Sense of purpose in males

If I don't remember wrong, Satyr said in one of his lectures very well about how males were assimilated to the system in some city state of ancient Greece. It was made happen so that each male was given a home and a woman, through which a male could create a family. Now a male had something to fight for. My first question is, is this documented in history books? (I have a task where I could use this information).

But let's go on with the actual topic.
A very good and pointed quote from Satyr:

Satyr wrote:

An army of women and transsexuals cannot fight wars.
Young males with no investment in the system will not fight and die to defend it.

In the movie Fight Club, the applicants of Project Mayhem are required to stand on the porch outside with no food and no shelter, and they need to endure the discouragement... for three days. Would a man with a wife, children and a job do such a thing? Clearly the men who decided to join Project Mayhem were not investing in the system in any way. 

I think there is a proverb that goes: You don't always need a whip to tame a wild stallion. You can also try to put it in the corral with a tamed mare.

If there is an fairly easy solution to the problem of young, quiet and frustrated males dropping out from the system, then why doesn't the system offer the males home and family?
Are there any kind measurements that the system takes now, knowing full well that this modern development could only lead to a collapse? So is the system even trying to address this problem or do they just let the collapse happen?
Do the system actually believe that drugs, pornography, videogames, and virtual reality can provide a sense of purpose in young males?

Illiterate wrote:

If I don't remember wrong, Satyr said in one of his lectures very well about how males were assimilated to the system in some city state of ancient Greece. It was made happen so that each male was given a home and a woman, through which a male could create a family. Now a male had something to fight for. My first question is, is this documented in history books? (I have a task where I could use this information).

They weren't give a mate....but paternalism ensured that each male had a mate, as part of paternalism and family established alliances.
Monogamy is an institution that imposes a rule that forces sexual compromises from women...and males to a lesser extent since most males are content with whatever they can get (all determined by IQ).
This makes males investors in a system; without such investments males become cynical, are radicalized, and become destructive, with nothing left to lose.
Socrates refers to marriage as a technology - can't recall where.

Homo sapient is not a monogamous species.
As paternalism declines and feminization increases unobstructed man returns to primal mating dynamics - see chimpanzees and primate mating dynamics.

Illiterate wrote:

Satyr wrote:

An army of women and transsexuals cannot fight wars.
Young males with no investment in the system will not fight and die to defend it.

In the movie Fight Club, the applicants of Project Mayhem are required to stand on the porch outside with no food and no shelter, and they need to endure the discouragement... for three days. Would a man with a wife, children and a job do such a thing? Clearly the men who decided to join Project Mayhem were not investing in the system in any way. 

I think there is a proverb that goes: You don't always need a whip to tame a wild stallion. You can also try to put it in the corral with a tamed mare.

The movie's pessimistic message is that when you "liberate inferior males" from systemic controls most will become enslaved - submissive - to the one that liberated them because freedom is not for everyone - as the debate over free-will clearly demonstrates.
Most are followers - beta males - and only through paternalistic dominance can they hope to become invested in the system, via their own offspring - which is ironic since most of them are currently pro-feminism, as one would expect from such submissive spirits.

I recall the MGTOW years when I made that point and they blocked me.
The very ones that would benefit the most from paternalism were the loudest passionate deniers....signaling to females - even as they pretended to be turning away - their moral quality; adopting feminist methods to pressure females.
They must submit to whatever is superior - classic female and emasculated male psychology.
Currently feminization has made feminism extremely effective, so these beta-males hitch themselves on its cart, hoping that their services will be rewarded down the road.
The psychology depicted in the Fight Club is proven, in real life, by these feminist males.
They don't believe in free-will because they are so dominated by primal impulses; like beta-male psychology we can, also, witness in nature.
In human contexts beta-males are the first to adopt conventional beliefs and ideals. Visit ILP to see it in practice....emasculated, inferior males always adopt popular beliefs and narratives if they intuitively believe this will get them laid, or more acceptable via feminine sexual agency.
Another irony....emasculated males, easily submissive to the alpha-male status of an institution, then signal their memetic fitness, simultaneously signaling their genetic unfitness to females.
Here female mind/body dissonance becomes a male's mind/body dissonance, mirroring the female's confusion by adopting her schizophrenia.

The movie's conclusion is that the system must be helped or allowed to collapse. You cannot solve such psychosis, you can only let it run its course.
Nobody can correct for compounding inferior mutations - they must be eliminated through culling. the irony is that the females they attempt to appeal to - with their ideological support - are the very ones that will exclude them form the next generations; they are rejecting the only ideology that could benefit them.

Illiterate wrote:

If there is an fairly easy solution to the problem of young, quiet and frustrated males dropping out from the system, then why doesn't the system offer the males home and family?

That is a complicated question to answer.
I've attempted to do so on KTS, in all of the threads.
This is the central theme.

A quick answer is that European man has been infected by an Afro-Asiatic spiritual/ideological (memetic) virus, for over two-thousand years - carried into its collective mind/body by an alien parasite.
This virus - nihilism - is insidious and self-destructive - see zombie parasites.
Undermining European paternalism makes European males vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.
A family with a dominant male present - traditional - is another source of antagonism to systemic control. Subverting traditional families - by promoting ideologies, like feminism - not only adds females under direct systemic controls - females essentially become the brides of the system, just as in Abrahamism they belong to god - but it also "liberates" children to become indoctrinated without any masculine resistence.

Traditional - paternalistic - family structures are antithetical to multiethnic, multiracial, nihilistic systems, like the ones promoted by Americanism model.
Destroying traditional families, and eliminating the male from the lives of children, makes the system's institutions more effective in assimilating children.
The opposite is true in systems with a strong, paternalistic, ethnic identity, like Russia, China etc.
This is why the States is a culture-of-no-culture, since culture is antithetical to mass mind-control.
In States with an ethnically, racially, culturally homogenous population traditional families are essential to their well-being - they also have a dominant morality/ethical codes.
Americanism subverts morality replacing them with market regulations (America's monetary credit system, is replaced by China's social credit system), because morality - as I've said - is the group imposing on individuals behavioural rules that promote group cohesion and health.

Illiterate wrote:

Are there any kind measurements that the system takes now, knowing full well that this modern development could only lead to a collapse?

Nihilism need not be conscious. In fact, the less conscious it remains the more effective it becomes.
Like zombies....they do not know they are ill, the disease compels them to behave in ways that increases its survival potentials, and its spread.
Like Christian and Muslim proselytizing is part of the dogma - whether it be through violence or deception, exploiting human weakness, as all diseases do. Judaism stopped proselyting because its particular nihilistic varient is based on elitism and choseness - they must be hated/rejected to remain distinct.
The disease, the meme, i.e., dogma, ideology, promotes the impulses necessary for its survival and growth, without requiring a conscious awareness of it from the infected mind.
So, the nihilistic dogma promotes behaviours, beliefs, standards that shape judgements and choices, that may be destructive to the individuals but are beneficial to the dogma (selfish meme).
This is distinct to zombification. The infected mind/body is but a means to propagate the virus/parasite. the infected individual may kill its own family driven by the disease to infect everyone not infected.

In healthy gene/meme dynamics the meme, i.e., ideology, spirituality, is complimentary to the individual's genetic interests  - gene/meme harmony where genes take precedence and memes are their extension.
In nihilistic systems, like Americanism, the memes takes precedence, even if it necessitates the sacrifice of individual genetic interests.
Nihilism is used to control the masses by promoting lies concerning individualism and freedom.....the promoters usually - not always - practice the opposite from what they promote among those they want to control and exploit. A liar must know the truth to become effective at convincing the gullible; sometimes believing in his own lies enhances his performance.
See how in the States individual welfare is rejected while it practices corporate welfare, or how individualism is promoted among the masses while the elites practice collectivism.

Illiterate wrote:

So is the system even trying to address this problem or do they just let the collapse happen?

When you say "system" I am assuming you mean the western, a.k.a., American model being forced upon humanity as a Globalizing project.
West is the name we give to Americanism's dominion - US, central hub, and its Anglo-Shere, extending across western Europe.
Europe is totally Americanised, and is being converted to a copy of the US - some are fighting to preserve their place within Americanism, not realizing where this leads if Russia and China are defeated.
In Americanism all biological identifiers, all traditional structures, are undesirable - anything that challenges the central nihilistic dogma is destroyed, by undermining it.
Feminism is part of this.
Feminism has destroyed the traditional family and returned mating practices to a primal state - excluding most males from the gene pool (incels).
Under institutional authority males re forced to adopt feminine behaviours, beliefs, mating practices - feminization of man.
All males become beta-males, because the top spot is taken over by an abstraction, with no race, no gender, no ethnicity, no culture...

Illiterate wrote:

Do the system actually believe that drugs, pornography, videogames, and virtual reality can provide a sense of purpose in young males?

No....these are used to placate the masses of un-invested males - free-radicals - redirecting their libidinal energies away from destructive behaviours, towards harmless and useless behaviours - sublimation.
Masculine energies - now labelled "toxic" - must be expunged without damaging institutional power.
Americanism's "individualism" is part of it - divide & control - reduce the threat to a non-threatening level - easily manageable.
Masculinity is not only criminalized, and feminized, but it is rendered impotent.
The biggest threat for Americanism is European masculinity - given the history. See how it is European heterosexual males who are now demonized by Americanisms (((elites))) - symbolically self-castrated, genitally self-mutilated.
Russia's predominately white traditional paternalism is Americanism's biggest ideological threat - China its greatest economic threat.

Add to this the effects of technologies on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...like contraceptives and abortions, making feminism immune to natural restrictions to female sexual power.
Institutions also protect her making her physical inferiorities less limiting.

Amorality is another elimination of collective controls on human behaviours.
As I've said...morality evolves to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies - encoded, by humans, as moral codes of conduct, they represent evolved restrictions on individual choices, so as to promote group health and cohesion. Shame and guilt being the feeling of challenging/contradicting a group's welfare, enforced collectively and intuitively, by all participants.
Any reduction represents social degeneration.
Making feminine choices amoral eliminates another restriction on female sexual power....essentially multiplying feminine power.
Why?
Because females are more easily manipulated emotionally, and are genetically inclined to submit to power, so they are more manageable, when compared to masculinity which is, by its nature, antagonistic to authority.

Satyr wrote:

No....these are used to placate the masses of un-invested males - free-radicals - redirecting their libidinal energies away from destructive behaviours

...destructive behaviors as is seen in the movie Fight Club.

Thank you Satyr once again for great insights.

In the movie Tyler Durden finds these un-invested males - cumulating all these libidinal energies, and redirects them into expunging them in the manly practice of controlled violence, hoping to organize them into a force to change everything.
Then, when they begin repeating his words as they would Scripture, or Nieatzchean aphorisms, he realizes that the problem is not only the system but the males it has cultivated.
The only solution is total erasure.

Final solution - culling - and rebooting it all.

He could have just stepped aside and let it all implode, but his masculinity was proactive and he could not wait and live out his life watching it all collapse...as it is in America.
So, he commits ideological suicide....and hopes to erase it all and start over.
He kills Durden, but not the narrator.

Satyr wrote:

Then, when they begin repeating his words as they would Scripture, or Nieatzchean aphorisms, he realizes that the problem is not only the system but the males it has cultivated.

The only solution is total erasure.

In the end, I think you are right here.

But do you think the movie offers and promotes some solutions to certain problems in the short run aswell?

Let me explain.

Satyr wrote:

In the movie Tyler Durden finds these un-invested males - cumulating all these libidinal energies, and redirects them into expunging them in the manly practice of controlled violence, hoping to organize them into a force to change everything.

Alright, so Tyler's hopes didn't come true because the males he found didn't have desired features.

But in the movie I still sympathize with these men when they are organized, even though their minds were not perhaps freed. I somehow feel good when these men find together, and I feel sorry for them when they are alone and doing nothing useful. The beginning analogue of the protagonist is - using one word to describe it - depressing. He's lonely, un-invested and without any purpose in life.

These men that Tyler brought together are what they are. Their potentials can't be magically affected, I realize that.

But creating purpose and a sense of belonging among these males, Tyler surely achieves something of the good cause, in my opinion.

I'm not sure if this is a great parable, but it occurs to my mind that the word samurai means to serve. And yet samurais seemed somehow masterly in their character. So perhaps Tyler would have seen problems even the in the features that samurais possessed?

So do you think that Fight Club promotes, among some other things, organization and community-centred worldview in contrast to American individualism that leads to loneliness and most times useless and self-destructive activities?

Fight Club is a Jew Hollywood production, warning high IQ European males, of a coming disappointment.
The average intelligent European male is still seeped in romantic idealism....and this is what Tyler Durden represents.
In the movie his awakening to the reality of inequality makes him commit symbolic suicide.
It's not coincidental that he shoots himself in the mouth, to kill that awakened part of himself.

Why do you think "white supremacists" are being promoted in Media and Hollywood as Americanism's prime enemy....when most of the violence is conducted by Africans? 
Why do you think white Russia is the prime enemy of neo-cons, and not China?
They fear European heterosexual masculinity....they tremble at the thought of it awakening and rediscovering their tribal, warrior spirit. 
They fer more than they do a an awakening sleeping giant Han China.
Were there any Negroes or Orientals in the Fight Club? I don't recall any.
Maybe as a depiction of that tiny percentage of awakening blacks, like Kanye, and Chappelle...but their racial traits cannot help them go further than this realization that they are being exploited.

They remind the naïve idealist that the men they want to liberate are not their equal, and so will disappoint....but a truly aware mind knows this...and knows that average males need a leader, to give them structure and direction - an objective.

Illiterate wrote:

So do you think that Fight Club promotes, among some other things, organization and community-centred worldview in contrast to American individualism that leads to loneliness and most times useless and self-destructive activities?

Yes, and they try to dissuade and prevent its awakening....and so Jew controlled Hollywood and American media ends it with a pessimistic message.
It is propaganda for the higher IQ European male who is realizing what is going on.....just as in the Matrix and Hannibal.
They made films admitting what is going on and then spinning it.
All spin a negativity into the metaphorical reality it acknowledges....as a warning - subtext to the context of the text.

Illiterate wrote:

Alright, so Tyler's hopes didn't come true because the males he found didn't have desired features.

But in the movie I still sympathize with these men when they are organized, even though their minds were not perhaps freed. I somehow feel good when these men find together, and I feel sorry for them when they are alone and doing nothing useful. The beginning analogue of the protagonist is - using one word to describe it - depressing. He's lonely, un-invested and without any purpose in life.

These men that Tyler brought together are what they are. Their potentials can't be magically affected, I realize that.

But creating purpose and a sense of belonging among these males, Tyler surely achieves something of the good cause, in my opinion.

Tyler Durden represents a kind of Nietzschean Dionysian masculine power archetype. The “Jack” narrator is the undermining feminine counter. The masculine, i.e the creative, active, conquering force, is the main threat to the system that must be neutralized. This is why in these cinematic depictions; they always taint these masculine leading characters as “antiheroes.” They depict them as insane, megalomaniacal, oppressive, and mischievous, puckish; akin to immature undisciplined little boys that require to be subjugated and put in their place by a responsible mother. Durden is eliminated, because the masculine must be brought to heel beneath the foot of the feminine. The symbolism is enhanced further when we see the Jack narrator holding the hand of his chosen female partner. He chooses the feminine, the weak, the submissive, and it’s right back to square one, nothing is resolved. The masculine must not win. Durden’s ‘Jack’ ego runs around doing everything he can to thwart and undermine Durden’s power, trying to stop him, because he is invested in the herd, in his own slavish position within it. He values safety and domesticity and deep down doesn’t want anything to change. He fears change, because this would mean having the courage, the strength, making the sacrifice to change oneself, and, being a weakling and a coward, this terrifies him. Durden is essentially a nihilist.
His power process is rooted in nihilism. Like Agent Smith from the Matrix, he seeks power for power’s sake with no viable plan or vision of what comes after it. What comes after all is destroyed? What is rebuilt? What is created from the ruins? All these hypermasculine modern male morons fantasize about enacting these kinds of exertions of domination with no clue about the consequences, as if life would just come to a stop after they have had their way.
Destruction is easy, creation is hard, and creation is exactly what must take place after destruction. Like fucking and making a baby is easy, any imbecile can do it, they do it all the time. However, creating an identity for the new individual, creating a life for it, that requires high intelligence, resourcefulness, courage, discipline, and wisdom. The movie only hints vaguely at Tyler’s future motivations after his anarcho-primitivism fallout, he imagines some new form of agrarian utopia to emerge, but that’s all, a stupid cliche romantic pipe dream. Theodore Kaczynski had much the same musings of revolution. He even admitted that what came after was unnecessary, but only the destruction of the system was of the utmost importance.

Investing into the delusions of the greater good of humanity, especially its most undesirables, will always lead to disappointment.