Choice

In the context of agency and free-will.

Female choice as nature's agency.

Females as natural agencies choose impulsively, instinctively, through their interactions with her environment they gather unconsciousness data which directs their choices. She chooses in accordance with environmental conditioning.
she chooses who will have an advantage over fertilizing her ovum.
This is established through vacuous mechanisms, e.g., seasonal or fertility cycles; orgasms, copulation frequency etc.
Males took this natural sexual power away from females, or restricted it, to discipline it to human ideas/ideals - it added ideology as a factor, beginning the age of man.
This is called "Paternalism", in the Aryan sense. It establishes the beginning of man claiming control over his own fate; over his own destiny.
Ideologies in accordance with natural laws and the natural environment, distinguished from nihilism as ideologies with no reference to nature and environment, other than manmade ones. Nihilism is a solipsist, self-referential linguistic mind-game, creating a noetic alternate realities.

Ideologies that respect natural order - meaning both living and non-living - in essence respect female agency, only giving it a concious ideal to direct its choices by, i.e., culture.

Power = options accessible to the organism.
Awareness of them = intelligence.
Distinguishing which are accessible and which not, and the consequences, = wisdom.

Freedom = choice.
Will = the choosing itself.

Will to Power implies an absence of omnipotence, otherwise there would be no movement/momentum....no existence. It is the powerless that will power , moving towards omnipotence but never attaining it.
Omnipotent power = infinite options.
Power measures not only what options are available but what options are accessible to the individual.

Choice is the expression of this power.
Power over one's won future- destiny.

But choice is also self-restricting, for once a choice has been made, all other options have been denied - self-restriction is the very essence of life.
Life being a manifestation of concious order - self-ordering. Order being a limit of [possibility, i.e., the imposition of probability.
Therefore, an individual must live with the consequences of his own choices. This is responsibility.

being chosen, or having choices made for you, implies slavishness.
A slave is entirely controlled by an external agency's choices. It stoically endures and accepts the choices made for it - and denounces freedom as non-existent, i.e., it self-comforts by denying choice, and free-will. Using the absent absolute, it self-comforts by claiming that if there is no absolute freedom, no infinity of options accessible to it, then there is no freedom at all, - nil options available to it, even the choices it can make it defers to belonging to an external agency - its choices have already been chosen by another.
This is the definition of an absolute slave.

Choice is the act of free-will....ergo un-free-will is an admission of slavery.
In the market the master chooses and the produce, the slave awaits to be chosen; awaits his/her fate to be determined by another agency.
The one choosing has agency. The one chosen, or not, has none.
Te slave simply spins his lack of choice into a method of endurance - coping - i.e., he says yes to his lack of agency. He accepts his fate, as it has been determined for him. The slave gives his "consent," after-the-fact of his being chosen or not. The choice is not in his hands....not of his will.
If the choice is determined, then this indicates slavery. Only a slave rejoices in his slavery, terrified of the risks and responsibilities of making choices.
Stoicism was another part of Hellenism absorbed into Abrahamism, viz., Christianity.

******
'Will to Power' indicates a movement towards omnipotence, or infinite options to be chosen from.
The impossible one-god (the anthropomorphic idealization of the absent absolute), implies an agency of infinite options, i.e., omnipotence.
So, freedom and power are intertwined.
I present a simple but accurate formula:
Choice = freedom
Power = options.
The powerful have more options than the powerless, and they exercise this power through choice.
The "chosen" identify themselves as the powerless, awaiting their fate....simply lending their unnecessary consent as a way of coping with the choices being made for them; pretending to have made the choice which was made for them.
Even in the sexual process, the chooser has agency, has power, over the chosen.
A woman's control over which genes are passed on to the next generation exhibits her natural power.
Paternalism, as it was practised by Aryans, took that power away and placed it in the hands of men - i.e., rational agencies ; they took control over their tribe's destiny.

Slavishness, or herd-psychology wants to be chosen - or the choice to be of another's will. He or she identifies with being powerless - a slave - with no choice but only to concede, to stoically offer consent to what has been determined for them.

Freedom and Power are intertwined as choice and options.

The desperately degenerate, define freedom in a way to place it beyond existence - they convert it to an ideological abstraction, a noetic construct, to explain their own slavishness to natural order, expressed ni addictions and obsessions.
They define freedom in ways that detaches it from the tangible - the earthly - so as to claim a universal slavishness, and disappear within it - converting shame into pride, through inversion.

Bringing the concept of freedom down to earth, makes it falsifiable, testable, observable, but also it makes it distinctive and distinguishing.
This is what slavish cowards want to avoid, as a defensiveness against their growing self-awareness.
They define concepts nihilsticially - converting them to pure ideological constructs, externalized as semiotics, i.e., words/symbols.
Uniformity - equality - is how they attempt to hide their shame within a universal absolute - either positive and/or negative - 1/0.
They refuse to use the observable, tangible as a standard; as a reference; as a foundation.

So, whereas freedom is easily perceived as choice, they idealize it out of space/time - i.e., out of existence - bu defining it in absolute terms, or by referring to others words.
The act of choosing is entirely dismissed as a product of a supernatural, a extraordinary external concept; an idea/ideal.

The desire to jump to final and absolute conclusions, is an expression of the Top<>Down mind's desperation, attempting to pre-empt the gradual building of probability from the Bottom<>Up....from the earth up, towards the idea/ideal. A feminine kind of intuitive understanding feels anxiety at the very thought of such a prospect. It intuitively senses that such an approach will discredit the ideological convictions of a lifetime, so it attempts to discredit the process with the annihilation nihilistic concept of an absolute - it demands a certain final and complete resolution, or it will dismiss all attempts, settling upon the absolute nil, as evidence by the absence of an absolute, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, complete whole god, or universe.

The gradual building of probability does not appeal to its feminine nature - it desires a final and complete end.
It needs the absolute authority, and the certainty the Abrahamic one-god provided for it.
Again, it shows a inability to tolerate and to process degrees - or the very conception of fluidity - interactivity, i.e., existence. It needs a final complete end - and only the abstraction, the nil, can offer it one that does not face the critiques one can make against positive nihilistic abstractions such as god or one, or whole...etc.
The pure nihilist's advantage over the positive nihilist is that the absence of an absolute is, itself, evidence of an absolute....a negative one, that can then be weaponized to dismiss all theories and concepts that do not meet the absolutist criterion - it uses the positive nihilistic concept of absolute one, as the standard to evaluate and dismiss all concepts - it becomes cynical.
The very absence of absolute certainty, becomes a certainty of absence - it worships this absence. The nil.

This is where we must exit the nihilistic paradigm embracing the absence of absolutes as abstractions that were intentionally taken literally and not figuratively.
We embrace gradation as the very expression of a fluctuating existence, suing words as artistic representations of the fluid interactivity of existence - patterns and non-patterned energies interacting.
as such, our words are representations and approximations, describing degrees and levels - more or less probability within the space/time continuum of expanding possibilities.
In our context freedom is not absolute....nor is power....nor is knowledge and understanding - everything is a hierarchy measured against an indifferent independent world; evaluated after-the-fact- via the consequences.
Causality traced by the presence of consequences, in relation to an objective.

just as past manifests as presence and is interpreted as appearance, so too is the causal chain, manifesting as effect, interpreted as consequence.

The concept of "choseness" implies that there is a universal,a  divine, plan that is unfolding its will via a specific agency - representing this divine agency.
In effect, Abrahamism in its entirely claims a divine external agency - whether it be called "god", or "universe", or "order".
All words implying absoluteness.

The modern disease implies, that the man can choose and then not suffer the negative consequences, while enjoying the positives.
The collective is asked to step in - intervene - and protect the individual from his own callous judgements and mistakes - giving him the "right" to remain as careless as he can be, without fearing retribution.

In nature, the actor chooses and then suffers the full costs and enjoys the full benefits of his actions.
Man has intervened to protect idiocy from itself. Now, the idiot wants to be sheltered form the shame of his choices. He wants full protection from the negatives, so that he may fully enjoy the positives.
The fact that we are even debating this....means this system is on its way out.

This means that the actor demands that the collective not only protect him from the negative possibilities of his choices, but that it ought to protect him from the negativity he may suffer from his peers - which is the root of the moral code.
Complete and absolute sheltering, as a right.
As long as these choices do not threaten the collective then the collective ought to defend the individual from all negative repercussions of his every choice.

Just think what type of psychology this cultivates if it is prolonged.
What levels of self-deceit and depravity man can now explore without fear.
Where there is no fear, no anxiety, there is no respect.

I am not a man-goat that would stand in the way of another's choices, nor would i desire to coerce or convince anyone to change his mind....but, neither am I a man-goat who would step in to protect another from his own foolishness.
I say...do as you please, and then let nature sort it all out, without any interventions.

If he wants to choose freely, then feely he should enjoy and suffer the repercussions.
If he demands that I protect him from his own idiocy, then I can only say....



If a man chooses to encroach upon my household and do harm to those I love....then let me also have the right to do as I please wit him.

Natural selection is the great "conditioner" of animal behaviour.
Bad choices lead to bad consequences, and they are not repeated...one way or another.

But social selection has its own rules.
And so degeneracy and desperation rise.

Take away severity, and you are left with a tragic joke.

The logic follows - self-referentially - if a man chooses to rape another man's child then he should be protected from the severity of the consequences....but they go further, demanding that he should also be protected from the shame, the negative psychological repercussions. He should suffer no negative blowback...except given some pills and forced to follow a self-help program.

If a woman chooses to be promiscuous, then she should be protected from the negative repercussions of her choices....but further still, she should not even be made to feel ashamed of them.
Total protection - absolution.

These types never change, because they don't have to.
Eventually they begin to demand the protection as their "right".

The Nihilist - true to his linguistic charlatanism - intentionally conflates "beyond good and evil" with 'beyond good and bad", or "beyond correct and incorrect".
He overcomes Christianity, and its weaponization of shame, only to run into the arms of secular nihilism in the hope of escaping shame while preserving pride.
As if shame was invented by Abrahamism.

Three general factors influence a choice, without ever making it certain - without making it absolutely predictable, particularly in higher life-forms where the potential of free-will is highest.
Three general factors corresponding to past/present/future

1- Past - Causality
Expressed as impulse.
The past increases the probability of one or more choices over all others.

2- Present - Circumstantial
Because the individual participates in existence along with wilful and will-less phenomena, the inter activities and choices of others affects the choices available to it - it may want to make a choice it has no opportunity to make.

3- Future - Projected
The individual is affected by its judgement, its evaluation of the probable consequences of every choice.
Projected probabilities influence its choice, sometimes contrary to impulse and to opportunity.
This is only possible in higher life-forms and so there free-will reaches its highest potential.
The individual project the probability of an choice not only in regards to what is most desirable but often to what is least undesirable.


The degree to which an individual is dominated by impulse or by reason, is what influences its choice in the present, nut never making it an absolute certainty.
Impulse refers to established - determined - inclinations (nature), and reason refers to undetermined evaluations given the circumstances (presence/present) establishing opportunity.

Randomness is participating in all these factors, making all judgements and evaluation's approximations. Uncertainty is present, disturbing the comforting delusion of absolute order - certainty.
Chaos is part of causality, as the indeterminate cause; it is present in the present as fluctuating dynamics that cannot be entirely known; it is present in the future as the unpredictable, unforeseeable, making the evolution of consciousness and immediate judgement calls - made in real -time -a more efficient strategy than the trial & error method of natural selection.
Here the 'trial' is immediate and the 'error' can be adjusted to in real time.
Judgement is a process of adjusting to error.

Obscurantism as the creative component of Certainty
To remain as vague as possible, without losing the ability to communicate; to remain insinuating and obscure.
This is how you can never be wrong, though you will never be right either.
A fact used by Nostradamus, and by the Delphic oracles.
Verbal obscurity allows any circumstance to be claimed as a validation.

It is why liars and charlatans refuse to speak clearly.
When something is being concealed it always uses insinuation and vagueness as a cover - to conceal, as opposed to revealing by being clear.
Mysticism builds its power on it. Superstitions employ it with success.

Choice is directed by manipulating judgement.
This is why Desperate Degenerates - a.k.a. Moderns - refuse to place the standard of evaluating probability in the world - on the earth -externalizing it as an objective standard all can appreciate and be held accountable to.
They want to obscure it in subjectivity.
Nihilism depends on it, because it has no other source of validation other than other minds. Quantitatively measuring its "truth" by the effect it has on them.
This is what is meant by inter-subjectivity - it's a form of solipsism by proxy.
A self-referential echo chamber dependent on proselytizing minds into a shared mysticism.
This is its only Will to Power, i.e, coercion or seduction. Remaining entirely impotent outside human psychological relationships.
World as Humanity; Humanity as World

The Impulsive Spirit
Surrendering to causality as if your choices - actions - were being directed by an external agency - something mysterious and un-knowable.
The individual is liberated from future considerations, and abandons self to the present manifestation of the past - without reasoning or planning or judging, i.e., without evaluating the probable consequences of its own choices.
The mind is relieved from the projection into future.

Similarly, a disconnection from past - from knowing the casual chains; oft-times rejecting them as participating in the present, and in your projected probabilities of future - can also be liberating.
The impulse mistaken as a creation of the moment, as being entirely (absolutely) free.

Every choice is an event in space/time, splintering into a probability arc - from low towards high; from the possible towards the probable, without ever becoming absolutely impossible nor absolutely probable, i.e., certain.
The agency that makes a choice, from the options it is aware of and can access, is participating in the determination of all its future options, within an objective world that establishes their probability.
This is independent from the agency - the actor - and he is simply evaluating (judging) probabilities which may be correct or incorrect. The application of choice - the act based on a choice - puts the judgement in a state of tension with the world - it is tested against reality. The judgement's accuracy is determined by the consequences, in relation to the actor's projected objectives - expectations.
Even the evaluation of the consequences participates in the success of the next choice, because it determines the adjustments the agency will make to his judgements.

Therefore, sheltering or an intervening agency mitigating between the actor and the consequences of its choices, warps them, producing a skewed evaluation of them.
This begins the process towards degradation - towards degeneracy and increasing desperation, because reality cares not for how man copes or what motives actor and mitigating agency has; it cares not for their motives and arguments. It does not yield to words and symbols.

Choice is the big problem.
What choices we've made to lead us here, in the present; what choices we are making, mostly unconsciously, impulsively, discovering them after-the-fact, as though someone else is responsible; what choices will we make, in the future.
Choices.

The chains of causality, binding us in power relationships.

How do we make our powerlessness seem like it was of our own choice?
How do we comfort ourselves when the consequences of choices made for us, combine with choices we've made, to product a terrible outcome?
How do we bear the burden of such responsibility?

But each choice is the beginning of a beginning.
A single choice, imploding the moment - the wave - into the particle of the moment, expanding in concentric circles of interacting distorting ripples; we lose ourselves in the patterns that intertwine and bind us; we become entangled and imprisoned by their liquid webs.

The message of Zion to its minions.
"Choice is an illusion created by those with power, and those without"...
Choice & Power are intertwined.
Power to make the choice; power to have an option of a choice; power to see an option others cannot.
Freedom.
Convince a salve that choice is an illusion, and he will be yours forever, in reality; convince a mind that there is no objective world, and his subjectivity will be his bondage to your will.
Slavery is also a matter of choice.
American Negroes are just awakening to this fact, mostly because they've been told. Their "freedom", like that of the Jews, a product of the Renaissance - the age of Enlightenment - the French Revolution.
All else followed from that European choice.

An omnipotent being would have infinite options, but even he would be bound by the consequences of its choices.
Causality...and we participants; conscious causal agencies, feeble, imperfect, mostly blind, but still agencies of our own destinies; our every choice, weaved, like a single strand, into the tapestry of our destiny.

If we are to suppose the concept of freedom and of the multiple consequences of choice, are we not to imagine horrors intolerable by man?
Are we not, then, to imagine a creature who cannot be called "man," but can be more adequately be called a "monster" who is unimaginable, and can only be named, as such?

Choice is the tangible manifestation of the abstract concept of freedom.
It is freedom bought "down to earth" as it were, returning from the ideological realm to the empirical.

Love can also be demystified and returned to its origins in the world, rather than what Abrahamics have done to it - which is the same as they've done with every symbol/word they could.

God, is another word that has been idealized, and converted to a meaningless idea/ideal, the modern can only imagine as an absolute being; a whole, immutable, eternal, indivisible meaningless concept.
Meaningless is what they call the concept that has been detached form reality and has been converted to an abstraction with no external references.
Meaninglessness allows the Desperate Degenerate to give the concept a meaning he/she needs/desires - make it subjective.

Freedom is to the mind, what choice is to the body.
Evidently, the mind does not want the body to limit it.

Choice is how an individual grasps the reigns of his own fate, and directs the pathos of his own destiny.

Choice is action - more precisely it is interaction.
Choice brings freedom into existence. Until then freedom is an intangible, theoretical abstraction.

The act of choosing is an act of self-restriction – self-discipline – self-ordering.
The act of choosing one option, eliminates, rejects, all other options, which then produces more options equal to the consequences. Choices that advance, enhance, empower produce more options that can be chosen; choices that enhance, advance awareness, increase perceived options, which may not all be accessible to be chosen.

Women do the choosing. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Women do the choosing, and men are chosen.
The power of the chooser over the 'chosen'.
Paternalism took that power away...making women resent them for it.

Choice is the justification of a judgement already made, and applied in real time.

The body is a manifestation of every choice made before our birth, but we are not innocent, as the (((chosen))) would like to believe.
A life is not a passive agency of a universal will - that Abrahamism. Man is not an innocent bystander of an external authority - doesn't matter if you call it God or absolute order.
Man is not without will, nor is his will an echo of universal order - a minion, a puppet.

Man participates in the determination of all his future options, along with every other life-form and every other unconscious interactive energy.
He may have inherited the judgement calls made before his birth, but he cultivated all his future choices with every choice he's made - habituation.

Man is not other than his actions. He is action, and nothing besides...and choice is the expression of judgement and both are actions.
True, choice is a concious justification of choices already made...but this does not mean he is innocent or not responsible for the consequences - good or bad, successful or failures.
His impulses are him, not what is done to him.
He is not a innocent victim of an external absolute authority.
He chooses as well as being chosen...because he is not master nor slave...but he craves to be either of them...absolutely.

Just as power does not imply omniscience, and knowledge and understanding do not imply omniscience, freedom does not imply world creating god, or slave to an external order.

Freedom of choice is based on freedom of action; choice is an action.
Freedom of judgement is based on freedom of perception; judgement is also an action.
Choice is the externalization of a judgement - it is a mental activity converted/translated to a physical activity.
The actor is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of his/her activities - his identity is found in his actions, both his judgements and his choices; but also the sum total of the judgements and choices that preceded his/her birth and made it possible.

Power is what accesses (body) and perceives (mind) the options from which to choose.
The chooser has power over the chosen; the chooser participates in the determination of his future options, and with every choice he habituates himself to a particular impulse (preference) increasing the probability of a particular option being chosen.
We can trace female sexual choice and their resentment of Paternalism, to this fact. Paternalism subverted female sexual power by taking away her choices, so as to establish viable complex socio-economic systems.
Giving females back this choice - empowering them - means the civilization is reverted to natural selection conditions - it is destroyed.
Immigration is meant to constantly replace what is lost, with more traditional populations.

Male choice was also restricted by Paternalism, but the main intent was to ensure no male competitiveness that would destabilize the system. Feminization deals with this by decreasing and criminalizing, masculine traits out of biological males, and by de-sexualizing the institutional representation of manhood, converting it to an idea/ideal, i.e., an abstraction.

Choice is what differentiates life from the non-living.
Choice is the manifestation of will.
Choice can choose between multiple options....not surrendering to cosmological order, but contradicting it, directing the organism towards paths-of-more-resistance.
Life-less unities simply follow paths-of-least-resistance....the resistance determined by the unities aggregate power - sum of its energies that have attained some level of unity - unity determined by the excess of attraction in relation to repulsion - a singular term can be sued: harmony and/or disharmony.

The degree to which harmony is dominant - i.e., the attractive force is superior to the repulsive, because disharmony produces attrition - determines the force requires to break the unity apart.
In living organisms this determines the level of power at the disposal of the will, in relation to what is outside the organism: self/other.
The Will's power determines how much resistance it can overcome...ergo, a living organism's power participates in which options it can access - it can choose.
The number of options perceived and able to be chosen, is called 'freedom' - power and freedom are intertwined, and interdependent.
Power increases the potential for freedom, by increasing the choices accessible to an organism.
This would include resistance produced internally, as impulse - self-control multiplies the amount of internal power the organism can direct outward, which increases the degree of resistance it can overcome.