You only analyze on a basic level. Humans are more evolved, more intelligent, and thus have more significant and specialized methods of reproduction. Obviously, more complex. These complexities are within my points, but not yours.
You claim that heterosexual development is based on quelling the anxiety response of the female, from the male. What you fail to consider, is familiarity of males.
This is obvious. Again, you aren't going 'deep' enough. You don't even approach the next steps of your own hypotheses. And they are not "yours" as-if you are the one who discovered Evolutionary Theory. As-if that insight doesn't belong to 1000s of other scientists and thinkers?
Such Vanity
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Quote an author of Evolution Theory that mentions this female mechanism.
Buffoon....I start from evolution of life, and you want to talk about humans only...and you call this 'deep'. I've already gone in-depth on the particularities of the human female.
I was asked to offer my opinion on what this anxiety is based on, where does it come from. So, I will not limit myself to your obsession, but I will go outside the human species, and before humans ever evolved, to find an explanation. My analysis of the human female and her psychology is splattered all over the place. That was not the question, buffoon. The question, AGAIN, was 'where does this anxiety come from', where is it rooted.
Anxiety is found in all species, buffoon. It pre-exists your plagiarized anxiety about giving birth to sub-par offspring. Bovines have no ability to reason on this level, but they still feel fear. A camel does not rationalize which male is better to be fertilized by.
Your obsession with getting laid is not mine.
Limit yourself to plagiarizing. When you dare to go off-script you expose the real quality of your mind.
Quote an author of Evolution Theory that mentions this female mechanism.
Buffoon....I start from evolution of life, and you want to talk about humans only...and you call this 'deep'. I've already gone in-depth on the particularities of the human female.
I was asked to offer my opinion on what this anxiety is based on, where does it come from. So, I will not limit myself to your obsession, but I will go outside the human species, and before humans ever evolved, to find an explanation. My analysis of the human female and her psychology is splattered all over the place. That was not the question, buffoon. The question, AGAIN, was 'where does this anxiety come from', where is it rooted.
Anxiety is found in all species, buffoon. It pre-exists your plagiarized anxiety about giving birth to sub-par offspring. Bovines have no ability to reason on this level, but they still feel fear. A camel does not rationalize which male is better to be fertilized by.
Your obsession with getting laid is not mine.
Limit yourself to plagiarizing. When you dare to go off-script you expose the real quality of your mind.
Other than petulant personal attacks, what meat do you have in this response?
Nothing, as per usual.
You are only handy with vast generalizations, without going into detail. I spelled it out for you. You're welcome.
You have failed in your point. You have not explained much, if anything, about these 'anxieties'. I have, going forward where you cannot. I explained the more obvious points. But they lead to more. With humanity, there is more sophistication and decision-making involved in the sexual process. As with base animals, instincts are followed more closely, and selection of mates is limited to a small figure. With humans, the detail is much larger.
I'll offer a little tidbit here, to demonstrate the small scope of your points.
Anxiety precludes sexual evolution. Anxiety is premised upon the unknown, what is foreign. Thus homogeneity decreases anxiety while heterogeneity increases anxiety. Predation is evermore anxiety. Thus sexual relations are premised upon homogeneity. Organisms seek-out their own image first.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I'll offer a little tidbit here, to demonstrate the small scope of your points.
Anxiety precludes sexual evolution. Anxiety is premised upon the unknown, what is foreign. Thus homogeneity decreases anxiety while heterogeneity increases anxiety. Predation is evermore anxiety. Thus sexual relations are premised upon homogeneity. Organisms seek-out their own image first.
Wow!!!
That's a very unique insight. Why didn't I think of that?
I am like a volcano in ancient times. As long as the villagers behave respectfully I won't burn it all down to the ground.
Is the volcano demon not a good metaphor for a people filled with unquenchable thirst for revenge? Yet not man enough to act on it themselves? Oh volcano demon, avenge us and burn down the village of our hosts.
I really enjoy his life, its one worthy of being envious of.
Knowthyself:
Quote :
I find human-beings to be most of the time really arrogant with nothing to be arrogant about. In the back of my mind im always looking for ways to knock them of their high horse if I could
Explains much. Relatable.
With his new band he accomplished exactly what he talked about. Music is soothing, lyrics personal, unpretentious people.
That's a crucial distinction, particularly in modern systems where strangers are theoretically of your own kind.
There is no 'immoral' act called adultery, based on nature, but there is a breaking of a group rule, an ethical rule.
Man is not monogamous. The social ethos of not fucking your 'friends' wife was created when the group was a homogeneous group of relatives and friends. But, memetically, the ethical standard remains an affront to social cohesion. It is not only about the act of copulation, but about making the male fear that his children are not his own - he doubts his investment and his commitments to the system.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Like I said elsewhere...I distinguish between morality and ethos as one being a set of behavioural rules evolved because they produced unfit genetic mutations, and the second being a set of social rules evolved to facilitate cooperate groups, by inhibiting behaviours that produce internal conflicts.
I use 'morality' and 'ethos' to distinguish the two.
Both evolved....because we see them in practice in other species, such as chimpanzees, and other social species. This tells us that most of what we call 'ethics' is a social phenomenon, or a behaviour that evolved to make social unities possible. We see the same behaviours of altruism, sexual restrictions, reciprocity.... Man simply codified them, and then invented God to enforce them. Chiselling them on stone. God became the substitute for the alpha...only he, unlike the mortal alpha, was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. You could not get away with a bit of 'breaking the rules'. To further the control mechanism, conscience was used as a form of self-regulation. The individual felt guilty, or ashamed, even when he was not caught breaking the rules.
So, morality evolved to facilitate cooperate homogeneous groups, but then it evolved into a meme, using god and law and order, to control and manage large numbers of heterogeneous populations. Shame and guilt became methods of self-regulation, exploiting the natural inclination to feel bad when you've wronged a friend, or a blood relative. It exploited empathy.
Okay my thoughts of this are, I can't really find anything wrong with what Satyr is saying. However there is one bit though, males seem to experience as much anxiety around females if not more so. So I think the argument also applies to males, males are afraid of raising a child with inferior genes, I think that is why males naturally gravitate to "hot" women. And yet still, males experience deep anxiety around females.
What Aeon speaks of, is the beta male system, the need for "approval seeking" from women which many red pill coaches warn about. Women as gatekeepers usually leads to social dysfunction, as they are not often fair or just. The other thing is that female sexual selection revolves around emotions, how a man makes her "feel" in the moment, if he makes one wrong move or says something out of line, she dumps him for not conforming to her beliefs. It is in essence handing society over to a giant tentacle monster and all males must get on their knees in order to seduce the tentacle monster into selecting them as one of the chosen ones who gets to breed.
For this reason, alpha males have an easier time of it, or used to 10 years ago before feminism, because they stroked the tentacle monster in all the right places, whereas now men are shamed for having sexual agency and are quite literally chained to the wall. Male sexuality now becomes passive, hoping that they are one day selected by the giant tentacle monster.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
What's wrong, can't handle disagreement or being proved otherwise??
Much of Satyr's positions are about the female "filtering" mechanism. Yet, diseases, mutations, inferior genes pass through women all the time. Look at Modernity. Look at humans now. *IF* the female specie really did 'filter' out bad genes then how did so many of those bad genes pile up into what populations are now?
Satyr claims that "mankind intervenes", in some ways, forcing women, against their will, to mate with lesser and inferior males. Here Satyr draws blank. He implies, but does not state specifically, the particular means these things occur. He also does not explain how mutations occur in other species, outside humanity. As I mentioned earlier, the generalization is there, but the point is nowhere close to proved.
You can't have it both ways. Females either are 'filtering', or they don't. So how, and why?
My explanations and reasoning are clearer, superior. Females filter when they can, based on their intelligence, and other times cannot. For example, when males are criminal and rapist, then females cannot 'filter' such choices as males override female choice. Men can use physical violence to push 'bad' genes through. Hypothetically, women could kill their own children, who are products of rape or incest, but women often keep them. What does this fact imply about selection? What does it imply about the female gender, other than females are naturally invested in their own progeny, even when that progeny is defective and malformed?
Satyr's analyses are mediocre, novice at best.
If anybody wants Philosophy, then the choice is obvious, you must come to me.
The Swedish language was beautiful, I've noticed that from older movies. It used to have a soft, flowy and song like quality in its feature similar to Italian. I think immigrants and English entertainment and slang words made it get this choppy and brutish quality seen in other languages. I respect French self-admiration, but in regards to us I think we should just entirely adopt English and call it a day.
To anybody Swedish Danish is the most disgusting sounding thing, its like a drunk Dutchman speaking Swedish and even more disturbing is their English accent.
Norwegian sounds like a glib and aloof Swedish person.. Its okay.
Anybody speaking French sounds sophisticated and proud. The perfect language of poetry.
Italian the best singing language, as beautiful as French but its instead sincere and down to earth.
German is the most masculine, if spoken with passion the best, but with effeminate tendencies the worst, the women sound butch and terrible.
Spanish is boring and mediocre, not much to say, but Portuguese is most pleasant cant describe the difference though.
Russian... hard in a good way, masculine but the women still sound great. The mysteries.
Finnish, Hungarian and Greek are just alien. I like Greek the most, its the most I guess refined, the other two are more mishmashy.
Best accent> Men: Scottish > Women: Stockholm English
Men need to have organisations, places and times which are exclusively for heterosexual men. Women compromise the integrity of pretty much every heterosexual man in varying degrees. Some races, for example Europeans, depend on a patriarchal order to prosper and for this to work there need to be exclusive heterosexual men organising without being compromised by their weaknesses in relation to women.
The basic cycle of civilization is a gradual and then suddenly shifting fluctuation between two extremes. In one the population lives entirely for a supernatural afterlife, the present is too tormented. In the other they live entirely for the material near present, life is too much at ease.
The end product is too unstable on an evolutionary timescale. From here either we re-enter the animal kingdom one way or the other, or we overcome the cycle and advance to a type 1 civilization.
I dont know what a type 1 civilization looks like. But the basic ingredients I imagine is materialist universal monism and a romanticisation of human longevity in the face of a universe conspiring against it- everpresent paranoia.
A primitive future requires minimal effort to achieve, so it seems likely. An advanced future requires massive effort, but seems to have some sort of momentum on its side.
Towards what end would you strive? Although the intentful primitivist forces might in the end help the advancers and vice versa. Are we an ebb or flow? All I know is if reason sees children only as toys, then by the Laws of Karma... a child must embrace the evil within and face fate!
Men need to have organisations, places and times which are exclusively for heterosexual men. Women compromise the integrity of pretty much every heterosexual man in varying degrees. Some races, for example Europeans, depend on a patriarchal order to prosper and for this to work there need to be exclusive heterosexual men organising without being compromised by their weaknesses in relation to women.
By weaknesses, I presume how feminine sexuality affects men? I would say patriarchy and patriarchal tendencies themselves are a manifestation of strength - a resistance against being manipulated by the feminine. At least for the first generation of patriarchy, it takes a degree of intelligence and rationality in men to recognize how to structure society in an effective way, aka so men and women both do their roles optimally.
The next generations of men are kind of freeriding on the success of their ancestors and may forget why women are excluded from certain things, and so things deteriorate.
I think the key thing about patriarchy is men realizing how to act in their reproductive interest and not get manipulated, like they get manipulated in modern times.
Most males now seem to fall under the category of an effeminate enabler of shitty female behavior. These are men who give women resources and status and protection without demanding reproductive services in exchange, at most getting inconsequential sex, at the worst and most often - nothing.
You know the kind - they subscribe to, watch and donate to female YouTubers, they pay for porn, they comment on FB and tell women how pretty they are, they worship female celebrities and pay to watch them sing and dance on stage, etc. They inflate the egos and thus the value of these females sky high with their pathetic, supplicating beta male behavior. And of course they completely forego the advantages of their own sexuality - the higher potential to produce and apply violence - and let it atrophy, becoming weak soyboys. What they don't realize is that this inflation of women's ego and value makes these females less accessible to men, especially men like them, lol, though of course since they exist within the same system, others pay the costs of their faggotry too.
Patriarchal men realize that there is no rational reason for them to give resources to, protect, or in any way support women who aren't either reproducing their own genes, or the genes of the ally men in the group. This then extends to a patriarchal social structure.
If men weren't a bunch of faggots, some whore coming on stage to dance/sing and trying to earn status, resources or anything that way, would only get rotten fruit thrown at her. This applies to many other professions women work in, especially male domains, which the very presence of females degrades. Because why the fuck would a non-cuckold male incentivize such behavior? How does he reproductively benefit from it?
The very exclusion of females from certain domains based on acknowledging the rational incentives to do so is the foundation of patriarchy and the manifestation of the strength of masculine reasoning.
The failure to do so is the consequence of weakness, it is evolutionarily maladaptive behavior.
The political order is a manifestation of the collective consciousness of those it consists of. Patriarchy requires patriarchal men. Not all men have the ability to be patriarchal, and so not all men deserve to enjoy the benefits of patriarchy.
Elitism is the way. Most white men deserve to die off and get slaughtered for their stupidity.
You know, I (and many others on the Alt-Right) joke about using Asian women's wombs to produce pure white babies with white eggs, but I can't actually imagine myself doing something so mean to the woman - getting her to give birth to a child unrelated to herself and raise it and invest time, energy and resources into it for more than a decade. It would feel as if I am betraying her and cheating her, even if she consented. I can't, or maybe just don't want to, fake niceness for such long periods of time when I am essentially destroying the other person.
I can imagine myself disemboweling my enemies, beheading them and putting their heads on spikes as a warning to all others, but not that.
I remember reading how in the 20th century, I think in America, around 30% of married women gave birth to children genetically unrelated to the husband. So not only did they not mind fucking another man behind his back, they also didn't mind getting impregnated by that man and most likely continued to drain the husband of his energy to support offspring that is not his.
The point is: Men and women are both brutal in their own ways.
Wtf, you can already just hire an indian womb, then hire a fulltime nanny, both occupations providing the women with better lives than otherwise available.
Quote :
essentially destroying the other person.
There is no person there, nobody is anybody. Puppets of genes and memes, grand fulfillment in actualizing whatever their aims.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
By weaknesses, I presume how feminine sexuality affects men?
Yes. I think it has been talked about this weakness/strength relation in other threads as well but I tend to forget those points again and again. If you take for example the sense hearing then we have a weakness for sound in particular loud sounds, they hurt us, even potentially damage us permanently. But then again this weakness seems to be a requirement for hearing. If you have the sensitivity to sense sound waves traveling through the air then this exposes your sensors, your hearing apparatus, to potentially get damaged.
Doesn't mean that a weakness is always enabling something of great benefit but pretty much all functions come with a related weakness. Like life seems to expose the living organism to potential death, couldn't be any other way.
Patriarchal society depends on this weakness, this sensitivity to "female sexuality". What this is, is a higher degree of sexual dimorphism among Europeans and thus there are men who as a group are different from women as a group and so they inevitably tend to form respective circles and organisations. All the equality talk is a meme working against physical, bodily European reality and thus is "changing" Europeans, as in destroying/replacing them.
It wouldn't surprise me if people use the projections of their own emotional indulgence in order to stay connected to the earth as to prevent environmental insanity, it also seems to me that the opposite is also true..perhaps a difference between a masculine/feminine approach.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Let’s say someone is lying to themselves quite often. Self-deceit and all that. Would someone like that not have a difficult time to pretend to be someone he is not, or to pretend anything as a deliberate act? “What do you mean pretend? Either I am what I think I am or I am not…”
And this is why I’m playing with the idea that people who are big on self-deception are not very good at make-believe or adopting an idea or a role as a thought-experiment. Also not good at empathy (the actual meaning of the word not the making it into a synonym for sympathy).
