so, I am made to wonder … perhaps Loki was right after all … at least where some humans are concerned.


    There seems to be a subset of humanity that does indeed crave subjugation, even in America. We call them anti-gunners.

    Read more at John Pierce's Monachus Lex.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Most humans want to be controlled. Most human want to feel safe.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marion County, Tennessee
    Posts
    214
    Those humans who wish to be controlled, and find safety in that control, have every right to feel that way.

    I would greatly appreciate it, however, if they would kindly leave the rest of us alone.

  4. #4
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Perhaps Loki was onto something

    feed those what they desire at no charge and they will kneel to their givers. it is human nature to be complacent and lazy and our government exploits these traits and creates a dependent class that will support them as long as that dependent class gets their free stuff. treat the like mushrooms, feed them sh!t and keep them in the dark.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us!'"
    -- The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That some (possible even most) want to be controlled does not mean that we all should be.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    In the hit 2012 movie The Avengers, the Norse trickster god Loki threatens a crowd and makes them kneel before him as he delivers a speech about what he thinks of the human race.


    “Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”


    As I was watching the movie, I was properly outraged at the character’s assertions. I remember thinking that he was going to be surprised at the fighting spirit inherent in the human race.


    But as I sit here tonight watching the Democrats across the country systematically stripping away the self-defense rights of their ‘subjects’ one state at a time and being praised by their sycophants for doing so, I am made to wonder … perhaps Loki was right after all … at least where some humans are concerned.


    There seems to be a subset of humanity that does indeed crave subjugation, even in America. We call them anti-gunners.

    Read more at John Pierce's Monachus Lex.
    I don't think he's right John, I think humans are conditioned to accept subjugation. This isn't something that only democrats are doing. Look at how many Republicans insist on the misconstrued use of the saying "rule of law" and insist on respecting "authority".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think he's right John, I think humans are conditioned to accept subjugation. This isn't something that only democrats are doing. Look at how many Republicans insist on the misconstrued use of the saying "rule of law" and insist on respecting "authority".
    Sadly true.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think he's right John, I think humans are conditioned to accept subjugation. This isn't something that only democrats are doing. Look at how many Republicans insist on the misconstrued use of the saying "rule of law" and insist on respecting "authority".
    +1

    And I agree it's conditioned; but I'm not sure it's an inherent trait. Naturally, we have "leaders" and "followers", but that speaks to the diversity of the individual, rather than the entire human race. To lump the whole of humanity into such a classification, is, in itself, a subconscious attempt to define and control us, which loops back to conditioning.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    The right wants to make reproductive decisions for women and the religious right wants to make marriage decisions for other Americans, so it's not just Democrats or liberals who want control over others.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think he's right John, I think humans are conditioned to accept subjugation. This isn't something that only democrats are doing. Look at how many Republicans insist on the misconstrued use of the saying "rule of law" and insist on respecting "authority".
    Agreed, at least to a certain extent. I think Jefferson's remark in the Declaration of Independence applies very broadly too--that people are disposed to suffer indignities up to a certain point. Take a look at what's happening in Cyprus and Greece: near riots over the banking situation and austerity measures.

    Our job is to educate them. I was very heartened to read in yesterday's paper that Ron Paul is developing a curriculum for home schoolers that specifically includes liberty vs coercion in western history, how to defend the liberty philosphy, how to succeed in college, and how to start a business. He's being helped by a long-time friend and commentator, Gary North, himself an astute observer with great insights. According to the story, homeschooling increased from an estimated 1.1 million in 2003, to 1.5 million in 2007. No government statistics for today, five years later, which just makes me suspicious the fedgov is suppressing the data. The push back toward freedom has begun; we need to help by putting our shoulder to the wheel.

    Also, once this vote fails in congress, the pro-gunners need to go on the offensive, systematically stripping away federal nonsense. No more sitting quietly for the NRA. They need to pick a few federal laws and make them into a national issue. Knock those down, then pick a few more, and keep rolling it back until we can buy Thompson SMGs through the Sears catalog again.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    As long as any individual is not "inconvenienced" by the government they are not going to take a "stand" against government. Some number of our fellow citizens are righteously outraged when government obviously abuses a citizen and then they change the channel.

    When the government comes knocking on their door, that is when "subjects" and "free men" are identified.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    +1

    And I agree it's conditioned; but I'm not sure it's an inherent trait. Naturally, we have "leaders" and "followers", but that speaks to the diversity of the individual, rather than the entire human race. To lump the whole of humanity into such a classification, is, in itself, a subconscious attempt to define and control us, which loops back to conditioning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Agreed, at least to a certain extent. I think Jefferson's remark in the Declaration of Independence applies very broadly too--that people are disposed to suffer indignities up to a certain point. Take a look at what's happening in Cyprus and Greece: near riots over the banking situation and austerity measures.

    Our job is to educate them. I was very heartened to read in yesterday's paper that Ron Paul is developing a curriculum for home schoolers that specifically includes liberty vs coercion in western history, how to defend the liberty philosphy, how to succeed in college, and how to start a business. He's being helped by a long-time friend and commentator, Gary North, himself an astute observer with great insights. According to the story, homeschooling increased from an estimated 1.1 million in 2003, to 1.5 million in 2007. No government statistics for today, five years later, which just makes me suspicious the fedgov is suppressing the data. The push back toward freedom has begun; we need to help by putting our shoulder to the wheel.

    Also, once this vote fails in congress, the pro-gunners need to go on the offensive, systematically stripping away federal nonsense. No more sitting quietly for the NRA. They need to pick a few federal laws and make them into a national issue. Knock those down, then pick a few more, and keep rolling it back until we can buy Thompson SMGs through the Sears catalog again.

    These two points go together and bring out good thoughts. I don't think it is an inherit trait to subject ourselves to anyone. Do think though we are inherently peaceful and so do allow others to take places of power and authority we shouldn't allow them to have, and that the only way to stop that is education, and since that definitely won't happen from state sponsored education, it has to come from other forms of it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I think humans are conditioned to accept subjugation.
    I agree, the People are trained to respond. Gun control=gun violence, tax=revenue, lies=truth, say it often enough and People will believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    As long as any individual is not "inconvenienced" by the government they are not going to take a "stand" against government. Some number of our fellow citizens are righteously outraged when government obviously abuses a citizen and then they change the channel.
    MSG L says( Citizenship is a Verb.)

    When the government comes knocking on their door, that is when "subjects" and "free men" are identified.

    When the government comes knocking on their door?? They will do what they did in Canada when they made the AK .22 clone illegal. They tell you to turn them in. And they will. They will march right down to the PD and hand over the last bastion of freedom they had to protect themselves.
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 04-10-2013 at 10:23 AM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    I agree, the People are trained to respond. Gun control=gun violence, tax=revenue, lies=truth, say it often enough and People will believe it.
    When the government comes knocking on their door?? They will do what they did in Canada when they made the AK .22 clone illegal. They tell you to turn them in. And they will. They will march right down to the PD and hand over the last bastion of freedom they had to protect themselves.
    If by They, you mean both firearm owners and non firearm owners....well, firearm owners, 99.9% will hand them over, guaranteed. It's went down like that in many areas of the world. American firearm owners are no exception.

    Don't get me wrong, I like reading people assert "from my cold dead hands."
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Naturally, we have "leaders" and "followers"
    Is this natural?

    I have always been adverse to "authority", or even people who think their will ought to influence mine (i.e. "leaders").

    I remember as a youth being told I had latent but undeveloped "leadership potential".

    I responded that I didn't believe in "leadership", either practically, theoretically, or philosophically, and if I did, I would find it immoral (probably less succinctly, but that was the gist of it).

    I do believe in proprietary management, but only in an employment setting. When it comes to our lives, our personal decision, etc – no leaders.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-10-2013 at 11:34 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    In general, I don't think humans crave subjugation. We have a desire to be left alone. We also have a severely limited capacity to mind our own dang business. In order to rationalize the nosiness and meddling, we have leadership, and from there subjugation.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Is this natural?

    I have always been adverse to "authority", or even people who think their will ought to influence mine (i.e. "leaders").

    I remember as a youth being told I had latent but undeveloped "leadership potential".

    I responded that I didn't believe in "leadership", either practically, theoretically, or philosophically, and if I did, I would find it immoral (probably less succinctly, but that was the gist of it).

    I do believe in proprietary management, but only in an employment setting. When it comes to our lives, our personal decision, etc – no leaders.
    That's very thought provoking. So the question is; are these traits present by nature, or defined by nurture?

    Personally, I believe it is a bit of both, but there are too many variables for a precise mathematical equation; courage, cowardice, motivation of love/survival/material gain, the thrill of power, the love of freedom, the insecurity of uncertainty, philosophical belief, religious conviction...certain people possessing particular traits may be more pre-disposed to cultivation of leader or follower roles in a hierarchy based society, rather than an individual liberty based one.

    TL; DR:

    Certain people are more subject to conditioning than others, but cannot be entirely influenced outside the sphere of their personality type.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    That's very thought provoking. So the question is; are these traits present by nature, or defined by nurture?

    Personally, I believe it is a bit of both, but there are too many variables for a precise mathematical equation; courage, cowardice, motivation of love/survival/material gain, the thrill of power, the love of freedom, the insecurity of uncertainty, philosophical belief, religious conviction...certain people possessing particular traits may be more pre-disposed to cultivation of leader or follower roles in a hierarchy based society, rather than an individual liberty based one.

    TL; DR:

    Certain people are more subject to conditioning than others, but cannot be entirely influenced outside the sphere of their personality type.
    I agree. There are certain drives which can encourage subservient traits.

    For instance, the drive to safety is undoubtedly natural. Women, having greater evolutionary responsibility in childrearing, seem to experience this slightly more. And this seems to result in a slightly greater preference by women for "safety" based laws – the Brady Bunch, Mad Mothers of all sorts, etc, seem to bear this out.

    (Of course I mean no offense, and I don't mean to overgeneralize, but that's been my observation.)

    However, much of it is nurtural, too. Even the drive to safety manifesting as a desire for laws is, essentially, cultural. Again picking on women (for convenience now since I already did), it seems that culturally Asian women are far more law-favoring than culturally American women, in my experience (this is true of men, too, but I thought I'd keep the same frame of reference).

    That's why, so long as I am alive, I will do my best to spread and preserve the culture of liberty.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    In general, I don't think humans crave subjugation. We have a desire to be left alone. We also have a severely limited capacity to mind our own dang business. In order to rationalize the nosiness and meddling, we have leadership, and from there subjugation.
    (chuckle) I don't know if that's true, but it has a certain down-to-earth ring to it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I agree. There are certain drives which can encourage subservient traits.

    For instance, the drive to safety is undoubtedly natural. Women, having greater evolutionary responsibility in childrearing, seem to experience this slightly more. And this seems to result in a slightly greater preference by women for "safety" based laws – the Brady Bunch, Mad Mothers of all sorts, etc, seem to bear this out.

    (Of course I mean no offense, and I don't mean to overgeneralize, but that's been my observation.)
    You shouldn't hesitate to tell it like it is. Remember, political correctness is for statist control freaks and their sycophants.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    You shouldn't hesitate to tell it like it is. Remember, political correctness is for statist control freaks and their sycophants.
    I don't even know what "political correctness" is.

    I do believe I know what you're reacting to, and, frankly, I don't see much in it.

    The subtle (and possibly unintentional) implication that we should resort to gross, unqualified generalizations, and disregard and/or disrespect for our audience, as a reaction against something which is largely a construct of partisan rhetoric (and hardly present here) I reject outright.

    The reactionary opposition to "political correctness" is as much an artificial politicization of speech as is political correct itself, and it ignores several fundamental truths of which "political correctness" is perhaps an extreme manifestation of.

    First of all, when you tell your audience about themselves, not being yourself in the group about which you speak, you are immediately faced with skepticism on their part, and a tendency to take what you say personally. Therefore, it behooves you to make it clear that you are not lecturing the person about how they "are". I encounter this frequently, and it does the speaker's arguments little good. It needn't always be so explicit, but it's just a form of respect or common courtesy. (Consider how if you went you a foreign country you would naturally qualify yourself with "frequently" or "in my experience" when telling a resident about how you perceive him, not to be politically correct, but simply because it would be odd not to.)

    Secondly, my use of qualifiers etc. is not intended to have the effect of weakening my argument. Quite the contrary, I always aim for precision in language, and if I qualify, for instance, a generalization, it's because I don't believe it to be true unqualified, and often because I view the distinction made as crucial to my view. (For instance, you'll notice I only ever generalize black culture; this is not political correctness but rather a reflection of the fact that I don't believe race itself dictates anything of relevance in a political discussion.)

    I believe a perusal of my post history would quickly reveal that I am no stranger to direct, unqualified – and occasionally even confrontational – language and argumentation, when I believe my intended audience will be more receptive for it. In fact, I tend to think I actually do so too frequently.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-11-2013 at 03:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •