Feminism

Males occupy the extreme ends of human potentials - both physical and mental.
Females mostly cluster around the middle - both physically and mentally.

This means that Paternalism forcefully integrated males into the system; males that most females would never have chosen, even if they risked remaining single and not having any children.
This is currently becoming the norm.
There is some truth to female antithesis to Paternalism. Without it most males would not become invested participants, and civilization would be impossible.
Technologies are gradually making males obsolete, and slowly taking over their provider/protector role.
Their lingering relevance is due to the female's psychosomatic disposition to flesh and blood, and the still not fully developed technologies that would entirely replace males.
Memes evolve faster than genes, creating a psychological dissonance.

Not only a racially 'brown' future, is coming - something more mixed than present day Brazil - but an entirely effete population where feminine promiscuity will reign, and feminine thinking and behaving will become the norm.
Males of the not so distant past will seem like brutish Neanderthals to men-children of the future, just as we look upon males in the middle-ages and in ancient times with awed incomprehension.

The bisexual/homosexual is the groomed future post-modern ideal citizen.
Masculinity/Femininity will hover around the butch-lesbian/flamboyant-fag social types - leaning towards the feminine but with varying degrees of male traits tolerated; retarded in their development to remain within social conventions.
The process is already under way.
If technologies cannot fully compensate for diminishing masculinity - affecting everything from the warrior type to the innovative creative type - the system will decline and collapse, unless fresh blood, from outside the nihilistic system, is not brought in to invigorate what is being eroded.
This will, of course, gradually replace males of a certain racial type, with males more ready and willing to sacrifice anything for the sake of passing on their genes.

Less sophisticated minds have less individuality to sacrifice, so they will be the replacement stock that will 'brown' down future generations.
This will slowly decrease average intelligence and virility. Technologies will have to increasingly compensate for this decline, draining resources.

Biological males will become a physical presences - surrogate females - and complacent sperm donors, the institution replacing them in the fields of protection and innovation. most will remain childless virgins, since they cannot give birth, so their only utility will be as workers maintaining the infrastructure - geeks and nerds.

If technologies cannot overcome limitations, becoming sentient, then the system is destined to collapse - if these limitations are surpassed man , in general, will have made itself obsolete.

it's difficult to settle for the kinds of males available in today's world.
Ironically, born and raised due to female choices and attitudes.

Warfare was a way of eliminating the excess, the accumulated genetic garbage...but this is becoming less of an option in our nuclear world.
Now it will be computer simulations, the internet, pornography, movies, drugs.

Schmitt claimed that the elimination of politics - including war - humans would be dominated by entertainment - a world of no seriousness.
I wrote on it years ago, before I had even read Schmitt...but I agree with him, though i never put it in the context of politics.

Entertainment is how excess, unfocused, libidinal energies will be expunged.
Expunged or quarantined in institutions - incarcerated and regimented.

If males cannot be rehabilitated - code for indoctrinated, emasculated - they will rot in jail.
Slowly social selection will downgrade all masculine traits - towards the feminine ideal.
The 'last man' will be a hermaphrodite - an ambiguous mix of masculine feminine traits, with the feminine dominating.

Women are convinced they are 'independent' & 'strong' because the protector/provider masculine they depend on has been abstracted and institutionalized.
They have married, given themselves heart and soul to an abstraction, making biological males obsolete.
They can go out wearing next to nothing, and say whatever they like, with little fear, and screw anyone they want, with no repercussions, because there are nis8iitutions there supporting and giving them 'power' and 'rights'.
The institution provides to them the technological means to 'overcome' their biological burdens and limitations, helping them pretend to be male, or anything they like.
Masculinity has been abstracted to a degree where anyone can now be its representation - even biological females, and , in time, transsexuals, or children.
Females have been 'liberated' from biology. Masculine and their own, feminine.
Not truly 'liberated' but symbolically given the 'right' to pretend to be liberated from nature.

The US is the pinnacle of Nihilism.  
Not only has it attempted to dumb-down populations so as to integrate them into a heterogeneous 'single state', but it functions on an openly binary political cycle.
Nations a fraction of its size and with a fraction of its population have 10, sometimes 15 political options. The US has 2 interchangeable ones Republican/Democrat - each representing one pole in its nihilistic bi-polarity, neither challenging the underlying true power.
It does not matter who is elected president because the institutions remain unchanged - representing the same elites - shadow government.
It's the institution of the Presidency the elected represents, having little personal impact on it.
Once in a while some narcissist simpleton, like Trump, might be elected, from among the elites, who may threaten to expose the working of the institution, not the institution itself.  
Those elected Presidents that did, actually, threaten the institutions or the elites they represented, were taken out....i.e. Nixon, and Kennedy....or, even, Lincoln.
Trump only threatens to expose the nature of the US 'pseudo-democracy'....and this may be reason enough to get rid of him, but he also does their bidding, being a member. He's so simple and egotistical that he fails to abide by the unspoken rules, like all the other elected presidents did. Its his narcissism that makes him unpredictable.
The US presidency is a perfect example of how abstraction can hide true power, placing figureheads before it. Figureheads that merely represent the institution, but have no real power - checks and balances they call it.
It is possible for this masculine institution to be represented by anyone, male or female, as long as he meets the criteria - he is vetted, first by the elites, who place them as a candidate, and then by the electoral process, electing them on pretences and superficial criteria, such as looks' and lies. The candidate that can maintain the ruse, or who can prostitute himself enough so that the majority is seduced - marketing - convinced, to purchase him/her/it as a 'product' will ascend to the figurehead position. But, like all products it has a shelf-life, and can be discarded and/or recycled.
Trump will be copied, not because of his deep insights or ethical stance, but as because of his marketing style - it was successful, therefore it can be copied and repackaged, with another candidate.

When abstraction has reached this level of 'sophistication' it is entirely bound by an ideology.
What is the central unifying ideology of the US?
Freedom - a term ambiguous enough to mean anything to anyone.
the 'American Dram' is also a insinuating concept with no tangible meaning - to dream is to dream in accordance to your need/desires.
In fact, nobody has even been 'free' in the US. Nobody, including the President, is free.
Nobody can say or do whatever they want.....nor have they ever been able to do so.
So what does 'freedom mean' in this context?
It's meaning is enclosed within market contexts. The US offers the 'freedom' to buy and sell almost anything, including oneself. But even this is not entirely true, because the markets are controlled and regulated.
So, 'freedom' is contained within the limits of 'thinking' - the esoteric, the noetic.
one can think whatever they want, if they do not apply the thinking - one can believe whatever they like, if they do not convert the belief into action.
Certain beliefs are promoted, such as the equality of races and genders, and others are criminalized, forcing them to remain silent - this is how States socially engineer their ideal citizenry.

In current global circumstances, the ideal citizen is a feminized man-child, quickly being replaced by the effete biological male, who is really female, or female who prefers to think of her self a male.
An ambiguous state where male/female convert to a hermaphrodite middle ground.
Sex-less, race-less, culture-less, what remains to identify with other than consuming and self-pleasuring?
Culture of no culture = nihilistic meme completely erasing genetic criteria.

The mind is 'liberated' from biology - in theory - but does the body know and concede?
This is what produced dissonance and psychosis. Identity crisis.
Mass confusion, seeking relief in fashion, in popular beliefs - seeking a sense of self.
Words losing meaning to accommodate any absurdity, within the boundaries of the institutionally sanction - permissible.
Words defined in ways that constitute then nonsensical, used by cowards to support their desire to disappear; die by not dying - walking dead = Zombies. Cyborb = technological Zombies.
Technology is the great equalizer - salvation from....nature.

Here we see ideas invented and implemented by men, purposely choosing a woman to perform the record, who would inevitably be surpassed by a man, because of political correctness. Nothing the woman is doing is underhanded or subversive - who wouldn't take the opportunity as a cyclist? It is the politically correct managerial class.

Yockey wrote:

Decadent means moving towards extinction. The Great symbol of this in the Western Civilization is everything suggested by the name Hollywood. The message of Hollywood is the total significance of sexual love as an end in itself - the erotic without consequences. the sexual love fo two grains of sand, two rootless individuals, not the primeval sexual love looking to continuity of Life, the family of many children...The instinct of decadence takes many forms in this realm: dissolution fo marriage by divorce laws, attempts to discard...the laws against abortion..."  

Cultural Vitalism

The first corresponds to memetic identity, and the second to genetic identity.
Memes are gene specific, but memes can transfer to alien genetic combinations, just as we can fertilize an inferior race with out more sophisticated genes.
The ancient-Greeks believed a 'Greek' was anyone that has Greek paideia...a reference to meme, calling the rest 'barbarians, yet had a keen understanding of racial differences as something organically vital and decisive in how one might absorb such 'training', in the same way the impregnation of or by an inferior may result in a viable synthesis that is superior, in one respect, to the original, but inferior, in another.
Female 'hypergamy' has to do with this fact. A female wants to synthesize her genes with what is superior - in relation to which she is inferior.
For the female this is an advancement, whereas for the male it is a regression, shaping the female/male attitudes towards marriage - more so for monogamous marriages.

Moderns do not care about life, they simply hate nature.
The Left more than the Right, and this shows in the degree of lies and paradoxes inherent in their respective world-views.

Their hated for nature is hidden behind a pretence of a love for all life.
A paradox that exposes itself in subtle ways, one of which in their attitude towards abortions, the death penalty, and so on.
Their feigned ignorance about the 'point where one can speak of a living human' is really a method they can use to defend their anti-nature psychosis.
They hate nature which makes them possible. This mental dissonance must be covered up with lies.

In the critique of the movie he mentions how the movie emphasises the 'deliverance' of the mother, in relation to the delivery of the baby.
A juxtaposition that reveals the origins of the Marxism in Abrahamism.

What is a woman 'deliverd' from?
From her own essence as female. The 'evil' is 'nature' which means women to be burdened with what males are not, the risk of becoming pregnant, which imposes a limit to their promiscuity.
If females are to be 'delivered' from the injustices' of nature she must be equalized with males, through techniques and technologies.
The meme, society, must engineer a 'correction' to 'change' nature processes and 'evil' injustices, imposing risks and costs upon females that it does not upon males.
And, of course, what is not a social product must be converted to one.
It is ironically, males who must innovate and carry out the techniques and technologies to 'emancipate' females from an unjust nature...and only 'evil' paternalism would deny females this....'RIGHT'.

The 'social' right to be or to pretend to be' 'equal', the same, a 'we', an 'us' a one...one-God.
All sinners beneath a one-god, find salvation through their shared imperfections.
ironic that Abrahamism stands in the way of this nihilistic ideological update and upgrade.
The 'right' for females to be as carefree, promiscuous, as men, so that they too can be as aggressive and 'independent' and 'liberated' as they are.
This from the perspective of weakness, because makes are none of these in any sense but only in the fact that their 'expandability' merits them with the natural role that does not have to be burdened with pregnancy, nor a monthly cycle. Another natural injustice perpetrated by nature against females.
From this they shall also be 'delivered' in time, I'm sure.

Seeing Al Bundy linked in the comedy corner reminds me of a good episode of Married With Children where Peggy wanted a VCR and was about to beg Al for it, then Marcy intervenes and tells her how that's demeaning and how instead she should be a strong independent woman, get a job and buy it herself. Peggy gets a job, and both Al and her are miserable. In the end, she quits and begs Al to buy her the VCR, with the "please please please" and batty eyelashes and puppy eyes, then Al is like "well... oh alright" , and everybody is happy.

Point: Men are the happiest when they have control over territory and resources, women are the happiest when they can use their feminine charms on men to then influence that control and obtain some of the resources.

Feminism makes everybody miserable, except the perverse and inferior, the parasites and degenerates. It deprives men of their masculinity, which if exercised would lead to control over territory and resources, thereby also depriving women of the opportunity to be feminine and use their femininity to obtain stuff from men and have and raise kids.

Instead, men are forced by the police and military to be powerless cuckolds forced to give their shit away, and women have to do feminist invented make-work jobs which are basically welfare. Their femininity becomes redundant and atrophies, and having kids becomes something that just interferes with the make-work.

The more distanced one is from this diseased system, the less affected. Cities are the worst in this regard, as we already know...

AutSider wrote:

Feminism makes everybody miserable, except the perverse and inferior, the parasites and degenerates. It deprives men of their masculinity, which if exercised would lead to control over territory and resources, thereby also depriving women of the opportunity to be feminine and use their femininity to obtain stuff from men and have and raise kids.
The more distanced one is from this diseased system, the less affected. Cities are the worst in this regard, as we already know...

Personally i had a few clashes with feminists on a social network. I was told i am a "slave" because i do not work and gain my own money. This is stupid, because cleaning,cooking,washing and shopping for my family is a sort of job too. Gaining my own money would earn my what exactly, 3 meals a day, a place to sleep and some extra funds for clothing and personal needs. Being a housewife offers me the same benefits. From my point of view, feminism enslaves women because:

- a housewife has a specific number of tasks
- an employed woman has a specific number of tasks + a job


Besides, my husband and I talked about this since the beginning and we agreed that i cannot do both .

The extremities of the female, is that she resents her sexuality absolutely in slavish religious contrition, or gallivant promiscuity.

Sheltering, produces naive, impressionable, feeble-minded nit-wits.
What is Paglia saying?
That an individual accepts responsibility for what happens to them, before he attempts to find blame in others.
A reinforcement of free-will, rather than its denial, and surrender to Fate, as some absolute Divine authority we can only surrender to.
Man participates in his/her own fate - to whatever minuscule degree. He/She determines his own future, in conjunction with every other living organism and non-living energy interacting in the cosmos.
With every choice he/she participates in the determination of his/her next options.
We invite certain experiences....most of the time without realizing it.
Freedom is not an absolute - it is measurable by the quality & quantity of the options at your disposal, never completely under your control because not all is ordered. Chaos, properly defined as 'randomness' is also part of Cosmic interactivity, making the absolute a concept existing only in human minds.
It's terrifying, perhaps disheartening, but this does not make it untrue.
All we can ever hope for is to increase our odds, and then deal with the consequences - positive and negative.

Someone being able to sell you on the value of some bullshit just by acting as if it's valuable or it is priceless. Now that's the power of capitalism, judeo-dichotomo-communism, my friends. "Girl power".

If a woman cringes (without hesitance) at being referred to as 'our women' by their tribe, then what use is a man protecting them, except generally 'all women'; and what is more feminist than that? (At least capacitively, contradictive with egalitarianism or not.) There is nothing less nation destroying, country eroding, than saying all women all over are equal; and also nothing less retarded, as men value fucking beautiful women. The bleeding heart is necessary but if you do not love your men, their sacrifices, more than your idealism, it will erode your comforts and luxuries that make the very bleeding possible. Such is the challenge of man, to keep bleeding so their women do not destroy everything out of disaffectance. As such, there will never be 'peace'. The inertia of a peaked decadent society is the unwillingness of men to bleed, and extremist backlash by other powers foreseeing the chaos.

Degeneration of society follows the unfettered entertainment of the female propensity expressed best by the words of band Panic! At The Disco: "Come on, this is screaming photo opp."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The only reason feminism would arise is female resentment of effeminate men, or the attempt by an enemy to create the cause by invoking the effect as a 'positive' a 'freedom'. To some degree it has worked, for those who think backwards from authority to reality and not reality to authority.

I don't know about this SSRI thing.
Is alcohol and medication really that common among "career" women?

"Oh gawd, those White men made women do this through their White men media and White men colleges!"
Or how else do you think this will play out?

Isn't depression therapy all about forgetting and ignoring the root of the problem, instead focusing on a new mindset. So I guess it makes sense if they just use medication to soften their brains, becoming more susceptible to dementia. I also strongly believe declaring depression is very trendy nowadays so they prescribe SSRI's even if you have a mild depression, most people can't live with themselves or are just used to having a dopamine rush all the time.

In a way it's technology (in this case psychotropic drugs) used to engineer a society.
What would happen if such drugs were not around or not given to such large amounts of people. Society would eventually have to change to a state where people can function without such drugs or society would break down.

But then again is all of this not already irreversible damage. Basically we have a society which is so damaged that it isn't reproducing itself and has to import new cogs for the machine. Those drugs are like a tool to squeeze the last bit of life out of the population and will make the downfall that much more pronounced that follows thereafter.

Mencken, H.L. wrote:

The Sex Uproar: Women plainly enough, are in a far different case. Their emancipation has not yet gone to the length of making them genuinely free. They have rid themselves, very largely, of the absolute need to please men, but they have not yet rid themselves of the impulse to please men.

Pulled by both her genetic inclinations and hr memetic pragmatism, a woman swings on an emotional pendulum, trying to balance two opposing forces within her - one coming from her body, the other from her mind.

Some hard-feminists are turning to alternate sources of love-sharing.
Inter-species love, breaks the barriers between species prejudices.

Bestiality is on the way......but not before paedophilia.
Degeneracy all around.
When empires crumble sexual paraphilia spreads like a cancer. Shamelessness breaks the bonds, and what has remained in the "closet" is now coming out demanding to be accepted, and proud of it.

Lasch, Christopher wrote:

Women today ask for two things in their relations with men: sexual satisfaction and tenderness. Whether separately or in combination, both demands seem to convey to many males the same message – that women are voracious, insatiable…
The sexually voracious female, long a stock figure of masculine pornography, in the twentieth century has emerged into the daylight of literary respectability. The cruel, destructive, domineering woman, la belle dame sans merci, has moved from the periphery of literature and other arts to a position close to the center. Formerly a source of delicious titillation, of sadomasochistic gratification tinged with horrified fascination, she now inspires unambiguous loathing and dread. Heartless, domineering, burning (as Leslie Fiedler has said) with

Leslie Fiedler wrote:

a lust of the nerves rather than of the flesh

she unmans every man who falls under her spell.  

Lasch, Christopher wrote:

Child or woman, wife or mother, this female cuts men to ribbons or swallows them whole. She travels accompanied by eunuchs, by damaged men suffering from nameless wounds, or by a few strong men brought low by their misguided attempts to turn her into a real woman.

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

I actually admire her for advocating the logical conclusion to the ideological sickness she suffers from. Like an AIDS patient explaining how they need to be euthanized.

These videos seem to confirm a point i had made about both "Chads" and "Cucks" being the primary beneficiaries of the modern environment. Dr. Dutton blames the contraceptive pill for most of the decline, saying that it makes women select feminine "Soyboyish" men, but the element that is not discussed by Dr. Dutton is the enforcement of Nonviolence and Monogamy by his own church and how it produced the "seeds" for the pursuit of such a technology in the first place.

When men are allowed to exist without having to engage in potentially lethal competition, you get weasels like [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] more eastern one having the spare time to mask their contempt for strength as "scientific curiosity".

Dr. Dutton also ignores how most "Chads" today are still getting laid and are not concerned at all about modernity, in fact most support it. Like "CoachBlackPill" mentioned, the ideal modern man for a woman is the "moderately-liberal" good looking man, they might get some flak from women on the pill but its definitely not a dealbreaker as much as a Strong "Fashy Goy" would be.

Why are the same "types" always found lurking behind all products of decadence and decay?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Nihilism is about inverting causal sequences, and the inversion occurs in the mind, using symbols/words as points of pivoting the ideal/real relationship....the gene/meme sequencing.
Symbols/Words with references to minds and text - including dictionaries - but not reality, unless it is to usurp and reverse by selectively engaging and by obscuring and unnecessarily and arbitrarily mystifying.

What is this "relentlessness being exploited by the same vermin?
Existential anxiety; dissatisfaction with nature's indifferent "injustices", falling for anything that promises a "correction".
Seeking for something and someone to accuse and to blame, they find Paternalism "imposing sexual roles", as if it invented them out of nothing.
If not God, then who can the modern Desperate Degenerate blame for his or her condition?

Under the premise that existence is counter-intuitive and mysterious on a fundamental level all sorts of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are justified.
A Trojan Horse strategy.
It essentially synthesized the irrational with a rational concept and promotes it as indivisible - as mystifying - to the point where the average mind can no longer distinguish, or separate, one from the other; established psychologically as a singular concept; the irrational validated by its association with the rational, and the rational mystified and corrupted by it.  
All this occurs linguistically - because the only place the absurd and surreal can exist is as an idea in the human brain.

The metaphysical and the physical is synthesized in the most dispassionate unities, placing the metaphysical above the physical - so as to then selectively integrate it, if and when possible, into its delusional contexts.
This is an inversion - i.e., nihilistic - of the relationship.
A rational mind, a healthy one, places physical above the metaphysical; the former acting as an extension or a foundation of the latter.

Can there be a "salvation" of ego from self; mind from the very body it is a part of?
But of course it depends on how you manipulate the mind, through language, to shape its beliefs, such as how you externalize consciousness, dissociating it from mind/brain.
Can there be a self-imposed slavery, not requiring coercion, or even censorship?
But, of course....by convincing it of what it so desperately wants to believe is true. Once this root, self-serving, idea has been integrated into the psyche, an external force is no longer necessary.