It's a sign of weakness, desperation. They are trying to be as creative as they can in the most brutal way, attempting to outdo anything and every thing you have ever seen, heard or read, relying on excessive fear to instill doubt and uncertainty.
They are not as threatening as people think, no doubt it's something to be aware of, but real terror and horror is way more sophisticated.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
I was researching the civil rights act and the justifications for the criminalization of racial discrimination when selling services like hotel rooms. In the case which decided that "public accomodations" must be non-discriminatory, I wondered if the same would eventually apply to religious buildings.
Here in the article:
Quote :
“Part of this is really a public-accommodation issue, not a theological argument,” he suspects. It’s people saying, “We don’t feel comfortable around someone who used to be male because we think of them as someone who is still male, not female.”
They will be forced to say that the Mosque is in the wrong so long as Christians are a majority - because the hatred of anything vaguely Hellenic forces the "intellectuals" to chomp at the bit to criticize and destroy it.
Justifying the Islamic separation would mean Justifying Christian separation, since in the bible there are two genders and it is said they cannot wear the clothing of the other. Segregated clothing is thus justified and saying "it is wrong" would be Christian-phobia, if saying the Mosque's actions as wrong is "Islamophobia".
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Lol, just look at how niggerized Islam is in the West, to try to appeal to the youth. Says actually something about the West and Westerners. They can't dig it without the nigger. Another Po(o)p-culture branch.
_________________ 1. "Youth, oh, youth! | of whom then, youth, art thou born? Say whose son thou art, Who in Fafnir's blood | thy bright blade reddened, And struck thy sword to my heart."
2. "The Noble Hart | my name, and I go A motherless man abroad; Father I had not, | as others have, And lonely ever I live."
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Jorjani now says Rumi is a 'white' from the fact Rumi is a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]of Roman Connecting words to roots and history can also be abused...
@4:02
The typical historical pattern with any proselytic religion, is when fundamental Islam is pushed away, a "religion of love" Sufism takes over.
You can see if a European is a cuck or not by the angle from which he/she attacks Islam. If they attack Islam from the left/liberal side, such as complaining about its militarism, lack of feminism, authoritarianism, etc. you know they are a cuck, because by doing so they also implicitly attack their own right/conservative side, sometimes they also make it explicit by trying to use this in an argument, saying to the other that they are "just like these Islamists". This is the same variation of "you're just like Hitler" argument, and it fails for all the same reaons.
To call somebody a "cuck" is a perfect insult, because it attacks from the right/conservative side, implying that the other is not right/conservative enough. That, and it implies their unfitness and thus inferiority from an evolutionary perspective.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Not sure if that's a useful handle, since I too would critique Islam for the same reasons - its hyper-masculine militarism, insecure anti-feminism, inhumane authoritarianism.
Islam is a blind continuity, and hyper-rationalizing of Judaism.
Since hypermasculinity is symbolic masculinity, an overcompensation with masculine symbolism where the true substance and masculine action is lacking, wouldn't any form of militarism be disqualified from being hypermasculine since militarism necessitates action? Sure, if all Islamists ever did was endlessly talk about jihad and puff up their muscles to show how threatening they are you could call them hyper-masculine, but if they actually are fighting and dying for their ideology, then it doesn't make much sense to me to call them hypermasculine.
As for insecure, it depends if you consider insecurity as inherently unjustified, I don't. To be insecure simply means to not be confident, to think that there is a low probability of some desirable action succeeding. I don't view this as inherently irrational, since it is possible that there really is a low probability of some desirable action succeeding, in which case security/confidence would be the irrational position, and the rational position is insecurity, which is based on the recognition of a problem. After one has realized that there is a low probability of some desirable action succeeding, one takes necessary steps, if possible, to increase that probability and become secure.
Thus all success is ultimately born from insecurity by recognizing that state of insecurity and taking necessary steps to move away from it, like all strength comes from weakness.
If a fighter trains martial arts it is because he is insecure he can defend himself and his loved ones without training as well as he can with training - and insecure for a good reason.
If a soldier goes into the battle with an assault rifle instead of without any weapon at all, it is because he is insecure that he can win the battle as well without a weapon as he can with an assault rifle.
Likewise, if a group wants to survive but is insecure that they can survive in the long-run if infected by feminism (and for good reasons), anti-feminism is merely a necessary step towards becoming more secure in survival.
I mean, you can ultimately accuse all political movements of insecurity, fuck, on a metaphysical level you can consider all ACTIONS as based on insecurity, since one only moves away from one's current state if the current state is lacking in something and one is insecure they can obtain that something without acting.
Or you can also claim that all action is based on security, a confidence that action will bring about desirable and not undesirable changes.
As for inhumane, I'm not sure if I understand correctly what exactly you mean by that so I'll refrain from commenting unless you explain. The word is part of humanist nonsense and defined by the dictionary as "lacking in kindness and compassion", which is a rather stupid and biased definition, implying some ideal, universal degree of kindness and compassion all humans should have (you can see humanist political bias here, implying equality and unity of all humans), and if they do not have it they are not human, lol. I suppose that's not what you mean.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Something I was going to mention earlier, but net went out: hypermasculinity is ideology combined with entitlement. Which hits on what AutSider is saying about the difference being between one taking action or not.
Islam is hypermasculine because it does not cherish women. Repressing women is a masculine attempt to control their filtering mechanism, which patriarchy achieves, to make sure males do not tear civilization apart. Today, that mechanism is becoming increasingly unnecessary or is being purposefully dismantled in the West to make it weak. I would actually think it's a combination of the two, with the technological advances further making the appeasement of serf males unnecessary (with naive belief they can do the same with Islamic rapefugees).
Islam is hypermasculine because it depends on an external father figure, God, to project themselves onto and assert their own rights among women and other men. They do not manifest their 'entitlements' in themselves - they say God grants them the right. I would not say a belief in God is unimportant or some evil like those 'Atheists', but it is a sign of insecure excess in ego/character - a belief that there is a divine presence which watches over you and grants your will whenever tough decisions need to be made.
It's the same thing with those bearded nu-males or 'muscle men'. They depend on appearance to assert their masculinity. Memetics is a form of social interaction, used for the declaration of and exchange of power. Resorting to some unverifiable bullshit is straight up exaggerating/lying for the sake of laying claim to something you don't actually have rightful claim to.
--
Insecurity/fear is an oft-used insult by women against men and their male 'schemes'. I recall from a documentary when a woman talked about her father to a Therapy Program on a computer, she talked about how her father fears everything, as if it were some fault of him and people were actually nice. This is the naivety of women in a patriarchal system, usually because men want them 'pure' - or more precisely, they want control over them, docile and domesticated. "No hymen, no diamond." The women only understand the fear, not the plan or determination which the man may have to conquer it. The power of the man to remain resolute or positive despite the fear, because of his plan, is what is mysterious to her.
The issue is then not whether one has insecurity or fear, but how one handles it. There are noble Muslim men, in the aristocracy of their countries, sure. The issue is Islam enables the hypermasculine behavior through its cultural assertions/values and the repression of women to such a degree. That doesn't mean I am saying to go to the other extreme and grant women transcendent privileges - but don't do that with men, either - which is what Islam does.
Ultimately, each person accepts a certain level of 'solution' for where-ever they feel confident they'll succeed. Someone with all the power doesn't mind killing off or enslaving a bunch of males - or feminizing them - and doesn't mind that much when his women go out of sight (unless it's a prized female of his). Of course the females complain about a tyrant who won't let them look around for other mates. It's not healthy to inbreed too much - and also not healthy to breed outside of the tribe too much. A serf would find religions giving them 'promise' by overthrowing natural hierarchical values for their new religious ones which say "The meek shall inherit the Earth." And every impoverished male would enjoy Islam for the entitlements it grants him over women he's involved with compared to their costs.
What is the appropriate level of political alignment for anyone is on them.
A noble spirit takes responsibility for all their entitlements - and all their burdens/costs. A culture which inspires this behavior, I do not see in Islam, where they talk regularly of and sing praises to a future/Father that will never come, instead of to their ancestors. It is a mongrel religion which says all practices/God(s) are subservient to Allah.
Christianity, along with the people it had, preserved some Pagan traditions - even though the text was against it. Islam is this final religion where all the Pagan traditions are reduced to the One - profaning the natural roots which they sprang from by saying that Allah is both the future and the past - and all of existence. Meaning, no life means anything except in relation to Him, who is the Truth; the absent-absolute, the Aristotilean void, or the Yin/Yang without the dots.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
If success is the only criteria, then we can toss away distinctions with any lateral divisions. Then all patriarchy is the same, and no distinction need exist between pagan and J.-Xt. ones. Then all masculinity is the same, if force alone counts, and any guerrilla can exist on par with any warrior. Then anyone with a dick is worthy of being called a man, or anyone with a clit, a woman. LCDs amount to nothing, if the aim is maximum clarity.
Islamic militants are hyper-masculine zombies and libtards. There is nothing valorous to me about Militant liberalism.
This has been dealt with in detail on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], where affirming Baudrillard on this subject is as good as Derrida's logic, that potent virus should be praised and invited to invade, for it triggers immune to go active.
Hyper-masculinity has also been dealt with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], where I noted the distinction between the J.-Xt. Taming of the Beast, from the Noble Sovereign's Breeding of the Beast:
Nietzsche wrote:
"There is no worse confusion than the confusion of breeding with taming: . . . Breeding as I understand it, is a means of storing up the tremendous forces of mankind so that the generations can build upon the work of their forefathers-not only outwardly, but inwardly, organically growing out of them and becoming something stronger." [WTP, 398]
The Blond Barbarian is a Breeding and Storing Up of the Beast within and its grand organization, whereas the J.Xt.I. Brute Barbarian is a letting go, and letting loose, a frivolity of the beast within.
For more on the retarded zealous theocrazy of Islam, cf. Sloterdijk's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2.
I think our difference of opinion was already apparent in the Immigration thread you [Autsider] started, where your solution was simply to put women in their place, and I'd argued even there, doing so would be a blowback.
Curtail the natural instinct of female selectivity, then in the long run, one ends up with a poor quality gene pool overall, and weakness and insecure males have to assert by force, what they cannot win by their power, and the vicious cycle continues.
Threatening a woman into a burqah and then feeling manly and secure, has nothing great or masculine about it, and is a regressus into the worst, Sluggish kind of barbaric primitivism. Nothing secure about blowing people up over cartoons either...
Note, that I am not arguing that it cannot be done, but that it should not be done.
3.
Just because words have become abused by the herd, doesn't mean, they have some sort of stamp on it. Words are tools to be deployed towards max. affirmation of life overall.
How an individual conducts himself and faces life sets the tone of his own bearing, and thus perceived dignity.
There are no "rights" to human dignity, but this doesn't negate the fact there is such a thing as human dignity.
And idiots and faggotry f---tards imposing shariah laws and holier than thou sanctimonious shite and hurt-hungry sadistic punishments while they go around raping anyone at all hedonistically,,, is not what I call an "authoritarianism that commands respect".
Don't care how gnosticism and those like Evola want to excuse retard jihadis, and dumb hedonistic bitches as some sacred traditionalists to keep the myth of "perennial philosophy" of universal humanity going, but I am going to call out on a camelbrain when I see one.
4.
Cucks are rather those, who angry with their own men and women, now want to refer to "any sign" of masculinity at all, as health, and worthy role-models.
Such compromise is masochistic and rooted in self-ressentiment.
First of all, just to make it clear that Islam is NOT my ideal system, I merely consider it superior to West as it is now.
1) Then again if we reject success (natural selection) as the only, or at least most important criteria, there is the danger of everything being reduced to taste where there is no external standard in accordance to which one can be judged.
Quote :
Then all masculinity is the same, if force alone counts, and any guerrilla can exist on par with any warrior. Then anyone with a dick is worthy of being called a man, or anyone with a clit, a woman.
But not all masculinity can produce equal force thus they are not all the same, and not all males/females are capable of living up to evolutionary standards of fitness to an equal extent, thus they are not all the same either.
Quote :
Islamic militants are hyper-masculine zombies and libtards. There is nothing valorous to me about Militant liberalism.
I can think of plenty of insults and/or descriptions for Muslims, but "liberal" is one of the least adequate ones.
2) Yes, and I stand by that position. I do not think women should have authority in political matters simply because they will not be the ones held responsible for their decisions, ultimately. If women become a voting majority and vote in liberal policies which gradually weaken the country, reducing its population, weakening its military, emasculating its males in body and mind, if a neighboring country sees this vulnerability and decides to conquer, who will go on the frontlines and pay for the consequences of political decisions of women? Who will be responsible? Are women the ones who will go to war? Or men? So not only would such men be weak and emasculated and so less capable of defending, but they wouldn't even have a reason to defend - why would they, when the system castrates them and subordinates them to women? If anything, such males would have cause to defect to the enemy, and I wouldn't even call it betrayal because the system trying to enforce responsibilities upon them without also equipping them with appropriate authority I consider as the system betraying these males first.
And if enemies do indeed manage to conquer, who will pay the ultimate price? Men are the ones who will be killed. Women will, yes, lose some of their freedom, but they will be kept alive and protect and provided for by the enemy.
And even if you do force women to go to combat, what good would that do? 1. They are not nearly as effective in combat as men, even in modern times where most combat takes place at range and certain male advantages are diminished to an extent. 2. Because of their wombs they are more valuable to lose than men, and repopulating would be much more difficult.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the benefits of women having political power for the preservation of a society in which they'd have that power. At best, the benefit is only for feminists, a short-term feminist paradise where females can feel in control and "strong" and "independent", until the enemy army comes and forces them back into the kitchen, and the cost is that it would be hell for men and that it would eventually be conquered. Well, it's certainly beneficial to the enemy.
Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world's men will give us none.
Are us men supposed to ask women for permission to have authority over the very state we will be forced to protect anyway? Why would we give the power over our own destiny to females?
Why would we allow females to make our culture weakened, conquered and destroyed?
Besides, you don't have to worry so much about female voices (votes) being heard. Most men have a weakness for women and though dominant men would not let females have all the freedoms they would have under feminism, they WOULD still love and protect and provide for their women.
Like I said in the male/female thread, the man's advantage is the ability to deal with the world/nature, his weakness is his love for women. A female's advantage is her ability to dominate the heart of a man with her seduction and submission to him, making him want to provide for her and protect her, but her weakness is dealing with the world.
If a man submits to a woman, he can expect to be abandoned in favor of a stronger male as the woman begins to think of him as inferior to her (since he admitted so himself by submitting) and thus unattractive.
If a woman submits to a man, she can expect to be protected and taken care of.
The ones who are actual women beaterss and would abuse women are few, and the ones who are immune to effects of love and female beauty and can remain rational in spite of them are equally few, so I don't see what are you so worried about.
Quote :
Curtail the natural instinct of female selectivity, then in the long run, one ends up with a poor quality gene pool overall, and weakness and insecure males have to assert by force, what they cannot win by their power, and the vicious cycle continues.
I am not arguing in favor of rape, or forcing females to fuck inferior males. I also didn't do so in my thread on immigrants, rants... and I clearly stated it.
Female sexual power would be restricted, yes, so that they cannot go ahead and do stuff like this, trying to affect important matters like politics with promises of blowjobs:
Perhaps she could be useful if she was sent into to infiltrate an enemy country you want to conquer and promised enemy men to suck them off if they elect a weak leader, but this, no way in hell.
Another example of how destructive female sexuality can be if let loose with no restrictions is when Hilary voters tried to sabotage Trump by refusing to have sex with Trump supporters.
So yeah, the only way a female should be able to affect politics is through her male partner, and that is enough.
Quote :
Threatening a woman into a burqah and then feeling manly and secure, has nothing great or masculine about it, and is a regressus into the worst, Sluggish kind of barbaric primitivism. Nothing secure about blowing people up over cartoons either...
It is not ideal, but at least they do SOMETHING about females misbehaving.
All I am saying is that if something like THIS:
should occur, what's in order is some good old fashioned slapping until the women shut the fuck up, put some clothes on, and stop spitting and behaving like disgusting degenerates.
Or how do you propose we deal with such behavior? Like the sad excuses for men on the video?
Will these women be equally "brave" if an enemy army of masculine men comes to conquer? And what if these men aren't pussies like their native men? What will these women do then, when these enemy men FIGHT BACK?
Any type of female dominance in society relies on all other societies being infected by the same virus, and nobody deciding to use a superior system.
Just like the only way to achieve equality between negroes and Asians/whites is not to elevate negroes to the level of Asians/whites, because this would be impossible - no, it is to reduce the other to the level of a negro, because it is always easier to pull down and destroy, than to create and move upwards.
And if something like this happens too, throw them out and slap them until they shut the fuck up. Why would anybody have to put up for a second with that rude interrupting noise?
What kind of a complete carpet of a male, lacking any self-respect at all, would defend a system which doesn't permit him to put such people in place? How desperate for female validation would he have to be? How indoctrinated? How pathetic?
So yes, while I don't agree with forcing females to wear Burquas, at least it does something about the problem, unlike the West, which takes the problem and calls it PROGRESS and doesn't even dare to address a problem as a problem.
And yeah, forcing females to wear Burqahs is a rather pathetic way of dealing with female sexual power. Instead of the male training himself to become resistant to it through exposure, the male is so afraid of his own temptation that he must completely cover up the female. It does, indeed, expose his insecurity, but at least it is SOME way of dealing with the problem, not a way I would agree with as an ideal, but a way nonetheless, and at least preferable to how it is dealt with in the West, aka that it is not dealt with at all. I definitely think there is more merit in what Gandhi did, testing his restraint by sleeping in bed with attractive women, the only way to test if one can resist temptation is to actually expose himself to it.
3) Lol, "commands respect". Though I do not agree entirely with their methods, and I especially do not agree with their motives, they do not demand others respect them in the sense that they beg for it and try to act nice and win social points by pretending to be the more moral, altruistic one, they fucking kill anybody who doesn't respect them. Whether you "respect" that or not. And if you do not respect it, it would be good to at least recognize it as a threat and fear it, to then come up with a solution AGAINST it.
And they are certainly not any less respectable than the sad liberals and cuckservatives who dominate Western mainstream politics. AT LEAST these guys are not pussies. Low IQ idiots, maybe, hedonistic, stupid savages, maybe. But they are slowly conquering us and we aren't even resisting.
4) Degrees, sweetheart, degrees. Like I said, I only consider Islam, Sharia, ISIS etc. superior to the West in its CURRENT state. I do not consider Islam the ideal of health or a worthy role-model.
And btw, I read and heard that women don't have it so bad at all in Islam, in particular I remember a video about that by karenstraughan, if you consider her a reliable source... that while they have little freedoms, they also have little responsibilities. I hear their husbands work themselves to death, then give the paycheck to the wife and stuff like that. So I doubt it's all just straight up oppression where males enjoy all privileges and freedoms while females have to do all work and have no privileges at all. Perhaps in some more radical Islamic systems, like Sharia or ISIS groups, it is very oppressive, but it seems to me that it is oppressive to both men and women just in different ways.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
First of all, just to make it clear that Islam is NOT my ideal system, I merely consider it superior to West as it is now.
Nothing virile about Islam, that, critiquing its militancy somehow automatically puts one in the left category. I'm saying, it doesn't. I can critique its hypermasculine tantrum from a pagan standpoint.
Islam is one big SJW pact and that doesn't differentiate it from the west any more masculinely.
Quote :
1) Then again if we reject success (natural selection) as the only, or at least most important criteria, there is the danger of everything being reduced to taste where there is no external standard in accordance to which one can be judged.
Against the immediate slide of either/or.
Arguing that success as a criterion is less important than success Of a criterion is not to reject criterion, but to add an aesthetic dimension, a more objective, a more discriminatory nuance to categories and separations. Not just who won, but How it was won, separates the noble from the herd. And objectivity need not refer to external standards, but objective standards are born of courageous clarity into how far we can extend into the world - those who go the distance, open chasms into our assumptions of what we had assumed as reality. There would be no evolution otherwise, and one'd remain in the rut of a mere solipsistic success - 'that which succeeds as automatically superior and that which is superior is that which succeeds'… The opp. of cost/benefit is not immediately a chaos of postmodern relativity, but a richer perspectival overall growth of knowledge into the nature of life. Determining anew, more daring, more cold and precise, scales of measurement. Cost/benefits are the quantum of courage we Are, and not the other way. We determine the bar. Our endurance and courage sets the limits of what is costly and what isn't,, what is beneficial and what isn't. This is how old standards are broken.
Quote :
Quote :
Then all masculinity is the same, if force alone counts, and any guerrilla can exist on par with any warrior. Then anyone with a dick is worthy of being called a man, or anyone with a clit, a woman.
But not all masculinity can produce equal force thus they are not all the same, and not all males/females are capable of living up to evolutionary standards of fitness to an equal extent, thus they are not all the same either.
Exactly,, so its not success, but spirit that sets apart and reveals each for what it is, chartering new criteria and setting the define-itive of what 'success' is, breaking old standards that no can no longer 'register' on their 'radar' what is or is not 'success'. One has to walk, dare to grow 1000 ft. ahead, to possess that vantage from which, what is what, becomes all the more definitive and superiorly objective.
Quote :
Quote :
Islamic militants are hyper-masculine zombies and libtards. There is nothing valorous to me about Militant liberalism.
I can think of plenty of insults and/or descriptions for Muslims, but "liberal" is one of the least adequate ones.
Rigid thinking. Islam is as left as it gets, if you can acknowledge submission and surrender and enforced dwarfing of others to 'convert or die' as an Apollonian/militant nihilism. Not every 'order' is a positive order. This is not masculine, but a hyper-maculinity.
Quote :
2) Yes, and I stand by that position. I do not think women should have authority in political matters simply because they will not be the ones held responsible for their decisions, ultimately. If women become a voting majority and vote in liberal policies which gradually weaken the country, reducing its population, weakening its military, emasculating its males in body and mind, if a neighboring country sees this vulnerability and decides to conquer, who will go on the frontlines and pay for the consequences of political decisions of women? Who will be responsible? Are women the ones who will go to war? Or men? So not only would such men be weak and emasculated and so less capable of defending, but they wouldn't even have a reason to defend - why would they, when the system castrates them and subordinates them to women? If anything, such males would have cause to defect to the enemy, and I wouldn't even call it betrayal because the system trying to enforce responsibilities upon them without also equipping them with appropriate authority I consider as the system betraying these males first.
And if enemies do indeed manage to conquer, who will pay the ultimate price? Men are the ones who will be killed. Women will, yes, lose some of their freedom, but they will be kept alive and protect and provided for by the enemy.
And I stand by my position, that rather than shut out and shun the evolutionary growth of women, higher standards of what is to be voted must be put in place. Trump did just that. His Xt. fundamentalism not withstanding, he changed the course via/of dis-course itself of what counts for agenda and what propaganda. Feminists of today are retards and children, but to continue to ground them in a corner, is preventing overall growth, and does no good either to the country or the women themselves - again, in the longer run, poor intelligent filters will only put out poor quality men, who may no longer even want to defend anything… which is what Xt. is essentially [christ - the position of not needing to defend self at all] that produces its own weed like Islam to destroy it.
Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world's men will give us none.
Are us men supposed to ask women for permission to have authority over the very state we will be forced to protect anyway? Why would we give the power over our own destiny to females?
I have no interest in the misinformed ignorance of Doolittle's J.-Xt. Stoic libertarianism.
And the war is more than about gender,, not men vs. women, but noble vs. herd values. I told you this before, heroism is beyond gender. Feminism is not about female power, but the domination of J.-Xt.I. subversion and false male-patriarchal values.
Quote :
Why would we allow females to make our culture weakened, conquered and destroyed?
What culture is there in the present? And what is responsible for such a feminism? Nothing worse than rooting the problem back to the wrong source, and just not where its so convenient to tackle.
What you see as a cultural wreckage, for me, is a good erosion by dionysian agents of J.-Xt.'s own logic eating itself away, into that which is rotting, although with every pro, there is also a con - the con here being, it pulling down everything healthy down with it. But in its own right, they create a vacuum, a hole in the heart of life, providing an opportunity to plant real pagan values, but given the hedonistic climate and lack of daring that my war is about, that open hole is being supplanted even more firmly by even more scumbaggish J.-Xt.I. dis/ease, a plague of orthodoxy. The War Against Hedonism, as I fight it, takes the critical onus on oneself and among us pagans for lacking courage to take initiative, and thus we are sliding into a new dark age of even more Xt. fundamentalist nihilism.
Quote :
Besides, you don't have to worry so much about female voices (votes) being heard.
Did you feel my 'worry'? And is that what my 'worry' is? What selective hearing…
Quote :
Most men have a weakness for women and though dominant men would not let females have all the freedoms they would have under feminism, they WOULD still love and protect and provide for their women.
Masculinity is not about control, but self-control, and self-mastery.
Real men do not care who gets what part of the pie; the 'potlatch' is the history of exhibitionism and who Wants to provide more…, and from this one gets the very root of the word King as loaf-giver, or Master -
Quote :
"This is exactly the development we find in the compound *dem-pot(i)- ‘master of the house’. The role of the person so named is not to give orders but to assume a representation which gives him authority over the family as a whole with which he is identified. A verb derived from *poti-, like Skt. pátyate, Lat. potior ‘to have power over something, have something at one’s disposal’, already marks the appearance of a sense of “to be able to.” With this may be compared the Latin verb possidēre ‘possess’, stemming from *pot-sedēre, which describes the “possessor” as somebody who is established on something. The same figurative expression has passed into the German word besitzen. Again, in Latin we have the adjective compos ‘he who is master, who has command of himself’. The notion of “power” (theoretical) is thus constituted and it receives its verbal form from the predicative expression pote est, contracted to potest, which gives rise to the conjugation possum, potest ‘I am capable, I can’."
Like I said in the male/female thread, the man's advantage is the ability to deal with the world/nature, his weakness is his love for women.
What you see as a weakness is in fact a strength. At bottom of every 'altruism' is an intelligence. It is with illusion, one grasps truth. If man has loved and desired and made the subject of his paintings, the sight of women in all her beauty, it is a piece of naivete to think this is done for females. Even if they may Necessarily deceive themselves like this, its because, this is life's own way of regenerating hope in life, in itself. There is nothing petty when N. said, women are for men's recreation. To want to see someone unaffected by the horror of the abyss, is not a weakness or a favour one does for the other, but a life-sustaining intelligence - why protection has a magnanimous sense to it, than just a sheltering. It is a kind of self-ishness.
Quote :
A female's advantage is her ability to dominate the heart of a man with her seduction and submission to him, making him want to provide for her and protect her, but her weakness is dealing with the world.
Reality comes with two ceilings.
What you take for your norms is the average common reality.
What I take for norms is the standard of the highest elevated reality.
Its an evolutionary logic, that owing to more delicate physicality, women's intelligence is more developed. Men are daring and possess heart and brute strength and are attracted to the cunning [in the wise sense of the word] ways of women who know the byways and leeways into the heart of nature. Thus men are attracted to women's intelligence, and women seek the most daring males, those with the loftiest spirits:
Nietzsche wrote:
"The female intellect. - Women's intellect is manifested as perfect control, presence of mind, and utilization of all advantages. They bequeath it as their fundamental character to their children, and the father furnishes the darker background of will. His influence determines the rhythm and harmony, so to speak, to which the new life is to be played out; but its melody comes from the woman. To say it for those who know how to explain a thing: women have the intelligence, men the heart and passion. This is not contradicted by the fact that men actually get so much farther with their intelligence: they have the deeper, more powerful drives; these take their intelligence, which is in itself something passive, forward. Women are often privately amazed at the great honor men pay to their hearts. When men look especially for a profound, warm-hearted being, in choosing their spouse, and women for a clever, alert, and brilliant being, one sees very clearly how a man is looking for an idealized man, and a woman for an idealized woman--that is, not for a complement, but for the perfection of their own merits." [HATH, 411]
Quote :
If a man submits to a woman, he can expect to be abandoned in favor of a stronger male as the woman begins to think of him as inferior to her (since he admitted so himself by submitting) and thus unattractive.
If a woman submits to a man, she can expect to be protected and taken care of.
All of this is a paltry view of gender dynamics of who gets what goodies; Weininger is not a good source to understand all of this. His Xt. apologetics tinging the base from which he begins, is a corruption. What is noble distinguishes itself away precisely from being determined by advantages,, it determines advantage.
I would put what you say in this fashion:
An inferior man submits to a superior man/woman naturally. A superior man is indifferent to all this game of social measurement itself since he is self-sure. A man orients himself in the world, not in the human world. Social comparisons are a feminine pre-occupation. And it is this self-sure indifference that attracts all kinds of women. What is False self-surity, and true indifference is a different topic. On this, I agree with Satyr:
Satyr wrote:
The extremely below average female's dilemma
---To find a man....
The below average female's dilemma
---To find a man, any man, and/or a substitute, through which she compensates without giving away too much.
The average female's dilemma
---To find a male who can be seduced by her sexuality, having power over him with that promise, but not to the point where he will be seduced by any female's sexuality.
The above average female's dilemma
---To find a man to feel equal, and or inferior to, so as to feel feminine, and also one that will not take advantage of this rare position.
The extremely above average female's dilemma
---To find a man....
Quote :
The ones who are actual women beaterss and would abuse women are few, and the ones who are immune to effects of love and female beauty and can remain rational in spite of them are equally few, so I don't see what are you so worried about.
That you see me as 'worried' is very telling of how you see and think. To discriminate and point out what Is, is not a worry.
Hyper-masculinity is unattractive, and Islam is the foulest version of it, in every sense of the term.
And who is talking of 'incidents'; the whole religious edifice and islamic culture is one of wretched self-repression, nevermind female repression.
Quote :
Quote :
Curtail the natural instinct of female selectivity, then in the long run, one ends up with a poor quality gene pool overall, and weakness and insecure males have to assert by force, what they cannot win by their power, and the vicious cycle continues.
I am not arguing in favor of rape, or forcing females to fuck inferior males. I also didn't do so in my thread on immigrants, rants... and I clearly stated it.
You not arguing so, doesnt make it a non-possibility in reality. Any woman-beating or male-castrating can be 'justified' in the name of bringing 'order', by lowlife shiteheads. Theocrazy is a rampant insecurity and establishing order by cock-gagging, in the mouths of females And males. The real point being, Theocrazy IS so, exactly because it doesnt allow any discriminatory standards to be put into place for distinguishing superior from inferior, and without that in place, it is just a blind barbarism of strong force against weak force, and that says nothing. Anyone can be abused, and what is abused is automatically rendered inferior. Reliance on such solipsistic Ill-logic is what defines Hyper-masculinity. They have no balls, so they bear upon.
Quote :
Another example of how destructive female sexuality can be if let loose with no restrictions is when Hilary voters tried to sabotage Trump by refusing to have sex with Trump supporters.
Why would you not see that as a good thing? What kind of man wants to mate with a libtard anyway??
There was also [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], in which case again, it is good and retards can be selected out.
Pro and con to everything. Free Female power as something inherently evil and can only be destructive, is a narrow paranoid view, since Anything left to its own state can be argued to relapse back into path of least resistance.
Quote :
So yeah, the only way a female should be able to affect politics is through her male partner, and that is enough.
Weak. Politics should be vital enough to daringly set the standards of what counts for male and female in the first place and then allow for full participation. What is inferior and Inferior males need to be put in place, as much as inferior females. No absolute hierarchy in nature; elasticity, not plasticity.
Quote :
Quote :
Threatening a woman into a burqah and then feeling manly and secure, has nothing great or masculine about it, and is a regressus into the worst, Sluggish kind of barbaric primitivism. Nothing secure about blowing people up over cartoons either...
It is not ideal, but at least they do SOMETHING about females misbehaving.
And who determines what is misbehavior?
In third world of omega strategies, silencing and stoning women And men who dont submit to some man-made shariah in the name of some abs. God,, what checks are in place? Prior to that, championing anything that crushes unruly behavior as automatically 'manly' is unhealthy ignorance. In the west, its the same J.-Xt.-I. patriarchal logic that was responsible for child-molestation by 'father figures' trying to 'set straight' 'wild boys' and 'civilize' them… Read Wilhelm Reich's 'Fascism' [whom I do not affirm, but is still invaluable in bringing down false patriarchy]. 'Putting women and children in their place' just because one lacks strength and courage in oneself to meet chaotic nature, is a piece of cowardice. This is not only physically abusive, but such repression creates and has created a whole dis/ease of Narcissistic-Paranoid neurosis. The rampant advance of Homosexuality too is an adaptation to this kept down repression, till the instinct of daring to distinguish itself is nullified, and homosexual mutations occur through this climate of memetic subdued neurosis.
Quote :
All I am saying is that if something like THIS:
should occur, what's in order is some good old fashioned slapping until the women shut the fuck up, put some clothes on, and stop spitting and behaving like disgusting degenerates.
And what kind of man would slap a woman, than slap the Church and shite Xt. nihilitic patriarchy that produced them in the first place? The denigration of nature as evil, as sinful, Eve as inferior satanic vileness,…. and what does one expect?!!
Cucks rather put clothes back on women than strip down the Xt. Fathers in power!
Attack at the root of the problem; attack the source, not the Symptom.
And again I say, slapping and keeping the other in check is easy, but who is going to ensure, the one slapping isnt an insecure cuck, a dick with brute power and nothing else like a child with a gun shooting at people and believing it is dominant…?
Initially the feminists were men who stood up against the Church, but they were called 'pussies' and shamed by the hypermasculine J.-Xt.-I. Right… and now That shame-culture is in such a phase, that roles became reversed, and feminist-males are betas, and feminist-females are alpha masculine, because no man will stand up against the church for the Right reasons and not for liberal reasons, and females carry on the fight by any which way, has now spawned into an entire culture of victimhood and SJW industry, and cultural marxist subversive anarchy.
Xt. that Is a shame culture at its foundation,, meets its own ill-logic, its own natural nemesis - shame-LESS feminists.
Standards, not stooping.
Quote :
Will these women be equally "brave" if an enemy army of masculine men comes to conquer? And what if these men aren't pussies like their native men? What will these women do then, when these enemy men FIGHT BACK?
That question is no good, since anyone who comes to conquer as automatically masculine and manly is no good logic for me.
In any case, what has happened since Cologne night? If anything, foreign invasive force has only consolidated orthodoxy all the more securely. In which light, and lack of pagan courage,, any scope of 'freedom' is to be had from jewish leftism!! - who keep the orthodoxy from closing in and choking shut the window completely. But keep feminism going, and you will have no purpose to the freedom ultimately, when there will be nothing worthwhile left. Jewish logic, Xt. cuckoldry, Islamic tantrum mutually reinforce each other.
Mankind is doomed without pagan courage. Hedonism has to be fought tooth and nail beyond cost/benefit.
Quote :
Any type of female dominance in society relies on all other societies being infected by the same virus, and nobody deciding to use a superior system.
Just like the only way to achieve equality between negroes and Asians/whites is not to elevate negroes to the level of Asians/whites, because this would be impossible - no, it is to reduce the other to the level of a negro, because it is always easier to pull down and destroy, than to create and move upwards.
And if something like this happens too, throw them out and slap them until they shut the fuck up. Why would anybody have to put up for a second with that rude interrupting noise?
What kind of a complete carpet of a male, lacking any self-respect at all, would defend a system which doesn't permit him to put such people in place? How desperate for female validation would he have to be? How indoctrinated? How pathetic?
We agree here, and I'm all for that.
But its liberalism's democrazy of every voice is equally worth and the myth of 'human rights' and all as respectful, and what is real diversity, that has to be set straight, than this or that social outcrop. Put the cap on what is to voted, rather than barring women from voting. Its because it wasnt so, suddenly, straight and gay marriage have to be recognized as equally valid. What is open for voting should be stringently disciplined.
Quote :
3) Lol, "commands respect". Though I do not agree entirely with their methods, and I especially do not agree with their motives, they do not demand others respect them in the sense that they beg for it and try to act nice and win social points by pretending to be the more moral, altruistic one, they fucking kill anybody who doesn't respect them. Whether you "respect" that or not. And if you do not respect it, it would be good to at least recognize it as a threat and fear it, to then come up with a solution AGAINST it.
What?! These babies throw tantrums in front of the world, killing and blowing themselves, just to seek worldly validation!! They crave recognition. Let their drama of boasting and the immediacy of their crudeness and bloody violence not distract you from seeing what they are in the big picture. At bottom, their ressentiment against the West is a desire for respect as the 'One True' heir and path of revelatory 'wisdom'. Who serves god more faithfully, etc. Who is able to make others serve more diligently as them, more faithfully…
By sword or stone does not command my respect, even if it is sufficient for you. All that glitters is not valour, youngling. Kind, not degrees.
Quote :
And they are certainly not any less respectable than the sad liberals and cuckservatives who dominate Western mainstream politics. AT LEAST these guys are not pussies. Low IQ idiots, maybe, hedonistic, stupid savages, maybe. But they are slowly conquering us and we aren't even resisting.
Yes, and so its not any less of a cuckoldry to even more offer respect to dweebs, as if our landspace werent enough, why not give our minds too…?! Such is not 'acknowldgement', but sheepish surrender.
Only the ones drunk on power would see the invasion and the clamour of swords,, I see the glamour of dweebs. Not the sword, but who's holding and for whom? And calling this an 'invasion' is worse, when these 'males' are damn cowards who deserted their own country in war and resorted to easy access and refuge in a developed place. ISIS growing from western nations, and playing tag you are it, is not fierce, is it hun? If thats warriorhood for you, good luck.
Quote :
And btw, I read and heard that women don't have it so bad at all in Islam, in particular I remember a video about that by karenstraughan, if you consider her a reliable source... that while they have little freedoms, they also have little responsibilities. I hear their husbands work themselves to death, then give the paycheck to the wife and stuff like that. So I doubt it's all just straight up oppression where males enjoy all privileges and freedoms while females have to do all work and have no privileges at all. Perhaps in some more radical Islamic systems, like Sharia or ISIS groups, it is very oppressive, but it seems to me that it is oppressive to both men and women just in different ways.
And that all the more argues in my favour, that muslim men are hyper-masculine --- all show out, and at best pimped at home.
And I stand by my position, that rather than shut out and shun the evolutionary growth of women, higher standards of what is to be voted must be put in place.
Yeah first of all, evolution isn't always about growth, it is about adaptation to environment. Growth can and does occur, yes, but a natural evolutionary adaptation to too much growth is stagnation and decline as you can see in the West.
I've seen these 4 steps posted somewhere, explains things perfectly, with a bit of my commentary
1. Hard times create strong men -> stress, scarcity, austerity, produces strength 2. Strong men create easy times -> strength, due to its own success and power accumulates enough excess energies to create an artificial environment within the natural one, a sort of a comfortable bubble 3. Easy times create weak men -> The lack of stress in the bubble produces weak men 4. Weak men produce hard times -> Men become too weak to maintain the bubble they are accustomed to, and the bubble weakens and the environment/times become hard again
Remember, adaptation to hard times, producing strength, is as much adaptation to environment as is adaptation to easy times, producing weakness.
Even in nature we can see stagnation, f.e. compare chimpanzees and bonobos - they have a common ancestor but they splintered, bonobos becoming weaker, smaller, and stupider because they live in an environment of abundant resources and no natural predators, whereas chimpanzees live in a more austere environment with scare resources where they have to compete with predators. Both adapt to their environment, but one adaptation produces strength, intelligence, growth, while the other produces stagnation and weakness.
BTW, chimpanzees are patriarchal whereas bonobos are matriarchal. The patterns are undeniable, don't you think?
Quote :
poor intelligent filters will only put out poor quality men, who may no longer even want to defend anything
I have said already that I have no intention to take away a female's right to choose a mate, and I also have no intention of forbidding women from educating themselves and developing their intelligence, so I don't know what you mean by "poor intelligent filters".
What makes men not want to defend something is when they have no control over it. Aka, if men have no authority over X, why would they accept responsibility for it, and not only some minor kind of responsibility either, but to risk their very lives?
Authority and responsibility must go hand in hand, and since it is impossible to make women responsible for political decisions ultimately, not only because most would refuse such a responsibility, but also because even if they did not refuse it they do not have the ability to carry it out, and because of their wombs they are too valuable to lose, as I noted, quoting from my last post:
And even if you do force women to go to combat, what good would that do? 1. They are not nearly as effective in combat as men, even in modern times where most combat takes place at range and certain male advantages are diminished to an extent. 2. Because of their wombs they are more valuable to lose than men, and repopulating would be much more difficult.
Quote :
I have no interest in the misinformed ignorance of Doolittle's J.-Xt. Stoic libertarianism.
And the war is more than about gender,, not men vs. women, but noble vs. herd values. I told you this before, heroism is beyond gender.
Is he not correct? I never said anything about men vs women, it is how because men and women are different war affects us differently, and how there is much more at stake for men than for women.
I cannot find a single flaw in this text of his I quoted from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I get it, you hate J-Xt., ok ok, but he didn't use a single bible reference, instead he uses evolutionary terminology and reasoning to explain things, so it doesn't make sense to me to write him off so easily and by connecting him to J-Xt of all things.
Quote :
Feminism is not about female power, but the domination of J.-Xt.I. subversion and false male-patriarchal values.
Feminism is indeed not about female power, it is about female EMpowerment, aka, whatever control they exercise is not of their own power, but enforced by the power of an other (police/military).
False male-patriarchal powers? Are you implying all patriarchies are false, or that there is a false and true patriarchy?
Quote :
What you see as a weakness is in fact a strength. At bottom of every 'altruism' is an intelligence.
There is no such thing as altruism. It is impossible. A man's weakness for women is not a strength, but it did evolve as a necessary mechanism to facilitate reproduction by transferring energy from the male to the female to offspring. But for the male it is also at least partially a weakness because it can be exploited, especially if a male is indoctrinated in a gynocentric society into the silly delusion that females are capable of reciprocating this love.
Quote :
Its an evolutionary logic, that owing to more delicate physicality, women's intelligence is more developed. Men are daring and possess heart and brute strength and are attracted to the cunning [in the wise sense of the word] ways of women who know the byways and leeways into the heart of nature. Thus men are attracted to women's intelligence, and women seek the most daring males, those with the loftiest spirits
No. Female sexual power - womb and pussy, is what compensates for their "delicate" physicality. Males are on average 2-5 IQ points more intelligent, and they are more represented on the extreme ends of the bell curve, so there are more low-end men than low-end women as well as more high-end men than high-end women. Though there are some areas where females are better, such as language, and I have to admit I also noticed this being a language student myself, there are also areas where males are better - STEM and generally, more logic/math based thinking.
Also, women generally know nothing about nature (if that's what you meant by heart of nature) - they are much more immersed in and concerned with the immediate environment, which is one social constructs, and rarely does any female dare to think outside of them.
Quote :
Why would you not see that as a good thing? What kind of man wants to mate with a libtard anyway??
The problem is that politics should NOT be swayed by pussy, because ultimately if enemies come to conquer, they cannot be swayed in the same way, for they can just take and rape pussy. I remind you, pussy power, female sexual power, only works if males permit it - if males don't rape. For society to exist and survive both males and females have to give up certain advantages and strategies they might use in a natural environment, for males it is the ability to use physical force to always get their way (rape), for females it is the ability to use the vagina to always get their way (promiscuity).
Trying to sway politics with pussy is females abusing male kindness (males allowing them control of their pussy in the first place). It is thus akin to rape, just like rape is male abuse of his power which results in an unstable society, using pussy to sway politics is females abusing their power, resulting in an unstable society.
That these kind of women have the right to vote in the first place is bad enough, that they further use their pussy to try to attract males into their degenerate ways and influence male voting too makes it even worse. Then you have the society of ultimate cuckery. Where women are protected by police and military from other men, they are given control over their pussy, but then they are also given equal voting rights, and the ability to use their pussy to sway male votes too, while males can't do anything about it because if they do they are violent misogynists. Lol, you can kindly fuck off with THAT system.
Quote :
Weak. Politics should be vital enough to daringly set the standards of what counts for male and female in the first place and then allow for full participation. What is inferior and Inferior males need to be put in place, as much as inferior females.
What is important is that authority and responsibility go hand in hand. You can't have females fully participating when it comes to authority, but then opting out when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences of decisions made under their authority.
Quote :
'Putting women and children in their place' just because one lacks strength and courage in oneself to meet chaotic nature, is a piece of cowardice.
And what exactly would you have men do when faced with an irrational female or child having a temper tantrum and disturbing everybody else with their rude noise? You cannot reason with something that is inherently unreasonable, so how do you "meet their chaotic nature"? When they start destroying property and disrupting peace and quiet, as in videos I linked, what do you do?
I know what needs to be done regardless of what you say, but I wonder what solution you would conjure up.
Quote :
And what kind of man would slap a woman, than slap the Church and shite Xt. nihilitic patriarchy that produced them in the first place? The denigration of nature as evil, as sinful, Eve as inferior satanic vileness,…. and what does one expect?!!
&
Quote :
What you see as a cultural wreckage, for me, is a good erosion by dionysian agents of J.-Xt.'s own logic eating itself away
Actually, the only reason that is happening is because Christians DON'T follow their logic anymore and have become too tolerant and effeminate. If Christians still had a strict patriarchy where feminists would be burned and tortured as witches, how many feminists would there be?
So it is really the lack of a patriarchy which produces such feminist females. Under a patriarchy they would not DARE. If men were permitted to defend themselves without having to fear police and military coming after them, these women would be pussycats, or they would try to misbehave, get slapped a bit, see it doesn't fly, then become pussycats... or the more dykeish ones, who wouldn't submit, would have to be killed.
Quote :
And again I say, slapping and keeping the other in check is easy, but who is going to ensure, the one slapping isnt an insecure cuck, a dick with brute power and nothing else like a child with a gun shooting at people and believing it is dominant…
&
Quote :
And who determines what is misbehavior?
Yes, there's always the possibility of authority being abused, but then again, you can see how with nobody determining what misbehavior is it can be abused as well, and even moreso. The reason I advocate male authority is that it is the more natural (more aligned with natural hierarchies) of the two, requiring less intervention and making it easier to maintain and while it may not be perfect, it is the better case scenario out of the two.
Let's not forget that the ONLY reason a feminist or any female would even DARE to misbehave in such a way is that THEY are supported by these brute force males (police and military). Anybody with a gun can be dominant, so that's irrelevant. Guns are not the reason men are capable of dominating women. They are capable of doing so because they have physical (bigger, stronger, faster, better reflexes, better bodily coordination...) and mental traits (aggression, more inclined to take risks, defiant towards authority...) which make them dominant.
Quote :
That question is no good, since anyone who comes to conquer as automatically masculine and manly is no good logic for me.
I didn't say anybody who is aggressive enough to attempt conquest is automatically the epitome of masculinity, but the thing is that they don't have to be - if your society is pussified so that men aren't men anymore and most are either incapable or unwilling to defend it, and women are women so they are bad at warfare despite absurd feminist claims of strength and independence, the conquerors don't have to be much more than just average males to succeed since there won't be any worthy resistance.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
And I stand by my position, that rather than shut out and shun the evolutionary growth of women, higher standards of what is to be voted must be put in place.
Yeah first of all, evolution isn't always about growth, it is about adaptation to environment. Growth can and does occur, yes, but a natural evolutionary adaptation to too much growth is stagnation and decline as you can see in the West.
BTW, chimpanzees are patriarchal whereas bonobos are matriarchal. The patterns are undeniable, don't you think?
And am I not saying that if you eliminate stress factors [political involvement] and propose sheltering to already sheltered minds, you benefit nobody,, except a temporary relief that is extremely selfish. Like putting a finger into a leaking hole to stop what one tends to see as a nuissance, isnt going to save anything in the longer run.
Quote :
Quote :
poor intelligent filters will only put out poor quality men, who may no longer even want to defend anything
I have said already that I have no intention to take away a female's right to choose a mate,
Do such freedoms matter after sheltering?
Its what modern institutionalization is - giving 'freedom of choice' within secure premises that can never be attacked, questioned, etc. I am not for the idiocy of feminists, but neither am I for the enforced stunting of all females just because some Xt. patriarchs left a trail of retards.
Quote :
1. They are not nearly as effective in combat as men, even in modern times where most combat takes place at range and certain male advantages are diminished to an extent. 2. Because of their wombs they are more valuable to lose than men, and repopulating would be much more difficult.
Did the Spartans stop training women just because they are physically not on par? Being ready for offense/defence is always good, simply even for the readiness of it. Guts dont need gender. Am not interesed in success/failure of results as much as the spirit of approach.
Just because something is sub-norm, doesnt mean, one doesnt give the chance to develop it the best. The problem however is wth liberalism again… equal recognition, equal quotas, etc.
Quote :
Quote :
I have no interest in the misinformed ignorance of Doolittle's J.-Xt. Stoic libertarianism.
And the war is more than about gender,, not men vs. women, but noble vs. herd values. I told you this before, heroism is beyond gender.
Is he not correct? I never said anything about men vs women, it is how because men and women are different war affects us differently, and how there is much more at stake for men than for women.
I cannot find a single flaw in this text of his I quoted from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I get it, you hate J-Xt., ok ok, but he didn't use a single bible reference, instead he uses evolutionary terminology and reasoning to explain things, so it doesn't make sense to me to write him off so easily and by connecting him to J-Xt of all things.
It seems for you what is said is more important than who or what kind of source its coming from,, so i'll leave the worth of Doolittle out of this.
To the point, the war is not and Cannot be about survival, but of flourishing and domination on one's terms - domination as in, maintaining the bar, an ideal, a form,, and not simply reproducing like rabbits. I dont question the need for men And women to fight, but what kind of fight is fought shapes everything. Its not only men who lose their future, so do women, when the only choices are liberal dweebs or xt. patriarchs, or whiggers and whibrews and wimps so sold out, on whom the institution rests.
Quote :
False male-patriarchal powers? Are you implying all patriarchies are false, or that there is a false and true patriarchy?
It was very clear in my first post, I mean the latter. I even told you, these lateral divisions of stocking all red color balls in one bag, and all blue colour in another, and all white in another is a useless lcd technique that offers no valuable discrimination. Its for the same reason, this r/k approach is an inefficient way of thinking about the world.
Quote :
Quote :
What you see as a weakness is in fact a strength. At bottom of every 'altruism' is an intelligence.
There is no such thing as altruism. It is impossible. A man's weakness for women is not a strength, but it did evolve as a necessary mechanism to facilitate reproduction by transferring energy from the male to the female to offspring. But for the male it is also at least partially a weakness because it can be exploited, especially if a male is indoctrinated in a gynocentric society into the silly delusion that females are capable of reciprocating this love.
Just because something noble doesnt exist in masculine terms, doesnt mean, there isnt a feminine nobility too. To go into something with rewards in mind is already an un-masculine spirt to me. Therefore you see it as a weakness, I don't. And procreation is not just about impregnational transferring of energy from male to female, but also the moldable reception of energy from females upon males. The matrix [word related to matter and mother] is a structuring power, determining the ex-press-ion of what's impressed.
Quote :
Quote :
Its an evolutionary logic, that owing to more delicate physicality, women's intelligence is more developed. Men are daring and possess heart and brute strength and are attracted to the cunning [in the wise sense of the word] ways of women who know the byways and leeways into the heart of nature. Thus men are attracted to women's intelligence, and women seek the most daring males, those with the loftiest spirits
No. Female sexual power - womb and pussy, is what compensates for their "delicate" physicality. Males are on average 2-5 IQ points more intelligent, and they are more represented on the extreme ends of the bell curve, so there are more low-end men than low-end women as well as more high-end men than high-end women. Though there are some areas where females are better, such as language, and I have to admit I also noticed this being a language student myself, there are also areas where males are better - STEM and generally, more logic/math based thinking.
Also, women generally know nothing about nature (if that's what you meant by heart of nature) - they are much more immersed in and concerned with the immediate environment, which is one social constructs, and rarely does any female dare to think outside of them.
Knowledge and intelligence is more than about rationality. And heart of nature, I mean intuitive and instinctive and sensual intelligence, problem solving capacity that even the greek myths speak about [Metis - read Detienne], and as for immediate env., culture is a complex organic sophistication, and not a social 'construct'. A J.-Xt. culture is a 'construct' because it is no culture in the first place, its foundation beginning with a nihilistic inversion.
Quote :
Quote :
Why would you not see that as a good thing? What kind of man wants to mate with a libtard anyway??
The problem is that politics should NOT be swayed by pussy,
I am saying if you want that, then attack what's responsible for pusification of mankind, the source, not the symptom. Show me even one website or one author who attacks modernity philosophically from a pagan stand?
Quote :
Trying to sway politics with pussy is females abusing male kindness (males allowing them control of their pussy in the first place). It is thus akin to rape, just like rape is male abuse of his power which results in an unstable society, using pussy to sway politics is females abusing their power, resulting in an unstable society.
Greater pussification is males allowing males to carry on an unmanly obedience to a nihilistic system. This kind of hedonism is what I will attack foremost.
Remember even a pagan patriarchy was infiltrated and infected with Xt. patriarchy, because women were kept stifled. They converted to Xt., the minute Xt. promised them a mate of their choice, and knocking out the pagan father from controlling his destiny and choice of lineage. It is no kindness, but a self-efficient intelligence to keep omega rapists out of the pool. Its doing no one any favours! Ideally, one ought to create a healthy cultural env. and then let women free - this was NS.
Quote :
What is important is that authority and responsibility go hand in hand. You can't have females fully participating when it comes to authority, but then opting out when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences of decisions made under their authority.
There should be neutral laws, not male-dictated shariahs.
Quote :
And what exactly would you have men do when faced with an irrational female or child having a temper tantrum and disturbing everybody else with their rude noise? You cannot reason with something that is inherently unreasonable, so how do you "meet their chaotic nature"? When they start destroying property and disrupting peace and quiet, as in videos I linked, what do you do?
I know what needs to be done regardless of what you say, but I wonder what solution you would conjure up.
I am not against disciplinary beatings of children for e.g.., but this is prone to abuse. Somethings should be left to common sense, and need not be codified into law, but law should stipulate what is good sense for all in the first place. Else continue with minute codifications, and today, we are formulating clauses on how to pee in a bathroom, thanks to trannies. The law has become a joke, catering to the needs of artificial diversity and false hybrids.
Short term nuissance like noisy protests can be discouraged by censoring media - thy do it for attention, and media makes them feel empowered. Its wise to heighten one's own tolrance lvels, sinc these same protests also help in bringing down goons and thugs from power. It works both ways. Let thm have their say and regulate what's going to be covered as 'news'. Levy strong penalties on any misuse and destruction of public property, etc. - Singapore, for instance, two decads ago, levied a fine on anyone spitting gum or throwing tissues on the sidewalks! and result - cleanest city in asia, or so I hear... In the long term, there is no alternative to totally subjugating J.-Xt. and exposing it as a harmful, deplorable nihilism and sharing the damage it has done. But that's only half the job. Artistic license is going to permit things in subversive humor which cannot be spoken in protests,,, so how much are you going to keep shutting out? So the other half of the job is pure heroism, that people would Want to associate with such healthy popularity… It has to come voluntary.
Quote :
Quote :
And what kind of man would slap a woman, than slap the Church and shite Xt. nihilitic patriarchy that produced them in the first place? The denigration of nature as evil, as sinful, Eve as inferior satanic vileness,…. and what does one expect?!!
&
Quote :
What you see as a cultural wreckage, for me, is a good erosion by dionysian agents of J.-Xt.'s own logic eating itself away
Actually, the only reason that is happening is because Christians DON'T follow their logic anymore and have become too tolerant and effeminate. If Christians still had a strict patriarchy where feminists would be burned and tortured as witches, how many feminists would there be?
So it is really the lack of a patriarchy which produces such feminist females. Under a patriarchy they would not DARE. If men were permitted to defend themselves without having to fear police and military coming after them, these women would be pussycats, or they would try to misbehave, get slapped a bit, see it doesn't fly, then become pussycats... or the more dykeish ones, who wouldn't submit, would have to be killed.
Are you a conservative Xt.?
In any case, so I see, you not only admire Jihad, but also the Crusaders.
This kind of one-sided Force is Right Xt. barbarism puts you on the same level of li'l Erik. Anything that can overpower is superior, and what is dominated is inferior… is an ill-logic.
Here you are, as one more example of the danger of Apollonian imbalance I have been talking of. This kind of 'Lateral vs.' is whats responsible of hypermasculinity - total identification of a uni-form lcd. Anything that has a dick is in one good group, and anything that doesn't is less natural, supposedly…
Carry on.
Quote :
Yes, there's always the possibility of authority being abused, but then again, you can see how with nobody determining what misbehavior is it can be abused as well, and even moreso.
Who is to determine this 'moreso'? I would say its 'moreso' the other way. Old saying, prevention is better than cure.
Quote :
The reason I advocate male authority is that it is the more natural (more aligned with natural hierarchies) of the two,
And I advocate noble authority - more alligned with nature's real hierarchy, that is innately not about survival, but aesthetics of power, style of domination.
Quote :
They are capable of doing so because they have physical (bigger, stronger, faster, better reflexes, better bodily coordination...) and mental traits (aggression, more inclined to take risks, defiant towards authority...) which make them dominant.
Physical dominance can be self-defeating without feminine structural intelligence. Brute force in the long run is inefficient, and so its a piece of ignorance to think someone is doing someone favours here.
Quote :
I didn't say anybody who is aggressive enough to attempt conquest is automatically the epitome of masculinity, but the thing is that they don't have to be - if your society is pussified so that men aren't men anymore
And thats my point. So its not that Islamists are masculine, but our own men who are wimps. And saying so, doesnt make one a cuck, but rather the other way.
It seems Xt. is such that today its destroyers are only over-dionysian nude feminists, or over-apollonian jihadis… that's something to think about.
Obviously there are some fundamental differences in the way we see reality, I didn't meant o bring them out immediately but they're unavoidable. Namely:
Quote :
Am not interesed in success/failure of results as much as the spirit of approach.
That sounds nice until you realize that by accepting this, you also implicitly reject reality (natural selection), which is the laws of order and chaos in physics applied to living organisms.
Now, what I would do is measure the spirit of approach by whether it succeeds or not, aka testing the spirit of approach against reality.
But if you disregard the process of natural selection, success/failure, then what is your standard for judging any spirit of approach? It's very self-referential, solipsistic, you can just declare yourself whatever you wish.
Quote :
Just because something is sub-norm, doesnt mean, one doesnt give the chance to develop it the best.
Actually, it does. One should develop what one has potential for first and foremost, anything else must be secondary, tertiary, etc. It's pointless for women generally to dedicate most of their efforts to developing their combat skills because it's not where their strength lies and doing so necessitates neglecting the development of where their actual potential lies.
To give women basic combat training is good, but anything else is a waste of time and energy and results in diminishing returns.
Quote :
Its not only men who lose their future, so do women, when the only choices are liberal dweebs or xt. patriarchs, or whiggers and whibrews and wimps so sold out, on whom the institution rests.
Men are killed - women survive. No doubt they are often deprived of many things they would otherwise have, and their culture is destroyed, but they survive. And considering how most women nowadays are liberal/cuckservative, the destruction of their culture and the murder of their men wouldn't matter much to many if not most of them, or even if it WOULD matter if they get conquered and realize what they supported and how much they fucked up, most women today would still certainly be against any actual efforts to PREVENT it, such as a pagan based nationalistic uprising. At best they will be cucks like the Paul Joseph Watson guy.
Quote :
war is not and Cannot be about survival, but of flourishing and domination on one's terms - domination as in, maintaining the bar, an ideal, a form,, and not simply reproducing like rabbits.
And again we disagree. Survival is what grounds one in reality and from detaching upwards into "skyhooks". One can build upwards, but based on certain foundations. What you are talking about is subjectivity rejecting to test itself against objectivity, rejecting the causality/processes of the objective world and stubbornly holding onto its terms/ideals, whatever they are, regardless of how the objective world responds to them.
Moreover, to justify itself it must then reduce all other forms of survival into nothing more than "reproducing like rabbits", as if anything different is not even befitting humans.
Quote :
Just because something noble doesnt exist in masculine terms, doesnt mean, there isnt a feminine nobility too.
Didn't deny the existence of feminine nobility, just to be clear.
Quote :
Short term nuissance like noisy protests can be discouraged by censoring media - thy do it for attention, and media makes them feel empowered.
And why wouldn't me and some other like-minded men I know, gather and stop them from protesting if we are bothered by them? Why would the protesters have any more right to occupy that particular portion of space than us? Especially if they block parts of space people regularly pass through and disturb peace and quiet.
Why would feminists, faggots and all kinds of filth have the right to parade around the town and promote and act out their degeneracy while everybody else is just forced to watch and not permitted to do anything?
No, what makes them feel empowered is that they are made untouchable by police/military protection.
Quote :
Are you a conservative Xt.?
In any case, so I see, you not only admire Jihad, but also the Crusaders.
Because claiming that dog shit smells less worse than cat shit must mean I like the smell of dog shit?
No, as I said, it is a matter of degree. Yes, both radical Islam and radical Christianity are superior forms of government to the West CURRENTLY, as it is right now, which is a mix of cuckservatism/liberalism/humanism and feminism, but that does not mean they are ideal.
Quote :
Anything that can overpower is superior, and what is dominated is inferior… is an ill-logic
If all other factors are equalized then yes, and it isn't ill-logic, it's reality, whether you or I or anybody else likes it or not.
Quote :
Anything that has a dick is in one good group, and anything that doesn't is less natural, supposedly…
I never claimed men = good and women = bad or men = natural and women = unnatural.
Quote :
Brute force in the long run is inefficient, and so its a piece of ignorance to think someone is doing someone favours here.
As I said in my thread power, brute force (physical power) is what all other forms of power necessarily must manifest as.
F.e. a man who is intelligent may be more powerful than a man who has bodily strength, but whether he is more powerful or not depends on if he can overcome the bodily strength of the latter with his intelligence. Perhaps he will invent a gun and use the brute force of a bullet to crack open the skull of the less intelligent but bodily stronger foe.
This is what grounds power in reality, preventing just any retard or imbecile from declaring themselves this or that.
Classical civilisation was destroyed by the infection of Christianity, a symptom of its decline, and the Muslims were the physical nail that nailed the coffin of a dying spirit.
Modern Islam's connection to Judaism is revealed. Christianity emerged when Hellenism came in contact with Judaism, and this Tribal religion, a product of Zoroastrianism being adapted to regional circumstances, also morphed when it came in contact with Judaism. The similarities are too many to ignore.
The Triad...Judaism, an amalgamation of spiritual dogmas from all the tribes they came in contact with and were expelled, then Christianity, when contact with Hellenism integrated Platonism and polytheism into a new synthesis, and Islam became viral when there was contact with Judaism.
All thee were religions of Nihilism, because nihilism offers relief to the masses of mediocrity and a form of anti-nature superstition that replaces empiricism with private psychology, called esotericism and subjectivity, or perspectivism, defined Modernistically as 'all is a private consequence of social upbringing', and there is no 'objective' world. A selective or complete denial of an external standard, a natural hierarchy that produces genetics/memetics and the traditions, rituals, philosophies, principles, morals, and ideals they are expressed through. An inversion that places the noumenon, the mind, not only 'above' but before the physical, the body, the phenomenon - developing, over time, into a complete denial, and rejection, an usurping of body, the aesthetic, the corporeal, by the noetic, the theoretical, the idea/ideal. A mental detachment...an escape, using semiotics, language., and justified internally, esoterically, where nobody can prove or disprove, and everything goes because there is no empirical, common, observable, ground to use as a standard. We are in this stage of denying the apparent, the body, and thinking of the 'mind' as being 'trapped' in a physical prison. The word 'mind' has replaced the word 'soul' or 'spirit', as the 'true essence', the immortal, eternal, incorruptible, particle of being...the god-particle.
Words replacing previous overused, shamed and exposed words...a repackaging and upgrading of nihilistic linguistic programming that has 'worked', relatively speaking, in the past like how post-modernity has replaced Marxism.....and like Marxism has replaced Christianity as Judaism for the European peoples, becoming a cosmopolitan variant to 'unite workers' from around the world.
Who took economics and married it to culture? The Frankfurt School. It's the repackaging of secular nihilism.
2 backpackers girls were killed in morocco, they were beheaded by Isis, Ive seen this video circulating today. So what theyre trying to proof to the world from these videos?
Are they killing the economy of the body which the west promotes, rendering people just like asset, It shows to which degree Muslims are insecure with females, while the west renders the body as marketing tools.
Instagramers and celebrities label their bodies as meat machines, flesh, and other terms. I mean isnt the west marginalising the body as a disposable item.
Impulso Oscuro
Gender : Posts : 796 Join date : 2013-12-10 Age : 33 Location : Praxis
When they declared the world as their inheritance, any threat no matter how minuscule it is, is seen by them as worthy of annihilation. This encapsulates all three major strains of the Abrahamic disease who cannot share a world with us.
Muslims in particular, lack the mind and spirit needed to control a female, so they overcompensate through the body. This absolute nature of Islam was once noted by Johnathan Bowden to have attracted many on the right, but I fail to see how such miserly hypermasculinity could be attractive to anyone who was truly Noble.
_________________ Once more, with knowing.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, but the Noble shall take it.
I found it all hilarious actually, the story, the video, the people's responses, the resulting memes. Literally everything about it is hilarious.
Two dumbass leftist/cuckservative whores who went to Morocco of all places to backpack and get brown cock, killed by their brown pets. Lol.
Their parents, like all shitlibs, can't let a tragedy go to waste and use the opportunity to signal how liberal they are to score some moral points with other brainwashed leftist imbeciles. Lol.
The stupid whore saying "ow ow" as she is being beheaded, like her precious sand-niggers would never do anything more serious than inflict a cut wound. Lol.
The reporters using a phrase like "sustained an injury to the neck caused by a cutting device" to refer to the beheading. Lol.
Moroccans posting responses saying how "truly sorry" they are with a teary eyes meme, reminding me of that scene from South Park. Lol.
Pussies in white nationalist circles white knighting for the dumb whores or whining about how the thought that something like this happens makes them want to nuke the earth, and how the non-whites are "evil" and "monstrous". Lol.
Because see, the idea that there are people, somewhere, who aren't domesticated and still behave naturally and kill their enemies, like every other animal, means the earth deserves to be nuked.
In general it's become very funny for me to see white nationalists whining about how non-whites kill whites, or "steal" shit from whites, etc.
It's like listening to sheep bleeting "boo boo these evil monstrous wolves keep killing and eating us poor sheep, won't somebody please do something, look at how oppressed we are, where's my mommy"
You really start to realize that whites deserve it. Why would such weakness and stupidity go unpunished?
Imagine being so detached from nature that seeing a murder and some blood is traumatizing.
Impulso Oscuro
Gender : Posts : 796 Join date : 2013-12-10 Age : 33 Location : Praxis
Well if most muslims were consistent with their ideals and openly declared their intent as they did in the past, id imagine you'd see more resistance and aversion to them. Now they've adopted more of their Mother's tactics and have seen just how effective they can be by pretending to be "oppressed".
Its not that they're animals, but pretend not to be animals, like all abrahamics and moderns do.
And they are believed because Christianity, with its obsession with absolute truth, desensitized whites from deceitful behavior as a tactic, so any open behavior is always taken for granted.
_________________ Once more, with knowing.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, but the Noble shall take it.
Christianity has introduced a squeamishness toward violence; "thou who in thy heart love violence, I hate".
AutSider attacked a very specific group: those that think they deserve not to be treated as how they should expect to be treated (by an enemy).
Protecting these women is argued against as a part of the MGTOW community that's heavily present in circles called 'DailyStormer', saying women (or those particular women) are like dogs but that they (women), should simultaneously not be treated as dogs (generally, 'if they behave like men'). A part of this circle accepts this doublethink as an excuse to their culpability in the degeneration.
This event isn't women acting like men, it's women acting like 'others', 'sympathizers' or 'traitors'. Where the culpability for traitorous behavior lies is not so clear in a 'sex/gender war' dynamic except for the influences (foreign, xenocrats). I don't apply 'blame' totally to one sex/gender or another.
AutSider's argument is that these are a group of traitors, men and women - so what might appear 'too callous' is actually a healthy antagonism toward traitorous behavior, and antagonism toward those who keep appealing to/sympathizing with a LCD of race only, ignoring traitorousness (at least how I saw it).
I don't, personally, see the issue with this argument besides the Christian anti-'love for violence', or misguided/misplaced/immoderate antagonism, as a matter of measure and not absolute presence. What I do see as possibly ineffective is offering no olive branch; but then a man might have certain priorities another might not - the degree to which this standard (of antagonism; degrees) is 'entitlement', 'ineffective' or otherwise 'unwise' depends on the person's goals. Big, Pan-European, 'nationalists' are usually going to side with an emphasis on race over ideology. Their argument would be that the olive branch extension is needed for any European to survive. I don't think that's (entirely) true. But, I think it affects the amount of Aryans/Europeans that survive - in my opinion detrimentally, because the Pagan ethos is not yet accepted.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Those women didn't have good instincts. Sure, they were indoctrinated, as is the population at large, but still, you need to have certain instincts (or lack thereof) to go to such a place alone without a (good) reason. I wouldn't go there as a tourist on my own, not even in a group of tourists.
Turns out the whole world is not a Disney Land theme park where it's all a thrill ride but ultimately it's safe and controlled.
At the very least they lacked a sense of danger but I deem those people in Norway who are now talking about humanity and forgiveness and all that jazz as the more unhealthy ones. It's a ritual of sacrifice. They sacrifice that woman (post mortem) so that they at least feel like they don't have to do anything to confront people who harm them, be it oversees or inside their own country.
Now it's all good for them. Regularly more people will be sacrificed, be it a beheading or some truck mowing down some people in the street but that's a price they are willing to pay for this feeling of them being still safe.
Because of this behaviour more women and men will die while being tranquillised by such rituals and indoctrinations. The alternative would be confrontation, hostility and probably also deaths, maybe even more in the short term, but also that Europeans would have a future in the long term.
Protecting these women is argued against as a part of the MGTOW community that's heavily present in circles called 'DailyStormer', saying women (or those particular women) are like dogs but that they (women), should simultaneously not be treated as dogs (generally, 'if they behave like men'). A part of this circle accepts this doublethink as an excuse to their culpability in the degeneration.
There is no doublethink involved.
A rabid dog that is unleashed from its cage by a Jew may not have the moral agency to be responsible for its actions, but its actions still have consequences in reality so it has to be dealt with.
The logical implication of the idea that somebody lacks agency is that they should not be allowed authority over their actions in the first place, it does not imply that if they already do have authority over their actions for (((whatever reasons))), that they are blameless and untouchable.
For purely practical reasons, if an entity has authority over its actions (even if it shouldn't), it has to be treated as responsible for them.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
