Nature is Female; Artifice is Male.

Nature is female. Artifice is male.

I believe that christian theology is correct in this presumption. Man is a creation. Man is procreative. Man creates, while woman does not. Woman is against creation.

Because males are the risk takers. The male specie is primal. The male entity, genetics, organism have all evolved to take risks on behalf of females. This is why females are risk avoidant, males are risk takers. Also, philosophy is about risk taking. Because within philosophy, speaking, writing, and presenting a philosophy are all risks. You risk exposing yourself as stupid, as irrational, even as mentally retarded. All of this is on display for philosophy and philosophers. Good philosophers, and the best philosophers, expose lesser minds for what they are. And this is humiliating for fools, idiots, and morons, who erroneously thought that "philosophy is easy", because thinking is easy, isn't it? Isn't it easy to sit on your ass, and think all day? Isn't it easy to "bullshit", as they say? If it's so easy, then why are philosophers so rare? These answers become clarified here.

Females value security over freedom. While males need freedom. Freedom is a need for males, since maleness is automatically rejected and expulsed from society. Society is a collection of individual males and females, but society requires female subsistence and participation. A group of all males, no females, is technically not a "society" at all. A society requires at least one female, one woman.

Since females value security over freedom, females are naturally conservative, not liberal. Males are naturally liberal, disorderly, competitive, and seekers or instigators of chaos. Males do not inherently, instinctively, "create order". Because a male who creates order is reacting to the circumstance of his freedom.

Because society is already ordered. Laws are a priori. They exist before your birth. You were born into societies, as you were born from women.

I think you have that ass backwards.

Male is natural where female is artifice.

Modern civilization at its peak of artifice right now is a deeply feminine one.

In modern civilization it is the woman who benefits the most from its constructs not the man.

Men are more instinctual and primordial therefore more natural.

Man needs to create, because man needs freedom. The creations of men are how males attempt to acquire freedom, or simply, break away and become independent from society. Man attempts to distance himself from woman, from society, from inherited rules, laws, order. Man is born into an order. This order is represented and embodied by woman, by females.

Females represent order.

To have any type of identity other than female, a male must first define himself as "different". How is male different and apart from female? When and where is male and female the same? The similarities lead to the humanist religion. Humanists believe that "humanity" is the specie, when actually, male and female is the specie. Do you see how the christians and jews attempt to use the label, abstraction, concept of "humanity" to bind male and female together?

Men and women are "the same" or "equal". Men and women are similar. Because both are human. This is their justification and rationalization.

Because males and females have similar body shapes (do we?) except the sexual organs. So an immediate exception is made. We are all human except our genders. And we'll simply, cleverly, innocently, overlook this.... Christianity then went much further, and used clothing as another form of civilization, to hide gender completely. Not only can we pretend all are human, but we censor the genitals. This is why, still to this day, males and females use clothing throughout the world as a form of religious censorship.

So destroy humanity. Pretend, for a moment, there is no such thing as "human" type. There are males. There are females. You will begin to see all the differences that were institutionally hidden from your mind.


Males are something completely different than female. We do not share a specie, do you understand? There is a complete break in specie.

Because specie is type. And type includes behavior. And do males and females behave in the same way? Do we have the same values? Do all have inherent value, just for being born? Who competes over whom? Do females regularly compete over "owning" a male, a mate? Or isn't it obvious that males generally compete over females instead? This may very from society to society, but the universality is obvious.

Males have a competitive instinct which does not occur through females.

Prove it, you ask???

War.

War is a male domain. Females really fail as soldiers and professional athletes. Females lack the competitive drive, because females do not need to compete. Female competition is categorically different than male competition. Females compete against other females in a much different manner than males compete against other males. There is also the third competition between males and females.

There are many types of competition.


Back to the point.

Males need to compete, and create, in order to acquire and "have freedom". This freedom is individuality. It is the ability for a male to stand apart from society. Society is the force which "merges", connects with "love", erases all difference, destroys all distinction. Society is a natural force that absorbs and integrates all within herself. A female with an insatiable appetite, that just keeps eating and eating and eating. She absorbs the world into herself, through consumption and eating.

You can see why now, obviously, that a female who denies her hunger, who controls her diet, who neglects food, and remains thin in the face of abundant resources, is..........an exceptional female. She is denying her own instinct as a female. Because the female type is one that acquires power through eating, absorption, integrating all else into her through her stomach.

The archetype of femininity maybe a monstrous woman, a "man eater", who eats everything. Maybe even her own offspring. Because a female's offspring, her children, have separated from her body. The archetype female cannot stand division and distinction. She hates independence and freedom. She wants to reabsorb even her own children.

The archetype female would eat her own children. Because she wants the resources within her.

This could be called the essence of femininity and nature.

Therefore, you can see why maleness seeks freedom away from this monstrosity. Man attempts to break free from woman (society). Because society, woman, female nature, is powerful. It is gravitational. Man can never "become himself", or change, within nature.

Nature is, by definition, that which resists change the most, or, is simply immortal. By this logic, all life is immortal in the sense that it resists change. Life is the resistance of change, never the embrace of it. Life is an ordering force. And all life is natural. All life is feminine or female by nature.

It is the male that is rare, exceptional, unique, individual, different.

It is through masculinity and the male evolution (male is evolution itself), that change takes place. Because the male takes a risk, is essentially designed to take risks, that nature could possibly "change". If the male takes a risk, and fails, then he dies. Nature buries his body and reabsorbs it. In The Matrix movie this was called "returning to the source".

If a male takes a risk, and is "successful", and approved by society, then he is reintegrated through sex, and his genes repeat.

If he fails, then society will reject him, and possibly kill him.

A male "cheats" this by attempting to rape his way back into society. A male is "bad and evil", by society, if he divorces from society, and disobeys society. Rape is the first crime in nature. Perhaps the only real crime. Because this takes power out of femininity, away from females, and into masculinity, into the hands of males.

The idea of rape, leads to parasitism. A group of males "outside society", take away from society, by force. And so society will outlaw these males, identify and know them as criminals, and will do all within her power, to stop this (crime).

One of the most insidious forms of this crime is lying. Males try to live within society, but lie to achieve this. Males repeat all the slogans, all the religious mantras, but secretly and privately disobey. This disobedience is the ultimate crime. "thought crime". In catholicism, this thought was "heresy" or doubt.

To doubt God, to go against society. To go against nature.

The greatest crime a man can commit, is to begin to value freedom. Is to become free.

Freedom is the greatest crime.

LaughingMan wrote:

I think you have that ass backwards.

Male is natural where female is artifice.

Modern civilization at its peak of artifice right now is a deeply feminine one.

In modern civilization it is the woman who benefits the most from its constructs not the man.

Men are more instinctual and primordial therefore more natural.

I've considered it a lot.............

But nature is order, conservatism, security, and a stable environment. Females demand this most of all. It is not males who demand stable environments.

This is why males commit suicide or homicide exponentially more often than females. Because females have the incentive and privilege of society on their behalf. Society does not cater to males.

So I can conclude that nature does not cater to males.

Restate the premises:

The female is a creation, an entity, an organism and biology that embodies privilege and security.
The male....embodies expendability and freedom.

Why is the female type necessarily privileged? This is due to the sexual reproductive strategies, of survival, of the larger or higher specie, in this case, the specie of "humanity" that rests above the distinction of gender. Gender is more primal than bodily form. Bodily form is the human type. Sexual dimorphism evolved before the extension of many subsequent animal species (like mammals opposed to fish, or insects). Therefore gender is primary, not secondary.

Male and female is primary. Humanity is secondary. The male is a different specie (type) than female.

Why are females generally "beautiful", representatives of beauty, whereas males are not, or much less so? And why does privilege revolve around female beauty, with direct correspondence to the female womb? What is the female sexuality? What does it involve, what are its processes? Does a female have unprotected sex, a risk, with just any male? Why is she attracted to this type of male, but not that type? What is the difference of sexual attraction between male and female?

The female defends herself, her womb, and in so doing, defends her privilege and beauty. Her beauty represents her body, shape, and visage. Her superficial appearance, her body, represents her health and type.

Æon wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

I think you have that ass backwards.

Male is natural where female is artifice.

Modern civilization at its peak of artifice right now is a deeply feminine one.

In modern civilization it is the woman who benefits the most from its constructs not the man.

Men are more instinctual and primordial therefore more natural.

I've considered it a lot.............

But nature is order, conservatism, security, and a stable environment.  Females demand this most of all.  It is not males who demand stable environments.

This is why males commit suicide or homicide exponentially more often than females.  Because females have the incentive and privilege of society on their behalf.  Society does not cater to males.

So I can conclude that nature does not cater to males.

Nature is instinctual, primal, and primordial.  These are characteristics of the masculine.

Civilization is superficial, domesticated, and filled with all sorts of illusions which is why when I think of it I see the feminine.

It is because civilization caters to females more so than males that we can describe it as being feminine.  Modern civilization is the peak of this entire feminine manifestation.

Modern civilization as the peak of femininity trying to feminize men is also another example describing it as feminine.

Nature- masculine. Artifice- feminine.

Civilization is all about domestication, taming, controlling, and to make one docile.

In short it is about feminizing men into something they are not naturally.

Do I have this backward then?

Isn't it theism (christianity) that attributes man to nature and woman to artifice ("god created woman out of adam's rib")?
Isn't it paganism that attributes woman to nature and man to artifice?

They're two sides of the same coin? Why place "nature" in one instead of the other?

Is a civilization (culture/society) more masculine or more feminine?

How do we judge this?

"Is a civilization (culture/society) more masculine or more feminine?"

I believe a successful civilization can be judged on the degree each of its members successfully *self-control rather than being controlled.

Is self-control a masculine quality?

I believe it is.

Does the assertion or declaration of self-control, and the defense of self-control, extend out from a masculine personality?

I believe it does.









*synonymous here with self-determination, -possession

We can say that a civilization, and any other type of society is as masculine or feminine as the average masculinity or femininity of its members, and as Henry said, masculinity is largely about self-control.

We could also define a society's masculinity or femininity based on the masculinity of those with most control; over themselves and society as a whole.

The problem with the later way of defining masculinity/femininity in moderns days is that while civilization is a product of much masculine creativity, those men have mostly died long ago, leaving their designs to continue without them, unconsciously, through cultural/institutional forces.

So now there are few people exerting any actual control over civilization; the so-called leaders being as much controlled as they're controlling, while the few men with a significant degree of masculinity realize the enormous task of exerting their own order in a broad sphere, and therefore are content with controlling their own lives more than society.

We live in a decadent civilization, decadence, I believe, more or less continuing back to the decline of the Hellenic culture. We could say that the feminization of mankind, more or less began with that decline, and the growth of the influence of Judaic based nihilism, but, nonetheless, there has actually been much masculine creativity since then. Though little masculine creativity philosophically has been made since then, there has supposedly been a significant degree of it in the arts, and of course much through the specific forms of technology.

But with that said, while the femininity of western civilization for the majority of time since the renaissance may be in question, doubtless, at the very least, in the last 20 years, masculine creativity has declined relatively almost to a stop, making it clear that all modern civilizations are highly feminized based on practically any criteria.

Æon wrote:

Isn't it theism (christianity) that attributes man to nature and woman to artifice ("god created woman out of adam's rib")?
Isn't it paganism that attributes woman to nature and man to artifice?

Sounds right.

Quote :

They're two sides of the same coin?

How is that?

Quote :

Why place "nature" in one instead of the other?

That question leads us to the question of why be pagan rather than christian. In other words; why be honest, creative, have self-control and and self-love rather than be a world denying, slavish, self-hating nihilist?

"there are few people exerting any actual control over civilization"

Which is as it's always been, yes?

A significant few directing a less significant many*.

And: not simply directing physicalities but also mentalities.

The most prized piece of real estate is between the ears (not only between the ears of the less significant many but also between the ears of the significant few).

With a superior (or more wisely applied inferior) might you can force a man to plow your fields with no compensation, but you truly own the man when you've got him wanting to plow your fields with no compensation, to act as your proxy for no other reason than you've convinced him to.









*and culling (openly or subtly) those who will not 'fit' or who choose a significance apart from the current conventions.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Is self-control a masculine quality?

I believe it is.

I presume you mean that if I see a hot chick and want to tackle her, pin her to the ground, and fuck her, that you mean repressing my sexual urge to do so is "self-control" and that it is "masculine" because only males have this type of sex drive???

I don't know what you guys mean by "self-control".

I presume that you're talking specifically about the need (for civilization) to suppress the male sex drive, and prevent some, certain, particular types of males from fucking and reproducing. This is the way I see it, anyway. White males are suppressed the most, sexually, by non whites. Because white males are the most threatening type of humans. Non whites don't want a large white male population.

This is also true, because non whites of both genders are sexually attracted to whites more than whites are sexually attracted to them.

White is privilege. And white people are inclined to interbreed. Every male is competing for white women. But nobody is competing for black women.

Alpha males, specifically, compete viciously for sexual access to white females. Brown and black females, have lesser value. Males aren't going to compete, at least not fiercely, to fuck a negress. Especially a promiscuous one. If a white guy fucks a black girl then he's "desperate". If a black guy fucks a white girl then everybody think he's rare one in a million stud.

Æon,

As I say up-thread: 'self-control', in the context of this thread, is 'synonymous...with self-determination, -possession'.

As that pertains to sexual appetite: you own it or it owns you.

My comments, however, were/are not specifically about sex.

That still doesn't make sense to me

I need much more context and examples are helpful

You own 'you' or you're owned (by another, or by your appetites, impulses, instincts, etc.).

You direct 'you' or you're directed (by another, or by your appetites, impulses, instincts, etc.).

The context is 'you' (an organic, on-going, recursive, event).

The example is 'you' (an organic, on-going, recursive, event).

Self-interrogate.

My nephew used to beg me to hoist him up into trees to climb and I told him, over and over, 'nope...if you're gonna climb the tree then you gotta climb the tree, from the ground up...if I boost you up, you learn nuthin'.'.

The same applies here, I think.

Wrote the following in another place in a thread about libertarian notions of land ownership.

In some weird way, I think it applies here...


Seems to me the true basis of ownership (of land, or anything else you care to mention) is the assertion 'this is mine' and the successful defense of that assertion.

Any other definition (including the libertarian) is just a muddying of the water with rationalization.

We gather in groups (for mutual survival), we suss out moralities and ethics (to promote/further that survival), we codify these moralities and ethics into law, and -- as a function of this -- we (largely) agree on what constitutes 'property'.

But, at the heart (or as the foundation) for all this morality, these ethics, these laws, at the core of 'property', is the often over-looked (often dismissed [often misunderstood]) 'might makes the right'.

Without the application of might (one's own, or that lent to one by the community) the assertion of ownership is meaningless.

So: any arguments for or against property ownership, as clever and consistent as any may be, are nuthin' but piles of fertilizer.

Bottom line: if you can't stop X from taking what you call yours (by way of yourself or the lent power of the community) then 'it' ain't yours.

I'm blind as to how "self ownership" is male or female specifically.

Maybe you're talking about morality and self responsibility. One person must account for his own actions. In this case, females are not responsible for themselves. Females are amoral and lack self responsibility.

Is this your meaning?

Æon wrote:

I don't know what you guys mean by "self-control".

Self-control is a psychological state in which all drives are converging (which means that they are united by some distant goal) rather than diverging (which means that each drive is pulling in its own direction.) You can say that convergence is masculine and divergence feminine.

Modern society is largely divergent, meaning, feminine.

Liberal, after all, means divergent.

Then males are divergent from society, because society has a mechanism that rejects males (exiles internal competition).

In fact, I am living proof of this phenomenon. At ILP I challenged Carleas, Faust, and the authorities. They banned me. Here I challenged Satyr, Echo, and Apaosha. Echo banned me at one point.

The more resistant and combative a male is, the more "masculine" he is, the more he will become excluded from the group. The group congregates around only one specific type of male that it is used as its hero/representative/guardian (Ideal Man).

I think you got it backwards. There is no internal competition in healthy societies. Internal competition, after all, is merely another name for divergence. Only modern, individualistic, cannibalistic societies (which are often said to be collectivistic, but that can't be farther from truth) have internal competition and it is precisely for this reason that they suck.

Also, in your original post, you said:

Quote :

Since females value security over freedom, females are naturally conservative, not liberal. Males are naturally liberal, disorderly, competitive, and seekers or instigators of chaos. Males do not inherently, instinctively, "create order". Because a male who creates order is reacting to the circumstance of his freedom.

This is wrong.

First, let's make it clear: order is power, chaos (i.e. disorder) is weakness.

Males are attracted to chaos only because it provides them with an opportunity to discharge their energy by ordering disorder -- no other reason. That said, what is truly attractive is not disorder but the process of ordering which depends on the existence of disorder.

Females, on the other hand, are said to be attracted to order but this is only because it provides them with an opportunity to run away from chaos, since they are too weak to order it. What they are truly attracted to is not order but the process of disordering which depends on the existence of order.

Does that make sense?

When all is said and done, order is GOOD and chaos is BAD. End of story.

Ordering, after all, is synonymous with convergence, organization and unification, whereas disordering is synonymous with divergence, disorganization and separation. A healthy body is ordered/convergent/organized/unified, whereas a sick body is disordered/divergent/disorganized/separated, in one word, DECADENT.

From this follows that conservatism is masculine and liberalism feminine.

Remember: only people who are not free (i.e. slaves) dream of freedom. Free people, on the other hand, dream of unfreedom, since it provides them with an opportunity to discharge their energy by freeing themselves.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

order is GOOD and chaos is BAD

This represents your subjective evaluation. You personally value order and devalue chaos. But order and chaos require context. What is ordered or disordered? The context in this thread is nature and artifice. Nature is the embodiment of order. Because every specific organism on this planet "adapts" to its environment, which means, attempts to manipulate its environment in order to secure resources and develop a habitat. For example, ants make an ant colony. And this colony represents an ant's "nature" or instinct.

But structures, colonies, and civilizations are defined as artifice, as unnatural. This is obvious using Los Angeles or New York City as examples of large human cities. People associate wild vegetation as a "natural" environment but new york city as "unnatural". So the disparity is set, between manipulation of an organism and its environment.

Who builds the cities? Males do. Who inhabits them and bathes in security and privilege? Females do.


Ordering, after all, is synonymous with convergence, organization and unification, whereas disordering is synonymous with divergence, disorganization and separation. A healthy body is ordered/convergent/organized/unified, whereas a sick body is disordered/divergent/disorganized/separated, in one word, DECADENT.

From this follows that conservatism is masculine and liberalism feminine.

It's not my subjective evaluation, it's a fact: order is always good and chaos is always bad. Are you saying that there are times when order is bad and disorder is good?

It also seems that you think that civilizations are necessarily decadent (this is what you mean when you say "unnatural") but I disagree with that.

Quote :

Who builds the cities? Males do. Who inhabits them and bathes in security and privilege? Females do.

What is this supposed to mean?

Who sells drugs? Drug dealers do. Who buys them and destroys his life taking them? Retards do.

I want to add something to my earlier post on self-control.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Self-control is a psychological state in which all drives are converging (which means that they are united by some distant goal) rather than diverging (which means that each drive is pulling in its own direction.) You can say that convergence is masculine and divergence feminine.

Suppression of one's desires is often associated with self-control, but suppression itself is not necessarily a convergent act -- if misused, suppression can lead to deeper divergence. Suppression is merely a MEANS, a way to ARREST the diverging act so as to be able to zoom into it and UNDERSTAND the underlying mechanism that led to its divergence with the aim to FIX it -- which is done using reason.

Self-control, then, is not mere suppression, but suppression in conjunction with reason.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

It's not my subjective evaluation, it's a fact: order is always good and chaos is always bad. Are you saying that there are times when order is bad and disorder is good?

Yes there are times when chaos is good, like when a person is too strict. Just like a person can be too conservative or too liberal. Balance.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

It also seems that you think that civilizations are necessarily decadent (this is what you mean when you say "unnatural") but I disagree with that.

Yes, civilization is ultimately decadent, since this is the nature of privilege which women and children benefit the fruits of labor of men.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

]What is this supposed to mean?

It means stay on topic. This is about nature being feminine and artifice being male, so describe how goodness of order and evilness of chaos pertains to the topic.

What does order have to do with gender or nature?

Æon wrote:

Yes there are times when chaos is good, like when a person is too strict.  Just like a person can be too conservative or too liberal.  Balance.

Non-sense. A person who is too strict is not ordered but disordered. You're abusing the concept of balance here, which is typical for pseudo-intellectuals. It's like saying that you should balance your diet by including non-foods such as crocks of shit. Not to mention the irony that balance is synonymous with order.

Quote :

Yes, civilization is ultimately decadent, since this is the nature of privilege which women and children benefit the fruits of labor of men.

Like a true utilitarian/hedonist, you're obsessed with happiness, though I understand you're not seeing it. Women may feel happy in a modern civilization, but feeling happy ISN'T the same as benefiting i.e. women aren't benefiting from modern civilizations, they are DESTROYING themselves with it.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

It means stay on topic.  This is about nature being feminine and artifice being male, so describe how goodness of order and evilness of chaos pertains to the topic.

What does order have to do with gender or nature?

The concepts nature/artifice and masculine/feminine are far less useful than concepts order/disorder.

You're refusing balance and present false analogies.

You seem to believe in absolute order *AS* absolute goodness. This is a false distinction, since the evaluation of order as good, is your own subjective value. You value what you lack and deem as powerful. So you admit that you lack order in your own life.