Voting is an alternative to violence, as in war-fighting(civil war).
Women dont do a great deal of that, so no need to give them the vote.
Or most men, only a minority fights.
edit: very few, if anyone ought to vote in any kind of "national election". But probably everyone should have representation. Women aswell. Women should just not be allowed to influence , as a block, all policy. Somehow, they should be forced to negotiate with the others(men) over resources etc. Maybe the same for rich, middle-class and poor - they should all have their very own representation that negotiates on their behalf. To avoid voilence.
Women should want to be possessed naturally, as is their natural instinct - enforcing this reduces the quality of selection and males in generations to come. Want to be possessed - but by what? One needs only to make what is best, desirable again. Redefining standards and ideals.
I wouldn't want to limit female sexual freedom in the sense that their relationships would be decided by the father, women would still choose. But I would limit both female and male sexual relationships to monogamy, and cheating and treating relationships like a child's game would be greatly discouraged, or even outright forbidden.
What do you think of forbidding interracial and international relationships, both for women and men? I could see that as being justified because it would be done for the sake of preserving ancestry.
Lyssa wrote:
Men think about women in physical circumstances, but you neglect to say, women think about all humanity in mental/emotional circumstances… which is even the problem, and why controlling them, controls the direction of what gene/meme evolves. Each gender has strength in its own area and feels its heroism there.
Men too have empathy towards all humanity, but I think it's easier for men to direct their empathy with reason and awareness, while women, even the very intelligent ones, still seem to me as dominated by their emotions to a greater extent than even some males who might be less intelligent than them. I agree each gender has their strengths and weaknesses... which is why I think only some, not all men, should vote. Not only do males have strong instincts to protect even stranger women, but men also have mothers, grandmothers, sisters, female relatives an so on whom they have even more desire to protect and take care of. And while we're at that, I think that only men with families should vote as a counter-measure to possible misogynists who, because they have no female in their life, might not include the interests of women when voting.
Lyssa wrote:
A little weakness here and there is what keeps the spirit alert and robust and healthy, and eliminating all downsides and favouring all upsides is very lopsided and not progressive to me.
Weakness is something to be overcome as much as possible, it can never be completely removed anyway so there is no need for its artificial preservation - it will always be present. And eliminating downsides just makes sense... otherwise you aren't talking about actual downsides.
OhFortunae
Gender : Posts : 2311 Join date : 2013-10-26 Age : 30 Location : Land of Dance and Song
Cowards; undisciplined, mongrel scum, mongrel by breed or else by class - research says that 92% of radical left wing activists in Berlin are unemployed, middle class and fully dependend on mother in all aspects.
This reflects beyond Berlin and now of course the inclusion of actual mongrels; like attracts like.
_________________ 1. "Youth, oh, youth! | of whom then, youth, art thou born? Say whose son thou art, Who in Fafnir's blood | thy bright blade reddened, And struck thy sword to my heart."
2. "The Noble Hart | my name, and I go A motherless man abroad; Father I had not, | as others have, And lonely ever I live."
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Women should want to be possessed naturally, as is their natural instinct - enforcing this reduces the quality of selection and males in generations to come. Want to be possessed - but by what? One needs only to make what is best, desirable again. Redefining standards and ideals.
I wouldn't want to limit female sexual freedom in the sense that their relationships would be decided by the father, women would still choose.
A patriarchy without paternalism exists today in some conservative I.E. countries. Within borders set by patriarchs or patriarchal values, a woman could be let to be free to choose her partner.
Quote :
What do you think of forbidding interracial and international relationships, both for women and men? I could see that as being justified because it would be done for the sake of preserving ancestry.
I'm a racialist, and for a strict racial policy. But as per Satyr's views, that Today, a female who is stable enough to endure a marriage and a family is near-impossible in the West,, then man either makes do, or he imports a female from less dis/eased areas where memes are still relatable owing to distant genetic or socio-cultural branches. Ideally, beyond today's times, it comes down to apollonian/dionysian aesthetics which has been discussed here before in the race-mixing thread I think. The Apollonian need for bringing out beautiful forms, of perfecting the standards of beauty and harmony can make 'males', if not men, 'explorers' outside their own culture - but if the genius is to be nurtured, there should have been a Depth of homogeneity to take the 'hit' of taking in foreign elements in your gene pool. There are enough variations across our own sub-cultures, but the male-need to spread, colonize, expand and experiment, may take over a man's need towards honour, fidelity, quality over quantity and withstanding the disadvantages within the limitations of what he restricts to be his sacred space, and so then it will come to the question of how much mixing one can afford to let in, in that case, where male needs predominate over a man's need.
Quote :
Men too have empathy towards all humanity, but I think it's easier for men to direct their empathy with reason and awareness, while women, even the very intelligent ones, still seem to me as dominated by their emotions to a greater extent than even some males who might be less intelligent than them.
I dont see emotions as a detriment in themselves. A disciplined spirit is capable of being fully emotional and still be perfectly objective. An involved-detachment, which is what empathy is, can be mistaken for seeming to be dominated by it.
Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
A little weakness here and there is what keeps the spirit alert and robust and healthy, and eliminating all downsides and favouring all upsides is very lopsided and not progressive to me.
Weakness is something to be overcome as much as possible, it can never be completely removed anyway so there is no need for its artificial preservation - it will always be present. And eliminating downsides just makes sense... otherwise you aren't talking about actual downsides.
There are no opposites; but entangled polarities. Doing away with something that causes you pain will also impact your capacity for pleasure. Evolution is impossible if one isn't ready to affirm the price he has to pay for the prize he must want to enjoy. With every growth, there is a vulnerability, and it should be affirmed than eliminated. By affirm, I never said preservation, but a doing No with a Yea-saying. With every gain there is a loss, and if one steps back from gaining for a loss here and there, there can be no growth. Also, what looks like a weakness in itself locally, could in relation to the whole organism be contributing to its robustness. And what looks like strength or an advantage locally, could in relation to the whole be cause of its detriment. Xts. founds their whole flesh a weakness - Xt. is the systemic elimination of the body, of senses, of the physiological. Such eliminaton of weaknesses is nihilistic life-negation. A stunting of life. N. called Xt. a slow will to suicide. Pure virtuosity through the elimination of all vice and weakness - such Alexdrianism is a false progressiveness.
Enforced paternalism is one of the biggest factors women converted to Xt. btw
When is paternalism ever not enforced? Why is women not having the right to vote necessarily a step backwards?
_________________ 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.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
_________________ 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.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Enforced paternalism is one of the biggest factors women converted to Xt. btw
When is paternalism ever not enforced?
There are orthodox cultures where upholding patriarchal values as parameters is already idealized into identity; so a household head doesnt necessarily have to force his daughter to marry person a, b, or c. Within established parameters, she is quite free to choose. Spartan women were relatively free to Athenians. Instilled values are more effective than external enforcement.
Quote :
Why is women not having the right to vote necessarily a step backwards?
Nietzsche wrote:
"...is it not time, now that the type "herd animal" is being evolved more and more in Europe, to make the experiment of a fundamental, artificial and conscious breeding of the opposite type and its virtues? And would it not be a kind of goal, redemption, and justification for the democratic movement itself if someone arrived who could make use of it-by finally producing beside its new and sublime development of slavery (-that is what European democracy must become ultimately) a higher kind of dominating and Caesarian spirits who would stand upon it, maintain themselves by it, and elevate themselves through it? To new, hitherto impos- sible prospects, to their own prospects? To their own tasks?" [WTP, 954]
There is either a transition or a violent and abrupt break.
A subterfuge of democracy, or all sorts of barbarians creating ground 0. Voting only means something if we are talking the former. In which case, as said, the onus ought to be on raising the criterion for competition. I agree with Anfang's idea of isolated development that are male and female exclusive - which is what initiatory rituals were. Such things have to occur simultaneously, so these initiatory qualities shape those criteria, and those criteria shape future individuals. A 'synergy'.
If you are in a relationship with a woman and she does not belong to you then you cannot defend her against someone else. This can also extend to groups, you can defend a woman against a group for your group but this only makes sense if she belongs to your group or you claim her.
It wouldn't be good to order women to become the property of feminized men, not in the long run. Maybe it would be good as an 'emergency measure' but those emergency measures tend to become the new norm and f-s up a lot in the long run. There needs to be some form of competition among men, also group internally which creates paternalism from within, not some hive mind sanctioned patriarchy from above.
If you are in a relationship with a woman and she does not belong to you then you cannot defend her against someone else. This can also extend to groups, you can defend a woman against a group for your group but this only makes sense if she belongs to your group or you claim her.
The usual problem with western and white women, is there's nothing to claim. Males traditionally claim an adolescent woman by her virginity. Without her virginity, she has already been claimed by at least one man, if not many others. A slut is claimed by many. A chaste woman is claimed by just one, two, or three.
The western woman is shared by all, communal. Without chaste women, Nobility, there is no female to rally around. No woman worthy of protection, of educating, of uplifting.
The western spiritual disease is not only within the men, but the women too. The lack of strictness and structure, the lack of moral rigidity, lack of strength and steel. Where are the western women with honor, with dignity, with traditional values worth guarding?
None.
OhFortunae
Gender : Posts : 2311 Join date : 2013-10-26 Age : 30 Location : Land of Dance and Song
A man with any honour - should always bluntly and wholly reject a female whom is second handed (though most have been through tens of hands). Aside from exceptions such as: if the man was the slut, an abuser or alcoholic low life. Apply a little "Muslim style" justice and the problem is solved. Therefore the female will remain loyal to their man, because there is no where else to go, but there is however the consequence of being punished. Otherwise, does the man seriously believe the slut is going to break her pattern and stay with him alone for eternity? Does the stupid beta-male take this into account or even care? I personally HATE those females who are nothing more than a Pussy walking around, open to anybody. The typical female who spends her life I don't want that.
However everyone can make mistakes as long it won't be a pattern and the quality of women, as for men, varies. There are too many to ignore them or pass them aside; these are times you have to set your pride away in so far it aren't full blown sluts and whores, if you have it in you as well to make of her a mother in stead of keeping her a woman who merely finds value through her vagina.
_________________ 1. "Youth, oh, youth! | of whom then, youth, art thou born? Say whose son thou art, Who in Fafnir's blood | thy bright blade reddened, And struck thy sword to my heart."
2. "The Noble Hart | my name, and I go A motherless man abroad; Father I had not, | as others have, And lonely ever I live."
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
"...is it not time, now that the type "herd animal" is being evolved more and more in Europe, to make the experiment of a fundamental, artificial and conscious breeding of the opposite type and its virtues? And would it not be a kind of goal, redemption, and justification for the democratic movement itself if someone arrived who could make use of it-by finally producing beside its new and sublime development of slavery (-that is what European democracy must become ultimately) a higher kind of dominating and Caesarian spirits who would stand upon it, maintain themselves by it, and elevate themselves through it? To new, hitherto impos- sible prospects, to their own prospects? To their own tasks?" [WTP, 954]
There is either a transition or a violent and abrupt break.
Then how isn't Hitler and NS a violent and abrupt break?
_________________ 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.
Hrodeberto
Gender : Posts : 1318 Join date : 2014-07-14 Age : 37 Location : Spaces
After all, it's something like this imitative recreation . Before all, it's something like formative appreciation. Choose your subservience: sacro egoismo or sacro clericalismo: humanize or dehumanize. If not to moral receptivity of the aesthetics of individuality, then to what amoral deceptivity of the synthetics of sociality is being revered? Mechanism has dominated humanism, where autism is the superseded egoism.
_________________ Life has a twisted sense of humour, doesn't it. . . .
* * *
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"...is it not time, now that the type "herd animal" is being evolved more and more in Europe, to make the experiment of a fundamental, artificial and conscious breeding of the opposite type and its virtues? And would it not be a kind of goal, redemption, and justification for the democratic movement itself if someone arrived who could make use of it-by finally producing beside its new and sublime development of slavery (-that is what European democracy must become ultimately) a higher kind of dominating and Caesarian spirits who would stand upon it, maintain themselves by it, and elevate themselves through it? To new, hitherto impos- sible prospects, to their own prospects? To their own tasks?" [WTP, 954]
There is either a transition or a violent and abrupt break.
Then how isn't Hitler and NS a violent and abrupt break?
WWI defeat and other conditions, including the clash of N. and Wagner [antichrist and the latter's virulent anti-semitism] and the discovery of a common PIE lang. family all contributed to the people being ready and a democratic popularity, when the initial violence and sudden coup landed him in prison. When one spoke of blood and family ties, one knew what family meant then. Today, you cant use the same generalizations because the meaning of family has changed along with marriage acts, plus loaded PC history of The hollow-industry.
So either war first has to be at the level of words… a reconnection, release words hijacked and taken hostage, a slow populist subversion changing the premise and the criteria while keeping the process going on, or a violent take over first, and then begin the re-education programme. The onus on the other vs. onus upon oneself - depends on time, agenda, and changing subterra politics.
On the other side, when the premise never has to be questioned but the process is:
