What do you expect from a superficial, dumb, sheltered, bull-dyke?
It's the same shallowness that makes feminists believe that their "rights" can exists without men ensuring them and, more importantly, inventing them. See, most dumb-cunts, and the lesbian types, and the macho heterosexual bull-dyke types, think being clever, and conniving, is the same as being intelligent, and that being vindictive, underhanded, and backstabbing is the same as being tough.
It has been said that no man can match a female in nastiness. Men try to defeat you by punching you in the face. Then they are done. A woman, being a psychology rooted in weakness, dreams of destroying your life - the vindictiveness exceeds the wrong done. A disparity between cause and reaction. Their "violence" would soon dissipate with no laws and no institution and no masculine entity there to protect them...just as their "independence" suddenly become complacence when they are placed in a real-life scenario.
It's the same psychological tendency we call Napoleon Syndrome: the short man overcompensating for his diminutive stature in other ways - usually with heightened ambitions or violent, aggressive, tendencies. Some females, feeling her own feebleness and inferiority, compensates for it with supreme vileness. This is particularly true of smaller, females - or did you think the short-man complex only applies to males? It's most often used to explain, or insult and degrade males, but it also applies, as a psychology, to females born smaller than average. And those born below average in looks - if you consider that females rely on their sexuality, their sexual promise, appeal, to be valued, this is a devastating inheritance for a female. Her inferiority, in relation to other females, and how they are judged by males, manifests in many compensating ways. Equality, unity, uniformity, appearances are superficial, are such manifestation.
You should not take anything a stupid bull-dyke, who thinks "human" is not a sexual designation, has to say about anything. She's one of those hyper-masculine females, so used to men being pussies that she's convinced herself that she's a man's equal. It's a byproduct of feminization: the vacuum being left is now filled-in by pretenders, who think wearing trousers, smoking, farting, spitting, and acting tough, is what a man is all about.
Punch them in the face, once, without caring about the police and them running to big brother crying, and see how fast they become all soft and cuddly. And I mean a REAL punch, not one of those you give a girl. It's the same shit you get from these pretentious cunts, who think that because they've manipulated all the stupid men-children they've come across, never having any experience with a real men, that they are able to manipulate any man with their bullshit.
And it is because men has dominated and controlled females that civilizations became possible. females are still dominated, only now the alpha is an abstra
ction: State, Institution. Under its protection they can pick and choose.
Excellent thorough articulation on modern females. Entirely flawless.
I really don't know why you would draw that out of what I said. Only that I think I told you once that that would be very unattractive in certain regards to some. But I think it could potentially reveal a part of your consciouness.
The manifested inteligence is due to neuroplacticity that had a certain potential to begin with and was nurtured in a certain way. So it always begs the question as to why so and so became this particular way, and some would conclude that female intellectuals are not on top of the spectrum of potentials.
You can present as many "intelligent attractive females" as you want....my point is that I've been that road dozens of times.
Sexually attractive females are airheads, stupid, idiotic. Why? Because they don't need to be intelligent to thrive. A womb with a pretty face is enough to guarantee riches in life. Nothing else is needed. Intelligence is not needed.
Right well that's partially what I said. But it would take an extremely special finesse to manuever into the maximum of maximums. What did I say? Manifested.
The probable reason you only draw from appearance which you highly scew to begin with is that a part of overall inteligence would be taste. Why can't they see my little special butterfly?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]of Fixed fighting against the "well-meaning" forces of nihilism, and their "happy message of paradise on earth.
He then wished fixed death, feels ashamed of it, and takes it back, to preserve that doe-eyed "goodness' of all brain-dead [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. A hunger, for its own sake - no bad feelings, no ulterior motives - pleasure for its own goodness - goodness for its own pleasure.
Yes some of us have a long past of associations. I presume that you, like myself, are not necessarily fond of the associations we find ourselves in. Some relationships and cooperation are wrought out of necessity, nothing more. Need forces some men together into fraternity. I think that is the true motivating force, a lack of options, and restriction of the environment.
With regard to the internet, cyberspace, and philosophy forums, the frontier is evaporating and slowly becoming populated............. privacy becomes exponentially more precious.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37183 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The followers of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have returned to save our souls. The man who rejected Jewish Nihilism becomes, through [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the mutation of the original virus.
One way or another the world must be "corrected" from all its suffering and injustices.
If we follow the apostolic preachings of apostle Schmooo and apostle idiot, we will enjoy the full gamut of religious nihilism. We'll have to observe others for the secular humanist variant of the same fecal droppings. Perhaps a hedonist might do.
There always has been alpha males and beta males. Beta males are decisively less masculine in that a natural effect of their position is a decrease of testosterone production.
It's clear that males are not as innately valuable as females, because one male can impregnate many females. What is questionable is to what extent humans through their history have had cultures where beta males were welcome in large numbers, as opposed to being mostly excluded or considered disposable.
Take the difference between a wolf pack and lion pride. In the wolf pack there may be many beta males, in a lion pride, there is generally one or two males that basically share the role of alpha males, and their male children who are only tolerated up to a certain age. We may also look at groups of chimpanzees. They have one alpha male and many beta males who are able at times to share in the breeding.
What is certain concerning humans is that through most of their history the ratio of beta male to alpha male was generally no higher than fifity to one.
Moliere wrote:
What makes that ratio so certain? I mean, how do you determine the ratio throughout history?
Stuart wrote:
Meaning in tribes or smaller clans within larger tribes, there was rarely more than fifty males who were completely subordinate to one alpha male.
But, with the onset of civilization that changed. Yes, it's complex in that in civilizations there are many hierarchies, some even overlapping, such as through, family, industry, religion and government. But, a subtle difference must be noted. Civilizations, marked by large groups of people, generally sustained by agriculture, must have a central government which all males are subordinate to. Yet, in a system of clans within a larger tribe, each clan has a great degree of autonomy.
While the system of rule in a civilization can differ greatly; such as from one uncontested ruler to several thousand statesmen, nobility, and/or leaders of industry, what remains is the proportionally extravagantly high ratio of beta males to alpha males. If a civilization of ten million contains ten thousand men involved in significant positions of power, the ration of beta males to alpha males is one thousand to one. Strikingly high compared to the fifty to one estimate of the maximum ratio for clans.
The premise here is that civilization produces rampant feminization among men. Perhaps others wish to contest this, or if not, then we may explore the implications of this feminization.
Moliere wrote:
Well, the notion that our civilization is civilization tout court is suspect -- tribes are civilizations. People are civilization. They can't actually be separated.
Not surprisingly, it appears he's being evasive.
Last edited by Stuart- on Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:45 am; edited 1 time in total
What makes that ratio so certain? I mean, how do you determine the ratio throughout history?
Stuart wrote:
Is such precision so important when we're comparing fifty to one to one thousand to one?
Moliere wrote:
A method for determining what you're claiming is certainly important. Else, you might just be making stuff up to fit your preconceptions.
Stuart wrote:
The accuracy of the respective ratios in question concerning tribalism and civilization is only important in that there's a striking contrast between them. If you can envision a significant number of non-agricultural based tribes with a ratio of beta males to alpha males anywhere close to the ration of that in agriculture civilization, then let me know. - Can you even envision that throughout history there was a significant proportion of non-agriculture based clans consisting of much more than fifty members altogether let alone consisting of more than fifty males?
-----------
Moliere wrote:
Well, the notion that our civilization is civilization tout court is suspect -- tribes are civilizations. People are civilization. They can't actually be separated.
Stuart wrote:
Here I contrast civilization with tribalism simply by the former being rooted in the advent of large scale agriculture, where it became far more practical than previously to impose slavery or lesser forms of servitude upon large groups of people. - A male slave or servant of course being a beta male.
Moliere wrote:
Why of course?
Consider Epictetus. A strong character, no?
Stuart wrote:
He was freed.
Let us get lost in the indeterminacy of numbers when such indeterminacy suits our purposes of evasion, and lost in slaves who were not slaves so as to prove that even slaves can be masters.
There's nothing wrong with most men being "beta", Stuart. What are you, a utilitarian? You'd like everyone to be "alpha", right? Happiness for everyone -- that's how you sound to me. But the goal should never be to make everyone "alpha", everyone happy, the goal should at all times be a single individual, the Overman.
You appear to resent grand organization of society for the simple reason that it leads to an ever larger number of slaves and you seem to be under dangerous delusion that your problems are rooted in civilization, not in yourself.
It's clear that males are not as innately valuable as females
First, you're conflating utilitarian value (i.e. reactive value) with intrinsic value (i.e. active value.) If men are truly less valuable than females, then masters would have ceased being masters -- they would have striven to become slaves. Which was never the case.
Second, even going by your utilitarian value, men are still more "valuable" (i.e. useful) than females, it's just that they are very rare.
There's nothing wrong with most men being "beta", Stuart.
Good to know, are you claiming I said otherwise?
Quote :
What are you, a utilitarian?
Why turn this around to me? I'd prefer you deal with the ideas.
Quote :
You'd like everyone to be "alpha", right?
Why should what I want factor in here?
Quote :
Happiness for everyone -- that's how you sound to me.
What does it matter what I sound like to you, deal with the subject.
Quote :
But the goal should never be to make everyone "alpha", everyone happy, the goal should at all times be a single individual, the Overman.
The subject of goals, and which ones may be preferable, has never come up, its entirely off topic. Please create another thread if you wish to speak of goals.
Quote :
You appear to resent grand organization of society for the simple reason that it leads to an ever larger number of slaves and you seem to be under dangerous delusion that your problems are rooted in civilization, not in yourself.
So that's what appears to you? According to you can one make an observation without there being deep underlining resentment present?
It's clear that males are not as innately valuable as females
First, you're conflating utilitarian value (i.e. reactive value) with intrinsic value (i.e. active value.) If men are truly less valuable than females, then masters would have ceased being masters -- they would have striven to become slaves. Which was never the case.
Second, even going by your utilitarian value, men are still more "valuable" (i.e. useful) than females, it's just that they are very rare.
Ok, I admit that I worded that badly, getting into terminology that is already highly defined.
Your observation is that slave-to-master ratio increases with the increase in the size of society. I have nothing to comment on that, it's a banal observation. The reason I commented is because my fagotry detector detected a hidden fagotry behind your observation and that is that there is something wrong with all of that "feminization" (i.e. slavery) business. My apologies if I made a mistake, but it does seem like you're seeing something wrong with all of that process.
The thing is that all observations are motivated -- there are no "disinterested" observations. Or at least, they are extremely rare. A man observes what he needs to observe, and when someone observes that "civilization produces rampant feminization among men" it betrays a certain kind of fagotistical way of thinking, or at least, it appears to betray it.
But seriously, let us ask ourselves, who bothers observing such facts? Or rather, who finds such observations to be meaningful? or worthy of a topic? Civilization may be feminizing (i.e. enslaving) many people, but at the same time, it is strengthening those at the top of it and in doing so leading to the production of the Overman (our modern civilization, however, is not doing that, our modern civilization is weakening everyone.)
Your observation is that slave-to-master ratio increases with the increase in the size of society. I have nothing to comment on that, it's a banal observation.
Yes, it's extremely banal, which is why I didn't create the thread quoted here, but on a forum where even the most banal information is so often denied by those who find it makes them question there perspective on reality.
Quote :
The reason I commented is because my fagotry detector detected a hidden fagotry behind your observation and that is that there is something wrong with all of that "feminization" (i.e. slavery) business. My apologies if I made a mistake, but it does seem like you're seeing something wrong with all of that process.
What do you mean by me seeing something wrong with it? I spend much time thinking about what actions I should take for my own benefit according to my own values. But, when I speak about what is, I don't speak about what should or shouldn't be. If my observations must be made personal, then it's in the context of how I deal with the reality I've observed to better benefit myself according to my values.
For example, I don't wish to be further feminized by society, so recognizing the methods society uses to pressure me to become feminized helps me to avoid it, and also helps me understand the cost that I must choose to accept in avoiding it.
When It comes to the objective aspects of reality that I can do nothing about, which outside of my extremely limited sphere of influence is vast, I strive to accept it, not to speak positively or negatively of it.
The thing is that all observations are motivated -- there are no "disinterested" observations. Or at least, they are extremely rare. A man observes what he needs to observe, and when someone observes that "civilization produces rampant feminization among men" it betrays a certain kind of fagotistical way of thinking, or at least, it appears to betray it.
But seriously, let us ask ourselves, who bothers observing such facts? Or rather, who finds such observations to be meaningful? or worthy of a topic?
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” – Orwell, George
Now go to the link I provided and observe those there denying the obvious.
Quote :
Civilization may be feminizing (i.e. enslaving) many people, but at the same time, it is strengthening those at the top of it and in doing so leading to the production of the Overman (our modern civilization, however, is not doing that, our modern civilization is weakening everyone.)
Excuse me for my psychological eye.
Ok, so finally you add content to the discussion. It seems you're right about how in modern times even those "at the top" can scarcely be considered alpha males. It seems impersonal institutions have taken that role.
Anyway, the original intent of this thread is for us to observe the reaction of those who deny the obvious. If you wish to either discuss the issue or the responses those at philosophyforums give, then fine, but should you wish to continue with your psychological analysis of me, then please create another thread.
What's problematic is your one-sidedness in your observation. You are claiming that civilization leads to weakening of the majority while ignoring the fact that at the same time it leads to strengthening of the minority. This is why I compared you to utilitarians: utilitarians do not value quality, they value quantity.
Either way, it is never the Other who "feminizes" you, but you yourself for having weak will and for lacking courage. One does not fight "feminization" with intelligence, one fights it with willpower and courage (intelligence is a feminine quality.) Whether it is civilization, clan or jungle, if you are weak-willed, you will be "feminized".
What's problematic is your one-sidedness in your observation. You are claiming that civilization leads to weakening of the majority while ignoring the fact that at the same time it leads to strengthening of the minority.
Ok, this too is productive, you said earlier:
Quote :
Civilization may be feminizing (i.e. enslaving) many people, but at the same time, it is strengthening those at the top of it and in doing so leading to the production of the Overman (our modern civilization, however, is not doing that, our modern civilization is weakening everyone.)
My statements aren't one sided in that they're true to my observations, and as far as my observations are accurate. We both agree that presently the weakening of society is not necessarily helping to strengthen a superior minority. Convince me that despite how it is currently to the contrary, generally in historic terms rampant feminization elevates a minority [edit: originally wrote majority], and then I will add that facet to my observations in this regard so as to balance them.
Quote :
Either way, it is never the Other who "feminizes" you,
I'm mostly speaking in broad terms, meaning averages based on cause and effect. I did mention how society pressures me to be feminized as a response to your unwarranted psychological prodding, but I never tried to dissolve my responsibility for my own feminization. You're making claims as if to contradict statements that I never made. This is not appreciated.
Quote :
but you yourself for having weak will and for lacking courage. One does not fight "feminization" with intelligence, one fights it with willpower and courage (intelligence is a feminine quality.) Whether it is civilization, clan or jungle, if you are weak-willed, you will be "feminized".
I disagree. And if you're implying that objective knowledge of reality is not a useful tool as well as will, courage, strength, etc. in avoiding feminization, then I'm sorry, but I no longer wish to continue this particular discussion with you here.
But, if you make a thread expanding upon the claims of the undervaluation of intelligence you seem to be suggesting, I may at some time participate.
Last edited by Stuart- on Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:27 am; edited 1 time in total
I disagree. And if you're implying that objective knowledge of reality is not a useful tool as well as will, courage, strength, etc. in avoiding feminization, then I'm sorry, but I no longer wish to continue this particular discussion with you here.
There is nothing wrong with knowledge and intelligence per se, but an excess of knowledge and intelligence is a sign that a man is lacking in other areas, such as courage and willpower.
It is extremely easy to deceive yourself on these matters, since self-deception, after all, is not a consequence of lack of intelligence, but a consequence of lack of willpower combined with an abundance of intelligence (powerful self-deception requires powerful inventiveness.) You can have all the knowledge in the world, you can be a number one Nietzsche scholar in the world, and still be a slave.
Besides, what slaves lack is willpower and courage, not intelligence. It's a well-established fact that slaves are far more intelligent than masters.
So many evasions from those in the philosophyforums thread in question. I must be afraid that if I don't speak against (as if I'm doing anything other than describing) feminization, then the truth of my feminization will be exposed.
The bar for proof is raised to unspeakable levels.
Now, Landru Guide Us, a philosophyforums regular, is intent on exposing me as having an agenda.
He being the blood hound that he is, used his keen senses to detect that I linked to this forum in my signature there.
The bloodhound still hot on the trail has sniffed out Satyr's Feminization of Mankind essay.
Landru Guide Us wrote:
By the way, I have a passing interest in how rightwing memes get generated and propagated on the internet.
I traced the OP to "The Feminization of Mankind - a Manifesto" by some guy called Satyr (who posts at the Know Thyself forum in Stuart's sig line) ... Satyr then shopped it around various philosophy forums, made it into an ebook (it was deleted from Scibd, no doubt due to its neo-Nazi claptrap) and now it's landed here in diluted form.
The manifesto is a wonderfully incoherent if not psychopathic misogynist rant, with quotes from Hitler to Nietzsche to Orwell, and lots of pseudo science, homophobia, pop psychology, social Darwinism, and talk about "herds" (always a bad sign).
It's got Stuart "hormone" theory, laments about the loss of primitive masculinity under the corrupting influence of civilization, it's even got the lion/wolf pack stuff.
It doesn't use alpha male terminology to the extent Stuart does. This must be Stu's innovation -- his contribution to feminization studies.
He also exposes that I'm propagating memes and declares that a meme is by definition non-factual.
Landru Guide Us wrote:
Know Thyself admits it's propagating memes. And your OP is one of them. Memes are counterfactual narratives with an agenda.
AndrewK, though, is making an effort, but apparently reflects the common sentiment that emasculated males don't deserve to be called feminized. He even offers to change the name of my thread for me. Maybe he should, if he changed it from "Feminization" to "Sugar Coated Truths for the Modern Male", I wouldn't have to suffer so many bad rating marks.
Here pcf's administrator, turtle, known for his quick wit, hard outer shell, and righteous crusades for liberalism, puts me in my place after reading my post on feminization.
As if muddled-turtle isn't enough, along comes pcf's resident wildlife expert (being wildlife himself), Mr. Orangutan.
Stuart wrote:
Mr. Orangutan wrote:
You might quite a lot of assumptions that don't quite hold up with current knowledge, at least as I'm aware of it.
Whose knowledge? While my post was highly influenced by others, nothing I say doesn't stand up to my own knowledge, required the hard way, from looking at reality objectively.
Quote :
There is little empirical evidence that human men can reliably and objectively be classified into "alpha" and "beta" categories.
You mean like empirical evidence of one guy mopping the floor with another. You see, when younger from time to time my face would have been all the empirical evidence you would need.
Quote :
For that reason few people make that distinction anymore.
Few? Do a search of 'alpha male' on the internet and see how many people, including scientists, make that distinction. But, yes, there is a culture of submission, where many men give up before even trying, that has become very prevalent in the last 10 years. They would never call themselves beta males, they even have the women to help them with their pretense. No, they prefer to be called Cuckolded-Americans.
Quote :
There are lots of reasons that testosterone levels can vary between different men, and the differences sometimes are and sometimes are not linked to differences in behavior.
Sometimes I dream I live in the wild and kill buffalo with nothing but a dagger.
Quote :
For example, men in industrialized countries have higher testosterone levels than men in traditional hunter gatherer societies for most of their lives, simply because they have a larger energy budget thanks to industrial food supplies.
You know Mr. Orangutan (can I call you Mr. Orangutan?), when speaking to first world to third world, to say alpha male to beta male doesn't even begin to describe it. What we in the first world have in the third world is our own perpetual shoe shine lackeys.
Quote :
If absolute testosterone level were the only determinant of "masculine" behavior, this would make your overall conclusion completely backwards.
It's not.
Quote :
I also don't think wolf and chimpanzee social structures can be described in terms of alpha and beta males.
They can and they have.
Quote :
Wild wolf social structures are based on families, one adult breeding pair and their offspring of both sexes, some of whom stick around into adulthood to help their parents instead of going off to breed on their own.
That would explain the fang marks on their necks.
Quote :
Chimpanzee males form a linear hierarchy from top to bottom, such that you don't have just have two levels of dominance.
Right, there's the alpha, then the alpha-beta, the beta-alpha, and then finally the beta-beta.
Quote :
Also, studies looking at known offspring number and dominance rank show that the top ranking males don't always have the most offspring - to be at the top in a chimpanzee group requires politicking, requires social support, requires allowing your alliance members to have enough mating opportunities so they don't turn on you.
I'll keep that in mind.
Quote :
Chimpanzee and other primate male hierarchies are also not completely stable; who is up and who is down can change fairly often, suggesting there is no particular type that always was and always will be "alpha".
Are you suggesting that the world is subject to a constant state of flux? Is there not any one thing we can count on to stay the same? - A pillar if you will.
Quote :
Efforts to identify similar hierarchies in traditional human societies as found in chimps and other primates usually fail.
My friend was asked by his boss to do a fact finding mission on reasons to cut his and his co-workers pay. He, too, failed.
Quote :
This suggests humans are not inherently strictly hierarchical, and that there is little biological significance to the hierarchies created by (relatively) recent cultural changes in our economies and societies.
Right Native-Americans often tell me how they feel as much empowered by the right to vote as their elders did by the tribal council.
