Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Broken Heart

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:51 pm

On a serious note.

I always knew it, felt it at least, even from the youngest age. The world has a way of separating son from mother. And this division is primal and ancient. Because all newborn boys are a threat to the system, the society, the civilization. It is a very, very difficult lesson to learn. It is even more difficult to accept, live with, and even embrace. As males, born with our penises instead of a vagina, we are the expendable specie. And I say "specie", not gender, intentionally and purposefully. Because the male is a different specie (evolved type) than the female. The penis has a different function than the vagina and womb.

This is nature, can it become changed? Would you want to change it, even if you could?

Christians and western liberals claim that "man is born free", but, this only can make sense when you understand and accept that males are born with zero inherent value to society. Perhaps even males have a negative value. Perhaps males are born a liability to society, not an asset. Females are the asset of society, with inherent, positive value. Even an ugly, deformed, crippled, blind female has value. Why? Why does the down syndrome female, the midget female, have inherent value?

Because despite her abnormalities, her womb is the cause and the key. It is her saving grace.

A woman in a coma, without consciousness, without a head or brain.........still has her body. And her body is enough. Because the womb is enough. A womb doesn't need to be conscious to have value. The inverse is false. A male does need his head. This is why, classically, since antiquity, western civilization and philosophy has necessarily connected the male to the brain, mind, mentality, and higher intellectual aspect. Man is intelligent. But woman? But wombman??? Is she as intelligent, and, in what way?

What do females do with their lives? What purpose do they serve? Their function? Their wants, needs, desires? What do they have in common with males?

Let me spell out the premise, again. The male is the expendable gender. You may accept this fact more readily than I did, and do. My doubt still gets the best of me, sometimes. And my compulsion is to deny, and doubt, all. As philosophers must.


The female? What does she know about freedom and independence? About division, solitude, divorce? Nothing. The female is never separated from her nature, as mankind is. It is the male specie that becomes divided, often, from its origin. While females never forget. While females cannot forget. The female is tied to her emotion, feeling, instinct, intuition. She could not deny nor doubt them even if she tried her hardest. And she never has cause nor need to do so in the first place.

I've said it before. This is why no female philosophers.

Now you may want to deny this, as I do. You want to think otherwise. Maybe you think to yourself, "You're wrong, because I am male, and I do have value!!!" But do you? And to whom? And how did you derive this value? And what is your value except as a slave to another's volition? Whose cause do you serve?

It is rare that a man can create his own value. And that is the beginning of any possible freedom and independence. Maleness is the core and origin of freedom.

This is also why the male specie is the risk taking specie. Females do not take risks, when, while, they have inherent value. Because that which has value does not need to risk itself to gain anything.


Now you may suspect why I despise discussing value and evaluation among the rabble. The morons. What do these faggots understand of value, when, their presupposition and premise is wrong from the beginning?

These christians, manimals, and modern men........believe that all men were created equal. They just never realized that they were born with zero value.

Life will strip the boy from his mother's arms. And society both embodies, and encourages, this divorce.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:09 pm

I sense an aire of resentment, nihilism.

It seems like you are indignant at the female specie for being what it is - as if it had the option of being something other...

And I disagree with males not having any inherent value. We do, it's just a different sort of value than that of the female.

I tell you what, if the world went to shit, and 95 percent of the population was female, guess who would be in high fucking demand? Guess who would posses a mountain of value? Males! A womb is worthless if there is no cock to penetrate and unload semen.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:27 pm

Did you think I was finished?

I'm just getting warmed up, "friends". You are my "friends" right? Right...

So you were born with a penis. Zero value to society. You were ripped from your mother's arms. You were either thrown into a state public school, or a religious church school. But both are different versions of the same thing. Both are indoctrination centers, to convert primarily males into social slaves. Society, or civilization, takes the young boy away from his mother, and brainwashes him. You. Brainwashes you. And you are not a part of society. So reconsider what you know currently about "social contract theory".

Males are not a part of society. Instead, society charges you, to live within it. Males must become slaves to either the state or the church. But both are systems of slavery. Slave morality, mentality, dialectic. The illusion of choice is the duality. Most modernists are convinced that you are "free" because you can "choose", between state or church. But this is a false dilemma. It's not either-or. Both choices are essentially the same. What you are choosing is Slavery A versus Slavery B.

Either way, as a male, you are unwanted. Because "the state", which can be used interchangeably with "the church", does not want males. Because the state, or church, demands obedience and law abiding from its adherents. Females are automatic adherents, since females automatically benefit from the constitution of the state or church.

What is the social contract about? It is about how a male must go about selling yourself into slavery.

For state capitalism, and western civilization modernity, the answer is obvious. You work a job or career. You get your "higher education" (which is a sham, false, fake) to slave at a job for the rest of your life. The western moron is diluted to believe that he can "earn a good salary". All salaries represent a buying into society, or in the case of the male, an attempt to "buy out" his slavery.

A male is born an automatic slave to society, not comparable to a female's slavery. Because remember, the female has intrinsic value, while males do not.

Males are a liability.

Because you doubt. You deny. You rebel. You reject. You resist. You resent. You want freedom from all the constraints. You disobey as is the male nature to do.

The male is a liability to society, state or church, does not matter. Neither institutions, "government", sees males as positives. It is not until the male's spirit is thoroughly broken that any trade off occurs. And the state or church does this everyday. The state and church both spend a lot of money, time, energy, and effort to break the will of men, to emasculate masculinity, to destroy maleness, and in this fashion, to deny nature itself. Because to expect that males will become tame and pacified, goes against male nature, which is an oxymoron.

This is why western civilization associates nature with femininity, not masculinity. Because western civilization does not presume that females can resist nor would resist social indoctrination. Because they don't. And because females are given that inherent value. It may not be enough for females. But it counts for something. Opposed to males, which count for nothing.

Something is greater than nothing. Some value, is greater than no value.

Society attempts to break the will of men. And this occurs every generation of birth. Each generation the boys must become broken with increased pressure or much more clever manners. Because males evolve. Males may in fact be the very driving force of evolution. Because males have a need to become free from society, a society that would break them, and destroy the very essence of "maleness" and masculinity, if society overcomes male nature. And society does this regularly.

Society breaks the willpower of the majority of men.

Men confined to jobs, careers, college, education, government, politics. All these men who "participate" in society (The Leviathan) are broken. Their willpower is broken.

So this will give you the correct perception, and introduction, into "Social Contract Theory" as originally conceived.


You must understand at least this point. If you dislike my posts generally, then at least read the beginning and end of each response. Understand this point.

Males have no incentive to sign any "social contract", since no deal struck between Man and state, or Man and church, would be a better deal than the freedom man could acquire if he could separate and divorce himself entirely from society. The problem with man's divorce from society, a complete break, is that there are no females outside of society, generally. Rarely perhaps, there are. But almost never.

Because females do not value freedom. Females represent the specie of security, and avoid risk taking.

Females are risk avoidant.
Males are risk takers.

Let me repeat, there is no deal possible by the social contract theory, that could be written or struck, that would be advantageous for the essence of mankind.

Therefore when the willpower of a man is broken, and society demands his emasculation, at the price of a job, position, title, career, even a social persona or character, a reputation.....this deal is never to his advantage.

This exposes society for what she is. And exposes nature for her cruelty. The reason why a male, a man, will never find a true friend or accomplice or companion in wombman......because she can never know, and would never want to know, his plight, your plight as a man.

Is there recourse, a hope perhaps?

Just freedom, that is all you inherent as a man. That is the only possible solution for the male nature. Just freedom.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:28 pm

Erik wrote:
And I disagree with males not having any inherent value.
Read the OP a second time, but closer and slower.

I already addressed your criticism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:50 pm

Æon wrote:
Erik wrote:
And I disagree with males not having any inherent value.
Read the OP a second time, but closer and slower.

I already addressed your criticism.

I read it again, didn't realize anything new; there is nothing new.

You said that males have zero inherent value to society. I criticized that in my initial post.

It's not true that males have zero inherent value to society. Without males, there would be no society; we are the innovators, the guardians, we do the dirty work. Females do their part, too.

Females are more protected than males because they are more vulnerable, like children - not because they posses some magical fucking value that males don't possess.


Last edited by Erik on Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:53 pm

I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but I'd like to add a few points.

Not all wombs are created equal, some women are barren, some women lack child baring hips. Not all breasts are created equal, some produce a greater quantity of higher quality milk, though I'm pretty sure this has little or nothing to do with their size. Some women are better at raising and rearing their children, and serving their men than others. Furthermore, men are required for sexual reproduction as well, but of course, women play the more vital role, and much more of their energies are depleted in the process than men. What we have here is reproductive specialization, where human females specialized in all that is children and domestic, and men specialized in all that is not children and cosmopolitan, foreign - hunting, fishing, job, career, politics, religion, etcetera. Also, females are less likely to challenge the rules of the games our culture plays, simply because of the fact that they're physically weaker than males, which is also due to their womb, and therefore, they're more likely to defer to their fathers, husbands or the group. Now, society is changing, because sex is becoming largely divorced from reproduction, due to many factors, some of which I've mentioned in other threads - contraception, which makes women less discriminating about who they fuck but more discriminating about who's babes they're going to carry, decadence, economic decline, feminism, overpopulation, etcetera. However, many of us, some more than others, still have these primal urges to specialize, as well as growing up with more traditional values. In many ways, white society is declining, on all fronts, the death rate exceeding the birth rate, coupled with mass immigration, are testaments to this. What to do? Do we swim with the current, or resist? Is decline not part of the natural ebb and flow of things? Can a society ascend forever? If you fill up a balloon, at some point, will it not burst?


Last edited by Divergense on Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:55 pm

Erik wrote:
I read it again, didn't realize anything new; there is nothing new.

You said that males have zero inherent value to society. I criticized that in my initial post.

It's not true that males have zero inherent value to society. Without males, there would be no society; we are the innovators, the guardians, we do the dirty work. Females do their part, too.

Females are more protected than males because they are more vulnerable, like children - not because they posses some magical fucking value that males don't possess.
If you had read it carefully and slowly, and approached my premise with good faith, then you would have noticed this........

"Now you may want to deny this, as I do. You want to think otherwise. Maybe you think to yourself, "You're wrong, because I am male, and I do have value!!!" But do you? And to whom? And how did you derive this value? And what is your value except as a slave to another's volition? Whose cause do you serve?"
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:00 pm

Divergense wrote:
I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but I'd like to add a few points.

Not all wombs are created equal, some women are barren, some women lack child baring hips. Not all breasts are created equal, some produce a greater quantity of higher quality milk, though I'm pretty sure this has little or nothing to do with their size. Some women are better at raising and rearing their children, and serving their men, than others. Furthermore, men are required for sexual reproduction as well, but of course, women play the more vital role, and much more of their energies are taken up in the process than men. What we have here is reproductive specialization, where human females specialized in all that is children and domestic, and men specialized in all that is not children and cosmopolitan, foreign, hunting, fishing, job, career, politics, religion, etcetera. Also, females are less likely to challenge the rules of the games our culture is play, simply because of the fact that they're physically weaker than males, which is also due to their womb, and therefore, they're more likely to defer to their fathers, husbands or the group. Now, society is changing, because sex is becoming largely divorced from reproduction, due to many factors, some of which I've mentioned in other threads, contraception, which makes women less discriminating about who they fuck but more discriminating about who's babes they're going to carry, decadence, economic decline, feminism, overpopulation, etcetera. However, many of us, some more than others, still have these primal urges to specialize, as well as growing up with more traditional values. In many ways, white society is declining, on all fronts, the death rate exceeding the birth rate, coupled with mass immigration, are testaments to this. What to do? Do we swim with the current, or resist? Is decline not part of the natural ebb and flow of things? Can a society ascend forever? If you fill up a balloon, at some point, does it not burst?
I think it expands and contracts, like the lungs breathing air, or the heart beating blood. Society expands and contracts. Sometimes societies die, sometimes live, sometimes thrive and grow.

The barren woman is a good point. But is she born worthless, with zero value? Consider sex. Doesn't a beautiful woman who cannot get pregnant, have value to you? Would you fuck her even knowing that you will not have children? Does she still not have a sexual value for you? And for society?

Consider the occupation of "baby sitter". Why young teenage girls, females, take this position and not young teenage boys, males???

The answer should be too obvious.

Males are simply not trusted to care for strangers' children. So even the barren female has value over the male.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:03 pm

All this said, let me make another point.

Just because males are born without value, zero value, doesn't mean nor imply that we stay that way.

Males can raise our value, change value. This is the very reason why, what makes it possible, that males are procreative and the creative gender, specie, type.

Females do not change value so much. Consider this. Males are born with the value of 0. Females are born with the value of 1. Maybe a male will raise his value to 0.1 or 0.4. Maybe females can lose their value, to 0.7 or 0.8. This still puts the value of a female over a male.

Could you imagine a male who raises his value above females???
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:05 pm

Æon wrote:
Erik wrote:
I read it again, didn't realize anything new; there is nothing new.

You said that males have zero inherent value to society. I criticized that in my initial post.

It's not true that males have zero inherent value to society. Without males, there would be no society; we are the innovators, the guardians, we do the dirty work. Females do their part, too.

Females are more protected than males because they are more vulnerable, like children - not because they posses some magical fucking value that males don't possess.
If you had read it carefully and slowly, and approached my premise with good faith, then you would have noticed this........

"Now you may want to deny this, as I do. You want to think otherwise. Maybe you think to yourself, "You're wrong, because I am male, and I do have value!!!" But do you? And to whom? And how did you derive this value? And what is your value except as a slave to another's volition? Whose cause do you serve?"

Of course the value of males is based in how well they can be used, used for the betterment of society. That's not, exactly, slavish. The same, more or less, applies to the female population; their value lies in how well they can be used, e.g., how well they will be used as fucking objects, how well they raise kids, how well they cook, etc, etc.

Your initial claim was that males have zero inherent value to society, but now it seems like you are admitting that we, possibly, have some value, but that it's slavish. Make up your mind, bioootch.

Edit: I saw your latest post. You say males are born with zero inherent value. Okay, okay. And females are?
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:20 pm

Are you hard of reading, boy???

Value to whom???

Æon wrote:
Now you may want to deny this, as I do. You want to think otherwise. Maybe you think to yourself, "You're wrong, because I am male, and I do have value!!!" But do you? And to whom? And how did you derive this value? And what is your value except as a slave to another's volition? Whose cause do you serve?
If you're not going to address the OP, and the questions posed 3 times now, then you are wasting my time........
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:22 pm

Æon wrote:
Are you hard of reading, boy???

Value to whom???

Æon wrote:
Now you may want to deny this, as I do. You want to think otherwise. Maybe you think to yourself, "You're wrong, because I am male, and I do have value!!!" But do you? And to whom? And how did you derive this value? And what is your value except as a slave to another's volition? Whose cause do you serve?
If you're not going to address the OP, and the questions posed 3 times now, then you are wasting my time........


Value to society, girl.

Do I need to spell it out for you every time, girl? Like I said, " Context, context".
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:27 pm

Society is not a whom.

Society is an abstraction of the individuals who comprise her. Values indicate conscious direction and discrimination.

Evaluation proves that a willpower exists.


That you cannot identify whom proves what you are, boy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:33 pm

Wow haha!

You want me to be all technical and specific, little boy? Fine.

Value to other people, value to the teachers, bankers, politicians, kids, females, etc.

How so? I can protect them, innovate for them, provide semen to virile females ( create more humans to contribute to society ), so on and so forth. Is this slavish? No. I'm not forced to do it.

Now why don't you answer my question about how females, at birth, posses inherent value to society?
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:40 pm

Erik wrote:
How so? I can protect them
Oh really??? From what? You presume that females cannot protect themselves? Why do they need you, specifically?


Erik wrote:
Now why don't you answer my question about how females, at birth, posses inherent value to society?
Because this is my thread and I call the shots on my own turf, boy. If you dislike it, then I'm certain your mouse clicker can find itself out anytime you please........

I welcome those who will contribute to my thread in some way, or at least you can do as a male, boy is attack a weak point in my argument and reasoning. Males protect females, and this is the primary value of males to society as you claim??? This is your best response???
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:46 pm

Æon wrote:
Divergense wrote:
I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but I'd like to add a few points.

Not all wombs are created equal, some women are barren, some women lack child baring hips. Not all breasts are created equal, some produce a greater quantity of higher quality milk, though I'm pretty sure this has little or nothing to do with their size. Some women are better at raising and rearing their children, and serving their men, than others. Furthermore, men are required for sexual reproduction as well, but of course, women play the more vital role, and much more of their energies are taken up in the process than men. What we have here is reproductive specialization, where human females specialized in all that is children and domestic, and men specialized in all that is not children and cosmopolitan, foreign, hunting, fishing, job, career, politics, religion, etcetera. Also, females are less likely to challenge the rules of the games our culture is play, simply because of the fact that they're physically weaker than males, which is also due to their womb, and therefore, they're more likely to defer to their fathers, husbands or the group. Now, society is changing, because sex is becoming largely divorced from reproduction, due to many factors, some of which I've mentioned in other threads, contraception, which makes women less discriminating about who they fuck but more discriminating about who's babes they're going to carry, decadence, economic decline, feminism, overpopulation, etcetera. However, many of us, some more than others, still have these primal urges to specialize, as well as growing up with more traditional values. In many ways, white society is declining, on all fronts, the death rate exceeding the birth rate, coupled with mass immigration, are testaments to this. What to do? Do we swim with the current, or resist? Is decline not part of the natural ebb and flow of things? Can a society ascend forever? If you fill up a balloon, at some point, does it not burst?
I think it expands and contracts, like the lungs breathing air, or the heart beating blood.  Society expands and contracts.  Sometimes societies die, sometimes live, sometimes thrive and grow.

The barren woman is a good point.  But is she born worthless, with zero value?  Consider sex.  Doesn't a beautiful woman who cannot get pregnant, have value to you?  Would you fuck her even knowing that you will not have children?  Does she still not have a sexual value for you?  And for society?

Consider the occupation of "baby sitter".  Why young teenage girls, females, take this position and not young teenage boys, males???

The answer should be too obvious.

Males are simply not trusted to care for strangers' children.  So even the barren female has value over the male.
If you had it your way, in which direction would you like to see white society headed?

A barren, but beautiful woman can still have a lot of value to me, depending on her personality, as a sex object, and as a companion. However, could I commit to such a woman? No, not in the long run, because I may want a child in the future... unless she agreed to me help me raise a child I had with another woman, but I digress. And of course males can still offer all this as well - we can offer sex, companionship... Put it this way, how much value does a jobless, careerless woman have, versus a jobless and careerless man? Now we're getting somewhere. A man (such as myself) without a job or a career well above minimum wage is normally regarded a loser, a pathetic, lowlife, piece of trash, where as a woman, still has a lot of value, or at least that's what biology and tradition is geared towards. But in this day in age, when women have so few children, if any at all, why should they get a free ride? I argue, we need to begin going against such obsolescent biological and traditional imperatives, and start demanding that women pull their own weight too. They shouldn't have it both ways - they're job, career oriented feminazis when they wanna be, and they're delicate little flowers in need of service and protection when they wanna be. I say get a job, you cunts, don't expect me to pull my weight and your dead weight.


Last edited by Divergense on Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:48 pm

Æon wrote:
Erik wrote:
How so? I can protect them
Oh really???  From what?  You presume that females cannot protect themselves?  Why do they need you, specifically?


Erik wrote:
Now why don't you answer my question about how females, at birth, posses inherent value to society?
Because this is my thread and I call the shots on my own turf, boy.  If you dislike it, then I'm certain your mouse clicker can find itself out anytime you please........

I welcome those who will contribute to my thread in some way, or at least you can do as a male, boy is attack a weak point in my argument and reasoning.  Males protect females, and this is the primary value of males to society as you claim???  This is your best response???


Many if not most females can't, really, defend themselves efficiently. The minority that are trained in martial arts, or skilled in weaponry can, of course, but most aren't. Naturally, males evolved to be hunters and warriors, so we can fend for ourselves much more efficiently than the female. I'm trained in boxing and martial arts. I'm also bigger and stronger than most men. I can protect them from other savages that try to mess with them. Herein lies an aspect, one aspect of my value to females and others.

The primary value of males to society is their warriorism. This is a primal value, a value still relevant to society. No warriors = no society, period. I've listed other values in prior posts.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:56 pm

Divergense,

I believe that white populations should focus on reproducing more and competing with other races in this regard. It's a battle for limited resources. Whites tend to have a low reproductive rate compared to high reproductive rate of negros and other non white populations. However with regard to resource monopoly, whites already tend to have it, in some parts of the world like European countries or the east coast of the united states. Ultimately on the global spectrum different racial and ethnic groups will compete over the prize of resource control, and maintenance. It's a different context to talk about whites globally and locally. Whites in the u.s. are pretty safe and insulated, in my opinion.

With regard to female hedonism and decadence, joblessness, I doubt that can be changed. Females simply don't need to work when 10 males will compete among themselves to pay for her. Even if you back out and want to "go your own way" MGTOW movement, then 9 other males will jump in your place immediately.

This insures the inherent female value, in her favor.


Erik,

So you're saying that you're going to protect females from savage males?

This destroys your argument since you're claiming that as a man you have value to society protecting females from other men. It's a circular argument.

Why should females need protection from males? But we already know the answer to this question. Females only need protection from "bad males". And who are the "bad" males?

Except the ones who attempt to resist society???

So it comes full circle, back to the OP.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:10 pm

In the main, females no longer need protecting from other males, violence has been monopolized by police and military, so unless your planning on becoming a policeman or soldier, your boxing capabilities/muscle are largely an archaic throwback to an earlier space/time. Females might still find them attractive, but they're no longer necessary for survival.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:12 pm

Hypothetical scenario for Erik and his argument.......

Would any man "protect" society, if this constitutes some valid point about the value of males generally, if you also had to castrate yourself, literally or figuratively in exchange to become accepted by society?

Question rephrased.

Would you, as a man, volunteer to protect an institution that required your castration first??? That means, no sex, no children.

Ah you see..... even this value and worth of "protection" has a cost.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:12 pm

The society that I live in has laws, Aeon. My allegiance is to law-abiding citizens within society, not low-life criminals. A man that harasses a female is going against the laws of society. There is no circular argument, and you know that damn well.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:14 pm

Divergense wrote:
In the main, females no longer need protecting from other males, violence has been monopolized by police and military, so unless your planning on becoming a policeman or soldier, your boxing capabilities/muscle are largely an archaic throwback to an earlier space/time. Females might still find them attractive, but they're no longer necessary for survival.

What about when the cops aren't around, or can't make it to a certain destination in time?
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:15 pm

Erik wrote:
The society that I live in has laws, Aeon. My allegiance is to law-abiding citizens within society, not low-life criminals. A man that harasses a female is going against the laws of society. There is no circular argument, and you know that damn well.
It falls into a circular argument for as long as your presume that you are a 'good' male, exceptional, and deserving of female preference.

While you presume that, as a premise, you may have a point. But I doubt that premise.

Do you know who also plays that role, and that game? A priest. Are you holier than thou?? That is where your line of reasoning and thinking leads, a competition among men, with no real benefit to male gender as a whole.

As expected
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:17 pm

In other words, your argument that "I have value to society as a protector" defeats itself unless you paint other men as bad or morally inferior.

That is the necessity, the requirement, of your position. You need to demonize other men before yourself, or, "I am a better protector than other men".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 pm

Æon wrote:
In other words, your argument that "I have value to society as a protector" defeats itself unless you paint other men as bad or morally inferior.

That is the necessity, the requirement, of your position.  You need to demonize other men before yourself, or, "I am a better protector than other men".

Some other men are bad, but not all. And I would say I am a superior protector than most other men for reasons already stated.
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:23 pm

Erik wrote:
Divergense wrote:
In the main, females no longer need protecting from other males, violence has been monopolized by police and military, so unless your planning on becoming a policeman or soldier, your boxing capabilities/muscle are largely an archaic throwback to an earlier space/time. Females might still find them attractive, but they're no longer necessary for survival.

What about when the cops aren't around, or can't make it to a certain destination in time?
Then they may be useful.

I'm not saying they're completely useless, but relatively useless, compared to what they were a century ago. I myself have never needed to physically defend myself from another male, and I've lived all over the place, in rich/poor, suburban/urban environments. Although I've been in a few scuffles, I was always drunk, and deliberately placed myself in those sorts of situations. Situations where a female needs to be defended from a male in such a manner are rare, and you could go through your entire life without encountering any, or encountering only a few, unless you frequent bars/pubs, or you're in the habit of going out for midnight strolls in seedy parts of town, and even then, if someone has a knife, or a gun, you're screwed.


Last edited by Divergense on Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:23 pm

Æon wrote:
Hypothetical scenario for Erik and his argument.......

Would any man "protect" society, if this constitutes some valid point about the value of males generally, if you also had to castrate yourself, literally or figuratively in exchange to become accepted by society?

Question rephrased.

Would you, as a man, volunteer to protect an institution that required your castration first???  That means, no sex, no children.

Ah you see..... even this value and worth of "protection" has a cost.


No - why, in the hell, would I do that?

I don't feel castrated by the society I live in, though there are certain people that seek to castrate me, e.g., feminists.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:31 pm

Divergense wrote:
Erik wrote:
Divergense wrote:
In the main, females no longer need protecting from other males, violence has been monopolized by police and military, so unless your planning on becoming a policeman or soldier, your boxing capabilities/muscle are largely an archaic throwback to an earlier space/time. Females might still find them attractive, but they're no longer necessary for survival.

What about when the cops aren't around, or can't make it to a certain destination in time?
Then they may be useful.

I'm not saying they're completely useless, but relatively useless, compared to what they were a century ago. I myself have never needed to physically defend myself from another male, and I've lived all over the place, in rich/poor, suburban/urban environments. Although I've been in a few scuffles, I was always drunk, and deliberately placed myself in those sorts of situations. Situations where a female needs to be defended from a male in such a manner are rare, and you could go through your entire life without encountering any, or encountering only a few, unless you frequent bars/pubs, or you're in the habit of going out for midnight strolls in seedy parts of town, and even then, if someone has a knife, or a gun, you're screwed.

I think they are just as useful. We still have policemen and soldiers that must be strong, strong physically and mentally. Even outside of military and law enforcement, there is still a need for strong men. Danger lurks everywhere.

Husbands should be able to protect their wives and kids; police can't be there all the time, or always on time.
Back to top Go down
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 939
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:50 pm

Erik wrote:
I think they are just as useful. We still have policemen and soldiers that must be strong, strong physically and mentally. Even outside of military and law enforcement, there is still a need for strong men.

I actually think it's quite possible that the state could remain as effective with an all female police force...I don't know about military but maybe... You would just need to increase the physical standards the police has (which is pathetic) and just recruit very fit women (that would be able to handle those tough situations)...If there aren't enough fit women, slowly change the cultural fitness values for women...The effect of an all female police force on the male psyche is another thing though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:04 pm

Erik, I unequivocally and wholeheartedly agree, it's a crime against humanity, if ever there was one, for government to deprive a man of his right to defend himself and his family from physical threats, if need be, by any means necessary (from fists to guns, depending on the situation).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:25 am

Æon wrote:
Divergense,

I believe that white populations should focus on reproducing more and competing with other races in this regard.  It's a battle for limited resources.  Whites tend to have a low reproductive rate compared to high reproductive rate of negros and other non white populations.  However with regard to resource monopoly, whites already tend to have it, in some parts of the world like European countries or the east coast of the united states.  Ultimately on the global spectrum different racial and ethnic groups will compete over the prize of resource control, and maintenance.  It's a different context to talk about whites globally and locally.  Whites in the u.s. are pretty safe and insulated, in my opinion.

With regard to female hedonism and decadence, joblessness, I doubt that can be changed.  Females simply don't need to work when 10 males will compete among themselves to pay for her.  Even if you back out and want to "go your own way" MGTOW movement, then 9 other males will jump in your place immediately.
I think there's all sorts of females and males out there, not any one kind has ever completely dominated, nor can any one kind completely dominate. While most men may be more than happy to coddle women, for biological/traditional reasons (in the past, women were weaker, largely dependent on men for safety, security and sustenance, and it was women's responsibility to look after children. Due to affluence and declining birthrates, this is no longer the case, and this arrangement is no longer reciprocal, or mutually beneficial, it's become parasitical), or because they've been brainwashed by leftism, which teaches that men, white men in particular, are inherently evil, and are eternally and forever indebted to the rest of society, there are mutants out there, rarer types, men and even women who'll either have the intellect to notice men aren't being sufficiently compensated for their efforts, and/or men who don't have the instincts to coddle women, and women who don't have the instincts to be coddled by men, yet some of these mutants may still want long term relationships and possibly even children.

There's only so many men to go around, so even if these types are a minority, let's say 1 percent of the population, females and males make up about 50/50 percent of the population, so that means some of these sexually/socially normal females are going to have to accept these men if they want to start a family. However, countering that, many women don't commit, they'll have a child with a man and then divorce him, remain alone for a while, often partly dependent on government, and then find another man, so that they could just find another man servant to hook up with after the next one, and never have to bother with men who don't cater to their every need. Only if the minority of men, going their own way, sort of speak, exceeded one percent, and became a major minority, would we see any change in female behavior, otherwise, they can just remain alone for a little while, until one female breaks up with her man servant, who becomes available for her. They could just pass all the able and willing man servants out there between themselves, and never have to give a man like myself, the time of day.

Even if MGTOW, or whatever, never becomes all that popular, there's still a chance for MGTOWs to find girls who, like themselves, are mutants, women who're willing to pull their own weight. Gradually, more and more of these women may end up getting sexually and socially selected, and then we could see a shift in male/female relationships, at the cultural and even the biological levels. More and more men and even women are speaking out against such antiquated behaviors from bygone eras, and slowly but surely, I think, they'll have a significant cultural impact on the genetic/mimetic landscape, from the grass roots, bottom up.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:58 am

This video seems relevant,



Last edited by Æon on Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:00 am

Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:09 am

Erik wrote:
No - why, in the hell, would I do that?
Because you claimed that your worth to society was your protection, over your procreation.

You've demonstrated a few things already. By becoming a "protector" of society, as you say, you first imply that females cannot protect themselves. I say they can, especially after the invention of weapons and arms. After swords and spears, humans pretty much dominated all other species. So females didn't need males to protect them, after weapons. Firearms and guns is just overkill. A female can protect herself with a gun.

Second, you are painting other males as "bad" and yourself as "good". As if the savagery of one male is worse than the savagery of another. Or that you, somehow, magically, "deserve" more or deserve special treatment or consideration. Why should females choose you over another male? You respond "because I'm a fighter". So why is that important? Are you necessary? Can't a man just provide sperm without being a fighter? You are basing your self worth of this offering.

Which leads to the final point. You are basing yourself, your identity and value, off of a reaction. You are handing over your autonomy to females. You are giving them control. You are giving them the keys to your apartment, the keys to your car. You are saying "have everything I own", are you not? Because are you anything "more" than your offering to society?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:15 am

Divergense wrote:
I think there's all sorts of females and males out there, not any one kind has ever completely dominated, nor can any one kind completely dominate. While most men may be more than happy to coddle women, for biological/traditional reasons (in the past, women were weaker, largely dependent on men for safety, security and sustenance, and it was women's responsibility to look after children. Due to affluence and declining birthrates, this is no longer the case, and this arrangement is no longer reciprocal, or mutually beneficial, it's become parasitical), or because they've been brainwashed by leftism, which teaches that men, white men in particular, are inherently evil, and are eternally and forever indebted to the rest of society, there are mutants out there, rarer types, men and even women who'll either have the intellect to notice men aren't being sufficiently compensated for their efforts, and/or men who don't have the instincts to coddle women, and women who don't have the instincts to be coddled by men, yet some of these mutants may still want long term relationships and possibly even children.

There's only so many men to go around, so even if these types are a minority, let's say 1 percent of the population, females and males make up about 50/50 percent of the population, so that means some of these sexually/socially normal females are going to have to accept these men if they want to start a family. However, countering that, many women don't commit, they'll have a child with a man and then divorce him, remain alone for a while, often partly dependent on government, and then find another man, so that they could just find another man servant to hook up with after the next one, and never have to bother with men who don't cater to their every need. Only if the minority of men, going their own way, sort of speak, exceeded one percent, and became a major minority, would we see any change in female behavior, otherwise, they can just remain alone for a little while, until one female breaks up with her man servant, who becomes available for her. They could just pass all the able and willing man servants out there between themselves, and never have to give a man like myself, the time of day.

Even if MGTOW, or whatever, never becomes all that popular, there's still a chance for MGTOWs to find girls who, like themselves, are mutants, women who're willing to pull their own weight. Gradually, more and more of these women may end up getting sexually and socially selected, and then we could see a shift in male/female relationships, at the cultural and even the biological levels. More and more men and even women are speaking out against such antiquated behaviors from bygone eras, and slowly but surely, I think, they'll have a significant cultural impact on the genetic/mimetic landscape, from the grass roots, bottom up.
I think this is an unprecedented time in human history due to global communication, technology, the internet, nuclear bombs, and other social factors such as capitalism, industrialism, commercialism, corporatism, etc.

However nature changes very slowly, or not at all. Recently you mentioned assigning one female to one male. This was already implemented a long time ago by the Catholic founders and authors of christianity. They implemented forced monogamy for the same reasons its presented today. If females are not forced to marry a man, then female sexuality explodes, and females raise their own sexual value automatically. Even a slut will price her sex higher and higher, after realizing that she can.

It creates a division between the genders. If only exceptionally elite males start getting all the pussy, then what happens to society?? The other 90% of males start revolting and becoming displaced. Pornography and prostitution only go so far, before males also demand more. Males demand more control over sex.

But in the west, particularly u.s., we see females going from 95% control of society to 99.9%. So this is the reason for MGTOW and MRA phenomenon. The inequality is growing, not subsiding. And this will cause social and cultural schisms.

I point to Karen Straugh "girlwriteswhat" on youtube as the signal of the fact, and sign of what's to come.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Impulso Oscuro

avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 256
Join date : 2013-12-10
Age : 26
Location : Praxis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:34 pm

What are most of us made of?
49% female and 51% male DNA
When a society represents this balance of in the form of masculinity and femininity it is at its most harmonious.

Society is not as anti-male as much as existence is anti-life, to live is to decay and die.

Æon wrote:
You've demonstrated a few things already. By becoming a "protector" of society, as you say, you first imply that females cannot protect themselves. I say they can, especially after the invention of weapons and arms. After swords and spears, humans pretty much dominated all other species. So females didn't need males to protect them, after weapons. Firearms and guns is just overkill. A female can protect herself with a gun.

Females dont need guns, they have their bodies.

I will agree that warfare has become more disconnected, indirect, feminized but the conviction to kill (at least in the immediate) is something females do not yet have.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:38 pm

Impulso Oscuro wrote:
What are most of us made of?
49% female and 51% male DNA
When a society represents this balance of in the form of masculinity and femininity it is at its most harmonious.

Society is not as anti-male as much as existence is anti-life, to live is to decay and die.

Æon wrote:
You've demonstrated a few things already. By becoming a "protector" of society, as you say, you first imply that females cannot protect themselves. I say they can, especially after the invention of weapons and arms. After swords and spears, humans pretty much dominated all other species. So females didn't need males to protect them, after weapons. Firearms and guns is just overkill. A female can protect herself with a gun.

Females dont need guns, they have their bodies.

I will agree that warfare has become more disconnected, indirect, feminized but the conviction to kill (at least in the immediate) is something females do not yet have.


Females don't need to orchestrate violence, war, or killings.  That's what the men are there for.

They have the men do all the violence, war, and killing for them so that they don't have to get their hands dirty.  Women are equally violent but instead just prefer men to carry the acts out for them. Lazy and incapable bitches......

Women - All reward and no risk of themselves.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:53 pm

I'm with Joker on that, women are the ultimate source concerning the instigation and cause of violence.

Males are proxies for female violence. Females are also at war (Agon) with each other. Females also compete over limited resources. Females commonly use males to kill other people, their enemies. And then it's "ironic" that a male's enemies are not his own. For example, men will sometimes kill others that they like, and don't want to kill, but still kill out of necessity.

Would you rather have your pussy or not? What is the real, true price of pussy?

Some of us here know better than most.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:04 pm

Æon wrote:
I'm with Joker on that, women are the ultimate source concerning the instigation and cause of violence.

Males are proxies for female violence.  Females are also at war (Agon) with each other.  Females also compete over limited resources.  Females commonly use males to kill other people, their enemies.  And then it's "ironic" that a male's enemies are not his own.  For example, men will sometimes kill others that they like, and don't want to kill, but still kill out of necessity.

Would you rather have your pussy or not?  What is the real, true price of pussy?

Some of us here know better than most.

The true price discovery for pussy is constant war, competition, infighting, and violence on the behalf of males.

The genuine real nature of women beyond all that shit mascara, lipstick, and eye liner is a nasty one. Beyond that pretend facade of innocence or victimization. They know it themselves but never like to admit to it and hate any man that speaks about it.
Back to top Go down
Impulso Oscuro

avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 256
Join date : 2013-12-10
Age : 26
Location : Praxis

PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:08 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Females don't need to orchestrate violence, war, or killings. That's what the men are there for.

Females dont want to orchestrate violence, war, or killings...and thats why they're so dangerous.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Broken Heart

Back to top Go down
 
Broken Heart
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» String of pearls (a.k.a. ridge dissociation)
» a pair of broken wine glasses
» Need a prophetic word from the Lord...I'm in a broken situation
» Broken Jade Bangle got mended back...
» Birth Pains induces a Heavy Heart

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: