Feminism

Do you agree with that men are so needy that they donate to Laura Sauthern as a way of making a sexual advance with hopes of getting with her? I've never been so desperate for a woman, this seems a little crazy...

Is anything in this world sane?
The crazy I've seen and heard....just on the internet alone, never-mind close-up and personal, where it sometimes hides...has made me immune to being surprised.
I cannot sympathize, and I cannot relate...but can I empathize, and imagine how it could be a strategy?
Yes.
Desperation makes you see things that aren't there, hear things that you do not see.
People go insane with need/desire. Especially males with the testosterone in their blood, able to attain heights but also depths no female could.

I am not saying this is the case in this instance...because I do not know enough.
But is it possible? Definitely....and far worse is possible.

The state of mind lust/love produces is a kind of madness.
I've seen men do and say all kinds of insane things just to impress a woman...and have you seen males in the wild and how they risk their own survival to fornicate with a female, not understanding why or how?

Yes, I wont go into details here as its my private affair but I also felt in the shameful state of love, I did some dumb things whilst actively councious of their idiocy because it felt good and it unfolded like that in me(but only once and to a high quality female that I was attracted to because of the councious qualities I revered in her and because she was reserved and inaccesible) but I was 18 then I am 21 and I have a better hold on myself, with lust its a little bit like with any other vice and weakness, a small bout with oneself, one after another, day by day, without any legendary glory or shouting or gore, before going to bed remind yourself of your conviction, orient yourself mentally against what you are pushing against the next day, same upon waking, same when it jumps on you...images of my family, of my father leaving to work at 4am 7 days a week, his torn, dirty hands covered with calleus, memories of sacrifices made by my mother etc. with this in my mind I wont allow any whore to strip me of my money, I am low in orderliness and have done some repulsive things hygiene wise but to strip away from my family for some whore etc. is some thing I'd rather die or castrate myself than do.
btw. satyr I am sorry I wrote this post, its stoupid, as I posted it I actually started recollecting memories of men acting insane around and for women and felt dumb but initially, from my own perspective, it felt far-stretched.

polishyouth wrote:

Do you agree with that men are so needy that they donate to Laura Sauthern as a way of making a sexual advance with hopes of getting with her? I've never been so desperate for a woman, this seems a little crazy...

Similar to how (some) men tip waitresses particularly well if they are pretty or when they like them.
A kind of showmanship of power, like flexing muscles, or being bold in your flirtation and so on.
It's particularly wasted effort in that regard if it's not done in person or in presence of mutual company for added social pressure.

Also it depends on a social setting, if there is no social pressure, if there is no understanding that accepting such gifts comes with commitments from the woman then it has a reverse effect of making yourself seem like a sucker and thereby less attractive.

Anfang wrote:

Also it depends on a social setting, if there is no social pressure, if there is no understanding that accepting such gifts comes with commitments from the woman then it has a reverse effect of making yourself seem like a sucker and thereby less attractive.

I'm curious if females are actually so cynical about it, and it's not just the bad attitude of (foreign women) in the (feminist 'philosophy') field that would give that impression. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe a woman wouldn't ever count something that benefits her as an indication of being a 'sucker' on the man's part; at least, not at first. It would be rather unflattering and low esteem, to say that the minor joy she acquired from the interaction were something of a 'surprise' from a lowlife. As if she weren't expecting mostly non-beneficial or maleficent behavior from that man at the uttermost, more than something beneficial. If there is repeated encounters, yes.

Some exceptions might be if she was indoctrinated to 'treat all men the same' or she's only ever encountered or been in a life of decadence, such that an impoverished man giving her a small gift (that meant much to him) would mean a pittance to her. Bitterness, fear, all play a role. If they see you as a 'creep', every behavior of beneficence will appear suspicious and ulterior.

I guess sucker is a Jewish idea. I used it flippantly as not appropriate, unwelcome attention or gift giving.

If it's a small gift/token then I would not hold it against a man if I were the woman. He is showing his good will towards me. Usually this also doesn't happen in a vacuum either so there was some friendly banter beforehand or I am in some way related to the man, either through mutual friends, or I am already a friend or something.

But if it's not appropriate because of the relations and or the amount of the gift then it has a negative impact.
Either because the woman loses respect for you because she thinks you are a sucker, or she thinks you are trying to buy her and being a lowly merchant type (actually quite the opposite of the "What a sucker!" morality, I wonder if such a woman respects the conqueror type much more). Or some other option.

But let's say she accepts a gift which is simply not appropriate yet also has no intention of becoming your woman, what is she thinking?
I can take your resources and there is nothing you can or will do about it, you are not even supposed to notice it, that's just how it is. "What a sucker!" is one option that comes to my mind, there are probably others but I can't think of any right now.

polishyouth wrote:

Do you agree with that men are so needy that they donate to Laura Sauthern as a way of making a sexual advance with hopes of getting with her? I've never been so desperate for a woman, this seems a little crazy...

I don't think they hope for anything, or that there are such higher cognitive functions involved, generally. Men have instincts to provide women with resources, especially attractive women who agree with them. E-whores exploit this instinct. Some men who do this may genuinely and mistakenly believe that they are "helping the cause" or something by giving money to a random e-slut, and rationalize it that way.

Also I believe that subconsciously these men who regularly watch tradthot videos and donate to them already consider these women their girlfriends, in a similar manner that when a man watches porn, his brain is fooled into thinking he is having sex.

I think its obviously not clear since I dont know enough, but I think given that this guy on this MGTOW is definately strongly biased against women emotionally, holding a lot of hatred and resentment inside, I've watched a video of him interviewing some media high-flying scrub from America who managed to lure his cheating girlfriend that he himself only picked as a trophy to show-off after she cheated on him into believing he was broken emotionally and financially after their split and could not pay the money to her that the court demanded and she felt for it and then he used her trust to fuck her out of her money and not have to pay her for more than few years and these dudes and the main guy just started clapping slowly and their voices got high-pitched and excited and they started to praise him into heavens like some hero...They also lied about that alt-right blonde whore reporters age for the sake of the argument too but thats unimportant... I think this is good example to talk about because it illustrates the weakness and hypocrisy of this MGTOW bullshit, they blame everything but themselves...not one of them thought to ask this guy, what he was expecting to happen after he snatched a trophy harpy, himself objectyfing her and using her as a means to selfishly gratify his hedonism and narcissim? not one of them questioned him on working his ass for...American media coorporation? etc. etc. this reminds me of some cult or some feminine club where reality doesnt matter and your reputation doesnt matter, you are accepted as long as you are willing to accept the premises and go with the flow of self-deception and emotional healing...

It goes much deeper than Lauren Southern.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As you ascend from body to mind the context change but the dynamics are the same.

Physical dominance....becomes intellectual dominance.
Protector.

What happens to provider?
Clever, successful hunter, becomes wealthy male.

What happens to the male paternal figure, the father?
From spiritual representation of past, heritage, it transform to priest representative of God, and God transforms to Money.
The wealthy male is both priest/shaman/pater, and provider/hunter/protector.
Money implodes it all into one symbol - dumbing down.
The male need not be physically strong, not kind nor insightful or spiritual....he may not even have to be smart. All he has to have is the divine symbol = money.
In this world where you can make money even while being a half-wit, if you are willing to sell your integrity, your pride....prostitute yourself, or if you find a clever marketing agent, or someone who wants to use you as a front, even being smart is a handicap.

Women will extinguish, all themselves, Wotan's fire if they do not put their sons above vanity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wotan and Brünnhilde, what a timely scene. Columbia and Europa are condemned to free for all rape and white men today are torn between leaving her to a fate that they themselves caused but cannot prevent without causing injustice. The scoundrel says how wonderful it is that the man surrenders riches to his wiles, while the children and women suffer. The middle class whites created apathy, letting nature do its thing, conserving nothing; entropy progressing. 


The only thing they may do is create barriers to the consequences from the impulse causing an act against nature. They can only create the fire to minimize the consequences. Having no power, there would be no fire there to minimize anything. It is that fire which is a demonstration of love, but an awakened Brünnhilde would see as trapping her in. That fire can only persist while she is unconscious. Only as her memory remains of the great struggle Wotan went through about delivering justice. Being awake and seeing only fire, perceiving no danger, she would only perceive hatred.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A feminist denies the very fabric of Wagner's work, saying that there is no thymos in nature, no reason, no agency, nothing sharp or intrusive (that isn't some moral injustice). The idea that there are thymotic-like consequences from indifferent natures without affectance by critique or vague effeminate processes/""power"" is (to them) patriarchal, bigoted or even untrue. At the very least, they think it has no place in replication among their proximity. Of course, one dulls a knife before handing it to a child - such is what feminists say it amounts to advocating while denying its patronizing nature. If not all the time, then in circumstances of teaching, from which they personally arbitrate when it is time for action or for education.

Women were protected from their own nature by males, and then this protection was institutionalized, as rights.
In natural environments there is no such thing as 'rights'.
Having been institutionalized, over time, they now take it for granted that they 'deserve' to be as promiscuous, as males, without having to face the natural consequences, and a 'right' to display themselves sexually without having to accept the risks involved.
In nature they found protection behind a strong male, or within a group, where strangers were denied access.
In modern systems this 'strong male' is the institution, and the 'group' is now represented by 'law'.

Forgetting this, they think the 'rights' afforded to them are a product of their own qualities.
This is why 'rape' is so traumatic to modern females born and raised within a sheltering system cultivating delusions.
A modern female feel 'strong' and 'liberated' and 'independent' because the faceless abstraction of law, enforced by institutions, is providing her with protection against all who wish to challenge its authority.
They 'belong' to the state, and are, essentially, married to the Institution - replacing what was once called 'God'.
Biological males are 'given access' if they earn it - with work and loyalty...and denied access if they do not pay their dues, and if they do not abide by the institutional rules and regulations.

The debate over 'abortion' is about the institution intervening using technologies to 'level' the playing field, and erase the natural limitations placed upon the female sex.
It attempts to 'correct' natural order, producing social uniformity = Marxist utopia.

It's not that males and females are the same, are equal, but that, in a 'perfect' world, they 'ought to be so".
In Marxism the only permitted disparity is based on producing/consuming.
This places it in the same paradigm with Capitalism that so eliminates all identities except the ones derived from supply/demand...and money.
The past is no longer relevant - genes unimportant. What matters is how much you sell, how popular you are...and this is represented by the wealth you amass.
Communism disagrees with this 'amassing' and the new divisions it produces, advocating further uniformity by sharing wealth.

Capitalism/Communism agree on the eradication of natural identifiers, like race, sex, and the construction of new identifiers based on production and consuming...supply/demand.
They are nihilistic in that respect.
They disagree on how to distribute this new identifier = money.

Money is the new-age, secular, Messiah.
With it you can compensate or ignore all genetic inferiority, all inherited flaws, and limitations...saving the individual form itself.
Paradise is placed in the future - forever immanent, always coming....all progressing towards it.
Progress is the new name for piety, faith. One is always 'progressing' towards God's earthly Paradise, utopian, via the Messiagh's guidance, offering.

Jesus and Mohammed were Christianity's/islam's corporeal manifestation of the Idea(l), the absolute, the end of need/suffering = death.
For the Jews the Messiah has not arrived, bringing Armageddon...and the secular Jew has found his immanent earthly paradise in semiotics....math being a language, and money being the tangible representation/symbolization of this abstraction.
No longer resources, when it was detached from the Gold Standard...but a noetic abstraction that can mean anything, to anyone, at any time.....only agreement, shared belief, being the standard. So, popularity is how they measure 'validity'.
world has to be a collective project all must agree on.
So all is 'subjective' means if one refuses to agree then the hypothesis is denied validity.
The majority have to agree, and this agreement produced popularity, and this popularity is represented numerically, quantitatively, as money.
Money is Messiah.

What does blood and flesh mean in a world where you can buy into being anything....if you are popular enough you can claim to be anything. If the majority buy into your belief then it is 'truth'.

I think the people who actually actively promote the equality bit are pretty much always motivated by a disdain for the strengths and beauty that they can never have. It's a _)ew and their friends operation.

You just have to look at their goto projections about what motivates their enemies.

You just jealous.
You just have a mutilated, I mean small, penis.
You just filled with hate for what is not like you.
...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How to deal with problems caused by feminism? More feminism, obviously. Oy vey goy, it's the only way! Now stfu as we steal more of your shit and give it to women.

It's a fine policy, if it limits itself to those married and both having a national history spanning generations. Sure, it takes from the representative power of the singular male, but the male is supposed to identify viscerally with the tribe, while also being antagonistic (in balance) to root out incompetence.

It's openly parasitic, the people getting the benefits aren't paying for the costs. And parasitism is dysgenic. That's all that really needs to be said.

Slaughtz wrote:

Sure, it takes from the representative power of the singular male

The state stealing various forms of power from men is why birth rates are low in the first place.

Quote :

the male is supposed to identify viscerally with the tribe, while also being antagonistic (in balance) to root out incompetence

Whether the thief is from the same tribe or not it's still theft. Identifying with somebody who doesn't even identify with me enough to not steal my shit sounds foolish.

And I don't understand your comment about rooting out incompetence, because what this policy lacks is precisely some sort of a filtering mechanism. Maybe if people who wanted to take somebody else's resources had to challenge them to a violent conflict themselves, and so had to risk something and demonstrate their competence instead of having daddy state do the dirty work for them while they don't have to lift a finger. At least that would ensure the takers are able to pay with violence and are competent at something other than being a parasite.

Children give women power in relation to men (who they are having the children with).
If women are already very powerful in relation to men there is less drive to have children with men.

Re AutSider: I wasn't affirming the specific policy if it lacks what I distinguished it being fine as after "if". No foreign blood and not a single mother. The state presumes you aren't antagonistic to the long term interests of what it protects. The antagonism I talk about is borne from a love for your people - to take out the weak, or cowardly despot which causes harm. This doesn't mean genociding your closest people because you're "entitled" not to be stolen from. Taxation is a given in any state. In a fuedal or anarchic society perhaps conflict would arise for those resources. But out of that anarchy will arise a state regardless.

Competence doesn't matter to the state if it becomes barren and unable to competitively perform its duties thereby. It is not an ideal solution - in fact it is dysgenic if not at least meeting the aforementioned criteria, but if it does, it is fine. For a particular purpose (14).

Re Anfang: Women also have a desire to reproduce, despite their restriction of access, as a filter. That is, if she takes on risks by reproducing, like the limiting of options and comfort. If those consequences are subsidized against, then she becomes a gene sampler - especially if there's no consequence to the behavior due to contraception. The woman today cannot handle her freedom - she only wishes to keep increasing it, and traitorous parasites encourage and condemn any prevention of the behavior because the decay of the state benefits them.

It is very weird how the entire policy is phrased. Having children, instead of being treated as a benefit, is treated as a cost, something that you have to be compensated for, and other people are forced to compensate it. You'd end up thinking people replicate their genes even though they don't want to and don't benefit from it, just to benefit others, lol.

Another reason it's dumb is that if people have 4 or more children then certainly some of these children will financially help their parents in old age anyway, at least so they have basic necessities, so it makes no sense to additionally take resources from others.

Whereas these others are much more likely to need that money so they don't become a burden to the state or have to resort to criminality to survive, having less/no children to help them.

You don't need to make additional incentives for people to have children or impose costs on people for not having them because having children is its own benefit, and not having them is its own cost.

If you don't destroy male-female relationships with nonsensical legal rules and social norms and propaganda people will naturally want to have children and be able to do so, and those who don't want or can't probably shouldn't anyway.

This "pay people to have children" is nonsense people say to avoid dealing with fundamental ways in which feminism has destroyed society, because that would be too "extreme" or whatever.

Slaughtz wrote:

I wasn't affirming the specific policy if it lacks what I distinguished it being fine as after "if". No foreign blood and not a single mother.

These are just ways to make a bad policy less bad, it's still bad tho.

Slaughtz wrote:

This doesn't mean genociding your closest people because you're "entitled" not to be stolen from.

My closest people are my family, and if I am stolen from that harms, or as you say, "genocides" my family.

I may like other people in my group, but I don't want to be forced to support them at the expense of my family.

People get together in groups and cooperate to obtain higher benefits for their families than they could alone in nature. Not to support "the tribe", which is really just another way of saying "allowing others in the group to leech on me without getting anything in return". Groups which enable parasitism tend to turn away the productive, which is counter-productive (duh lol).

If I supported others first of all I would prefer to do it willfully, through charity, instead of being forced. Second, it would be from excess, so my family isn't harmed. Third, I'd choose whom to support - most likely people who have had their homes destroyed in a natural catastrophe, or a widow whose husband died in an accident, etc. Not just fund any random dumb whore who finds some retard to inseminate her. There are people who are legitimately screwed by life, by things which cannot be predicted or prevented. Helping them is actually productive in the long-run as it helps them get back on their feet. That's not exactly the same as being forced to fund any random dumb whore who manages to find some retard to inseminate her.

Another thing is that charity is pro-social in that it helps enforce social norms because if you're being anti-social people are less likely to help you. Therefore, if the enforced social norms are healthy, charity is good as it helps preserve them.

Theft through taxation allows people to be as much of a weak, degenerate, parasitic shitbag as they want because the state will take your shit and give it to them anyway, and you aren't allowed to retaliate.

There's nothing wrong with taxation if one supports what one genuinely needs, uses, likes, etc.

And while on the topic of feminism, I've had some guy link me a female weightlifter as proof that women can lift heavy or something.



Let's firstly ponder for a moment the emasculated psychology of a male interested in such women, especially in a sexual manner. The healthy masculine instinct is to be attracted to young women with feminine curvy bodies and want to subordinate, possess and inseminate them. What kind of psychology is sexually attracted to huge, masculine looking, muscly figures? That's right, a feminine psychology that desires to be dominated, the opposite of a masculine psychology.

Next, while it is true this woman lifts more than an average man in the same weight category could, that's because the average man doesn't lift. If an average man in the same weight category received the same type of training, nutrition, etc. he most likely would be able to lift more.

But why would any intelligent, masculine man even tolerate females on his territory becoming such vile, disgusting monstrosities, much less actually support it and watch it? How does it benefit him? The consequence of allowing/supporting these things is that females simultaneously get higher standards (due to status and resources they are given from these competitions) while becoming more repulsive. So it's a relative increase of high-standard, low-desirability women, which is the worst kind of scenario in cost-benefit analysis - low benefit, high cost. Not sure if there are any benefits to it, except as I mentioned to poor emasculated men who have been brainwashed (or simply have cuckold instincts) so they like watching that shit.

It's the basic law of economics, you get what you subsidize, and the other way around. So it only makes sense to (legally) kill such women to decrease the incentive other women have to become disgusting useless monstrosities.

This applies to many other sports too. If I'd allow and pay females to compete at all, it would be in the same league as men, so they'd have to earn what they get same as men. Feminists say female sports get too little recognition but in reality it's the exact opposite, women play below the level of high-school boys, literally, relative to their performance and taking into account other negative costs women in sports has for society in terms of power reduction, they get too much.

Masculinity always outperforms femininity in sports, so encouraging females in sports = encouraging them to be masculine.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be physically fit though, that's a separate issue.

It's incredible when you think about it how deep this feminizing brainwashing runs in society. Just walking around the streets I can scarcely see a man about who has a relatively fit body, masculine facial features and that predatory male gaze, almost all of them are fat, skinny fat, skinny, no chins, thin arms, weak sheepish look in the eyes, etc. Neurotic, feminine, brainwashed weaklings.

So it's no wonder we have the society we do, as society is the manifestation of its individuals.

And people are brainwashed to ignore their instincts to hate and despise weakness and degeneracy. My father calls me to show me some ridiculously flamboyant faggot talking about some shit noone cares about, and I can see he's dying from laughter, and I laugh at the faggot too, and then he tells me we shouldn't make fun of these people because they're born that way and we should be tolerant and etc., basically repeating the talking points he hears from his jew screen. So his instincts are healthy, but he is brainwashed.

The moment that a woman becomes conscious of herself as a sexual being, she endures a shock. This shock comes from the realization that is all that she is. This realization throws her into a turmoil of extreme emotions and dysfunctions all relating to her sexuality. She realizes her sexuality dominates her in every way, that it is a totality of her nature. Her rebellion against this, is her affirmation of its presence in her. Her protests against it are admissions of its control over her. Her hatred of it, is a complete acceptance of its power over her. She becomes obsessed over it without being aware because it feeds her obsession. She vituperates others about it, because it speaks words of truth to her. She engages in mindless promiscuous perversions as her way of attempting to castrate herself, because it is the authority over her life and nature. Feminism=female nihilism.

‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is no family structure without Paternalism or Patriarchy.
The system tries to replace it with idealism...but it fails, producing non-productive unities of convenience, and for taxation purposes.

Patriarchy made families possible.
It did so by restricting and regulating natural human promiscuity, or natural humans sexual behaviour.
It did so to integrate males into the system, and convert them from free-radicals, with no investment in the system, into dedicated investors.

Are the people behind feminism really unaware that their idea of a strong woman type that they are promoting is unattractive, even repulsive to heterosexual (European) men or is that by design?
Because it would make sense.

There is no power or empowerment for those women who fall for it, besides some potential feeling of self-worth aggrandisement but that's only a fleeting effect. Maybe driving you into action due to increased confidence, or driving you into (ultimately self-sabotaging) action due to over-confidence.

As long as you do the "right" thing, in the eyes of certain kinds of people, the media, the social world will convince you that you are doing great and when you burn(-out) and fall they will be there to assure you that you are still doing great or will again be doing great, if it wasn't for that "patriarchy" or something.

To bring this back to a more general point of view, all social movements these days run on the fuel of narcissism and flattery. That's the tool that is employed. The president of the USA runs on it as well as did his campaign.
Doesn't mean that there isn't anything real there but it always gets infused with the supply of self-worth for those feeling more or less secretly worthless. This corrupts all mass movements.

It's sad how feminism has completely ruined the idea of white knighting/defending women.

In a sane environment white knighting can simply mean "defending women when they are doing what they are supposed to be doing". There is nothing wrong with this.

In a feminist environment defending women is mostly pathological and destructive and has come to mean "defending women whatever it is they're doing because they're women".

So men often can't play out their own basic instinct to defend women without being destructive.

I wonder to what extent the Jews and feminists were even consciously aware of the genius of their own subversiveness.

Not much genius in attacking the fundamental principles of the institutions, or the traditions, you want to eradicate.
Undermining the monogamous relationship of males and females, destroys the family. The foundation of western civilization.
This is why there is such animosity toward Paternalism.
Females were convinced that it restricted only female sexual behaviour, or female promiscuity, to be more exact. It, in fact, restricted all sexual behaviour, making females possible, integrating males into the system, and protecting females from world, and from themselves.
But, simpletons cannot learn unless they fall on their faces....and even then it is doubtful, because they tend to accuse others and not themselves.

Abrahamism is the dogma that makes of biological males surrogate females, or custodian of females, who are god's concubines and wives...not their own.
They have a psychotic understanding of sex.
Circumcision is a symbolic castration, marking the male as a symbolic eunuch protecting the king's harem.
Materlineal identity implies that all born, of the woman, are the woman's and god's offspring....using the male as a proxy.

Muslims overcompensate for their symbolic mental emasculation, with physical displays of hypermasculninity.
Christian males are, also, eunuchs, representing god's penis. The story of Christ's conception is a story of cuckoldry if you do not keep in mind that Joseph was not Mary's 'true' husband, but a surrogate husband.
Mary is God's wife...therefore Christ was God's son.

Twitter thread about a girl who "tried to catfish Peter Sweden. Seems like she was trying to lure him out of Norway so he could be arrested by the UK."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]