Advice to men regarding discussions with women

A little something I wrote for the guys on ILP primarily, but gonna post it here too:

Don't engage retarded, man-hating females, and if you must do so, don't take them seriously. I've had more thought-provoking moments whilst replying to a single post by some of the more decent posters here than I did in all of my interactions with the brain-dead, man-hating cunts. In the end I concluded it's just not worth it. Most likely you'll just end up with a head-ache due to their stupidity, coupled with possible vomiting in response to their degeneracy.

They are the equivalent of the more fringe parts of MGTOW which completely hate women and want to see them extinct. There's nothing intellectual to any of it, just personal resentment most likely born of sexual/romantic frustration.

Feminism is bullshit, all waves of it are bullshit, equality is bullshit, basically anything to come out of anything leftist/liberal in the past 150-200 years or so is destructive bullshit that should be undone. White Shariah is the natural, healthy, and balanced way of organizing a society. Don't let the nasty cunts lead you astray by using emotional manipulation and trying to get you to do things harmful to men and society and thus even women in the long-term, by getting you to sympathize for "poor, oppressed, victim women" like damsels in distress whilst they will simultaneously of course criticize the "damsel in distress" trope for portraying women as weak and so on.

I recall this image that I regret not saving of a woman not being able to climb a wall or something like that on her own, so the situation developed in two ways: 1) The man who had already climbed pulled her up, 2) The man ignored her. Then it reveals the woman is a feminist and she criticizes him in both instances, in 1) for considering her so weak like a "damsel" that she needs his help, 2) for not helping her, being selfish, and so on. The point is that feminists need to maintain the narrative that they are victims, and they will interpret any situation in this way.

So if you disagree you'll be labeled a woman hater and misogynists by these crazy, lying, hypocritical cunts regardless of what you do or say, so who really gives a shit what they have to say about anything or what they call you?
One way to look at it is that there is no point ignoring reality to appease them so you might as well accept reality fully. Not an ideal way to reach this state of mind, but it's better than remaining in this bubble of debating every woman, child and imbecile as if what they have to say matters.

Stop validating them by treating them seriously as if they have some actual argument backing their positions. The only thing they have is threats of violence (by daddy state) and emotional manipulation, basically exploiting the feelings of sympathy men evolved to have when looking at a woman's face, especially that of a young, fertile woman.

The simple truth is that men and women are different, have different abilities and roles, and ought and desire to be treated differently, and one of the possible systems which takes all of this into account is, of course, White Shariah

Only nasty dykes and actual man-hating women actually desire to be equal to men, all the other women saying it are mostly just repeating what they are told because that's what women do. It's also a mechanism they use (subconsciously if they are stupid-average-moderately intelligent, possibly consciously if they are very intelligent) to filter out the alphas from betas, betas fall for this stupid nonsense of treating women as equals which in turn proves their status as beta whilst alphas correctly perceive it for the nonsense that it is and treat women as what they are, sexy fun-toys and baby-incubators. Yes, sex objects. Women prefer having both of these types of men around. Betas to serve them and do their bidding and put them on pedestals like princesses, alphas to lust after, get dicked down by and pressed against the floor like filth.

AutSider wrote:

Women prefer having both of these types of men around. Betas to serve them and do their bidding and put them on pedestals like princesses, alphas to lust after, get dicked down by and pressed against the floor like filth.

Where does Pagan man fall under this?

Something tells me Pagan man is neither the Alpha or the Beta in this circumstance, because modern Alphas cant think outside their hedonism and modern Betas cant think outside their sheltering.

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

For me a pagan man is a man in harmony not only with nature, but with his own nature.
Social conventions do not matter.
The judgment of females, or others, do not matter. Particularly those coming from low quality minds.
Precedent exposes quality.
We value the judgment of one who has proven, time and again, to be precise, objective, and honest, as it relates to an indifferent world.
Subjective perspective juxtaposed against objective, indifferent, reality, in the same way we value an artist by how his art relates to the world.

Cultivating the highest man, must follow the discovery and cultivation of the highest woman.
The smartest, most aware, courageous, and discriminating female.
Such a female will be the product of a strong, present, intelligent, aware, courageous, present, responsible, discriminating father.
Weak father's produce sluts, bitches, and demanding females, with a high degree of entitlement.
Pleasure seekers who see in their femininity a power they can exploit in this regard.

There was a reason boys were taken away form their mothers, in ancient Sparta, around the age of seven.

Unfortunately, Islam is another extension of the Abrahamic doctrines, and can only lead back into the Nihilism that causes the problems. The answer is not to embrace this or that (per)version of Semitic designs, but to return to Pagan (Indo-European) roots as much as possible. This is a real challenge because the roots have been attacked and stripped away over centuries and millenniums. How much of Paganism was converted by Christianity, forcibly, and renamed through Catholicism? The European holidays, how many of them were preserved?

As mentioned, my recommendation is to exalt those Indo-European bloodlines who have best resisted Nihilism to this day, remained noble, and to lift such individuals higher. In fact this is what I liken to "philosophical cultivation" from the onset. That is what much of 'Philosophy' is and has been. And what is a noble woman, and a noble man? Not only genetically improved, but memetically improved as well. Superior nature *and* superior nurture. Both are required.

Superior genetics means: superior breeding choices for centuries. Thus a single coupling is limited. What of the father and mother, the grandfather and grandmother, the great-g-g-g-g-grandfather and great-grandmother? How does their lineage look over the past 500 years? Of course this is Monarchical and Aristocratic style of thinking. To be "royal" meant breeding with royalty, and separating "noble" blood apart from the Commoner and slave classes. This may need returned to Modernity, and in Western civilization. Western civilization, "The West" has since down-shifted gears, focusing on Meritocracy and Capitalism instead of bloodlines and lineage.

Much of Western civilization and democracy is extension of slave-revolution and dialectics, claiming that, "if you perform and act noble then you are noble". Genetics is ignored partially or entirely. This is why "The West" is in its current position and predicament in time and world history.

Western civilization, the "New World", is anti-Aristocratic, anti-Gene, anti-bloodline and heredity. This is also why "Naturalists" (Gene > Meme) are attacked as "Nazis" in pop-degenerate-culture. The degenerates, hedonists, and nihilists of the West are all fighting against the idea that 'superior' breeding can be possible, or ought to be attained.

All of this becomes contradicted, immediately, by the concept of Beauty. If Beauty is sexually selected for, and observed/admitted as a superior value (the basis for all physical lust) then is it (morally) wrong for being a (genetically) superior trait?

This is how the West has arrived at such concepts as "fat acceptance" and "curves (obesity) are beautiful". It's an example of "Meme > Gene", inverting reality (to find beautiful women beautiful).

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

AutSider wrote:

Women prefer having both of these types of men around. Betas to serve them and do their bidding and put them on pedestals like princesses, alphas to lust after, get dicked down by and pressed against the floor like filth.

Where does Pagan man fall under this?

Something tells me Pagan man is neither the Alpha or the Beta in this circumstance, because modern Alphas cant think outside their hedonism and modern Betas cant think outside their sheltering.

I exaggerated that part a bit cause the intended audience was ILP. All I really argue for is treating women as women.