Everything concerning sex, was seen as "dirty" after Freud. That's partly why the "1968 sexual liberation" occured, as a reaction to that. Of course it therefor went to the other extreme in it's "natural" view of sex and became animalistic. This quote is from a more recent time. It doesn't know which way to go. The 1950's romanticism had something false to it. Something pretentious. 1968 turned out to be a disaster. After that the confusion was complete. Thankfully some academics like Foucault tried a history of sex. Sex is overrated. It's provacative or shocking modern displays bore me to death. Erotic got lost.
I say, Personal Attack, and you Oblige me. See. This is how a strong woman expresses herself; she doesn't become diminished because she obeys and obeys blindly. She Bends. This is what I'm talking about
reasonvemotion wrote:
The images are cute and lovely. I liked three in all
. 4. is close to me...... this is so hilarious.
What? She can't remind me of my dead sister, a senti. pic., an image "close" to my heart? tut tut tut hasty... Luckily, I'm an orphan, and 4. Is in the sense you took it for and in the sense I meant it - have a similar shot. If you are fishing for a picture, 'should just come out and ask. Ask for it. And I might give it to you if you give an apology to the two. Am I bluffing, sweets? Would you dare call my bluff? Would you sell your soul for a piece of knowledge? Would you let yourself darken a little? Would you be a female faustes? Would you Rev it up, rev? huh? Show me how hilarious you found it. Bend.
Go to the dungeon and say sorry to dragon and satyr. Announce your Apology on PN also.
Quote :
Are you for real lady, we all know you have two kids and live in a council flat. Spend all your time alone, with your "books" no man in sight.
Is that your dream? Living in a rich home with no kids from a man who defined your self-esteem with his reptilian reactions? "Business Acumen" wasn't it? Did you use him well, did you sweat out his money muscle, did you get his respect, while he f---ed you to your heart's content? Was it satisfying? A rich alimony to live by... and echoes of a few memories of your father and mother sharing intimate glances over the table. Hilarious.
Quote :
Well you can always masturbate. I forgot Catholics don't do that do they, or say f....ck. You are a dead give away. Geez I hope the kids are not boys.
wow, so mean. Mean people suck! Nice people swallow. ; ) I'm a catholick.
Quote :
How's the weather over there, wet and windy. but not wild. Your so desperate to "catch" a man, it makes me cringe. Sad Sack, stop lying about who you are and asking for your "friends" support on this forum.
Hmmm, are you sure you are even a Lady?... so prudish.. so stiffff... Confucius say: Boy who go to sleep with stiff problem wake up with solution in hand. LOLzz
It'll come to you, Mr. Ben Dover. Don't worry your pretty head too much.
Quote :
I have a song for you too.
Power through association... mmm... lets try. Rev. says Strong-Tight. I say Strong-Stoop. Rev. says we are so similar, how alike we are, LOL I like the acrobatics; you're one talented babe for a 40 yr. old!! lol
Quote :
We Australian women are strong and proud. Do not under estimate us. We love our men and delight in spoiling them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I repeat.
And then some. With Attitude.
pssssstttt... did you just edit and make a Retreat? Its good the edit habit hasn't gone off. It helps me stay in character. You Serve me well.
I'm saying real Buddhism doesn't teach either path - abs. godhead or emptiness of the void. Only self-domination, self-deification.
And I am saying there is no real Buddhism.
You are saying that Now! after our exchanges; your initial statement was "Buddhism is aryan. It is very noble. But it says: No, instead of yes. That is the problem."
For Pisces it is: Aries, Aquarius or Libra (For Scorpio: Gemini or Capricorn)
So Aries brings the missing activity to Pisces. "Getting started". Aquarius brings creativity, ideas, some more practicality. Libra brings lightness.
I don't know exactly what Pisces brings to these in return, so that they match. For Aries it may be something to calm down. They (Aries) sense that and are attracted. For Aquarius it is this looking up, to even more depth, as a source for their inspiration. And Libra is so light that they can deal with the formlessness of pisces, which is tough.
(Gemini helps Scorpio to express themselves more lightly/friendly. Capricorn gives a direction in life. Order. Work. Family. Money. Some practical role model as well as competitive challenger. Scorpio might help Gemini in return to some more depth, courage and sex. And Capricorn to some sex and relaxation, taking life a little more easy.)
It is "Like cures like". Not complete opposites that form good couples. And there are some similarities that are destructive like Scorpio and Pisces would be (water and water). Or Sigittarius and Leo (fire and fire). Then there are opposites that wouldn't go well either like Virgo and Pisces. Or Scorpio and Taurus. There is so much confusion about this since Astrology has become mainstream, but with the bold marked above, you can work. It's by Nicolaus Klein a German Astrologer.
Scorpio is very fearless which is good. Many other signs fear Pisces. Scorpio doesn't. I like that. So aside from mating/partnership there are always plenty of other ways to learn from and interact with the different star signs.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
You wrote a post [now deleted I guess] about how you disagree with the idea of submissive women. Do you find it squeamish to give orders to someone? I'm asking you to define your ideal of the Feminine. Not interested in the opinion of some second rate astrological writers. What is the feminine ideally to You?
I started studying the MRM (mens rights movement) in about late summer/early fall of 2011. I studied them until I discovered Manhood Academy and later Satyr, who in their ways also dealt with that, in December 2011 and spring 2012.
So in 2011, I mainly listened to Pinegrove33's videos, Barbarossaaaa and later Girlwriteswhat. And I read the sites: Avoiceformen and little later MGTOW Forums.
So I know what the MRM is all about.
I just very recently started researching and reading some New Right and Traditionalism articles on Counter-Currents. And where I was very opposed to the MRM (especially avoiceformen and Paul Elam) and their liberal mindset early 2012, I am now beginning to realize that Paul is right. I still don't agree with his over the top political Egalitarianism. (I was a classical liberal back then, i.e. libertarian conservative, as I am still for the most part.) Here are some quotes from two more recent articles that might sum up the position, I got from him and his sidekick JohnTheOther back then:
"What’s worse is that within some traditionalist or conservative religious communities – female surrender of adult agency, and the transference of any possible responsibility, choice, and agency onto a man is praised by men and women within those communities. Unfortunately, this model of female non agency, and male hyper agency, when coupled with social enforcement of conformity and expressed masculine protective instinct turns men into slaves."
"A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her."
"What’s worse is that in a community in which feminine surrendered agency is viewed positively, men trapped in such relationship have no way to protest, since such protest is seen as victimization of the most helpless – the women whose social posture is that of a volition free child. Such a man, attempting to assert himself as a human with his own needs – he will forced back into his role of protector through social censure, including violence from other complying males. In fact, his identity as a human being of any social worth at all is totally tied to his conformance to be the actuator and the active agent of whatever his wife needs or wants. If her submission to his is more pronounced, she might not even communicate what her needs are, and he is left with a social requirement to figure out what she wants, with his validity as a worthwhile human hanging on getting it right, and always the threat of violence done to his person by other males if he ever deviates – because in this model, self expression, self actualization in any mode except service to his woman is perceived as attack on her. And brother, you don’t attack a woman."
"And here’s the kicker, he cant even see it. A man given primacy in this social context – in which he is placed over his wife – and she is totally subservient to him – he cannot develop the social cognizance to even understand how he is both exploited and threatened at the level of eradication of his male identity in any deviation of his behavior. He is effectively blinded and silenced, because in this system of value – where he is the patriarch, and assigned agency over himself and his wife. His socialization does not include self reflection. He is enslaved in his own mind.
And his wife, subservient, without her own visible agency or exercised volition – she owns him, and owns no accountability. This is power, without any check, or thwart, hidden from those it controls expressed behind a veil of helplessness.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Patriarchy works."
"Women, for their part did not chose this behavioral model, this is the natural expression of our prehistoric hominid programming. This programming served our species very well when we averaged a 30 year life-span, regularly died of starvation, or during childbirth, and when the dark was full of predators, giving us a real reason for our fear of it. This primitive hominid programming, when its still being expressed in a modern environment of abundant food, shelter and safety doesn’t serve us quite so well anymore – and is being exacerbated and amplified in the form of a modern popular ideology of gender. You know, the one starting with F."
"But here is the real definition of patriarchy – this is the operational definition that has always been relevant, but has been until now hidden behind the muddy thinking and self-serving dogma of infantalized adults with the power of not just communities of compliant males behind them, but the full deadly remote control power of violence of the modern state.
Patriarchy is a system of social cohesion which uses masculine agency, exploiting adult protective instincts towards infants to serve the reproductive benefits of females. This system is based on the masculine instinct to protect women, and maximizes the perception of male agency in service of this goal."
The MRM may in fact be male Feminism, but then again, was Womens Lib all socially engineered and false/unnatural?
"To me, the ideal mate is someone who you actually want to talk with."
"My sense of humor ranges from the very goofy to the very dry, and I prefer the company of women who can keep up."
"Fitness and vibrant good health are also important."
"Complementary interests are also important."
"There are other women I’m in love with, and all of them have extraordinary interests."
"Even more ironically, modern day feminism traces its roots to Islamic culture. In brief, here’s how: Minstrels accompanying the Christian Crusaders returned with Muslim stories, like The Arabian Nights. Remember Shahrazad? Christian culture at that time did not put women on a pedestal, but Islamic idealism did, in theory though not in practice."
Source articles on Avoiceformendotcom, a site I should visit and study again more often, even as to counterbalance to Counter-Currents.
I am more modern than traditionalists. Jonathan Bowden is my link to the New Right. Nietzsche. Evola maybe. But not Guenon, not Spengler. I don't praise the past above all. And that we come from a state of order and going towards entropy alone. There are some progresses. Real progresses. Womens Lib was one of them, till it turned out of hand and into misandry and a main contributing factor to the Feminization of Mankind. I love real strong women. That stand behind their man, but also have their own individuality.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her."
Using this logic a dog who surrenders its agency to a master, a human, is also a "tyrant."
What a sweet tyranny that will be, to be responsible for your own means.
The government owns the dog (woman). Men are just allowed to take it for a walk. And if she complains and wants a divorce, He has to pay. Alimony, child support and gets to see the children only at her will. So WHO is in charge? Plus the women are more suitable for most of todays workplaces (communication skills), since physical work was replaced by machines (mostly) and not all men can be engineers, making the big bucks, overlooking the work processes. So I don't want a traditionalist woman TODAY. In todays world. Not that I don't like the tradionalist ideas as ideals, but they're not viable for todays world, as I perceive it. I can't afford a traditionalist woman.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
One more time, since you are so fond of MRA;'s and of remaining a man-child:
A man has a cow. He feeds her, protects her from wolves, cares for her, and milks her.
Does the cow tyrannize the man?
If some can be dominated by a pet, allowing ti to shit on the carpet, sleep in their bed and eat at their table, because it has big round eyes, floppy ears and a cute round head, does this mean all men are dominated as such? What you cannot afford is the price for being a man...even if this means being alone.
And so here you are, a caricature of a male: a half-wit...a fool proud of his own foolishness; flaunting it like a badge of honor...a weakling talking of Space Kings in Scientological fairy-tales, and admiring a charlatan who's greatest accomplishment was seducing imbeciles.
You are a religious sort...and here you are looking for a priest to tell you how to live the "good life."
Actually I was adressing Lyssa not you. She asked me, what my feminine ideal is. So giving the "pet" an adjective is already part of the feminization, I guess. But I played along. Women are women. But still they present memes. I am not your follower, you should realize that by now. There are plenty of issues that would need further discussion. "The Feminization of Mankind" is a viable simplification. Little more academic than the Manhood Academy Manual. But not different. A lot of PUAs offer the same "advice" you do, IF I was searching for a guru, which I am not.
I am a religious sort, which is my fundamental connection to the New Right and Traditionalism.
So Lyssa asked me about my ideal woman and it is not the kind that is so popularized by the "Twilight"-Saga and the new "50 Shades of Grey" ("Story of O."). The female masochist. Just because this is the prevalant kind of cow out there, doesn't mean it has to be my favorite sort of cow. I rather stay alone than be with this sort of female, just as well as the feminist kind. (I cannot entertain a pet all the time, that doesn't have any own interests.)
I think your dog/cow/pet analogies aren't meant just as analogies, but this is the picture you have of women in general, which is in line with this female masochist, that is now so popularized, most recently by "50 Shades of Grey", which will be made into a movie or more. I actually think that women have a spirit of their own, and are not just there to be "milked" (fucked) or can only "shit on the carpet" (make a mess of everything in a mans life). My romantic ideal is, that women aren't just animals. Maybe it is naive. Maybe this is were my religion comes in. I see myself as a spirit too, not just a body. A spirit in a body. Which is not Darwinian, I know, but so are large parts of the new right. I don't deny Darwinism either for the mere bodily evolution.
Last edited by Laconian on Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Who said I sought followers? Who said I offer advice?
If the analogy of the cow and dog are distasteful, as they would be for any romantic, then know that women of quality are rare...just as rare as men of quality are.
What was that quote from the 300 movie? "Only Spartan women give birth to men."
I bet your momma was Athenian, or some eastern variant.
Kriswest is someone you would like. Very motherly. She's on ILP.
See, a man wants a mate, not a mother. But what would anyone expect from someone who considers Scientology a source of wisdom and who insists on thinking of Satyr as a guru? The brown cow Mags is another alternative. She calls us a cult.
She's very close with Smears the pot-head...who is supposedly living in practice what we theorize about. Whatever that is. Nothing like listening to someone addicted to chemical contentment talking about how wonderful his life is. What exactly are we proposing? Need...suffering....struggle?
If you are in need of a master, to be a bitch to, then why not look ILP? A female master is rare, but not impossible to find.
I think this whole master/slave thing might be off. And I said someone very much LIKE my mother and that you are NOT a guru to me. Details. I don't look for a girlfriend online. I know enough women. It's a matter of giving in. A matter of weakness, so far I have been able to resist the messy pets. So a mother: no. A female master: no. But: a female who masters her own life and is not only WILLING to but actually pays for her own half.
Like Tom Leykis, I search a feminist. An actual feminist, who REALLY believes in being equal to men and not just picks out the parts she likes and still expects chivalry and all the female-benefits anyway. A pretty tough woman. Aries. Or someone more light, Libra. Or a creative Aquarius-woman. Those would be good matches for me.
Are we actually talking about women? I can't believe this shit is happening. I feel like in high-school all over again. Funny.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
An actual feminist, who REALLY believes in being equal to men
Do you REALLY believe women are equal to men? If NOT, then why would you want a woman who believes she's equal to man?
Most men and women aren't even capable of marriage or properly raising a child... Hell, most men and women aren't even dedicated enough to keep up their mutual feeling of "love", their ideal...Most of the time, "love" is just a means to re-enter conditions of domestication... Intense feelings are almost never taken to fruition. Most men and women can't even love like Romeo and Juliet, let alone love like this:
" But even your best love is only an enraptured simile and a painful ardour. It is a torch to light you to loftier paths.
Beyond yourselves shall ye love some day! Then learn first of all to love. And on that account ye had to drink the bitter cup of your love.
Bitterness is in the cup even of the best love; thus doth it cause longing for the Superman; thus doth it cause thirst in thee, the creating one!
Thirst in the creating one, arrow and longing for the Superman: tell me, my brother, is this thy will to marriage?
Holy call I such a will, and such a marriage.—
Thus spake Zarathustra."
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I think this whole master/slave thing might be off. And I said someone very much LIKE my mother and that you are NOT a guru to me. Details. I don't look for a girlfriend online. I know enough women. It's a matter of giving in. A matter of weakness, so far I have been able to resist the messy pets. So a mother: no. A female master: no. But: a female who masters her own life and is not only WILLING to but actually pays for her own half.
Fuck. This is amazing.......... thank God you have seen the light.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
My last post, I wonder if you are brave enough to leave it posted.
The very" ordinariness" both withhold from themselves will be their very own tragedies. We're never the stars of our youthful dreams, and it hurts like hell to admit it, doesn't it?
Hey, my thread has been great for your ratings, just see how fast they will plummet back to Sad Sack level.
Let me get this straight. One lives in a council flat, with the kids. Fish and chips for dinner every Friday night, cos their "good Catholicks", the other spewing half-truths, lies, and self-deceit, an employee of a Funeral Home in Montreal. Such accomplishments
Last edited by reasonvemotion on Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
What posts do you disapprove of where I responded and shouldn't have?
The one's you hide behind other people's avatars.
Ha!!! Such paranoia.
You see me everywhere. I'll say this once, and you can believe it or not, I am only using, and have only used for the past three years, the moniker Satyr. Do ya think I'm Lyssa?
Really? Was she that superior to you?
You know I am all about popularity. I am a Sad Sack, after all. It's all about the numbers...Democracy, High-school contests. Majority Wins.
How old are you again?
Sad...indeed.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Lyssa, would you be so kind, for the sake of the children, and tone down your intellect a bit. It's scaring away the retards...sending them back to the MENSA Factories they were created in.
You know how much we're all about quantities and not qualities here; it's all about the numbers. We need more...and more. We'll take anything: garbage, degenerates, imbeciles, retards, genetic feces, pedophiles, sluts, children....anyone, and make them our own.
But who am I kidding here...I am putting on an act, a-la-Satyr-style, and talking to myself...AGAIN!
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
I'll say this once, and you can believe it or not, I am only using, and have only used for the past three years, the moniker Satyr. Do ya think I'm Lyssa?
and then this................
Satyr:
The funniest thing about getting banned from PN is that Lyssa had given me access to her account there, "Outsider", and I had posted using it a few times, just for fun.
Like I said spews out half truths and lies.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
But half of that is true. I just want to be liked.
I am Lyssa, so how could I have used her account "a few times for fun"? There is no Lyssa person. This is another of my dozen or so monikers. How else could an intelligence woman exist saying such evil things?
I am also a WOMAN...Surprise!!!! The YouTube crap? My boyfriend.
I am anything and anyone you want me to be; I am the Satyr. You don't think I actually believe the shit I post here, do you? Who, in his right mind, would believe such things?
It's all an elaborate hoax. Oh...I am also a Troll....and my purpose is to be the biggest asshole out there. Alas, I fail even at that.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I started studying the MRM (mens rights movement) in about late summer/early fall of 2011. I studied them until I discovered Manhood Academy and later Satyr, who in their ways also dealt with that, in December 2011 and spring 2012.
So in 2011, I mainly listened to Pinegrove33's videos, Barbarossaaaa and later Girlwriteswhat. And I read the sites: Avoiceformen and little later MGTOW Forums.
So I know what the MRM is all about.
HA! This is what I call a Metrouflage. In other words, only in 2011, Laconian finds his justification for his ideal of his feminine because till then he didn't know how to explain and defend his metrosexual views. Till then he didn't know how to defend his emasculation. Till then he didn't know how to defend his passionate anti-Slavism. Till then he didn't know how to defend his puritanical views of hedonism. To him, a woman enslaved to the patriarchal idea of motherhood and undergoing labour-pains prob. appears as a masochist! What a squeamish cripple.
Lets continue with what the twatdangle says.
[quote]I just very recently started researching and reading some New Right and Traditionalism articles on Counter-Currents. And where I was very opposed to the MRM (especially avoiceformen and Paul Elam) and their liberal mindset early 2012, I am now beginning to realize that Paul is right.
Paul Elam? Ah yes. The one wrote Patriarchy for Dummies, and whose forums as someone summarized it, leave another Pauline legacy of Man's Victimhood, teaching him how to cope with performing anal rape, the merits of underage sex, pedophilia, performing columbine style massacres, stoning women, shooting women, shooting cops, blowing up cop stations, pulling your gun out on women, fucking fleshlights, fucking animals, fucking holes in the toilet door, fucking your pillow, fucking the toilet roll, posting violent content, celebrating violence as the way forward, whine about not being able to get laid, give advice on stealing cars, give advice on credit card fraud, give advice on mortgage fraud, give advice on breaking into peoples' homes advise on how to avoid paying taxes, wish death on women who told you to "fuck off" when you made inappropriate advances, [hmm sounds familiar?] name and shame ex GFs, threats to fellow forum members, illegal file sharing links placing women in a vat of boiling water, twisted sexual fantasies, methods of using Facebook as a way get back at your ex, use the forums as a soap box to attack any fuck you don't like
HA What is Patriarchy for Dummies - sexual impotency making a rage-thesis for male exploitation by women, unable to say, "I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is other — outside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit." [U. le guin]
Quote :
"What’s worse is that within some traditionalist or conservative religious communities – female surrender of adult agency, and the transference of any possible responsibility, choice, and agency onto a man is praised by men and women within those communities. Unfortunately, this model of female non agency, and male hyper agency, when coupled with social enforcement of conformity and expressed masculine protective instinct turns men into slaves." "A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her."
What a sad Twerp. I can't even call him a Cumbag!
The Twerp doesn't even understand the true meaning of Property:
"And, lastly, this fact of an innate superiority has become intensified, not only outwards, with respect to the light-world and its endless distances, but also inwards, as regards the sort of soul that the strong animals possess. The soul — this enigmatic something which we feel when we hear the word used, but of which the essence baffles all science, the divine spark in this living body which in this divinely cruel, divinely indifferent world has either to rule or to submit — is the counter-pole of the light-world about us, and hence man’s thought and feeling are very ready to assume the existence of a world-soul in it. The more solitary the being and the more resolute it is in forming its own world against all other conjunctures of worlds in the environment, the more definite and strong the cast of its soul. What is the opposite of the soul of a lion? The soul of a cow. For strength of individual soul the herbivores substitute numbers, the herd, the common feeling and doing of masses. But the less one needs others, the more powerful one is. A beast of prey is everyone’s foe. Never does he tolerate an equal in his den. Here we are at the root of the truly royal idea of property. Property is the domain in which one exercises unlimited power, the power that one has gained in battling, defended against one’s peers, victoriously upheld. It is not a right to mere having, but the sovereign right to do as one will with one’s own. Once this is understood, we see that there are carnivore and there are herbivore ethics. It is beyond anyone’s power to alter this. It pertains to the inward form, meaning, and tactics of all life. It is simply a fact. We can annihilate life, but we cannot alter it in kind. A beast of prey tamed and in captivity — every zoological garden can furnish examples — is mutilated, world-sick, inwardly dead. Some of them voluntarily hunger-strike when they are captured. Herbivores give up nothing in being domesticated. Such is the difference between the destiny of herbivores and that of the beast of prey. The one destiny only menaces, the other enhances as well. The former depresses, makes mean and cowardly, while the latter elevates through power and victory, pride and hate. The former is a destiny that is imposed on one, the latter a destiny that is identical with oneself. And the fight of nature-within against nature without is thus seen to be, not misery, as Schopenhauer and as Darwin’s “struggle for existence” regard it, but a grand meaning that ennobles life, the amnor fati of Nietzsche. And it is to this kind and not the other that Man belongs. He lives by attacking and killing and destroying. He wills, and has willed ever since he existed, to be master." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
We continue with the twat;
Quote :
"What’s worse is that in a community in which feminine surrendered agency is viewed positively, men trapped in such relationship have no way to protest, since such protest is seen as victimization of the most helpless – the women whose social posture is that of a volition free child. Such a man, attempting to assert himself as a human with his own needs – he will forced back into his role of protector through social censure, including violence from other complying males. In fact, his identity as a human being of any social worth at all is totally tied to his conformance to be the actuator and the active agent of whatever his wife needs or wants. If her submission to his is more pronounced, she might not even communicate what her needs are, and he is left with a social requirement to figure out what she wants, with his validity as a worthwhile human hanging on getting it right, and always the threat of violence done to his person by other males if he ever deviates – because in this model, self expression, self actualization in any mode except service to his woman is perceived as attack on her. And brother, you don’t attack a woman." "And here’s the kicker, he cant even see it. A man given primacy in this social context – in which he is placed over his wife – and she is totally subservient to him – he cannot develop the social cognizance to even understand how he is both exploited and threatened at the level of eradication of his male identity in any deviation of his behavior. He is effectively blinded and silenced, because in this system of value – where he is the patriarch, and assigned agency over himself and his wife. His socialization does not include self reflection. He is enslaved in his own mind.
What does it mean to have Property? What does it mean to be a Master?
To be Master, means Self-Possession First. The Desire to Appropriate Yourself as Property to Yourself. Heidegger calls this Dasein - Being means coming into what's Proper-ly One's Own.
F--- Elam. Lets explore the I.E. history of this notion. What is Patriarchy?
"pot-, which signifies “master,” so that the literal sense of hospes is “the guest-master.” This is a rather peculiar designation. In order to understand it better we must analyze the two elements *potis and hostis separately and study their etymological connections. The term *potis first merits a brief explanation in its own right. It presents itself in its simple aspect in Sanskrit pátiḥ ‘master’ and ‘husband’ and in Greek posís ‘husband’, or in composition as in despótēs. As for Gr. posís, a poetical word for “husband,” it is distinct from despótēs, where the sense “master of the house” is no longer felt; despótēs is solely an expression of power, whereas the feminine déspoina conveys the idea of “mistress,” a title of majesty.
The Greek term despótēs, like the Sanskrit correspondent dám pátiḥ, belongs with a group of ancient compound words, each of which had as its first element the name of a social unit of variable extension: dám pátiḥ (master of the house) viś „ (master of the clan) jās „ (master of the “lineage”) Apart from despótēs and dám pátiḥ, the only one attested in a number of languages is the compound which is in Sanskrit viś-pátiḥ and in Lithuanian vë̃š-pats ‘clan chief’.
In Latin an extensive word family is organized around the word *potis either as a free form or in composition. Apart from hospes it forms the adjectives impos, compos ‘who is not…’ or ‘who is master of himself, of his senses’ and the verb *potire, the perfect of which, potui, survives incorporated into the conjugation of the verb meaning “be able,” possum, which itself is formed from the adjective potis in a predicative use: potis sum, pote est, an expression which is simplified to possum, potest.
In Lithuanian it provides the adjective pats ‘himself’ and also the substantive pats ‘master’ (in composition vë̃š-pats). Parallel to this, we find in Iranian the compound adjective x u aē-paiθya ‘one’s own’, ‘of oneself’, which is used without distinction of person: “mine, yours, his”; “one’s own.” xuaē is an Iranian form of the ancient reflexive pronoun *swe, *se, literally “of oneself,” and -paiθya derived from the ancient *poti-.
Under what conditions can a word denoting “master” end up signifying identity? The primary sense of *potis is well defined, and it had a strong force: “master,” whence in marriage “husband,” or in social terminology the “chief of some unit, whether house, clan, or tribe.” But the sense “oneself” is also well attested. While it is difficult to see how a word meaning “the master” could become so weakened in force as to signify “himself,” it is easy to understand how an adjective denoting the identity of a person, signifying “himself,” could acquire the sense of master. This process, which illustrates the formation of an institutional concept, can be corroborated elsewhere: several languages have come to designate “the master” by a term meaning “himself.”
In spoken Latin, in Plautus, ipsissimus indicates the “master (mistress), the patron,” the (personage) himself, the only one who is important. In Russian, in peasant speech, sam ‘himself’ refers to the “lord.” Among a restricted but important community, the Pythagoreans, the formula autòs éphā (ἀυτὸς ἔφα) ‘he himself has said it’, with autós referred to the “master” par excellence, Pythagoras, was used to specify a dictum as authentic. In Danish, han sjølv ‘er selbst’ has the same meaning. For an adjective meaning “himself” to develop into the meaning “master” there is one necessary condition: there must be a circle of persons subordinated to a central personage who assumes the personality and complete identity of the group to such an extent that he is its summation: in his own person he is its incarnation.
This is exactly the development we find in the compound *dem-pot(i)- ‘master of the house’. The role of the person so named is not to give orders but to assume a representation which gives him authority over the family as a whole with which he is identified. A verb derived from *poti-, like Skt. pátyate, Lat. potior ‘to have power over something, have something at one’s disposal’, already marks the appearance of a sense of “to be able to.” With this may be compared the Latin verb possidēre ‘possess’, stemming from *pot-sedēre, which describes the “possessor” as somebody who is established on something. The same figurative expression has passed into the German word besitzen. Again, in Latin we have the adjective compos ‘he who is master, who has command of himself’. The notion of “power” (theoretical) is thus constituted and it receives its verbal form from the predicative expression pote est, contracted to potest, which gives rise to the conjugation possum, potest ‘I am capable, I can’.
It is worthwhile pausing for a moment to consider a peculiar fact: as against Skt. dam pati and Gr. despótēs, Latin has formed from the same root an equivalent expression, but by a different procedure: this is dominus, a secondary derivative which belongs to a series of expressions for “chief.” Thus tribunus ‘chief of the tribe’, in Gothic kindins (< *genti-nos) ‘chief of the gens’; *druhtins (OHG truhtin) ‘chief of the body’; þiudans < *teuta-nos ‘king, chief of the people’. This morphological process, whereby *-nos is suffixed to the name of a social unit, has furnished in Latin and Germanic expressions for chiefs of political and military groups. Thus, by independent paths, the two series link up: on the one hand by means of a suffix, on the other by a compound word, the term for the master has been coined from the social unit which he represents.
Because of this Latin coined a new name for “guest”: *hosti-pet-, which may perhaps be interpreted as arising from an abstract noun hosti “hospitality” and consequently meaning “he who predominantly personifies hospitality, the one who is hospitality itself.”
Another word for “guest” in modern Iranian, ērmān < aryaman, links up with a very special kind of “hospitality” within a group of the Arya, one of the forms of which is reception by marriage.
This image of the king as provider created in Old English the name of the “lord.” The English term lord goes back to an ancient compound hlāford, the first element of which is hlāf ‘loaf’. Hlāford is traced to an original form *hlāf-weard ‘guardian of the loaf’. He is an “alimentary” lord, one who provides sustenance, “the master of the loaf.” Similarly lady in Old English is hlæf-dīge ‘the loaf kneader’. The subjects of the lord, those who are under his authority, are called “the eaters of bread.” In the medieval economy the petty English “lord” played within his domain the same role as the Homeric “king” according to Indo-European conceptions. With this we may contrast the definition of Aristotle (Politics I, p. 1259): “The king has the same relation to his subjects as the head of the family has to his children.” In brief, he is a despótēs in the etymological sense of the word, the master of the house, certainly an absolute master but not a god.
Arí is “the stranger, friend or enemy.” Based on arí, the derivative arya would signify “he who has a connection with a stranger,” hence “protector of the stranger, German gastlich ‘hospitable’,” and also “master of the household.” Finally, from arya- the secondary derivative ārya would literally mean “belonging to the guests”; hence “hospitable.” The ārya called themselves “the hospitable ones,” thus contrasting their humanity with the barbarism of the people who surrounded them. Following this study, there appeared from 1941 on a number of works by M. Dumézil, who proposed other interpretations which tend to establish the social sense and then the ethnic sense of this family. Arya, which signifies “people” (= my people) in Indic and was the source of the name of Iran ( < aryānām) is the common ancient designation of the “Indo-Iranians.” Isolated in Iranian, arya can be analyzed in Sanskrit as a derivative from arí; the latter seems to designate, in contrast to the stranger, the man of my people; perhaps more precisely, the relation by marriage, the member of the other exogamic moiety." [[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
So, this clears the nexus of Patriarchy in terms of "I am capable, I am Able", starting from Proper-ty to Hospitality, marriage being an extension of this.
Quote :
And his wife, subservient, without her own visible agency or exercised volition – she owns him, and owns no accountability. This is power, without any check, or thwart, hidden from those it controls expressed behind a veil of helplessness. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Patriarchy works."
Accountability twerp? Another one of your Audit mentality?
In other words, Laconian wants "Feedback" from his "independent" woman to "en"able his socialization... Pathetic!
If you are Self-Possessed, who can Possess you?! Fool, Submission need not be a passive resignation. Fool, Mastery and enslaving and possessing of the other is not a weakness. Lust, and the Lust to Rule and Dominate is not some "horrible passion" that makes one a victim. How Xt. of you!
"The diversity of men is revealed not only in the diversity of their tables of what they find good, that is to say in the fact that they regard diverse goods worth striving for and also differ as to what is more or less valuable, as to the order of rank of the goods they all recognize ‑ it is revealed even more in what they regard as actually having and possessing what they find good. In regard to a woman, for example, the more modest man.counts the simple disposal of her body and sexual gratification as a sufficient and satisfactory sign of having, of possession; another, with a more jealous and demanding thirst for possession, sees the `question‑mark', the merely apparent quality of such a having and requires subtler tests, above all in order to know whether the woman not only gives herself to him but also gives up for his sake what she has or would like to have ‑ : only thus does she count to him as `possessed'. A third, however, is not done with jealousy and desire for having even then; he asks himself whether, when the woman gives up everything for him, she does not perhaps do so for a phantom of him: he demands that she know him to the very heart before she is able to love him at all, he dares to let himself be unravelled ‑ . He feels that his beloved is fully in his possession only when she no longer deceives herself about him but loves him as much for his devilry and hidden insatiability as she does for his goodness, patience and spirituality. One would like to possess a people: and all the higher arts of a Cagliostro and Catiline seem to him right for that end. Another, with a more refined thirst for possession, says to himself‑ `one may not deceive where one wants to possess' ‑ he is irritated and dissatisfied at the idea that it is a mask of him which rules the hearts of the people: 'so I must let myself be known and, first of all, know myself!' ... at the bottom of her heart no mother doubts that in her child she has borne a piece of property, no father disputes his right to subject it to his concepts and values. Indeed, in former times (among the ancient Germans, for instance) it seemed proper for fathers to possess power of life or death over the newborn and to use it as they thought fit. And as formerly the father, so still today the teacher, the class, the priest, the prince unhesitatingly see in every new human being an opportunity for a new possession. From which it follows . . ." [N., BGE, 194]
From which it follows, the more Spiritualized form of the desire to possess also demands one possess what is good more and more completely. The Highest Man is the Master who would have made a woman submit to him for who he is in his utter nakedness, the starkest reality of his being. And the Highest Woman is one who would desire to see Man in his max. perfection as an artist sculpting at himself, and at the world, at right to whatever women, whatever material or means he chooses... "Love" gifts the world itself as an ornament...
Quote :
"Women, for their part did not chose this behavioral model, this is the natural expression of our prehistoric hominid programming. This programming served our species very well when we averaged a 30 year life-span, regularly died of starvation, or during childbirth, and when the dark was full of predators, giving us a real reason for our fear of it. This primitive hominid programming, when its still being expressed in a modern environment of abundant food, shelter and safety doesn’t serve us quite so well anymore – and is being exacerbated and amplified in the form of a modern popular ideology of gender. You know, the one starting with F."
"But here is the real definition of patriarchy – this is the operational definition that has always been relevant, but has been until now hidden behind the muddy thinking and self-serving dogma of infantalized adults with the power of not just communities of compliant males behind them, but the full deadly remote control power of violence of the modern state.
Patriarchy is a system of social cohesion which uses masculine agency, exploiting adult protective instincts towards infants to serve the reproductive benefits of females. This system is based on the masculine instinct to protect women, and maximizes the perception of male agency in service of this goal."
"The lust of property, and love: what different associations each of these ideas evoke! and yet it might be the same impulse twice named: on the one occasion disparaged from the standpoint of those already possessing (in whom the impulse has attained something of repose, who are now apprehensive for the safety of their "possession"); on the other occasion viewed from the standpoint of the unsatisfied and thirsty, and therefore glorified as "good." Our love of our neighbour, is it not a striving after new property? And similarly our love of knowledge, of truth; and in general all the striving after novelties? We gradually become satiated with the old and securely possessed, and again stretch out our hands; even the finest landscape in which we live for three months is no longer certain of our love, and any kind of more distant coast excites our covetousness: the possession for the most part becomes smaller through possessing. Our pleasure in ourselves seeks to maintain itself by always transforming something new into ourselves, that is just possessing. To become satiated with a possession, that is to become satiated with ourselves.
The love of the sexes, however, betrays itself most plainly as the striving after possession: the lover wants the unconditioned, sole possession of the person longed for by him; he wants just as absolute power over her soul as over the body; he wants to be loved solely, and to dwell and rule in the other soul as what is highest and most to be desired. When one considers that this means precisely to exclude all the world from a precious possession, a happiness, and an enjoyment; when one considers that the lover has in view the impoverishment and privation of all other rivals, and would like to become the dragon of his golden hoard, as the most inconsiderate and selfish of all "conquerors "and exploiters; when one considers finally that to the lover himself, the whole world besides appears indifferent, colourless, and worthless, and that he is ready to make every sacrifice, disturb every arrangement, and put every other interest behind his own, one is verily surprised that this ferocious lust of property and injustice of sexual love should have been glorified and deified to such an extent at all times; yea, that out of this love the conception of love as the antithesis of egoism should have been derived, when it is perhaps precisely the most un qualified expression of egoism.
Here, evidently, the non-possessors and desirers have determined the usage of language, there were, of course, always too many of them. Those who have been favoured with much possession and satiety, have, to be sure, dropped a word now and then about the "raging demon," as, for instance, the most lovable and most beloved of all the Athenians Sophocles; but Eros always laughed at such revilers, they were always his greatest favourites. There is, of course, here and there on this terrestrial sphere a kind of sequel to love, in which that covetous longing of two persons for one another has yielded to a new desire and covetousness, to a common, higher thirst for a superior ideal standing above them: but who knows this love? Who has experienced it? Its right name - friendship." [N., Joyful Wisdom, 14]
Patriarchy is about Self-possession. It is about Appropriating Oneself Again and Again through another, all of which appear as Instruments. The Desire to be possessed is As Egoistic as the desire to possess. It is Covetous. What does N. say? "One ultimately loves one's own desire, not what is desired." [BGE, 175] And if this desire, this vision, this covetous longing is the same in both hearts, happens to be common, you call that Lust, Lust-full Friendship.
Quote :
"Even more ironically, modern day feminism traces its roots to Islamic culture. In brief, here’s how: Minstrels accompanying the Christian Crusaders returned with Muslim stories, like The Arabian Nights. Remember Shahrazad? Christian culture at that time did not put women on a pedestal, but Islamic idealism did, in theory though not in practice."
This is Laughable! Now I know why you called me a Feminist. LOL Such a dim twat. Might as well call Penelope a Feminist and how modern Feminism began from Homer, because she cheats time to cleverly stall the grooms. How wicked of her! No, no, to a hedonist, maybe she's a submissive masochist, foolishly passively waiting for her lost husband. How UnAffordable she is! to a modern day Man.
Feminine Idealism begins with Islam?! You sure, that the Jewish self-definition through matrilineal descent and how Taqwa originated from the Jewess Hagar, etc. present no origins?
Quote :
I am more modern than traditionalists. Jonathan Bowden is my link to the New Right. Nietzsche. Evola maybe. But not Guenon, not Spengler. I don't praise the past above all. And that we come from a state of order and going towards entropy alone. There are some progresses. Real progresses. Womens Lib was one of them, till it turned out of hand and into misandry and a main contributing factor to the Feminization of Mankind. I love real strong women. That stand behind their man, but also have their own individuality.
The moment there are two things, two beings involved, there is already Politic. The relation is instantly going to be hierarchical - Now would you want woman to dominate man?! You are either on top or you're topped. What a moron.
Doesn't Zarathustra introduce the Sun, the great Star as what it would be, as a nothing if there weren't Man to give it meaning and appreciate it? Does this mean the Sun is valueless on its own?
What could all the jewels and money and independence a woman wears mean anything when there is no Man to "give" her value? Man is a woman's true ornament. Wouldn't she then safeguard him and keep him shining always? - Does it make her "valueless dependent slave" like the Sun?
