Feminism

Paglia and her Freudian obsessions with sexuality speak to the psychology of the feminist mind and it's undertones of masculine attraction. Ive read her books. She actually praises the 60s counterculture for its "Dionysion" spirituality which she believes enriched the collective consciousness because of its "freeing" mentality, ignoring the nihilism and degeneracy of it, which has now spread into a spiritual cancer of terminal illness.

Feminist females like her, with above average IQs, will proudly exude the lesbian/masculine persona, unwittingly validating masculine superiotiy. And then, make sure to pay credence to the modern mythologies of gender "constructivism" and the 'feminine mystique'. Despite her defense of masculinity, she is still the quintessential typical feminist obsessed with sex and gender and promoting constant revolt against it through masculine logic which corrupts her own feminine nature into deviance. They then rationalize it as "power".

There is no balance in the female. They only know extremes.

She and people like Peterson are like small breaks on the runaway insanity locomotive.
The logic of their 'ideology' leads to crazy detachments from reality; their 'logic' leads to degeneracy and desperation.
They intuitively or rationally understand this and want to put limits to its and their own 'logic'.
Paglia admits that she's a degenerate Lesbian - a mutant that is not so 'spiteful', to put it in Dutton's contexts. A self-aware mutant.

They will refuse to apply the same to race, for example, and only limit their corrective warning to sex and gender issues. Something similar occurred in the MRA/MGtOW movement, in the earl days.
Nihilism was beginning to threaten the very foundations of western culture - based on Aryan traditions - and it was just beginning to have a psychological and personal impact - cracks in the socioeconomic foundations were begging to expose psychosis among the masses. That is when they noticed that something was wrong and that they had to do something to stop it.

Peterson refuses to openly admit racial distinctions in potentials or to trace the source of this sexual psychosis and identity crisis - and many in the MRA, such as Stardusk and Barbarossa, refused to consider the value of paternalism or to use the same reasoning they used to critique feminism to critique the source of feminism.
Such blind spots can only be explained as a byproduct of some form of schizophrenia or compartmentalization or as Orwell called it newspeak.
For instance, Peterson would routinely evoke the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn but would not refer to his other works like Two Hundred Years Together and quotes like...

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

And, yet, we still focus on Nazism.

...or he refused to look into Jung and why he broke from Freud.
Solzhenitsyn and Jung were 'genius' but not enough to study them completely, but only as it served his anti-post-modern corrections - a return to Modernity, before the '60's.
He only stayed within the lines of preventing the total destruction of the Christian ethos and family structure, and refused to go further into how this occurred or why it became so popular.
Where does Christianity come from?
Who and what was the Frankfurt School.
Then they began to socially cash-in their deep insights, and helpful suggestions to masses of lost and desperate imbeciles - and when that happened they became trapped in their own fame. You never kill a cash-cow.
Jumping on the anti-feminism and anti-Marxism bandwagon was easy. The system is already seeing that their own ideologies are having unforeseen social and psychological repercussions that are threatening its Globalization schemes and the very fabric of the system they base their power upon.

After the wars of WWII and the consolidation of the post-war Cold War period, the elites became arrogant and they overstretched their dogma.
Now some, among them, are seeing the negative side-effects and are trying to pull back and adjust.
This is creating internal conflict with the more radical segments among them.

If we do not understand Solzhenitsyn's second quote we will never understand what Stalin was and why he was so demonized after he purged Russia of the parasite and established a more nationalistic Communism - similar to what Putin did when he took over from Yeltsin, only he returned to a pre-Marxist era and Orthodoxy.
Other Communists are idolized, like Trotsky and adopted as guiding mentors - neo-cons adopting his 'perpetual revolution as U.S. foreign policy of perpetual war.
This is what is happening currently in the U.S, with Trump and the more radical elites the Liberal post-modern crypto-Marxists of Hollywood and the Democratic Party.
It's a heated conflict over what policy will be used to deal with America's decline in the coming century.  

COVID-19 was an unexpected event that will have many after-effects.
Nature is reminding man that non-discrimination and degeneracy has detrimental consequences and risks.

Can anyone explain this mystery of why men all over the world are suddenly becoming violent once stuck inside with a woman for more than a day? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

I don't know about the squeaky voice, that could get annoying in the long run as well.
But less nagging is a good idea to keep the tension lower, if that's what you want.

Feminism is like nagging, even though you are not in a relationship with the people (mostly men) that you are nagging.

Men and women are different for a reason. The female is not something the male is meant to co-habitate with for a lifetime, it’s very unnatural; his sexual role resists against it. The successful rearing of children to adulthood would be the only sensible, and necessary reason for the sexes to co-habitate. That’s all the sexual union is designed for, ultimately. Beyond that, it boils down to illusions about “love” and equating it to mean tolerating and putting up with the other for an indefinite time. There is no reason for that, unless it applies to feelings of loneliness, co-dependency dysfunctions, or just simple-minded boredom and petty needs for attention and endless sex.

Therefore, Only the most common and average types, can believe in the myth that men and women are designed to be attached to each other for a lifetime, and carry on in this form of exacerbating relationship, until individual frustrations begin to manifest because the sexual role has long been over and done with.

Feminism is about woman becoming aware of her absence of identity not as it is defined by her own spirit, but by society. Just as it was shaped and defined by groups and primitive tribes. Lower awareness must compensate by externalizing itself in others; society and Its mores and codes and labels, are, unwittingly, what she uses to define and describe this nebulous "freedom" she covets. Attributing this idea of strength to thier ability to deny what they believe "subjugates" them, comes from the same societal institutions they reject. Real freedom, real strength, does not assert or defend itself. Thier 'revolt' is the embrace of thier weakness.

Rebellion itself, the nature of it, is distinctly female, because it is a mode of chaos, of irrationality, like vengeance.

Yes, feminism inverts the identity from biological to social, which comes easier to females who are more dependent no groups because f their gestation and weening role.
Nihilism offs them an abstraction, an ideology, to replace their biological identity.
They marry or mate with the system, and are under its protection.
They also submit to Abrahamic spirituality because surrendering to an abstracted ideal of masculinity, such as the one-god, is more natural to them.

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

Women also need mental - i.e., spiritual - symmetry and proportionality, which they call 'chemistry', or 'charm', or 'personality', or 'sense of humour', but more than that they need someone they consider their equal or superior, in relation to how they evaluate themselves.
Being a bit intimidated by the male triggers their primordial instincts and gets their...ahem, juices flowing.

All displays of internal creativity and social and spatial awareness, and a challenging spirit that does not simply accept popular official narratives.

This is why most if not all women thinkers posit philosophical systems pertaining to determinism or “social Darwinism”, or they place logic on a pedestal, making it an absolute. The dynamics of how man “survives” in an enclosed system of ideas and society, is what they are preoccupied with. Thinkers of institution.

What one lacks, and desires, but has no control over, they will take it into an abyss; an extreme, until it loses its quality and becomes destructive, an unintended miasma of its natural being. The feminine void.

The state's enforcers are its females. The followers of authority, the acolytes of status quo. Their identity depends on its survival.

Recently I came across someone who claimed that Dune, the book, is "woke" because,

->there are women in this book who have power (my addendum: through subterfuge and deceit),
->it depicts a homosexual (me: who is portrayed as nasty, glutenous, sadistic,...),
->it sympathises with the Fremen, who are POC because they live in the desert (me: they have blue eyes, live in an environment of scarcity, live in caves during the day and wear a full body stillsuit around the clock to reduce the loss of water. But sure, they must be POC because they live on a desert planet. Who cares that they probably catch less sun than the average Northern European during wintertime and live in an environment of extreme scarcity)
 
After some exchanges, I told him that he sounds like a conservative Anglo/American who is NOT disillusioned.
What I meant is that he sounds like someone who is still on train Trump and team Republican.
Who are those people, are they stupid? This explains it:


What we see now is this backlash against feminists and it will contain some homosexual hating on women.
Sure, women were stupid to fall for J-feminism and you also got to see that they are not those angels if you give them power but then again that can also be said of probably most men. The point is that the people behind all of this, the J in J-feminism are not being talked about.

You will also see this in the nationalistic/alt-right segment of the population. It will become more popular among Whites to hate on negroes for their criminal and antagonistic behaviour. The J will allow this, it will channel this energy into its own useful ends. But what you will see getting censored is talking about the J in the room, about their role in mass-immigration, race mixing and so forth. They will allow one thing but censor another to channel the energy into their desired ends.

Αν ακούσετε κάποια φεμινιστρια, κάποιον "αντιφασιστα", κάποιον ψευτοπροοδευτικουλη ανθρωπιστή να σχολιάσει κάτι γι αυτό το βίντεο, σφύριξτε και σε μένα.
Ο θύτης είναι μαύρος και το θύμα λευκό, δεν ταιριάζει στο αφήγημα της θολοκουλτουρας. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

You know what happens next.
Never kneel. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

This is why paternalism, in all its authoritarian masculine forms, scares the shit out of moderns.
Islam being an extreme hyper-masculine type, founded on a nihilistic foundation of emasculation - necessitating hyperbolic displays of what is submitting to the one-god - absolute authority, totalitarianism, masculine entity.

Anyone who has been around me may have read me in the past when i once said that sexual intercourse is violence, because a male penetrates into the female's body - her sense of self.
A fact that explains the sexual roles and how they've evolved and why sex involves hormonal intoxication to permit ti to happen - especially for a female.
A condition called "love" by them but it really is lust....

Back then they attacked me saying that I condoned rape...which is not the case at all.
I am the type that if I even sense disinterest I move on. Rape is not in my DNA.
Nevertheless, my empathy permits me to understand what I, myself, am unable to be affected by, or that which the opposite of what and who I am.

I also said that females have to be inspired to orgasm....sexual tension involves a form of underlying anxiety, fear....which if absent there is no interest from the female's side....at least no physical interest - she stops responding to the male sexually...but may carry on for pragmatic reasons.

The power struggle continues within her body as the perm are under pressure to reach the ovum before her autoimmune systems eradicates them.
Self-Deception is part of the female's psychosomatic chemistry. If it dissipates she quickly loses interest in the male....seeing him, as if for the first time....and perceiving his flaws.
This is also true with males to a lesser degree. A male can ignore the female's flaws if her virtues compensate or if his hormones blind him to their presence - male intoxication.
Lust is ephemeral and when it evaporates if there is nothing more then the relationship is over.

For females the intoxication lasts longer than it does with men...but it is also deeper and more profound.
She quickly moves from being in love, unable to see any faults in him, to falling out of lust and seeing only faults in him.
A male's sexual intoxication is shallow, and his perception is not overly affected - or not to the degree it is in women.

Satyr wrote:

I am the type that if I even sense disinterest I move on. Rape is not in my DNA.

How much of this is the freedom of circumstance? The earned excess qualities by yourself and your past which permit such indifference. Despite yourself, there is a will that steers the other towards interest rather than disinterest. A will that might not be as indifferent as it seems in order to be invited in.

Such a privileged art is becoming less and less viable as we return to polygamy and the times of hot war that result, when "moving on" becomes a matter of life or death, we will see who remains indifferent.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I am the type that if I even sense disinterest I move on. Rape is not in my DNA.

How much of this is the freedom of circumstance?

My views point to what I think....it's my nature - i.e., DNA - cultivated - i.e., nurtured - by circumstances.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

The earned excess qualities by yourself and your past which permit such indifference. Despite yourself, there is a will that steers the other towards interest rather than disinterest. A will that might not be as indifferent as it seems in order to be invited in.

My own experiences led me to a revelation, when I was in my early twenties....
I was, of course, like all young males, more so those with no sisters, confused by female behaviour...but I was also a curious lad.....so I perceived a pattern in it.....the more indifferent the male was, the more interested the female became.....when attraction was established or even despite a lack of attraction.
It was a puzzle I had to solve...and I did.

It has to do with power and how true power produces indifference - the opposite of care.
To care is to show your weakness.
Indifference cannot be faked....it must come either through confidence - i.e., indifference for the particular - or through surrender to fate - i.e., indifference of lost hope.
The latter is also a form of power.....the resolution that you will live without, and will carry on and enjoy life despite others.

Satyr wrote:

Indifference cannot be faked....it must come either through confidence - i.e., indifference for the particular - or through surrender to fate - i.e., indifference of lost hope.
The latter is also a form of power.....the resolution that you will live without, and will carry on and enjoy life despite others.  

And yet i see women choose today some of the most involved/caring men to ever exist at least when it comes to passively/actively supporting Globohomo policies. Indifference under more sheltered conditions is meaningless. Perhaps things were different when you were younger, but the sheltering you had pales to what we see today.

The truth is men are resentful about having to engage in the seducer's arena, favoring stagnated genes with signs of genetic health(Chads/"Alphas") or the most feminine and desperate genes (Simps/Cucks), expressing signs of memetic disease and yet still seen as "superior/virtuous" despite promoting sickness.

Such men had their "superiority" challenged in the past in ways that they could not evade or deflect direct confrontation with the men they disrespected or wronged. Even if they were the victors in these confrontations, they would often bear the scars or costs of injury and motivate them to not repeat the same behavior. With sheltering, this humbling/cleansing process does not occur, and these men roam free, engaging in their parasitic behavior with no consequence.

Remember, the cows weren't the only animals to be set free by the retarded farmer...

They settle for what is dominant.
Meme<>Gene dynamics.
The mind is trained to desire what the body may find unattractive.

Effete males are now, in the west, representations of the ideal - feminization.

Women are pragmatic.

Pragmatism limited to their narrower perceptual event horizon, of which modernity has only made more narrow.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Pragmatism limited to their narrower perceptual event horizon, of which modernity has only made more narrow.

That's where their increasing disillusionment and unhappiness come from.

you know the type who claim they are stifled, that their 'true self' is not appreciated and that they are 'looking for themselves'.
This is a by-product of mind/body dissonance, i.e., contradiction of genetic impulses by a nihilistic meme.
The mind is convinced of one thing - following one ideal - and the body, unable to lie, or pretend, follows its own genetically determined evaluations of what is 'fit' or ideal' - instinctively reacting to it without the mind intervening with its own culturally determined agenda.

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

— Neo-humanous Pineal wizard⊙.☉ (@NeoPineal) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Le parti génocidaire est inquiet : et si l’opposition au génocide au couteau allait compromettre le génocide à l’homme (et à la femme) ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Women aren't complex, nor mysterious.
This is their pretence.
It is also what is used in Abrahamism and Marxism - seduction using word-games; an insinuated promise for great pleasure, with a compromise, a sacrifice, a personal cost.
Why do you think the Jews circumcise themselves?

"Traditional" gender roles are in alignment with biological reproductive specialized roles.

Yet, due to hormonal factors and memetic factors, altering the biochemistry of an individual and altering his/her ideology this creates dissonance and conflicts.
Memetic factors are of particular interest because, as I've said elsewhere, it is possible for the mind to hold onto principles which contradict or are contradicted by genetic impulses. A phenomenon only applicable to humans where mind is developed and self-awarness exposes it to new sources of stress necessitating a defensive reaction, such as nihilistic ideologies like Marxism - feminism is a by-product of Marxism..and now it is founded o postmodernism or neo-Marxism and its identity politics.
The schisms between classes - rich/poor - were not successful so Marxism, like all adaptive memes, changes its schisms, and adopted morality and identity as its divisive strategy to instigate a revolution.
Race and Gender are its focus. Biological divisions replaced socioeconomic class distinctions.
Race and Sex are the fissures it wants to exploit.

No more Capitalist "evil" rejected by a proletariat "good", but European heterosexuality, and historical dominance, as the "evil", versus the "innocent victims" of non-European - non-white - rejection of personal accountability and the Alphabet "goodness" that have been exploited ands repressed by the Satanic evil, primarily male heterosexual "breeders".
Revolt against one's own past finds in another something or someone to accuse an d to unload blame on - unload personal accountability.
"Victim" is the new name for proletariat, and they need to overthrow the system and bring about an all-inclusive uniform utopia.
"Uniformity" is code for "equality" - where distinctions are present but they do not matter, because they are superficial, concealing an underlying sameness, a oneness.
Divergence is but a reflection of a singular divinity - one-god, universe, or, in secular terms, diversity is a product one purchases or earns the "right" to purchase and role play from the all-inclusive State.

4 lies? That's it?
Nihilist dogmas must lie, otherwise they perish.
They contradict reality, natural order, and then must survive within it, so they have to deceive, starting with themselves.

Modern systems rooted in nihilistic principles, create an environment within uniformity is enforced and artificially maintained...
Americanism in particular creates uniformity via market forces, and supply/demand, allowing only economic disparity yo to keep the cogs rolling.
It excludes all other sources of disparity and of identity.
It self-contradict and self-desructs, in the long run.

I'm not saying feminism - and its underlying Marxist nihilism - is entirely to blame for modern divorces and the destruction of the traditional family, but it is a major factor.
Destroying traditional families has a benefit to modern systems.
It not only releases 50% of the workforce to be exploited, it also eliminates male influence and dominance over the children he fathers, so that they become the property of the state, under its institutional protective custody.
This is a significant advantage to systems that attempt to integrate heterogenous populations, because it eradicates all competing world-views, especially those that are traditional or nature based.
Males are either forced to "go their own way" - MRA - or to submit and train themselves to behave and to think as surrogate mothers, because the fahter-figure is institutionalized and imposed via pop-culture.

Men made themselves obsolete.
It was their competitiveness that innovated weapons and institutions that eventually made masculinity obsoleted.
Women could never have done this, because they do not have a challenging spirit to question natural order, and innovate methods to circumvent or to destroy all forms of existing authority, including natural order.
Men invented the nihilistic dogmas, spiritual or secular, i.e., political, such as Abrahamism and Marxism and postmodernism and feminism.

Now institutions males established are taking over the masculine roles of protector and provider and male inventions are making sperm unnecessary v- it is already so.
Feminization of mankind.

We are advancing towards a hive-like structure....an all-femle society.
But it is not sustainable because women do not have the mind to innovate and create the updates required to maintain the technologies.
Even when they dominate institutions they completely destroy them.

This applies to both males and females but it particularly applies to females because they are more prone to accept and surrender to popular culture and conventional thinking...it's part of their reproductive specialization that needs to be included so as to carry out her role that renders her dependent and vulnerable.

this is part of the gene/meme dichotomy I keep yapping about.
an example of how the mind can be dominated by a social - memetic - ideal, while the body is by a natural - genetic - ideal.
In this case the social ideal is so extraordinary so supernatural that no real man can ever live up to it, or even compare. The imagined man, the system promotes in pop-culture, does not exist.
This is an example of defining a concept "out of existence", or conceptualizing an ideal that cannot exist, and what approaches it will not be interested in an average woman.