Feminism

I wrote an essay on what relates to"smart girls", titled 'Tentative Defence of Monogamy'....it may be buried somewhere in the KTS archive.
In it i make the point that high intelligence is a form of self-inflicted monogamy, and this is more true for females, because even high0intellegent males will tend to go for less intelligent females, part of the male/female dynamic, but a high intelligence female will never settle for anything other than what she judges to be her equal - here self-evaluation crucial, and I made a distinction between those who over-estimate self versus those who under-estimate self.
Though a male will easily do what is accessible, a female will only settle for the inferior if she is coerced - Paternalism being a form of coercion.

A male will also compromise - 'bros before hos' because a cohesive allegiance is better than none at all, and because when a female is 'taken' she is, for a male, damaged goods.
The opposite is true for a female, because sperm does not lose its quality if it is sampled by another. In fact, a male who is chosen by a female who the woman admires, will gain value, in her judgement, whereas a female that is with another male loses value, for a male.
We see here why virginity was a Paternalistic sign of high potential. For a female a male's desirability and past is more of a factor that accentuates his worth, because it assimilates the judgements of other females into the final product.
A married male is highly prized, as is a male with a girlfriend - We used to say 'a female must smell pussy on a male for him to be of any interest to her'. Which is a way of crassly describing the same thing.

Another female's choice multiplies a female's own judgement - because she has no way of justifying her own impulses so she needs external validation, as a general rule, mostly true for below average females.
High IQ females do not need this, and the higher the IQ the less they need another female's validation, or agreement.
In my thesis I posited the idea that the only possibility for human monogamy, that is spontaneous and not dictated by external factors, is possibly among high intelligence females - the higher the intelligence the more prone to monogamy or lack of sexual desire they are.
Femininity requires an external trigger that dominates and intimidates - the most it can settle for is an equal, according to her own evaluation of herself.

A high intelligence male is already prone to settle for what is beneath him, so it becomes a matter of how far below himself he will go to pass on his genes or to find a companion - therefore the dynamics with males are completely different.

He picks up on an interesting pattern.

When no other value system is in place, no other source of identity other than the physical and the social, hyperbolic appearances and overcompensation will occur. The competition between the genders that feminism instigates, coupled with feminization of men, produces a war for appearances based on "social market value". The more exaggerated, the more attention one gets, the better chance they have at capitalizing on it as a way to gain social exaltation or merit.

Women take thier cue from men, naturally. So this competition of exaggerated appearance is taken up by them. Gay men, have to make of the feminine appearance a caricature, in order to conceal thier masculinity. Women see this as a competition strategy to do the same.

This is a pattern I attributed to female dysgenic hedonism. As females gain influence, they talk about equality and have men enact those policies (no matter if they behave differently). Eventually the female neuters (through ideology) the discriminating capability of the male altogether so he'll fuck anyone - it becomes her choice only. This is not totally disconnected from Abrahamism, where the female covers her body so a man can't discriminate. With the feminization of mankind, so also emerges the female competition to become more and more of a slut, to inspire deeply embedded urges in the feminized male.

When men stop selecting for beauty, due to female fear of rejection, then it stops being selected for. She can select for beautiful males, but she'll hide her own beauty out of shame - other females calling her afflicted with 'internal misogyny' - while also attempting to inspire attraction from a mate. So you get demented interpretations of fashion and bodily disfigurement.

It also adds some explication to the "E-THOT" phenomenon as it is called. The female is less sexually initiated, and so she finds in becoming a "simulation" of pure sex, a thrilling comfort zone in her sexual vigilence and a way to monopolize male sexuality into herself as an abstract identity. Females are far more drawn to attention then actual intercourse. She can get all she needs from a male just from his lust for her. This is why male indifference to her sexuality is vital to her own dicipline of femininity.

Reminds me of the 'beautiful ones' from the rat utopia experiment. It would generally only affect males, but the females now have an Abrahamic influence that says to their spirit that they're not fundamentally different. Hard to doubt it isn't just feminine nature, though - with the 'beautiful ones' in the rat utopia being feminized.

I'll see females say, in response to the scientist calling the 'beautiful ones' 'stupid', that they aren't at all 'stupid'. This makes sense if the female just sees satisfaction in appearing beautiful to garner attention, and ride the coattails of a successful male. She sees the 'beautiful one', feminized male, as another woman competing for male attention. Whether that 'alpha' male is abstracted or not; or it's just base fear from Pavlovian repetition. Continually grooming because that is what it must do in lieu of more direct methods of acquiring a mate.

You can see the metro-sexual as similar to the 'beautiful ones'. I see plenty of younger males today prettying themselves up and being obsessed about that, alone. While behaving like females.

Hollywood and woke media has really done a number on the perception of reality for practically a whole generation of w*mxn. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Orwell & Goode (@OrwellNGoode) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That reminds me of this:



Notice his placating coddling that he amuses her with. Feigning a sense of "inferiority" based on her stamina to perform more reps but lift significantly less weight than him, even though that is ignored among the group so as to appease her and not awknowledge her total lack of strength compared to his. The fact that he could snap her neck like a dry twig with one hand, if he wanted to, is ignored by everyone. Its all an unspoken pretension they play along with. This is what feminism requires. An act of superiority as long as the male ALLOWS it to happen, as long as he nurtures it and agrees with its fantasy, like playing with a small child, you amuze the child's belief that he is Spiderman and play along, making him feel powerful about himself.

Fantasy exists only by the indifference of realty until it collides in violence; shattering the fantasy. Truth must be covered up, glossed over, "laughed off".

^ I'm glad the comment section can see that too, she is so repulsive and can't hide her facial expressions as if this proves something. Of course this is done just for the views, but she is not acting.

This woman needs to be complimented/supported like a child

"Debilitating and self-absorbed, they each live a pathetic online existence as their own personal celebrity. Is it any wonder that they can’t get a girlfriend or boyfriend? "

One thing is certain this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: the cam girls will be working double shifts, and the porn websites can expect to see their traffic spike

Op-Ed by Peter Andrews[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— RT (@RT_com) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Men tend to talk about ideas, women tend to talk about themselves. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Two Girls vs. One Guy - Who Taps First?

cc: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— RT Sport (@RTSportNews) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hollywood is selling to idiotic women the delusion that they can kick a man's ass, and that men are intimidated by them...if not physically then mentally.
Yet....this lie can only lead to disappointment or hubris that can get someone hurt, for real - and this 'someone' will most probably be male, because when games turn real the weaker one is held as being innocent of the consequences.

As the camera guy warns "no injuries". The weak cannot be injured. Superiority is not "allowed" to actually be proven. The game and pretension must be sustained. The children must be allowed to pretend they are superheroes and invincible Gods, while the adults behave themselves underneath customs of civility and nurture.

Yes, but it is a game in this case. Doing wrestling in the first place is already a set of game rules. If he could tackle them without rules and if he were utterly ruthless they would be both down in 5 seconds with blows to the head.

I don't know about the convictions of the guy saying "No injuries." But taking his words at face value it makes sense in this case. He is wrestling two girls at the same time, that's more demanding and it can be frustrating which both lead to having less control over your actions.
If I am much better than my opponent then I can beat him/her without going all in and avoiding seriously hurting them. I can go out of my way and protect them while still beating them. If the match-up is closer because, for example, it's 1 vs 2, it's more difficult to manage this balance of winning while still ensuring the other persons safety. You have to be more careful with women, the smaller ones have arms that look like twigs.

Its not about the game of wrestling, its about the game of feminism. The culture of feminism ITSELF is the game being played by males.Two little women believing they can take on one male, is a form of arrogance instilled and indoctrinated in them by the feminist worldview, whether they are aware of it or not. Its a behavioral engineering factor. Like someone who plays war video games all day and believes he has the bravery of a soldier, because his impulses have been visually stimulated to bring about a delusional sense of his self-worth.

One independent strong woman can take on multiple men in a fair fight.
I've seen it happen on-screen.
Not two women against one dude, but ten dudes against one women. she massacred them.

Wait until Transsexuals take over women's sports.

I'm not sure that they believed that they would win in this case.
The result, I imagine, was also showing reality in action. Don't know what happened after the defeat.

But I agree about it generally. The issue though is not any version of civility (social game rules) but a common particular one where it's deemed uncivil to set people straight about reality; A civility where reality is not acknowledged by whatever way of trickery and language games.

I think they create this image of this stalker-y "nice guy" because it appeals to women who want an explanation as to why they have to reject their beta orbiters after they've lead them on.
It's not like all women/girls do this. From what I've seen, those girls who are in longterm traditional relationships don't lead on one guy after another, they also didn't do that before they got into their longterm relationship.
This is more for the feminist or career type woman.

The male internalizes female behavior in himself, which is why he acts it out in submissive and passive ways. This internalization is his surrender to the feminine in himself. If he becomes unstable, unhinged, then that derangement is his masculine power complex trying to desperately assert itself under this self-imposed oppression, which is why it takes on "violent" behavior; its a survival reaction.

I agree. They do propagandize and parody the image of this type of emasculated man. Usually women who have a higher degree of intelligence will be deliberately malicious, but most of the time she is unaware of her own actions and doesn't know any better whether she leads a man on or not, she's content to simply enjoy whatever attention she receives and move on.

The INCEL i think, is a case study of what the feminine psychology does to emasculated men, when taken to extremes, and how it destroys them. The passive "nice guy" mentality, in real life, tends to actually be solitary in alot of ways. A male who is social and gregarious, even if he is effete, will charm females more often than not.

The female must be guided and directed by the male. If the male has no control over the feminine, it dominates him and he becomes emasculated. But only because he allows it to happen, the masculine side is his key to keeping it under control. The masculine component acts as a centering of the feminine. Feminism is a male invention.

Women are pretty good at hiding and disguising their sentiments and feelings.

Additionally you have boys being taught that women are those angelic respectable (to be respected) creatures who all too often fall prey to nefarious misogynistic men. They are victims and you have to respect their virtuosity at the same time. Kind of like Jesus. The moral behaviour of the man must therefore be that of submission. How else do you react to someone who is virtuous and to be respected while at the same time is a victim and deserving of your consideration.
You would need someone to set you straight and tell you about all the social bullshit but those will be hard to find because either they are brainwashed themselves like most males, or it's not in their nature to tell you about their own games*, like most females.

*because they often are not aware enough of what they are doing themselves, even if they were well-intentioned.

Actress [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said she owes all of her success to having an abortion at 15, continues: "I will never stop talking about my abortion or my periods or my experiences in childbirth, my episiotomies, my yeast infections, or my ovulation that lines up w/ the moon!" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The more feminised our politics and society become, the closer we get to our destruction. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Way of the World (@wayotworld) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They do their everything trying to avoid "Toxic masculinity" which in this case would help solve the problem, but these devout feminists instead want to castrate/neutere EVERYTHING around them, making everything as ineffective as possible. They want feministic solutions.

The interior ministers whole attitude towards this is like a over concerned mother scolding her son for wanting to play with the bad boys. "No No! You must obey the international laws! You must play nice! "  " You are not allowed to go if you do bad things! "

She basically said that " I can't allow our men to go there if they are going to do what Greeks are doing. " " Can't let our boys have fun! "

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wonder what the motivation speeches are like....

"Men, i know we are being led by a group of incompetent, traitorous, and weak women whom could never do any of our jobs but i still expect you to execute their orders with no second thoughts!"

They're just along for the ride, like most of the armed forces today, try to reason with them and they will accuse you of not meeting their standards, meet those standards and they will simply raise the bar... funny how they dont hold their leaders to the same expectations.

Its made me think how much more potential a group of men could have if they actually fought for something masculine and life affirming, instead of the empty platitudes that cater to narcissists, sociopaths, and feminines whom might be physically capable but lack the attitude needed for war.

Yep, these people literally think everything should be solved by talking and understanding. They don't understand anything about physical conflicts. Their brains are not wired to think there could be other kind of solutions, as I could hear from the statement where the interior minister hesitated the whole time responding directly to the questions.

She didn't want to say that she allows the use of force.

They have no problem with using violence against the local "toxic masculinity" if it doesn't play ball.
As women they have it easier to make such effeminate arguments but ultimately their "male" equivalents in politics are implementing just the same agenda.

Swedish businesses are asking white women to open their legs wide open to welcome African and Moslem men. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@DuchesneRicardo) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The pull of the exotic, of what is least like self, is more than just a sexual strategy of diversification, it is an expression of self-loathing.
Opposites attract only when both resent themselves and seek in another a compensating correction; they, women and emasculated males, call it 'completion', inadvertently exposing its absence.
What is lacking - and life, as existent, is what lacks absolute being - seeks in other its own fulfillment; conversely what is overflowing in its acceptance and continuous assimilation of other, seeks in and through it a source of its own ephemeral superfluity and continuance through growth, sublimation and/or replication.

In this basic truth both sexual roles (genetic) - socially evolving into gender roles (memetic) - are revealed in relation to existence.
From this we can discern the origins of the reproductive strategy as rooted in feeding, i.e., assimilation, digestion and integration (selective, discriminating, appropriation). The sex act itself, characterized by the same behaviours - simultaneously wanting to be absorbed and to absorb other into self.
Balance of absence and presence.

Happy birthday to the queen of devianism Camille Paglia, here’s a clip of her dissing 60s feminism for it’s failed results way back in the 90s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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