With simpler creatures and individuals the rule is: Don't listen to what they say; watch what they do. Mind can lie - ergo mind is divine, is god - the body cannot unless it is trained over many years - ergo it is satanic, evil - paideia...from the Greek meaning, παιδευο to make suffer....exercise.
More intelligence usually makes this less effective, either because they remain obscure (hypocrisy) or because what they do and say are more in harmony (integrity). This is also true for on-line exchanges, even if it's more difficult to use actions. Usually they openly display themselves- because simpler organisms simpler minds need to be seen, and are the ones who most fear being seen, because they consume empathy with sympathy/antipathy. Their on-line activities and what they choose to display about their off-line activities require a more refined eye for patterns....the simpler ones are easier, the more intelligent ones more complex.
Slaughtz will be annoyed, but I will repeat: for the simple psychology, if the other is not sympathetic he must be antipathetic - the alternative never registers because they deny objectivity and believe all is equally subjective. So, any critically negative comment is automatically associated with antipathy, and antipathy is explained using the usual feminine excuses: envy, hatred, irrationality, fanaticism etc. The convectional reaction must be sympathetically positive, because we are all subjective and all subjectivity is interested with personal welfare, with what is flattering to it, what offers relief, pleasure, what helps it cope with life and mortality. Safe spaces for such minds is found within the herd ; the deeper within it - closest to the center - the better it feels.
Objectivity is incomprehensible to them, because they are incapable of it, so they associate it with antipathy. Empathy - properly defined as indifference - is associated with the predator. What is evil. What cannot be trusted. What can be trusted is what shares weakness; what shares weakness can be manipulated and exploited.
And here is where nihilism acts as a defence against all negative judgements. Now objectivity - empathy lacking both sympathy and antipathy - must be associated with a negative subjective motive. This is the only way they can understand it.
***
Setting that aside... People expect positive feedback, so they associate philosophy with a self-help discipline that will lead them to pleasure and happiness. They lose interest when they fail to use it to that end, or when they realize that philosophy's objective is reality, and not human feelings, pleasures and happiness. It may be used to achieve these, but as collateral effects, not as primary goals. Just as an artists who becomes one because he wants to be famous and rich, or get laid, is not a true artist. Such hypocrites are not real philosophers. What they want to find is a more rational delusion, once the old one has been discredited.
***
Nihilism's linguistically based defensiveness wants to deconstruct and render all words meaningless, make identity and freedom impossible, so as to conceal themselves. They realize others - some - can know them more than they will ever know themselves and this makes them feel vulnerable, and afraid, so they must undermine anything that exposes them, and pretend that they are complex, or incomprehensible, or unknowable...or simply non-existent. If you cannot know them absolutely, then you must not know them at all....just as they cannot know themselves.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Seduction of the "bad boy" the challenger of norms and morals...the breaker of rules and regulations. To be his one and only - his chosen one - see the connection? The one who represents him, belongs to him, becomes the means toward his ends.
and yet...the one she can control, manipulate linguistically....the only one that can hurt him. Power by proxy. See the connection? No needs for names.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Why do females have a harder time accepting sexual rejection, compared to males?
*Males have to learn to adapt the ability to accept failure as part of their role demanding that they prove themselves worthy. They are the "disposable gender,” because one male can impregnates hundreds of females and father thousands of offspring, whereas a female’s reproduction is limited by her gestation and role in weening offspring.
*A female's sense of identity and her self-worth is intimately tied into her sexuality, her attractiveness/desirability, and her participation in a group, due to her reproductive role which makes her dependent on others for long periods of time. Belonging to a group is crucial to her reproductive role, and rejection, or being undesired by one or more individuals within the group signals the potential for group rejection.
*A female's power, her value, her very sense of being, is more intimately associated with a group. Being rejected is a sign of her power limits, i.e., her powerlessness. She has no way to avenge an insult other than her mind and her psychological manipulation. She cannot use her physical strength so she uses her mind to slander, to character assassinate, soil reputations, attacking an adversary where she feels is his/her vulnerability - in dealing with males it is always in regards to their masculinity, always attacking a man's sexual performance, his penis size, his virility, his access to mates, or mates of socioeconomic status etc. This is also why she is always attracted to males that appear to be desirable to females of a socioeconomic status above their own – hypergamy; males they never paid attention to before they saw them with a female she envies or feels inferior to.
*Reproductive specialization means that an individual sacrifices a reduction in autonomy so as to increase the probability of successfully performing her specialized role. Female physical and psychological/mental traits expose this evolutionary adaptation. Belonging is crucial in her psyche. She risks death if she is excluded, and her reproductive options decrease if she is not attractive, desirable. Any hint of this indicates a reduction in her group potentials, and her identity. She is nobody outside a group. The group is her identity. Her socioeconomic status is associated with her approach towards self-awareness. This is why, after menopause women are always "looking for themselves"....as part of their midlife crisis; they need to "find who they are,” meaning they need to find a new identity, a new association with the group, and they usually find it in social work, volunteering, religion, etc.
*Whereas a man would swallow his pride and go looking for another opportunity, another female, another group to belong to, a female becomes trapped in the rejection that put in doubt her sense of self, and her self-worth.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Women, cannot help but place all the demands upon the male to deliver the goods, while feigning personal accountability and quality, despite not showing or proving any. It's a "chastity complex", rooted in their sexual selectivity and valuation. Their belief in their inherent quality, as sexual filters, translates into a feeling of being of high quality in ever other respect and that men must accommodate. They do not need to offer nor prove anything to anyone. They only need to make this feeling of high value chastity, a collectively accepted value which must be respected, like the unquestioning wisdom of a divine sage. This also explains why they are attracted to religious belief and God. Ideas of purity, perfection, that which cannot be challenged by man's law.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And why they test all male power, and all male claims. Foolish men believe in their own absolute power and ability to create perfect order. Females laugh at them, yet....can't help but wonder: is this the one? It is why they easily fall in and out of love - love is blind and so the male's imperfections are tolerated or made invisible by her intoxicating passions...until the hormonal effect fades away and their judgemental perceptions return to their uncompromising perceptual power. - her ability to see minutia. Women are filtering agencies. Their power is sexual: physical and mental intercourse - they filter out the unworthy; gestate and nurture the worthy. Alas, all is imperfect so she samples sperm (genes) as she samples ideas (memes).
Convincing her is like seducing her - a matter of hypocritical talent - thespians do well.
Abraham's one-God is the masculine that can never be proven to be imperfect, just as he can never be proven to be perfect - since you cannot prove a negative. He IS the word - perfect. Sleight of Tongue. Females love such talent with words - a talent to seduce them, intoxicate them, proving mental flexibility, artistry...
Man's lust goes from body to mind; females lust goes from mind to body - qualification: the higher her - and his - IQ the more she starts from mind before she proceeds to body. Abraham's one-god is entirely mind, and so is the ultimate seductive ideal for her. No body to disillusion her, allowing her to imagine him in any way she finds physically pleasing.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Abrahamic one-god: First is the word... Perfect is the word, and god is another word. He will be known by many names - many words.
Her god is perfect because perfect is the world he is. To describe him as imperfect would contradict what he is: perfect. Word is a representation, so the word god is, represents his essence...which is incomprehensible. All she knows is his representation - word - and it is perfect, eternal, loving, omnipotent, omniscient..
For god to be tangible would make him imperfect, since all biological males are so - due to chaos. God is the ideal male/father/lover...anything she desires. No man can ever measure up, or replace this ideal.
Under Paternalism females were forced to compromise and give themselves to males they fund beneath them, unworthy. A crimp in their sexual power - as filtering agencies. Yet, without Paternalism, and infected by Abrahamism, females find themselves looking/waiting for what can ever exist. Nothing real can ever compete with the ideal. Therefore, all theories are perfect on paper, but fail in practice, because they can never deliver what they promise.
BUUUUUT...when the ideal comes face to face with the real...it must adapt, or it must break - or they must shrink back into the mind of humans where they remain protected from reality. Sheltering is atrophying. Sheltered females shelter perfect ideals, or ideals of perfection, such as god.....oneness....goodness...universal morality.....love.... Ideals that can never exist anywhere but in their minds.
Collectives are how such ideals become externalized - minds perceiving them in other minds. If they dare apply these shared ideals in the real world - outside their collective minds - they always suffer the same results.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
What do I do? I take some of these words, referring to abstractinos - ideals in their minds - and I return them to the earth, to the tangible world. I ground them. And then I rebuild them from the ground up - empirically. So, I define terms like 'morality, god, love, male, idea/ideal, female, order, chaos' in their original definitions. I re-collect. Re-memeber. Re-Turn. I un-conceal what they've concealed in their collective minds, daring them to test my demystifying definitions.
They don't like it, because it also exposes them and their motives and their true power...which is always imperfect and primal, buried beneath mountains of deceptive words. And though they beg me to make exceptions and compromises, I am unyielding....because nature is so, not I. Nature does not change because of words and human needs/desires.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
Here she says that being a single mother is like a mating strategy: she gets the genes from the first guy, but the nurture from the second guy. That's true.
But there's another video by her - which I can't find right now - where she says, that there is a type of a woman who fucks rappers and hypermasculater chads in her 20's, and then in her mid-30's she want to marry and have children (in the case she didn't already have them). In my experience this somewhat holds true also; there are many women like that. In their 30's they acquire some sense in their actions (atleast seemingly) and they give birth to their first child in their 30's, even though they are total sluts by their reputation and their "body count" is sometimes several hundred, all from their wild past in their 20's.
About the latter type of a woman: Why don't they get pregnant by these alphas they fucked in their 20's, while some women do (the type what the woman in the YouTube video is talking about)?
What was the purpose of fucking constantly for 10...15 years these alphas and not ever get pregnant by them, but instead getting pregnant in their 30's and by a stable beta male? This happens too.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
About the latter type of a woman: Why don't they get pregnant by these alphas they fucked in their 20's, while some women do (the type what the woman in the YouTube video is talking about)?
I've already explained this.
Maturity and intelligence. In their youth woman, like men, are dominated by their genetics, their hormones...so their choices are more in harmony with their instincts...more honest. As they mature they realize they must compromise.
Also... More intelligent women, like more intelligent males, are more cerebral, rational, their reasoning is more able to usurp their instincts; they are more self-aware (know thyself); not as impressionable, affected by immediate appearances.
Illiterate wrote:
What was the purpose of fucking constantly for 10...15 years these alphas and not ever get pregnant by them, but instead getting pregnant in their 30's and by a stable beta male? This happens too.
Like males they like fucking...and modern systems gives them the ability to not become rpegnant...so their behaviour mirrors that of males. Penis Envy Syndrome They are looking for "the one" - some become addicted to the fun, the hedonism an stay sluts their entire lives, some become tired, it goes against their nature, they realize looks does not equate to brains or decency, or stability, dependability etc. When females are ready to reproduce they seek consistency, stability, the less exciting, les chaotic, but more predictable, more certain, because they will become vulnerable for a long, time.
Satyr once called it female 'sampling' and I agree with that interpretation.
Females are not self-conscious of their sexual impulses and behaviors. That makes their "lies" more effective. Women are not aware of what they do, and why they do it. If you call them out on it, then they balk and go through the typical feminine defensive rhetoric, usually ending up in gaslighting. Females are not, or perhaps never, held accountable for their female 'nature'.
The most intelligent type of females are somewhat self-aware, but remain quiet about it, don't admit to it publicly, and feign ignorance so that it stays effective.
Why do females 'sample' the higher testosterone and more 'alpha' males in their youth? Because they want to know what genes they can grab, when they do decide to get pregnant. They want to know their sexual limits. As they grow older, the smarter ones realize that they can't have the best of both worlds, the genes of Alpha's nature, and the money of the Beta's nurture. So intelligent women try to settle with a medium, median, average, that suits both: good genes and good income/security/etc. It's a balancing act.
The lower IQ females are more straight-forward. They want the better genes as young females, don't care about the consequences (of being a single-mother). This is the more "natural" outcome I'd say. Most young females choose Nature (genes) over Nurture (memes), and don't have the foresight of high IQ to envision the consequences of their actions. Higher IQ females know that the "badboys" aren't going to stay around and raise it, plus they usually have familial/cultural obligations, like being shamed and lowered in social status by being a single mother.
So these types of women, and average women, want to have their 'fun' while young.
By the way, what women call "fun" almost always refers to when they are 14-22 years old, having males compete against each other (and sometimes violently) to win their affection and mating-rites. That's what "fun" means, to women. They feel most valuable when being 'won' as a prize to the top males.
Perhaps the larger problem for women, are those that are less desirable, less attractive women. These ones are jealous of the beautiful women, and feel jaded for receiving little to no attention from the dominant men. Jaded/Ugly females, being more desperate, are far more willing to lower their standards and "settle down" for the first beta male that gives them a drop of attention.
So there is infighting between males and males, females and females, within the genders, regarding sexual prowess and 'success' (copulation and mating-rites).
Males gain 'confidence' over the course of a lifetime, "winning" battles in areas they deem valuable and important. Sometimes this is physical fighting, but other times it is mental fighting as well: for example, who's the better doctor, who's the better businessman, who's the better fireman, who can drink the most beers, who can dive into the water from the highest height, etc.
As males develop a history of 'successes', this builds his "Confidence" levels. After a certain threshold, males start overcoming a social barrier where females become attracted to his "Confidence". They call this "mysterious". Why is that male so cocksure of himself, why the bravado? Is it authentic? This is when the female 'nose' sniffing begins, sussing out whether a man's bravado is authentic or inauthentic. Sometimes the fakers get a 'pass', because an (ugly) female settles for whatever she can get. And females prefer a faker than somebody who doesn't try at all, a 'loser' male who has no confidence AND doesn't even try to fake it (Incels/MGTOW).
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Well, that one study we referenced was said by 2030 or something 50 percent of the women will be without a man. So that's the direction we are heading because the men that are looking for those traditional values are starting to go overseas. And then the other half of men are just checking out comoletely, they don't want to deal with women at all. So this is going to be a big issue that women are going to deal with in the future, as their options dwindle.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
These women, aged 25-44... who are single... who do not have children... Have you noticed that these women are the most toxic of them all?
Those women are usually mentally ill, more or less, and broken, and miserable. If they have had a sexually ravishing lifestyle, then they no longer have the qualities that men want in the long term: youth and purity. So younger women (aged 18-25) are better in those ways, and more popular among men in pretty much all age groups.
So... have you noticed how these 25-44 year old women very often give purposely very bad advice to these young women in their prime? If a young woman makes a decision that she wants to marry and have children in her early 20's, that is considered "sad" by these toxic old maids. I have recently seen many social media posts by these old maids, like "young women should try different things... see the world... not settle right away".
And of course, if 18-25 year old women would suddenly start to make "good choices" (I mean, choices that are not such that time and effort are wasted in such a way that in the end nothing came from it) then these toxic old maids would probably feel very stupid, because their younger sisters... not only they had these obvious advantages (purity and youthfulness) but also they proved to be more intelligent and conscious of their actions. So obviously these crazy old women want these young women to be at least as broken as they are.
Two proverbs related: Misery loves company The greatest enemy of a woman is another woman
I would say the best thing for a woman aged... well... any woman below the age of 25 is not to listen to what these toxic older miserable women say, or what advice they give. Young women should realize that they are superior in every considerable way compared to older women.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
When you've been sold a pack of lies, concerning males/females, races, homosexuality etc., and the world fails to abide by these lies then you begin to hate the wold. If you are a dimwit or midwit, born and raised under the dominion of Americanisms bullshyte corporations, then you can't even question your own convictions - because its all subjective, you see - so you have to blame it on some nefarious entity. Same as the race issue in the states. They believe races are a social construct so the only reason they fail to compete is because of systemic racism - after decade of affirmative action, and trying to raise them up to a median academic performance they've failed. They can't begin to doubt the lie that races area all equal and interchangeable so they must find something to explain why after decades of interventions the expected results have not materialized.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And if you see and still choose to enter nature's savage arena, where woman is nature's agency, her representative, know that you will not exit it without scars; be prepared to be maimed and to lose that naive, young boy, full of hope and ideals; be prepared to be completely destroyed or to leave the brutal arena, once you've paid your pound of flesh, only once you've left behind the best part of yourself. Neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche managed to justify such an uncertain sacrifice - they saw and could not enter the fray. Nature can demand so much - the less you have the more she asks of you.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
More than half of women attracted to other women [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Do you think that it holds true that 60% of females are at least in some degree bisexual? If it is true, then is it mainly a biological or a cultural thing?
Women don’t have a biologically based sexual orientation and thus are responsive to contemporary cultural and social forces.
Well I suppose at least that statement is utter bullshit; this is consistent with the social psychological theory that reality is built socially and socially only (I think this theory is nicely destroyed by Steven Pinker in his release called The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature)
But then again the tricky problem: If it is indeed true that women are somewhat bisexual by nature, then where does it fit that all females are attracted to alpha males? Although I see in many lesbian couples the sex roles; there are usually more masculine female in the couple and the other more feminine. But could we really say that any female could be considered an "alpha male"?
Now of course the female attraction towards alpha male is not necessarily excluding the fact that females are attracted to some women aswell. And also, that study (which could be bullshit) only states that women are attracted sexually to other women, but in reality it's not like 60% of women have had sex with another woman.
But anyway, if women are sexually attracted to other things, in addition to that they are attracted to the alpha male, could we really consider the female being "the picky gender"? Isn't female more like "anything goes" -gender, seen in this light?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Do you think that it holds true that 60% of females are at least in some degree bisexual?
A woman's entire body is a sex organ. Women are emotional creatures. Women evolved the ability to tolerate the other - first penetration then sperm, then a foetus - she evolved self-deceiving mechanism to facilitate this process. Consequently, women can more easily integrate into a dominant ideological, cultural system.
My thesis on Feminization of man, implies that males are also becoming more adept at self-deciet, and any necessary sacrifices necessary to survive. Judaism being a female disposition, and Abrahamism, are spiritual dogmas that are willing to believe anything that promises them survival - eternal life. Abraham's tales are about this willingness to do anything for the sake of survival.....the one-god offering eternity in exchange for total submission and servitude.
Woman are more inclined to seek affection, tactile pleasure, emotional connections in other.....sex is more emotional and not centered her genitalia, so the sex of her partner is less important than it is for males around.
Illiterate wrote:
If it is true, then is it mainly a biological or a cultural thing?
Memes are extensions of genes. A culture represents a relationship between a specific people with a specific environment and this can then be semiotically transmitted to others who do not share this relationship - like in intercourse two divergent genetic continuums can synthesize. Culture sublimates, and/or selectively cultivates and/or atrophies genetic impulses and inherited potentials.
psychologytoday.com wrote:
Women don’t have a biologically based sexual orientation and thus are responsive to contemporary cultural and social forces. Well I suppose at least that statement is utter bullshit; this is consistent with the social psychological theory that reality is built socially and socially only (I think this theory is nicely destroyed by Steven Pinker in his release called The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature)
This is postmodern bullshyte. Sex evolved to deal with mortality, and to accelerate adaptation necessitated by fluctuating environmental conditions. A female is a genetic - and memetic - filtering system - it is natural selection made more efficient/effective. The only way is reproduction.
Illiterate wrote:
But then again the tricky problem: If it is indeed true that women are somewhat bisexual by nature, then where does it fit that all females are attracted to alpha males?
Females are not bisexual by nature....simple. But like in nature when members of the opposite sex are absent woman make compromises....because of the reason I gave before.
Illiterate wrote:
Although I see in many lesbian couples the sex roles; there are usually more masculine female in the couple and the other more feminine. But could we really say that any female could be considered an "alpha male"?
Anything that diverges form the utility of a practice is a corruption....do to some genetic or environmental factor that has warped an impulse. Humans have engaged in uncontrolled reproduction for centuries, so we carry a heavy mutation load....with unforeseeable consequences. The freak show in the US is evidence.
Nature doesn't give a shit about our pleasures....pleasures are the experience of a need being gratified. Sex did not evolve to pleasure mankind, but to reproduce a species. Whatever diverges form this should be analyzed, because it conceals a ulterior motive or a psychosomatic dysfunction - probably due to the mutational loads man carries - manifesting all sorts of dysfunctions and abnormalities.
Illiterate wrote:
Now of course the female attraction towards alpha male is not necessarily excluding the fact that females are attracted to some women aswell. And also, that study (which could be bullshit) only states that women are attracted sexually to other women, but in reality it's not like 60% of women have had sex with another woman.
Modern science is now in the service of power - scientists depend on funding and this warps their focus and their findings.
Illiterate wrote:
But anyway, if women are sexually attracted to other things, in addition to that they are attracted to the alpha male, could we really consider the female being "the picky gender"? Isn't female more like "anything goes" -gender, seen in this light?
It has to do with making do - males in prison environments indulge in homosexual intercourse when no females are available.
Like I said....feminization, mutation loads, settling for what is available, female sexuality associating intercourse with emotional boding, imprinting, hormonal intoxication (love drug) - because without it penetration would be problematic for a female, and many other factors contribute to female behaviours. Women are simple....if you stop listening to what they say and you watch what they do. They become "complex" and "mysterious" when you place more trust in their words, than on their deeds.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
Anything that diverges form the utility of a practice is a corruption....do to some genetic or environmental factor that has warped an impulse. Humans have engaged in uncontrolled reproduction for centuries, so we carry a heavy mutation load....with unforeseeable consequences. The freak show in the US is evidence.
I suppose this is why it seems quite hard to make accurate statements about the human condition; since there are so many males and females who clearly do not function like healthy males and females would... So the regularity of healthy individuals doesn't apply. All kinds of twisted mutations manifesting...
Do you have any estimate about how many humans are genetically corrupted to such a degree that you couldn't label them as "healthy" or "normal"?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Anything that diverges form the utility of a practice is a corruption....do to some genetic or environmental factor that has warped an impulse. Humans have engaged in uncontrolled reproduction for centuries, so we carry a heavy mutation load....with unforeseeable consequences. The freak show in the US is evidence.
I suppose this is why it seems quite hard to make accurate statements about the human condition; since there are so many males and females who clearly do not function like healthy males and females would... So the regularity of healthy individuals doesn't apply. All kinds of twisted mutations manifesting...
Do you have any estimate about how many humans are genetically corrupted to such a degree that you couldn't label them as "healthy" or "normal"?
Aren't we all products of human interventions?
We are talking about degree and about idealizing what is inferior. Aristocratic ethics means the superior, the beautiful, is admired and emulated, even if it not attainable for us all, equally.
What has happened through Americanism is all standard have been inverted - virtues become vices and vices been promoted as virtues; health has become sickness and sickness promoted as the new health standard; beauty is ugly and ugliness is now just as beautiful; strength has been demonized and weakness sanctified.
We all carry mutational loads....but some flaunt them as if they are acceptable and admirable. Man made himself a mutant when he built artificial environments and altered natures rules of selection into manmade rules of social selection.
But not all are equally guilty...for there are systems where nihilism is dominant and anti-natute is extreme because it is idealized....Americanism.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37198 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"If you're willing to give it to one guy for free and the guy that actually wants to take you seriously... he actually wants to marry you... you're gonna make him jump through all of these hoops... for what?"
"Women play games with guys that actually want to be with them"
"And if a girl has slept around and is going to make you wait, it's probably indicative that she doesn't like you that much"
She speaks about this type of a woman, that is sleeping around with guys but doesn't bond with them for a long time, but then when a nice, good guy (some would say beta male) shows up, this woman is suddenly playing coy, and is not gonna sleep with him right away. I have seen this many times. Though the male needs to be really desperate in order to go along with that. Because even most guys I know that could be considered beta males, would rather be alone.
And of course, there are many cases where there are no turnarounds for desperate females either. It seems it's clearly a huge number of women, who are most desperate of all... because they didn't manage to procreate... neither did the males, but it's not so big of a deal for males, since they can "seed the ideas" like Satyr put nicely.
In Fresh and Fit podcast this was nicely put (I have the TikTok video saved on my phone, but I can't find the actual link, I'm sorry):
Fresh and Fit podcast wrote:
"And they [women] don't realize that they fucked up until they're 32 years old, sitting at this fucking table crying and saying: "I wish I could go back in time... I didn't know..."
"Feminism is a lie. And trust me; we've had those fucking conversations here... we've had girls on here crying about being on OnlyFans, we've had girls over here that put off marriage when they had a good bachelor, we've had girls over here crying and saying they chased a career versus chasing a male when they had the opportunity."
"It's because women quite literally live in a Matrix where no one tells them the cold hard truths."
So... We can say that most women don't end up being winners in any measurable way in this game. But why are they so stupid? I mean, I totally understand that it's a good mating strategy, having the offspring of an alpha, but then getting a beta male to take care of that offspring. But this happens only very rarely. It's almost universal that being a single mother is by no means rising the value of a single woman, trying to look for a husband. So even the average guy is dodging the bullet here, very widely. I know many women in their mid-30's that have had their fun but they never procreated. Also, I know alpha males whose "bodycount" is closer to 1000 than a zero, but they have no children. And the nice, good guys are tired of women's demands and abstinence from them after these same women a while ago gave sex free to some other guys...
Women can't help themselves? They quite literally lack all the tools to make rational decisions? But how can it be, that even watching other women fail in their big goals, women will make the same mistakes all over again?
BUT this issue, as every issue, is racial too. I know women (in total maybe half a dozen of them) who have made only good decisions their life... got married young, got children, never abused by males, etc... So, of course there are intelligent women. I just read a list of average "bodycount" in average person in any given country. Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese and South Koreans all had the number of 3-4 while most Europeans countries had way over 10 (and Japan too).Of course, Vietnamese are not going through such a spiritual warfare as Europeans are... but still this raises a question: Are perhaps the Asians superior to whites in some sense?
