Feminism

Regarding rape, people have this idea that rape is caused by desperate and horny men. It is not. Most rapists are men who are already close to and intimate with a woman, so they have no problem getting laid. It also fails to understand the way abusers function, as rape is one tool an abusive person (man or woman) uses to vent their rage and punish a person to keep them under control. Rape is not sex with violence in it, it is violence with sex in it. Rape is done as a way to do great violence to someone, the sexual act is only the means.

Well, now that I know what is going on, I will not intervene in this thread again.
I only wanted to mention, before I go, that the fact that the guy who proposed alpha/beta distinction retracted it, was too strong an "argument" for me to ignore.
If Darwin were alive, and he retracted his positions on Evolution I would be forced to change my mind about how life evolves, and return to Creationism which never retracts a single word.
All I have are words, written about the world by others.I have no way of verifying them or observing the world on my own.
I am completely dependent on their guidance, and authority.
If they say so, and then unsay so then I must abide by their judgment, since I have no mind of my own, and no way of observing world and humans in the world, by myself...I have no credentials to take my own sight seriously.
I see blacks being different than so called whites, but the experts tell me that this is superficial, only when it comes to humans,....so it must be as they say...unless they retract, to their majority changes their mind.
Forgive me if I mistakenly took this person seriously. It will never happen again.

I await the decisions of the authorities to tell me what to think about everything...even things I can see and hear and touch on my own.
I am in no condition to trust myself and my won senses.
Everything seems as the opposite of what I am told that it is. Men and women are really exactly the same, except for some minor body part differences, different races are just cosmetic, and are exactly the same, unless these differences are found in other species, where differences do matter.

Recently I was told that women opened up the west, and were not only central but the guiding force behind the colonization of north America.
This happened through brothels.
A surprising "fact" I cannot doubt because it was spoken out-loud, in a very convincing way....so it must be so.
Women, of course, have revolutionized human thinking, I was told, so it must be so...in being told I am convinced, because it's too powerful an "argument" for me to deny.
like they revolutionized....ummmmm......mmmmmmmmm ....well anyway, someone will eventually tell me and not retract, what they revolutionized.
Must be like how Negroes invented stuff....like peanut-butter, and RAP.
I'm sure there are a few female names we can throw around, implying that these women were great intellectual figures and not simply bit-players...like Madame Curie and her non-existent husband.

One rule destroyed by the exception to it.

I retract all that.

Well, women are a 'cause' of men's pleasure, after all. They direct the universe through their vagina. So, of course, they'd be the cause of everything, because there remains a hole there which is part of the wHole cosmos. Girl power.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

Regarding rape, people have this idea that rape is caused by desperate and horny men. It is not. Most rapists are men who are already close to and intimate with a woman, so they have no problem getting laid. It also fails to understand the way abusers function, as rape is one tool an abusive person (man or woman) uses to vent their rage and punish a person to keep them under control. Rape is not sex with violence in it, it is violence with sex in it. Rape is done as a way to do great violence to someone, the sexual act is only the means.

Don't know who these 'people' are, but the people I read speak of rape as a sexually motivated behaviour, not as modernists claim it to be, a power game.

Rape is often about getting away with it, and about males who have no access to sexual gratification using alternatives to unload, or to pass on their genes.
It's also a display of dominance, as all sexual acts are...including homosexual behavior in many species.
It's an evolved beta-male strategy...because alphas can get all the pussy they can handle.

This is documented, by the people I know, as being a behavior observed in more than one species....there are in fact two insect species that have evolved special appendages to facilitate rape...and orangutans, for example, are known to use rape as a means of passing on their genes.

Typical post-modern bull this chick is spewing.
Rape is not about power, it is primarily about sexual gratification, and access to pussy.
Women are raped by men they know because of opportunity, proximity and ease....and no other reasons.
The typical rapist evaluates the odds of being caught and punished...not if the act is moral or immoral.
A known female is less likely to go to the authorities...where her strong feminine spirit will be avenged and protected from a world she cannot survive on her own....let alone the wilderness of a lawless frontier.

Human females, unlike other primates, have conspicuous fertility cycles, so as to have better control over who fertilizes them....making it possible for them to use sex to manipulate and exploit males.
Orgasm evolved to ensure that she is fertilized by the male she fancies, rather than the ones she submits to because of social or material necessity.
Humans males usually rape when they judge that the odds are against being caught and punished...as there are no males to protect the females they wish to dominate sexually.
In times of war, for instance.
Coincidentally I just finished reading a book on the subject called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where all this is explained as well as the reasons why most 'experts' shy away from the subject is also explained.
Their reasoning is quite compelling...to the point where if they were to retract, for whatever reason, I would not stop believing this thesis.
If Darwin would of retracted his positions I would be inclined to believe he did so under some other form of duress....or that he went mad.

I'll have to wait for them to retract it, so that all their good points can be erased in my mind.
I doubt they will, no matter the social costs to them and their families.  

Rape, unlike what naive imbeciles prefer to think, is not good/bad, but an evolutionary practice, caused by particular circumstances, and environmental conditions.....none of which are cultural.
But whoever only reads Marxist inspired manuals, written by douche-bags with careers and a motive other than understanding, can remain in the dark....and post her 'arguments' on KT, where I, for one, will give them all the attention and respect they deserve.

Sweetie...those who enlightens us show us what we see, but cannot understand.
Once we are shown and we validate what we are shown, on our own, we no longer requite them to support the claims they exposed us to.
Get it, you pathetic creature?
Evolution is no longer dependent on Darwin, sad female.

See, pathetic simpleton, when that guy, supposedly coined the terms alpha and beta, it no longer mattered what he said and did....he may have gone insane, or suffered an illness, found Jesus and was born again a degenerate, like you.....because we observe what he named.
I, for instance, do not need him to find this categorization rational, because I've seen the behavior it names.
Alpha and beta are not theoretical constructs, dependent on someone's mind, you sad idiot...but they name phenomena we all can observe.
I've observed, on my own, alpha and beta behavior, as well as rape, in other species.

Do you understand, simpleton?
The words they coined refer me to an activity I can observe on my own.

For example, you are a wannabe beta female. You want to be an alpha but you cannot quite get there, because of traumatic events in your life.
So, instead you nurture the underdog, who you relate to psychologically, and yet remain unsatisfied, on a physical level.
Ideologically, memtically, you are post-modern...a classic Marxist, Abrahamic psychotic...but your body cannot be convinced.
Genes are unaffected by memes, particularly when these memes are contrary to genetic dispositions, like your Nihilistic ones...or your updated Modern romantic idealism....your naivete, expressed through an insatiable need to protect and to nurture what you judge as being a victim, an inferior, a wronged individual....a man-child.

Mind is attracted to that type, because it is closest to what you identify with yourself....but your body is not convinced....it has a 'judgment' independent from your mental dis-eased ideology.
Your motherly instincts are engaged....conflicting with your sexual deep rooted sexual urges.
This makes you part of the majority; confused, and desperate for solutions you cannot find because you cannot escape the emotional, mental, traps you found comfort in.
You are always of two minds....your conscious self says 'yes' to a particular type of individual, but your body says 'no'.

This schizoid psychosis can manifest as dreams, anxiety....feelings of guilt, followed by anger, and then sadness, fatigue.

Just to be clear, because I know degenerates, like you, jump on positions to accuse the other of promoting violence or hatred or whatnot.
i am not advocating rape. Rape goes against my nature.
I'm the extreme opposite...not only can I not rape, but the slightest hint of disinterest in the female and I give her an excuse to not have sex with me.
But, at the same time I have to find an explanation for it that goes beyond your modernistic 'it's all a social construct' degeneracy.
I study other species, and draw parallels with human behavior.
I then read others who have studies more than one species, and who are honest and not controlled by social conventions, peer pressures and career motives....and these are rare.

Rape is more than a power game, dear.
It's found in other species, so it must be about procreation, not ideology and politics.
And it makes sense, if you think about it honestly and with your head out of your own arse.
Females control a rare element in reproduction - the ovum. sperm is plentiful.
Males produce sperm by the billions daily.

So, females had to evolve a disposition in keeping with this fact.
They would not reproduce with anyone, because their ovum is valuable, and the risks to them are great....and go far beyond a 10 minute copulation, pleasure session.
Even the female orgasm has to be explained in those terms, because it is not necessary, as it is for males.
In fact, few females in other species experience orgasm during sex...and it is rare in humans, for that matter.
I've given an explanation of my own, that also has to do with the fight/flight mechanism and stress as energy kept on standby.
This explains why for females in particular, orgasm is accompanied by shaking, spasms, sometimes crying...emotional and physical release.

Therefore, rape has to be explained in the context of sperm-wars, reproductive competition, and the investment a male and a female is forced to risk.
Human females have evolved, like i said, a inconspicuous fertility cycle, so as to use their sexual role to their fullest advantage, in relation to males of their own species.
Males then, in reaction to it, evolve counter-measures, to which females adjust and adapt their own and so on and so forth.
Rape is one male counter-measure to being excluded form the gene-pool by female sexual discrimination - choosiness.
Females counter by allying themselves with other females, or other males, to regain their sexual power.

When men are no longer necessary, because institution have taken up the role of provider, protector, males are not only feminized but severely restricted sexually.

We see this today with MGTOW and what is occurring in Japan with males losing all interest in females, and immersing themselves in alternative realities, like games.
It's either that, or going to jail, which is what happens to more primal males, like Negroes.
Marriage was a way to keep men invested, rather than turning them into un-invested, indifferent, nothing to lose, free-radicals.
Female sexual power had to be curbed.
Feminism returned it, ten fold, and so the family is destroyed, and the entire system is crumbling. .

When the Muslims come knocking, what rights will you claim?
How strong and independent will you be then?

Do you understand?
This is not based on morality or what ought to be done, it's what IS.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

How is being given basic human decency a luxury?

"Human decency" has a price, I know it can be hard for your sheltered feminine mind to even conceive of that fact when you don't currently pay that price.

I'll continue dealing with you after my meal...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Black Jew Witch wrote:

I am a woman who supports most feminist causes. Here is your chance to talk to an actual person and not a strawman.

What do I want with sexual equality? I simply want to enjoy the rights many men enjoy without being subjected to ridiculous double standards. I do not have sex often by any measure (and most feminist women aren't interested in banging 100 men or being in gang bangs, just to make that clear), but it's unfair for some idiot to call me a slut just because I to have a relationship or have sex with a man or woman I choose to (which is what men do). I have no interest in settling with a "nice white man" in a picketed fence suburbs, as I dislike the suburbs for many reasons.

And it extends to more than just having sex with whoever I choose (again a right enjoyed by most men). I want to be able to walk alone at night without having to keep mace in my purse in case some asshole decides he is entitled to my body. I want to be able to have a good time at parties without having to worry about some creep poisoning my drink so he could rape me in my sleep. In other words, I want basic human decency many men take completely for granted.

Also, I find your later comments about feminism absurd. So feminism has never, in it's decades of history, contributed to anything intellectually important, despite having a wide influence on academics, scientists, artists, intellectuals, philosophers inside university and out, but a bunch of bitter incels on Reddit are a legitimate "counter movement". Most people don't even know what an MRA or MGTOW is, or who Roosh V or Matt Forney are. That's how relevant these "counter movements" are.

Unattractive, demanding victim tone detected. Poster is most likely oblivious to this and will continue to "proudly" post.

Several years back, one day at work during a stressful time of the day, I snapped at my boss and the owner of the company, he was stunned, but we kept working despite it. There were several women around. I didn't realize until much later, why, after that incident a few of those female coworkers started flirting with me and coming onto me, one in particular was very obvious about this.

Females crave male authority and power, whomever can even symbolize the top of a hierarchy. I wasn't fired from that job, because I apologized to my boss over the phone. He called me, by the way. But I realized he had a newfound respect, after that day.


Women get their panties moist, when males fight among ourselves, and especially when it revolves around them. It's always seemed to me, throughout my life, that women are most sexually attracted and turned on by that, men fighting violently to have them. However, this is rare, as most fights are illegal (assault), and that most modern women are simply not worth fighting over.

A low value woman is not worth the risk.

Feminism is a trick-word, newspeak. Propaganda.

It takes the word "Femininity" and twists it around, inverts it, destroys it. Bends it so far out of shape that you don't know the source or origin any longer. So what has "Feminism" destroyed?

It has destroyed the truly feminine woman. The types of women that men do fight over, violently if necessary. A higher type of woman, noble. I've seen a few of these women throughout my life. I don't know too many, personally. But they are rather easy to spot if you know how. Dignity. Walks upright and acts purposely. Poised. Proud. You can tell that they have a solid family upbringing. They are not sluts or whores. They understand the value of their sexuality, and do not sell it around town, and never cheaply. Their male suitors are intimidating. And they have a line of men at their door, waiting for access.

The 'Feminine' woman. Feminism has confused most modern people about this fact.


A woman worth fighting for. A woman worth killing ? for? A woman worth ? dying for???

The types of women that tribes and societies are founded upon.

Athena.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

I am a woman who supports most feminist causes. Here is your chance to talk to an actual person and not a strawman.

What do I want with sexual equality? I simply want to enjoy the rights many men enjoy without being subjected to ridiculous double standards. I do not have sex often by any measure (and most feminist women aren't interested in banging 100 men or being in gang bangs, just to make that clear), but it's unfair for some idiot to call me a slut just because I to have a relationship or have sex with a man or woman I choose to (which is what men do). I have no interest in settling with a "nice white man" in a picketed fence suburbs, as I dislike the suburbs for many reasons.

Men enjoy "rights' she doesn't.
like going to war and dying to protect her and her rights.
Like being sent through the cleaners if you marry a modern woman, like her.
Like going to jail for rape, when one like her, wakes up and is ashamed of sleeping with a man, and so accuses him of rape.

Read her complaints...

Quote :

And it extends to more than just having sex with whoever I choose (again a right enjoyed by most men).

...as if in this day and age being promiscuous is shameful, when it's promoted as a female standard in movies, in pop-art, in culture.

Quote :

I want to be able to have a good time at parties without having to worry about some creep poisoning my drink so he could rape me in my sleep. In other words, I want basic human decency many men take completely for granted.

In other words she want men to care for her welfare, a right not enjoyed by any man I know.
Special privileges because she was born female and so must be protected from predators, while she declares her equality and how independent and strong she is.
She wants the illusion of being a man.

Quote :

Also, I find your later comments about feminism absurd. So feminism has never, in it's decades of history, contributed to anything intellectually important, despite having a wide influence on academics, scientists, artists, intellectuals, philosophers inside university and out, but a bunch of bitter incels on Reddit are a legitimate "counter movement". Most people don't even know what an MRA or MGTOW is, or who Roosh V or Matt Forney are. That's how relevant these "counter movements" are.

This one hasn't heard of Peterson and his critique of women's studies as a cesspool of producing social justice warriors.
Feminism is Marxism sold as civil rights.
Their intellectual contributions are teaching young people how to complain and whine and demand and have a sense of entitlement, because being born a woman must be corrected or compensated for by men humouring females and pretending that the delusions they spew make sense...and their ideological programming is a legitimate claim.
Feminism has contributed zero. It has only produced these loud, bitchy degenerates who demand censorship and cry when they are not give safe spaces to shelter them form the big bad world, or reality as we call it.

These types think that they reason quality males avoid them is because they are intimidated by their "intelligence' and Independence and their feminine strength...and that's why they settle for feeble betas who they can mother and protect and dominate and then use them to feel equal to men, or to tell themselves that there are no 'real men' out there.
They want a system that protects them from their own weaknesses, so that they can feel safe to display their sexual powers with no risk and no costs, so that they develop a inflated sense of self that then looks down on those that do not enjoy such protections....because when I go out nobody is looking after me and if anyone puts drugs in my drink to rape and rob me...and there no special laws protecting me from muggings or guaranteeing me a safe walk in the night.

Her female feebleness cannot admit that she is not and can never be the equal to man, so she demands that the system create a safe zone within which she can begin to believe that she is safe because she is a strong woman, and she can look after herself because she's independent.

To put it genetically...she wants memes to protect her from her genes, while preventing male genes from compensating.
She wants a system that tilts the laws in her favour, so that she can actually believe in her lies, that women are equal to men.

There's a reason why women had to be placed under masculine authority, and why, to this day, institutions provide her with the illusion of her rights and her powers.
Later she'll claim there are no scientists who believe male brains are different from female brains, and that gender and sexual roles are social constructs bad men have imposed on poor women for centuries.

Æon wrote:

Feminism is a trick-word, newspeak.  Propaganda.

It takes the word "Femininity" and twists it around, inverts it, destroys it.  Bends it so far out of shape that you don't know the source or origin any longer.  So what has "Feminism" destroyed?

It has destroyed the truly feminine woman.  The types of women that men do fight over, violently if necessary.  A higher type of woman, noble.  I've seen a few of these women throughout my life.  I don't know too many, personally.  But they are rather easy to spot if you know how.  Dignity.  Walks upright and acts purposely.  Poised.  Proud.  You can tell that they have a solid family upbringing.  They are not sluts or whores.  They understand the value of their sexuality, and do not sell it around town, and never cheaply.  Their male suitors are intimidating.  And they have a line of men at their door, waiting for access.

The 'Feminine' woman.  Feminism has confused most modern people about this fact.


A woman worth fighting for.  A woman worth killing ? for?  A woman worth ? dying for???

The types of women that tribes and societies are founded upon.

Athena.

Can you name me a famous woman who fits that description? That way I can have an example I can look for myself.

I am by no means a promiscuous woman, but I do not hold my body as an object to be sold. I don't play by those rules. If I find a man or woman I find attractive I simply go after them. Simple.

perpetualburn wrote:

Unattractive, demanding victim tone detected.  Poster is most likely oblivious to this and will continue to "proudly" post.

Unattractive, demanding victim tone is in your imagination. I posted my explanation of what sexual equality meant so people here could see what an actual person believes and not a straw man in their heads.

Anyway, it's been a long day. I'm tired and still have many things to do. It was nice talking to Aeon. AutSider and Satyr, not so much. Goodbye.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

Can you name me a famous woman who fits that description? That way I can have an example I can look for myself.

I am by no means a promiscuous woman, but I do not hold my body as an object to be sold. I don't play by those rules. If I find a man or woman I find attractive I simply go after them. Simple.

The types of women that tend to be famous today or even 100 years ago, are the farthest from fitting that description.
These women are not found outside but remain inside where they belong, maintaining her father's or husband's home.
They do not desire equality, because they don't need it.

Equality is only something the weak, ugly, and lazy want because instead of working hard, remaining disciplined, making sacrifices even if it takes several generations is inconceivable to such a mind, they want gratification in their own lifetime and will come up with endless justifications as to why they wont begin the long hard road upwards.
(Why should i do it and not them?)
(They wont let me.)
(My ancestors already did.)
Etc. Always blaming the other.

Women don't want to acknowledge men are superior, so they'll be doomed to always having equal or worse.

It's actually the case they helped select men who are significantly better, sexually. Their choosing the best is responsible for the disparity. But, I suppose with feminism now that contribution is considered bigoted to countenance.

They chose the alpha males, which are not meatheads, but charismatic and able to perform tit-for-tat a lot more perfectly and openly. Able to communicate effectively to prevent misunderstandings and provide reasons for performing things that would otherwise be seen as "bad". Alliances, strength and cunning.It evolved, eventually, into group selection. There you see empires where men are considered near-equals,  fighting other men.

However, I use the old definition of these words, not the new and effeminate ones which equates "reasonableness" with a feminine cooperation.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

Unattractive, demanding victim tone detected.  Poster is most likely oblivious to this and will continue to "proudly" post.

Unattractive, demanding victim tone is in your imagination. I posted my explanation of what sexual equality meant so people here could see what an actual person believes and not a straw man in their heads.

Are you an actual black jew witch?

Black Jew Witch wrote:

I'm new to the forum, and though my politics are far left I want to reach out to people as far away from my politics as possible to see if it's possible to have something of a civil conversation. Feminism is a subject I am probably most familiar with, which is why I will respond to a few posts on this thread.

"Civil conversation" ultimately resulting in the adoption of some or all of your idea(l)s.
You will not find such a thing here. We may share the same periphery but unlike you, the ideas that currently dominate the modern world aren't watered down versions of our ideals.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

How were madams in the wild west serving the "institution" directly. It was called the wild west for a reason. There was no institution to serve, no "big government" or "nanny state" as hardline conservatives like to say. Institutions were eventually built, but it was the madams who built them, something you would expect a manly man to do, not blindly serve them.

There still was money, and ownership by the Natives, Spain, and subsequently the U.S. which provided defense from foreign invasion.

The institution might not have been developed in the micro level but the abstract claim over the land had already been made and established itself in the macro level.

Most "wild western" denizens came from the domesticated east and already had some institutional framework to work with and could conceivably fall back to in case it was truly wild.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

What does this have to do with madams in the wild west? Well, think of this. What if the founders of wild west towns were men, such as pimps? Would you disparage them so readily and thoughtlessly, or praise them as builders who tamed the wilderness and served no one? Do you see reality as it is or do you filter it through ideological blinders?

Your "criticism" assumes an egalitarian premise, which you still haven't provided a reason for to accept.

Feminism is about giving free reign to female sexuality while severely curbing male sexuality, forcing men to adopt feminine methods of sexual behavior.
As a female you expect to go out, in public flaunting your body, without any risks or costs.

Female sexuality is passive, so it can exude power with the "innocence" of a child.
Females wear skimpy clothing when they are most fertile, but if you confront them with it, they are so ignorant of psychology that they will deny it, claiming that they chose their outfit because it made them feel good.  
I've sen 18, 19, 20 year old female go to bars with tight mini-skirts and no panties, dancing on chairs.....and they except male sexuality to be severely and strongly controlled.

Men can't even flirt with women without risking harassment charges, and then women complain about how men are no longer men.
If your a woman you have to be respected and protected when walking down the street with your tits and ass in full display, but a cat call is prohibited and an assault.
I've seen Muslim females wearing burqas covering their hair, so as to not stimulate males, and pants so tight you could see camel-toe....so your pussy and ass could be shown, in outline, but your god prohibit hair from being exposed so that men do not go crazy with desire.  

Society is going insane.
People do things without thinking.

A woman can get drunk, fuck a guy and the next morning get him arrested for taking advantage of her drunken state.
Women want to be completely irresponsible, free from all cares, accountability and worries.
They want to express their feminine sexual power but not have to pay the costs, or face the risks for doing so.

"Society" caters to women. And "society" is essentially comprised of women. Societies don't exist without women, as women are the future, the child-birth, of any group. This lends enormous power over to the average woman. But modern women are spoiled and selfish, wanting more, leading to hedonism. What is called "classical and traditional" are forgotten and replaced by "modern" contrivances. When it comes to feminism, most moderns and women approach feminism as a means to further hedonism and decadence. Women want the benefits of promiscuity, while retaining the image and social notoriety as saints.

Sluts and Saints in one.

Most modern women get away with it. They're "feminists". It's like being a born-again christian. Whoops, made a few mistakes, had a few abortions, No Problem. Start over. Born-again. In being a "feminist" a woman is suddenly, magically, "equal" with men and deserving the "rights of men".

Black Jew Witch, you admitted everything in the first sentences of the first responses. The "rights of men". As if men do not work, risk, and sacrifice for the "rights", privileges, luxuries you speak of? As if men do not risk conflict, an ass beating, a trip to the hospital for being flirtatious and promiscuous? As if there is no risk involved??? What a joke, how is that not a complete detachment to reality?

I don't see what the problem is exactly.

Why is it so wrong or unpopular to expect one thing from women, and another from men, or one thing from a child, and another from an adult? Or one thing from a chinaman, and another from a somalian? Is it so wrong to expect such behaviors from a seahorse as from a seagull? Modern "equalism" is an absurd ideology, and an extension from Humanist ideology, that "we are all one".

No we are not all one. There are differences in the world, although modern people blind themselves from such differences.

No wonder that the "world" is so confusing to the average modern, that they give up on reasoning and intellectual pursuits early on. Too many contradictions. Too much irrationality, to confront. Easy to get lost in the mental-mazes of the 'human' world, of humanity.

What is unpopular is discrimination, and difference.
All must be made uniform, because uniformity is sameness, meaning all is God manifesting in different ways.
So difference is an illusion, and the "truth" is that we are all the same.

We are all god, or the absolute...thing, one, self, being, perfect...
Degenerates want to escape suffering, or to make their suffering mean something profound, otherwise they find existence intolerable.

You see it in the female's comment on cooperation, as well as in the anuses attitude towards conflict and competing ideals.
Whatever reduces conflict...meaning whatever educes interaction, or makes it a stage towards absolute peace and unity...absolute comfort, absolute pleasure in Being.
It's paradise/utopia, unnamed.

Whatever causes strife, conflict, produces suffering, pain, need....so it must be eradicated as 'evil'.

They are fully Abrahamic in psychology.

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

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

There are many here who approve and promote nationalism and
many who approve and promote "white" power and many here who
are anti-..... a whole lot of things..... and one of the major anti- ..... here
is anti-globalism.......all of these anti-....... and the few approve ism's
are based on the differences of people..... we are white and you are black
and we are nationalist and you are globalist and we are..... and you are......
promoting the idea of the differences between people.....

the "globalist" follow a different path.... we promote the things we have in common...

those things you proclaim as difference are really things that are accidental....
being born white or black is accidental... being born in a certain country is accidental....
being born within a certain ideology or ism is accidental.... those things we have no control over
and those are the very things you promote... the accidental things in our lives....
of being white, of being born in a certain country, of race, creed, color, ethnicity....
these things are accidental........

we are human beings and we have certain needs... all human beings, ALL human beings
need food, water, shelter, clothing, medical, education and we need love......

those needs aren't accidental, they are basic to the human being...
nationalist and other haters don't address these needs......these basic needs of
every human being.....globalist take these basic needs and ask, how do we
fulfill these needs? as the human numbers grow, (far beyond our capability to address)
our ability to fulfill these needs change.... as the numbers grow, we must grow
the substructure needed to address these basic needs.... to feed everyone, we must
increase the amount of food grown and create the structure needed to bring everyone this
food..... as the number of people on planet earth increases, we must increase the
basic structures needed.. we need more schools, more roads, more hospitals, more
sewage plants, more and more and more to be able to address this growing human
population....the globalist is working on solving large scale problems because small
scale answers will no longer work... you cannot solve a 20 million person problem
with a 5 million person answer........it is the numbers that dictate the larger and
larger answers....

but, but for the nationalist and the anti-........ it is the ideology that dictates
the answers..... we are having problems because of ism's and ideological reasons....

globalist are talking apples and nationalist are talking oranges.........

it comes down to how you view the world... your perception of the world dictates
how you react to the world.....for the globalist, it is about numbers, for the nationalist,
it is about ideology...

the promotion of the idea that "white makes right" makes no sense in a world
where the issue is the sheer number of people straining the resources of the planet.....


apples and oranges........

now the human race has achieved what it has achieved because of the
cooperation of human beings..... we have arrived at today with space travel
and modern medicine and modern building, not by some notion of "white power"
or some other false idea of race, creed, color or gender.......
we have achieved our current state of success with cooperation of people,
human beings, regardless of their accidental traits......the anti-group sees
the battle in terms of small, accidental traits, whereas the globalist see the battle
in much larger terms..... the accidental traits are just that and not relevant to the
battle at hand which is the long term survival of the human species and those
traits the nationalist glorify don't play a role in the long term survival
of the human race......we live and die as a species, not as white or black, or
Jew or homosexual, but as human beings and that is a global issue, not a accidental
trait issue.....

Kropotkin

It's making more sense.

In humanism, differences are "accidents" and "we all need love". Moderns are not responsible for differences, can't account for why and how differences occur, or ignore these differences when they do manifest. Some differences are harder to ignore though, like crime rates and statistics, where 'black' and 'male' dominate the majority. Humanists tend to shy away from such facts.

Also the talk about "love uniting all humanity" is right on cue. It is the religious sentiment, binding all together into "One".

"We all need love" but do all people deserve love? As if the cost is free and not enormous? That one person must turn around his or her life for complete strangers? That's the implication anyway. How many of these preachers practice what they preach?

In the u.s. particularly each newer generation, duped by lofty and impossible ideals of "freedom", struggle for these false ideas of independence and individuality. When people are average, mundane, boring, bored, and with excess time on their hands, they act-out in such ways as to proclaim "here I am, see how different I am, pay attention!" But these are compensations and almost always empty, and imitations of somebody or something else. The modern 'transexual' and homosexual movements are obvious examples.

Because a modern person cannot be anything but normal and average, must do something like homosexuality, and then proclaim how proud they are of it publicly.

Because if this or that person had not done so, then perhaps they would never be noticed by others at all. Complete nobodies in a way and quickly forgotten by the (human) world.


People struggle for attention, notoriety, fame in such ways, and this is a dominant theme of modern 'western' (pop) culture. "Pay attention to me!" is the goal.

Slaughtz wrote:

However, I use the old definition of these words, not the new and effeminate ones which equates "reasonableness" with a feminine cooperation.

Secular 'truth' and secular 'virtue', coming from a secular 'god' with secular 'reality', must say that virtues for women are the same virtues for men and vice versa.

And so salt water is as virtuous for fish just as it is for humans. Or are we going to call them 'gill-enabled' beings? And further stratify... But, of course, we cannot stratify or distinguish from those who are 'vagina-enabled' and not, because technology has enabled them to become 'men' with a lot of artificial hormones.

But what of those who aren't enabled? They're victims, of course. So humans at large are 'victims' of not being gill-enabled. We're all disabled fish.

Of course, the next field of engagement has to be that humans differentiate themselves by intellect - a criteria of which we, supposedly, all share equally. Although, we could reference the retarded and other species as a criteria, they're still held of the same value and humanized - so we also have to get rid of any criteria for distinguishing (or stratifying) those who are intellect-enabled or not. Work it further, and distinguishing anything becomes a mortal sin against equality.

Now we come to the inevitable conclusion, the blind are gifted because they do not see with lying eyes. The deaf and dumb are talented and superior because they do not suffer knowing about a world that's different, but indifferent, to them.

Slaughtz wrote:

Well, women are a 'cause' of men's pleasure, after all. They direct the universe through their vagina. So, of course, they'd be the cause of everything, because there remains a hole there which is part of the wHole cosmos. Girl power.

Indeed, but I think you're granting way too much power and responsibility to the female herself.

The female has no conscious power over whether her body attracts men or not - it just does. She can consciously take actions that make herself less attractive and so avoid the costs of being attractive (attracting undesirable men and rape), but that would also mean she wouldn't get to enjoy the benefits of her sexual power.

This lack of power on whom she attracts becomes apparent when females start complaining about objectification - receiving unwanted attention, attention from men whom they consider to be below them. It is most apparent when the female gets raped. Feminists basically want men to create a safe space where women can enjoy all the benefits of their sexuality with none of the costs.

Men care almost exclusively, about 90%+, about the woman's body and face. Her personality is irrelevant because she is expected to be womanly and submit to her man anyway.

A simple thought experiment to prove this:

Let's say there are 10 men stranded on a desert island. Each man has a healthy sex drive and wants something to fuck. What do you think they will fight over?

This, a mere doll without a mind or personality:

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

Or a real woman like this, and let's suppose she has a pleasant personality:

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

I think the answer is obvious.

Men competing over objects with the shape of a feminine body and being attracted to them and wanting to fuck them happens whether these objects (be they dolls or real women) want it or not

An intelligent, beautiful woman may be able to direct masculine energies her beauty attracts with her intellect, to an extent, but without beauty she has no power over men at all.

A mere sex doll can be the cause of men beating each other up or even killing each other, and it has no mind of its own to manipulate anybody.

So yeah, I think we blame women a bit too much/ascribe to them the manipulative power they do not possess.

A "femme fatale" can be stupid as fuck, but she has to be pretty.

Also, I would not say marriage is there primarily to repress female sexuality.

Although I would agree that at the point that a man and woman marry, if she is young, like 16-20, she definitely has a higher Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV) than him so you could say he is the lucky one.

By the time they're 30, they're about equal in SMV.

After that, the man tends to be the one with the higher SMV, not necessarily because his increases (though it usually does, because a man's SMV is based on things like money and status, which usually improve with age), but primarily because the woman's SMV is almost entirely based on her youth, and it drops drastically as she ages.

For the most part of marriage, it is actually the woman who benefits from it, if we assume they stay married for life and live until they're both 60 or so.

Marriage is a trade off. Men benefit from it more in the beginning, while the woman is young, and women benefit from it more later on.

Young modern women are so drunk on their sexual power they don't realize it doesn't last forever and that their actions have consequences. Instead of being wise and using it to secure a man while they're still at the peak, they use it to whore around, and then at 30 when they're used up they wonder why no masculine man wants anything serious to do with them anymore.

Yes, my fault for not making my irony more obvious. I've been making a lot of ironic posts lately and it's reasonable to wonder whether or not I'm serious. Poe's law and all.

Beauty is the potential of women - and her ability to control who sees it is the determinant of her intelligence. Plenty of beautiful (and intelligent) women dress conservatively, enabling her to decide whom she reveals herself to.

Although Christianity, and Abrahamism in general, placed the female in a subservient position in the hierarchy, in relation to the absolute God, it didn't take much adjustment for secularism, first through Marxism, to 'correct' this 'injustice' by eliminating all natural identifiers and converting faith into productivity, offering females equal status in relation to State, or institution, the now secularized Divine.
Sinfulness became a matter of contributing or not to the communal, and faith in the Divine One, was no longer expressed through sacrifice but through productivity.

Females demanding equal status means to be placed on equal footing, before the state, and to be acknowledge, equally, in relation to their contributions to the state - their sacrifices to the Divine, absolute one.
Marxism breaks down what remained of natural order, as it had been absorbed and corrupted in Abrahamism.
Piety becomes loyalty to the state.
Sacrifice in material goods, becomes sacrifice of time to the State, which rewards the faithful with material goods.

Feminism is a demand upon the Divine, for equal salvation, from natural order.
Through Divine intervention females become no different then men, as long as they continuously prove their loyalty by submitting their time, as work, to it.

The Abrahamics have a weekly day of atonement where their inevitable contradictions of their own professed principles, their own ideals, are erased in a day of settlements.
Sabbath, or Sunday in the Christian tradition, corrupting Judaism, by imposing a Pagan symbol, while retaining the spirit of the day.
The faithful must atone for their weekly, or yearly, contradictions to their own shared beliefs - because their words cannot harmonize with their deeds.
One day to replenish mental, spiritual, psychological, and physical energies, before another weekly round of erosive contradictions.

I'm back. I spent the week researching so as to make my arguments stronger with evidence, and just doing my other work. I will respond to three main points and later other comments that catch my attention.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Black Jew Witch wrote:

What does this have to do with madams in the wild west? Well, think of this. What if the founders of wild west towns were men, such as pimps? Would you disparage them so readily and thoughtlessly, or praise them as builders who tamed the wilderness and served no one? Do you see reality as it is or do you filter it through ideological blinders?

Your "criticism" assumes an egalitarian premise, which you still haven't provided a reason for to accept.

My egalitarian premise is justified. Most scientific research proves that men and women are generally equal. There is debate over whether men and women have the same general intelligence (often referred to as "g") or if men have higher IQ by 3-5 points. Even the most dogmatic chauvinists can only say so much with any honesty. It certainly does not justify denying women any rank, profession, education, or recognition simply because they are women.

Let us also, for the sake of argument, set aside deeper philosophical doubts of assumptions people hold when they discuss science: how IQ is not the most reliable way to gauge a person's intelligence, how science has inherent limitations, how a person's genes don't create a one way street to their destiny, and the assumption that biology determines a person's inherent worth as if it was the word of God. People who take for granted all the assumptions I described tend to have a very materialistic and utilitarian worldview, including people who like to think they are spiritual rebels opposed to modern "nihilism".

Mental Ability
The majority of scientific research says that men and women have the same general intelligence. Men and women have different aptitudes in specific areas (such as spatial visualization for men and verbal and reading comprehension for women) but those differences balance out in the end. This result was achieved when 10,475 men and women took 5 different intelligence tests, so you know the research cut no corners [1]. A similar test gives similar results [2]. Yet another study concludes that women have slightly greater latent general intelligence in comprehension-knoweledge and processing speed while men have slightly greater latent general intelligence in visual-spatial reasoning and quantitative reasoning [3]. The study confirms Richard Lynn's theory that girls have higher general intelligence than boys before puberty, but it does not prove that boys get higher general intelligence than girls after puberty, as Richard Lynn states. And yet another test that shows that the general intelligence between men and women is, in their own words, negligible [4].

But wait, you may say, what about the scientists that do say men are smarter than women? Well, let's look at them. Richard Lynn states in his study than men have 5 more IQ points than women do in mean intelligence in the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test [5]. Phillip Rushton published that 17-18 year old boys had 3.6 more IQ according to the Scholastic Assessment Test [6].

However, other scientists have found their tests to have glaring flaws. Richard Lynn excluded test results from Mexico, which formed about half of all the data, when researching male and female general intelligence. Had he not done so, male and female general intelligence would have been the same [7]. Lynn made a similar error in his research on the IQ of Africans, ignoring the IQ scores of Africans that "conflicted" with his results [8]. Other researchers also made a general criticism; that you can't really measure how inherently smart people are with only one intelligence test.

Some additional words on women's and men's mathematical performance around the world, as discussed by Robert Sapolsky during his lectures on Human Behavioral Biology [9]. How well women performed in math compared to men depended on the country they came from. Women did math worse than men in math in countries that had traditional gender roles or were sexist, such as the Middle East and America. However, in more liberal countries such as the Nordic countries, women and men were equal in math, and in Iceland women are even slightly better at math than men.

Sapolsky also discussed the bell curve regarding junior high boys and girls in the top percentile in SAT math. In the 1980s, there were 13 boys for every 1 girl. Currently, there are 3 boys for every 1 girl in the top ten percentile. So what happened? Did girls become genetically smarter over the last three decades to close the bell curve? Environment plays a heavy role in this situation.

1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222534750_Negligible_Sex_Differences_in_General_Intelligence
3.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities
4.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222534750_Negligible_Sex_Differences_in_General_Intelligence
5. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
6. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
7. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
8. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
9. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]