Feminism

Satyr wrote:

Universities, as many academics now tell us, have been taken over by the social warriors of post-modernity, bread and raised since the sixties on Marxist propaganda.

The humanities, in particular, are dominated by hippie types and activist more interested in bringing about a Utopian Marxist society, than exploring reality.
Peterson is one of many who are exposing the infection of the same dis-ease infecting culture, in academia.

Yeah... that canard. You do realize there are many prominent right wing professors at universities, and they regular lectures. I've been to a very liberal college and a very liberal university, and not once did I encounter a fanatical "social justice warrior" among students or teachers. The whole Marxists-have-taken-over spiel is made to scare people.

Do you even know what a Marxist is? Or a nihilist? Or a post-modernist? They are not the same things.

Satyr wrote:

In their desperation to prove that Negroes are equal to other races, and to explain why there si no civilization before contact with the evil White man, comparable to those found in Asia and Europe, they shamelessly attempt to make Egyptian civilization one established by Negroes.

You make two fallacies:

1. That there were no Sub-Saharan civilizations, or were inferior to Europe and China. Sub-Saharan Africa had civilizations, even empires. The Ghana and Mali empires are the first that come to mind, and both empires ruled when the "superior" Anglos were still living in huts. Musa I of Mali was arguably the richest man to have ever lived, with a fortune of $800 billion by modern standards. The University of Timbuktu was one of the greatest universities during the Middle Ages. Again, "superior" whites lived in huts or moldy castles during that time.

2. That civilization means one is more intelligent. It is not. "Savage" societies have very complex cultures, traditions, histories, languages, and practices. Some are more nuanced than ours, and some are not. Just living in "primitive" wilderness takes great knowledge and skill of your environment; its creatures, its weather, its plants, its cycles, and this knowledge takes generations to build. Primitive does not mean simple.

Satyr wrote:

Since I've been reprimanded for repeating myself, and sounding like a "broken record" when I repeat the same arguments these degenerates fail to respond to, and then throwing at me the same crap I've faced for twenty years, I promise to never respond to the same tired crap again.

Dude, I responded to almost everything you threw at me. If you've been this angry and frustrated for 20 years, well, seriously smoke a blunt and relax. It may help with your constipation.

Satyr wrote:

From now on, I will respond to this degenerate that all her posts have been answered, here, and in many other threads throughout KT and other Forums.
If she offers no challenges to them, directly, but cites the same crap, seeking validation in authorities infected by her dis-ease, and offers no logical explanations to the queries I make into her absurdities, then there's really nothing more to say.  
Her positions, though regurgitated, fail to offer explanations, not only to the positions quoted above, but to observations into species behaviour throughout nature.
She simply wants to cherry pick studies made by her social warrior types, to validate positions she cannot justify on her own.
All she does is hide behind authorities, while declaring whores in the wold west as being challenging to institutional authority and paternalism.
She contradicts her own declarations, with actions.  Here she is, a real female, completely dependent on authorities, declaring females as being rebels and challenging authority.
Unable to offer her own arguments, all she has are these proxies.
In the meantime she is a living example of all my positions concerning females and their mentality.

I've given her a response constructed by another, since she does not respect anything that comes from unauthorized sources, and cannot judge an argument on merit, but only values it based on popularity and official, sanctioning.
The idea that science is also corrupted by cultural influences, and their dependence on funding, is not enough to question authorities that tell her exactly what she wants to believe.
Rape is rampant in nature. No social power games, or human contrivances there. Only basic reproduction strategies.
No moralities, and 'oughts" and 'should be's', only basic utility and cost/benefit judgment calls.  

The authors of the book I quoted offer some very compelling reasoning into many aspect of rape...from why young females with mates seem to suffer more distress than do females with no mate or older females that cannot conceive, to explanations as to why rape is so distressful to females, generally, when no damage is done, and they are built to be penetrated.

I never said I didn't respect any unauthorized sources. I just think reliable sources, such as thorough research from experienced professionals, are more reliable in knowing the truth than something some random dude pulls out of his ass. It's common sense, or is that "feminization" too. Every woman is a "confirmed example" of your weird social Darwinist pseudoscience since that's all you want to see.

I have no idea who you are addressing with your post but it's not me.

You said Germany didn't enter the WW2 alone, my picture showed this exact thing - it had allies. Your entire post is like that.

Satyr wrote:

All you offer is the same post-modern rhetoric, and Marxist based idealism, I have encountered everywhere, from YouTube, to the Networks...it is repeated daily in television shows and in movie blockbusters.
You offer nothing new.
I have addressed these delusional ideologies....as have some others willing to risk careers and reputation for the sake of truth.
If you ever add something new to the rhetoric, I will address it.
All else has been given a reply.
Read precisely what I say about the big three issues in Modern social activism: females, homosexuals, part of the same theme, and race.
You offer nothing in response but what is currently popular.
Since you do not want me to repeat myself, spare me from your repeating crap, or read what is already posted, here and elsewhere, if you care to do so....because I really do not care if you don't.  

Let me guess, the obsession with women, LGBTQ, and nonwhites is part of some Jewish conspiracy to destroy cis white males. If you really don't care, then why do you keep responding to me over and over and over again? You must be the easiest man to troll in the entire world.

Satyr wrote:

I'm going to leave you with an insinuating question...
Twins are born, one male and another female.
They share most of the same DNA....yet the male develops differently. He grows taller, and more muscled, but do the differences end there?
How could the same DNA allocate the same, in general as you say, potentials, so differently, and why would nature be so "unfair"?

Answer that, honestly, and you will understand why men dominate in the creative arts, and in philosophy and in innovative science and technology, and females dominate in social relationships, and intuitive psychological insight...and why Negroes do not have the same potentials as Europeans do.
Think specialization.
One species is a Jaguar, the other a Cheetah...both have, in general, approximately, the same DNA, but one is agile and climbs trees, and the other is the fastest land  animal.  
Specialization is the allocation of energies, and the development of different traits.

That 5%, or 0.5% or 0.005% makes all the difference.  
How could a small genetic difference make one species remain a simple animal, like chimpanzees, and another develop spaceships?

I went through a huge amount of research from biologists, anthropologists, behavior scientists, paleontologists on that question. I answered quite thoroughly how men and women have the same general intelligence (despite women being slightly better at some tasks, men being slightly better at others), and debunked the studies saying otherwise.  

Satyr wrote:

If whores built the west, by challenging the male authorities, as you wrongly believe, then why do you remain trapped in the shadow of authorities and you refuse to see for yourself?
Is it because what they say satisfies your desires, flatters you, pleases you?
You are no philosopher, dear.
You are another woman, who wants to feel safe, and to be loved, and to be appreciated and respected and taken seriously, and listened to...and you want the State, the institution, to be like a father, and help you do so.

So whores didn't build the wild west because... me. Makes total sense. I'm aware that "authorities" such as science have their limitations. I even discussed that earlier, expressing my doubts over concepts such as IQ, science being the absolute determination of all truth, and the idea that you can use some argument from biology to determine the essential worth of a human being. I expressed doubts on those "authorities" many people take for granted.

You make me laugh real hard, bro. I may spit out my drink on accident, then I'll have to get a new laptop.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

Yeah... that canard. You do realize there are many prominent right wing professors at universities, and they regular lectures. I've been to a very liberal college and a very liberal university, and not once did I encounter a fanatical "social justice warrior" among students or teachers. The whole Marxists-have-taken-over spiel is made to scare people.

Then you haven't consulted with Peterson, and many others on the matter.
You are living in the delusion that universities are not dominated by Cultural Marxism, and that this started in the 60's.

BJ-W wrote:

Do you even know what a Marxist is? Or a nihilist? Or a post-modernist? They are not the same things.

HA!!!
Oh sweetie, I've been writing on that very subject for years.
I've redefined Nihilism.
It is a mental dis-ease.
But I will not repeat what is already posted...in many pages of explanations, arguments, and evidence.

BJ-W wrote:

You make two fallacies:

1. That there were no Sub-Saharan civilizations, or were inferior to Europe and China. Sub-Saharan Africa had civilizations, even empires. The Ghana and Mali empires are the first that come to mind, and both empires ruled when the "superior" Anglos were still living in huts. Musa I of Mali was arguably the richest man to have ever lived, with a fortune of $800 billion by modern standards. The University of Timbuktu was one of the greatest universities during the Middle Ages. Again, "superior" whites lived in huts or moldy castles during that time.

By the gods, you are naive.
Those are civilizations comparable to Babylon, Rome, China?
Are you that daft?
And yet, after centuries of developing their "great civilizations" Europeans came to enslave them, and take them form their huts.
Do you know why they did not evolve, when Europeans had to...or is this not part of your Marxist training?
Mud huts, and spears are not comparable to citadels and armor, dear.
Beethoven is not comparable to jungle drums and twerking.

BJ-W wrote:

2. That civilization means one is more intelligent. It is not. "Savage" societies have very complex cultures, traditions, histories, languages, and practices. Some are more nuanced than ours, and some are not. Just living in "primitive" wilderness takes great knowledge and skill of your environment; its creatures, its weather, its plants, its cycles, and this knowledge takes generations to build. Primitive does not mean simple.

Yes, compared to gorillas and chimpanzees they were very advanced.
Too bad their "great advancement" could not protect them from what sailed up their costs, and took them to work.

BJ-W wrote:

Dude, I responded to almost everything you threw at me. If you've been this angry and frustrated for 20 years, well, seriously smoke a blunt and relax. It may help with your constipation.

"Dude is not what a lady would say to a man....so i smell something vulgar.
I'm very chill, dudess....so chill, I do not want to ruin my buzz with your inane chatter.
The only thing you've addressed is the noise in your head.

BJ-W wrote:

I never said I didn't respect any unauthorized sources.

You never said much of anything, did you?
You simply implied, insinuated, and deferred to brilliant authorities offering wonderful arguments....like a woman.

BJ-W wrote:

I just think reliable sources, such as thorough research from experienced professionals, are more reliable in knowing the truth than something some random dude pulls out of his ass. It's common sense, or is that "feminization" too. Every woman is a "confirmed example" of your weird social Darwinist pseudoscience since that's all you want to see.  

I like sources as ell...only I do not settle for the first one that makes me feel good.
Like i do not take advice, seriously, when it comes from a questionable "friend".
Of course post-modernity would dominate, in the academic fields, as Thornhill, and Palmer, and Peterson, and many others already explain.
Will you reject Darwin's Evolution Theory, or is his name synonymous to Hitler - close your ears when the name is mentioned and hum a happy tune.

All you have are insinuations, declarations, and google search where you find power in association.
The rest is emotional, egotistical, and feminine...all too feminine.

AutSider wrote:

I have no idea who you are addressing with your post but it's not me.

You said Germany didn't enter the WW2 alone, my picture showed this exact thing - it had allies. Your entire post is like that.

You seem to have implied the whole world was made of "degenerates" out to destroy Nazi Germany and its few good allied nations. The problem with that is Nazi had many powerful allies such as Japan and Italy, both of which could be considered empires with many occupied territories (Japan especially). Nazi Germany and her allies weren't like King Leonidas and his brave troops in the 300 movie.

And Nazi Germany was as "degenerate" as every other white nation as it was a very capitalist/corporatist state. This was why Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola became so disappointed with the Nazis and National Fascist Party. They had a romantic fantasy that fascists would rescue Europe from "degeneracy" and return it to the old days of spiritual, warrior values. But fascism turned out to be just another money-driven bureaucracy that treated human beings as cogs in a machine.

BJ-W wrote:

Let me guess, the obsession with women, LGBTQ, and nonwhites is part of some Jewish conspiracy to destroy cis white males.

Yes, I'm also a skinhead Nazi, live in my mother's basement, have never had sex, and I have a small penis...
It's all part of the process.
Dozens of imbeciles over dozens of years....there are patterns that repeat.

BJ-W wrote:

If you really don't care, then why do you keep responding to me over and over and over again? You must be the easiest man to troll in the entire world.

This is exactly the kind of reply I've received from women, more than a few times.
Pussy-power, dear. That's my answer.
Why do I bother with you?
Pussy-power.

BJ-W wrote:

I went through a huge amount of research from biologists, anthropologists, behavior scientists, paleontologists on that question. I answered quite thoroughly how men and women have the same general intelligence (despite women being slightly better at some tasks, men being slightly better at others), and debunked the studies saying otherwise.

Yet, experience shows that no women ever revolutionized any field, except for a few exceptions to the rule, that proves the rule....not in the culinary arts, or the arts in general, not in philosophy, not in medicine, not in technology, not in any field where thinking "outside the box" is a requirement.
They offer support, follow recipes and methods religiously, they repeat arguments and regurgitate ideas...and they keep us all warm.

Are all males physically and mentally superior to all females?
Of course not.
Degrees, dear.
No female can reach the upper 1% of male physical and mental potentials.
Nature is so unjust. Can the State, with laws, correct this natural injustice?
With strict rules, preventing men from being men....no.....the answer is still no.
But if everyone pretends, then it's as good as done.
But then...you'll complain about that.

BJ-W wrote:

So whores didn't build the wild west because... me. Makes total sense. I'm aware that "authorities" such as science have their limitations. I even discussed that earlier, expressing my doubts over concepts such as IQ, science being the absolute determination of all truth, and the idea that you can use some argument from biology to determine the essential worth of a human being. I expressed doubts on those "authorities" many people take for granted.

You make me laugh real hard, bro. I may spit out my drink on accident, then I'll have to get a new laptop.

The LOL always follows....it's part of the same routine I've encountered many times before.
Next it's...I was playing with ya for entertainment, or manipulating you, and indifferent....
The "you make me laugh", is classic.
Part of the forums for imbeciles handbook
Very creative on your part.
New, for me.

What kind of woman uses "bro" so casually?
Hmmm...

I'm tired. You keep your circlejerk going round, Satyr. I believe in you.

Good job.
You taught me good.
Were you awake, all this time?
Wow!

Well, take care sweetie...or bro.
I'll jerk off, cry myself to sleep, and dream of not you.

'Circle-jerk' and 'bro', is something a half-with man-child would say.
Part of the degenerate manual.
Hmmmm....

Black Jew Witch wrote:

I don't know about you, but I like being able to vote,

Historically men vote on behalf of their women and children. Feminism-Marxism "winning" the vote, is yet another means of displacing the woman, taking her out of her home (where she is happiest), under the delusion that "she is finally equal with men". However that elusive "equality" you are looking for, is a myth.

Allowing women to vote may very well weaken, or eventually destroy a society. It's the same as allowing a child to sit in the car seat, or fly a plane. The experience pilot, a man, may do well to have the child *pretend* to be flying the plane for a moment, but only for a moment. The child then begins to fantasize in his head that he is "equal" with a pilot. But this equality myth is dangerous. The plane given over to the child to fly, would be a disaster. Same as giving it over to a woman.

"But there are female pilots!!!" You didn't get the point. You've taken a woman out of her home, out of the family unit, in order to fulfill a Marxist propaganda. That still doesn't men and women equal. Equal pay would not prove what you want. Equal amount of male pilots with female pilots, would not prove your point. Even a woman, very rare, as skilled as an average pilot, would not prove what you want.

Instead what the scenario demonstrates is that lots of energy and effort has been pushed into an ideology, the pretense, to pretend as though "women are equal with men", meanwhile even if I grant you all that you want, still does not prove your point or what you want. A woman "equal with man" in all respects of society and a profession, performance (even though facts disprove you on this, it takes the top 0.001% of women to match male averages on performance, especially in war) is no longer a "feminine-woman". She wants to become a masculine-woman, something ulterior to her nature.

It's like women pretending you don't have a womb, and that you don't have the offer of sex to fall back upon, when you always do. If a woman fails in society, competing against men (which devalues male labor by the way), then she can fall back upon sex. Men cannot. So this omission really exposes your agenda as a false, baseless one.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

having my own bank account,

So you rather have a bank account than children and a marriage? And this is the sacrifice you make to role-play in fantasy, that having bank accounts makes "women equal with men"? It just sounds like you're materialistic.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

not being turned down for a profession just for being a woman,

Career-driven women are unfeminine, which is a character defect. If a woman has children then she wants to care, nurture, and stay home with them. Trying to "be equal with men" in the workplace is counter-intuitive to having children, and caring for them.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

being accepted in society for my own merits

What are the merits of women?

Black Jew Witch wrote:

and not judged badly just for being a woman,

Too bad, it goes both ways. There are many ways that men are "judged badly just for being a man". Are strange men trusted around children, for example? But strange women are okay. There are many, common sense and typical scenarios where women are inherently trusted throughout society, but men are not.

Why are men criminals, but women are not? Doesn't that sound sexist to you?

Why aren't you demanding "gender equality" in prison populations?????????

Black Jew Witch wrote:

and being able to reject a partner who abuses or rapes me and not depend on such a person for safety or money.

Stupidity is its own punishment. Society should not feel pity or immediately come to the aid of women who chase after bad boys, later get "raped" by them, and then bitch about the fact that the bad boys pumped and dumped them. Real "rape" has become rare in modern society. It's not a big threat in first world countries. Also a lot of rapes come from women being drunk. How about, quit fucking being drunk when acting slutty and walking around town at night in bathing suits?

How about some personal responsibility? If you really want "equality with men" then you should agree with me. No more victimization. How much pity do you think a "male victim" receives compared to a female victim? Males generally garner no significant sympathy in life, compared to women and children. The world does not stop for homeless bums (80% male).

Why are males homeless bums?

Why are males criminals?

Why are males soldiers?

Where is your "gender equality" except selectively, when it suits you personally? Aren't you exposed as a hypocrite, using "feminism" to boost your admitted private bank account, instead of "real gender equality" in the areas I mentioned?

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

Specifically, they wouldn't be able to play both sides of the argument:
1) Don't shame me for being slutty
2) There exists women with internalized misogyny/whoredom is bad

If the problem were about sex, the solution would be to cover up and shut up.
But, since it's about power, they're still victims.

AutSider wrote:

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

This idea is part of post-modern rhetoric.
Marxism wants to make everything a social construct, because then they can claim that it can be corrected.
It's social engineering masked as ideology of the 'good'.
But this contradicts their positions that homosexuality and transexuality are genetic.
they want it both ways.
Like I've repeatedly said, Nihilism must lie. It has to be duplicitous, otherwise its own dogma condemns the host to a certain end.
He who denies reality becomes a victim of it.

What they practice is compartmentalization, converting it to esoteric, or subjective, sources, where anything goes.
This is what I've called the pure noumenon - abstractions with no external references in the phenomenal world.
This is a cleansing bath of Siloam.
In the esoteric all contradictions are absolved, synthesized in multiple convenient, ways...because only in the mind can contradictions coexist in vagueness, in theory, in linguistic insinuations and metaphors.
In the real world contradictions annihilate each other.
Attraction/Repulsion is held in a tenuous, relationship, in the real world, whereas in the mind they can merge, into a theoretical complete whole, a one, and then represented with a word/symbol, or compartmentalized into a schizophrenic duality, where the same mind can hold two contradictory positions and not be concerned.

This tension we experience, as conscious entities, as need/suffering.
It requires constant effort to remain an organism, for this reason.
But in theory the tensions are erased in vagueness, in insinuations that require no clarity, and would dissipate if clarified.

I digress..
The problem for them is they cannot accept what I've said many times, that sex, the act of heterosexual copulation, is an act of aggression - one organism penetrating the very being of another.
This demands an adjustment to the fight/flight mechanism in the form of emotion, or attitude/demeanour.
The body produces the chemicals to subdue the brain - love being one example.

A female is a natural adaptation to this necessity - to accept the approach and penetration of an alien entity, and then to gestate and ween it.
This is the root of the feminine psyche.
The female retains self-esteem by being the one who chooses who will penetrate her, either to inseminate her ovum, or to forge a social alliance with an inferior male.
It's the only source of power, left to her, once she's surrendered it by evolving the demeanour of submission.
This is why rape, for young, fertile females is so distressful. It strips them of what power is available to them.
In the studies quoted by the authors I quoted, older victims of rape, and females not in a relationship, seem to suffer less distress from rape.
There's are evolutionary reasons for this, having to do with ensuring a male's commitment to a woman's offspring, and so on.

Slaughtz wrote:

Specifically, they wouldn't be able to play both sides of the argument:
1) Don't shame me for being slutty
2) There exists women with internalized misogyny/whoredom is bad

If the problem were about sex, the solution would be to cover up and shut up.
But, since it's about power, they're still victims.

Promiscuity is an insult to females but not to males, because females have to cultivate an assurance to all potential males that the offspring she brings to life will be his, and no others, so as to assure herself that he will continue contributing to her welfare.

A woman always attacks a male using sex as a weapon...either insulting a man's size, or manliness, or his ability to please her and serve her sexual needs...but towards other females her assault is always about promiscuity....being a slut, easy, in that she gives herself cheaply.
Unsophisticated men-children always feel proud, and brag about how well they can please females, and how many females they have access to, whereas unsophisticated females brag about the status and wealth and quality of the male they've submitted to - Hypergamy.

Sex is crucial to a female's status.

A promiscuous male is proud, sending a message to any potential mates that he is desirable.
A promiscuous female is ashamed, because the message is that she is cheap, or that any potential mate cannot be sure if the child she brings to the world is his or if it is another's.

Feminists operate on the premise that "males and females are equal" which is utterly false and hopeless. It is either a naive proposition, by a child, or a propaganda by an adult, a lie. Some Marxists use feminist propaganda for personal or social gain throughout life. Supporting "feminism" is a means to support the social status quo, hypothetically.

One important factor to consider with men, women, and sex, is that males are humiliated early in life, facing rejection by approaching young girls, when the testosterone is fresh and a new experience. This is demoralizing and humbling for young men, who then become jaded in their own ways (after being rejected multiple times), beta male psychology. For females the demoralization and humiliation occurs later in life, in their late 20s and 30s, when their biological clock for children is running out and drying up, and they are forced to compete against younger women (which they cannot in their 30s).

So sexual competition is inverted in the sexes, sexual dimorphism. For feminists to claim "gender equality" on top of sexual dimorphism, which is common sense, is basically a straight lie. A lie that demands to its adherents to close their eyes to reality and live in a delusional, made up world. A duplicitous world full of newspeak, where words don't mean what they mean.

AutSider wrote:

Women who claim that rape is about power and not sex are usually feminists. They do it because if they admitted that rape is about sex, it would mean that some men rape because they have an issue - they cannot obtain sex. Such an admission that men have problems too is incompatible with feminism because feminists rely on maintaining an exclusive victim status in order to play upon the damsel in distress trope and extract sympathy and thus money and power from men. Male victims would be competition to feminists.

Yes, if they would say that it's about the sexual drive then they would say that men are not 'free' in that regard. In their understanding of society this would limit men's responsibilities and ascribed power and thus they would rise in the inverted modern hierarchy where the allegedly powerless are on top.

Æon wrote:

One important factor to consider with men, women, and sex, is that males are humiliated early in life, facing rejection by approaching young girls, when the testosterone is fresh and a new experience.  This is demoralizing and humbling for young men, who then become jaded in their own ways (after being rejected multiple times), beta male psychology..

I actually think "not" getting jaded is what modern betas do, they endlessly continue to remain friends and appeal to females regardless of any lack of payoff.

Is the initial resentment towards females (given the institutional training) a sign of weakness or strength?
From what ive seen, modern "Alpha males" tend to be among Feminism's passive supporters who support it out of never having felt the costs of female emancipation but mostly only the benefits.

Johnathan Bowden wrote:

And my view is that people will be attracted in the future not by reason. They will read up with their reason once they have decided to emotionally commit. The important thing is to get people emotionally. And it’s to appeal to the forces and wellsprings in their mind which are eternal, and which underpin rationality. The power of irrational belief as spiritual codification, of mystical belief, of belief in identity, of the need for communitarianism, and the need to belong, is immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the anything the Left can offer.

Sometimes i wonder if my scarring was necessary for me to be here...and i wonder if i really wish to build a world that prevents such scarring from occurring in the future...

Here i am with my newfound sword...every bit of my body wants to destroy the beast that harmed me, but ive grown to love what its done to me....i guess i should return the favor.

Alpha male psychology is different than beta and lower males, because women actually want to have sex with, and will compete against other women for attention. This is observed when a 'stud' has lots of options, phone numbers, different women to choose from weekly or daily. This strong female attraction for an alpha male is as rare as he is. Women are looking for the "top 1%" of males, similarly how men seek out the "top 1%" of females. The objectification of attraction is categorically different. Males almost always, generally, seek out beauty in women. While women are not reduced to one objectification, one goal, one desire, but have multiple.

Thus male desire is Singular, based on sex. And female desire is Multifarious (many), based on security. However the "charm" and "confidence" of an alpha male is reported as the most attractive trait. Women can "trust" in the alpha. The implication is that women can trust authority and the security (implied threat of violence) provided by the alpha male and his institution. All of society is governed by these threats of violence and in/security.


Feminism ignores these points because feminism is focused upon female psychology, not male. Feminism does want to nor cares to know about men or males, similar to the average woman. Women are not "interested in men" as much as women are interested in themselves, or other women (vanity). Thus human attention-seeking is female dominated. Women are interested in women. Men are interested in women. Nobody is really interested in men, not even men.

This applies to "know thyself". Women generally "know themselves" better than average men, because attention is generally or always directed to women anyway.

Male authorities are exceptions. It is not until men become institution authorities, representatives of power, that men begin to be fed attention, status, and power. So a male's social value is *zero* until he invests or re-invests into general society and institutions. Female value is implied, it is high from the onset.

Young males must generally appeal to young females, not the other way around.


Male hierarchy is like a equilateral triangle. The top 1%, at the top of the pyramid, males receive almost all of the female attention. In the u.s. consider the "NFL quarterback". Women, and beta males, fantasize about the NFL quarterback, as a "manly man", an alpha symbol. Women want to fuck them, and men want to 'be' him. However most men cannot compete physically, and so compensate in other ways, which are forms of "cheerleading". Being part of the crowd, cheering for the team.

Like in war, the cities root for their own armies' victory. The weaker and lesser men do not fight.


Female hierarchy (not equal to men) is a *circle*. Thus female psychology is baseless, more aligned to herd instinct (which has evolved with sexual reproduction, and in mammals specifically). So females revolve around the center, in a circle, vying to be the "most secure" which is called "privilege". Feminism is obsessed with this "privilege" and want to compete for it. Feminism is, generally, about increasing female power and privilege.

This is why Black Jew Witch wants to claim the "rights of men" for herself, and implying along the way, *that she sacrifice nothing* NOR DOES SHE EVEN *acknowledge the sacrifices and works of men*.

This is the critical point. That BJW does not even empathize with men

Æon wrote:

Male hierarchy is like a equilateral triangle.  The top 1%, at the top of the pyramid, males receive almost all of the female attention.  In the u.s. consider the "NFL quarterback".  Women, and beta males, fantasize about the NFL quarterback, as a "manly man", an alpha symbol.  Women want to fuck them, and men want to 'be' him.  However most men cannot compete physically, and so compensate in other ways, which are forms of "cheerleading".  Being part of the crowd, cheering for the team.

Like in war, the cities root for their own armies' victory.  The weaker and lesser men do not fight.

Do modern "NFL quarterbacks" really "fight"? Id hardly call such a controlled environment respectable.

I think much of the resentment from "betas" and those on the periphery comes from not being able to challenge alpha males on an open arena.

I remember Satyr's criticism of Anarchists believing that they would fare better without the sheltering of the state, but i do think there is a degree of sheltering that modern alpha males have, where they have the appearance of beauty and strength but none of the substance.

Hierarchies used to be in flux in the past, whereas today they remain relatively static with little to no hope of ascending.

My critique of anarchism was as a beta-male attitude towards established hierarchies, supported by institutions.
Anarchists are inferior males who comfort themselves es with the idea that if civilization and its established hierarchies were to crumble that they would fair better in the aftermath.
I'm not saying this cannot be true, but from the ones I've talked to, and their psychology and mind, I think it is a form of self-confronting flattery.
It attracts males who accuse others of their social status, and overestimate themselves, believing that if all crumbled they would rise to the top.

Anarchy, as an idea, attracts such males, or males that want to level the playing field, to get rid of the established supportive relationships.
My critique of Modern conservatism runs along those lines. It's the other pole of the Nihilistic paradigm.
Modern conservatism, as it is represented in the states, preaches equal opportunity, but what is practiced is nepotism.
It partly explains the dominance of the Jews in America.
Take the British Royal Family.
One ancestor proved worthy of kingship, and then generations profited that did not have to prove their worth....unlike in nature, where the offspring of alpha males do not necessarily dominate a pack.

In my modified Timocracy this is no longer the case.

I used NFL quarterbacks as pop-culture examples. They are *representatives* of what average people believe is an alpha male. I mean this to say that an average man idolizes the NFL quarterback, and wishes he were him, while females imagine seducing and having the NFL quarterback, along with the monetary wealth the position represents. The NFL in general is a representation of tribal conflicts, internal competition and infighting. Similar to European countries going to war with each other. The fans represent the more passive masses, civilian, who lack ability and physicality able to compete.

However, yes, these are institutionalized forms. There are many forms of 'alpha' status throughout society. For example, if you need scientific information about physics, which authorities do you turn to and trust? You go to the professors, the dominant thinkers. Or people can turn to other specializations: lawyers, firefighters, policemen, soldiers. All of these, again, have their own sub-hierarchies. Historically a top "alpha" position would be arch-bishop, king, emperor, lord, etc. "king of kings".

Alpha positions are characterized by male competition and dominance. Women do not compete directly in such arenas. Just as women cannot hope to compete against NFL quarterbacks (no women NFL players) nor in war against average men as soldiers.

Humanity and history has evolved in such a way that the greatest standing armies, and militaristic technologies, have created new progression of 'alpha' status through violence and threats of violence. Since humanity has developed enough nuclear capability to massacre most of the human specie, humanity has hit a wall. There is not much room for expansion. Military conquests are hindered and limited, stifled. There are limitations as to what humans will sacrifice, based on what can be gained, from conflict, competition, and war. And a large portion of fighting revolves around women and females.

What are men fighting for, if not their women? Again the NFL is an example. Take away the cheerleaders, the beautiful women cheering on the team, and will it affect morale? Would men fight as hard, compete as hard, if there were no hope for sexual successes or conquests?

How much of Mammalian evolution, male infighting and competition, revolves around sex... after other resources, food, have been secured?

Animals and organisms do not operate the same way on full or empty stomachs. Humanity has its belly full, and has not starved for centuries, representing further shifts away from "reality". Things get pretty 'real' when people go hungry. In fact, I regularly hear that in World War II, there was mass starvation which was the main cause of death, not "death camps" and holocausts. It was simply starvation, to death. That makes more sense anyway.

Value Signaling
Males displaying their resource acquisition potentials to attract females.
Bragging, displaying wealth and health, self-handicapping, displaying sexual desirability by flaunting erotic conquests...are all part of value signaling.
He attracts by appealing to the female's genetic dispositions - her body.  

Alpha and beta male behavior.



Virtue Signaling
Pro-feminine activism, altruistic disposition, agreeableness, supportive emotionally and materialistically.
Unable to compete for the alpha/beta male status, the omega male opts for virtue signaling - the male tells females that he will be a loyal, disciplined friend/lover, a proverbial carpet for them to step upon.
He attracts by appealing to the females memetic pragmatism - her mind.  

Omega male behavior.


Females love the second, intellectually, idealistically, but are attracted to the first, physically, erotically.
This is the contradiction produced by social cooperative unities, where a female under the protective umbrella of a dominant male, has to use inferior males for her in-group threats.
With he external being taken care of, they focus on the internal political, social conflicts.
In over-protective systems, such as our present Modern one, where Nihilism creates an internal bubble that is contradicted by the external, to it, real world, both females and omega males (emasculated males), tend to live in an alternate reality.
Their minds believe one thing, and their bodies, evolved for thousands of years outside the current system, tend to contradict what the are convinced they believe in.

This is pronounced when internally the meme, is nihilistic - it contradicts the real world, which is kept on the periphery, the outside, taken care of by the system, which has taken over the position of alpha - monopoly of masculine traits, abstracted to the point where a child, or a woman, can represent it.
Nihilism, as described in the thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the memetic, political, internal, in-group, methodology for integrating heterogeneous populations into a stable artificial homogeneous 'whole', where race, sex, and in particular masculinity challenging central authority, is eradicated...at least noetically, intellectually, in the mind, psychologically, much to the relief of inferior males.
Restricting or criminalizing masculinity, satisfies females because their feminine sexual powers are released, only controlled by laws and rules enforced by the institution, and it satisfies omega males, because it eliminates the constant reminder of their own status, and essence, and it eradicates a challenge they cannot compete against.
Omegas make the most fanatic social warriors, and feminists.
Females are placed in a constant state few sexual dissatisfaction, because the males they consciously know are good for them, in a social context, do not satisfy their primal desires, but like women throughout the ages, they endure.

Marxism is where feminism is rooted.
Ironically, feminism creates the elimination of masculinity females then complain about - feminine 'complexity' or the feminine mystique, is a product of this contradiction between nihilistic meme, and evolved genetic predispositions - conflict between mind and body.
Only the human species can the brain develop to the point where it can contradict the physical, the body's needs, desired.
This has been associated with cultivation, with civilization - rising about the brutal state of nature....but herein lie the risks...for an extreme detachment of mind from body is a sickness. It may feel liberating, pleasing, empowering, because the mind is not inhibited by world, as body is.
Nihilism is this psychological disposition to escape the real within the ideal.
In the west this became a dogma, a spiritual movement - Abrahamism...developing into Marxism, Feminism, Liberalism, Trasnhumanism....(positive nihilism)
The same disposition became Buddhism in the east.

Mind, placed in artificial human environments, judges pragmatically in that contexts, and body, evolved in more austere, natural environments, and systems not as detached, not as nihilistic as the present one, has its own, automatic judgment.
Females raised in nihilism have conflicting behaviors, to declared values. This confusion has been attributed to their "complexity"...which is an easy way of insinuating ignorance, without admitting it openly and honestly, or a way of insinuating gnosis, without proving it.
Nihilism, in the west, began when Judaism came in contact with Hellenism, producing Christianity.
This is the only reason Judaism still has relevance, and we still associate it along with Hellenism, with western historical developments.  
It's a virus, infecting a host - memetic virus, parasite.
In the sixties, after an internal struggle over the west, which was the Cold War, Nihilism dominated, having determined which strain would take over the infection.
Identity crisis gradually developed from the Hedonism of that decade.
Presently the symptoms have become full blown and so obvious that even Peterson, and other intellectuals, cannot ignore them....diagnosing them using Abrahamic contexts, Abrahamic manuals.

My manuals are pagan...directly from nature, as it is outside Abrahamic memes, and Modern systems.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I go to the root....before there was Abraham, or any civilization, and I proceed upwards to the present day.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
I begin in nature, as it still exist on the periphery of our urbanized artificial environments.

Behaviors such as homosexuality and rape, are easily explained when you take them outside present, western memetic contexts, with their corruptions and their indoctrinated prejudices.
Both homosexuality and rape are observed in other species, as are the distinct differences between males and females, and between alpha, dominant males and females, and beta, challenging types, and omegas, submitting, surrendering psychologies.
As distinct and obvious as the psychological differences, manifesting in organic behaviors/actions, between [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...these designating specialized survival strategies, evolving different organic behaviors, different physical and mental traits (appearance, presence)...just as specialized reproductive roles evolve distinct behavior, with distinct traits, and potentials for them- represented, as form, as organ proportionality and hierarchy.

Paglia is partly right. What she misses is the fact of the male sexual role.
It is a role that must prove itself, by challenging the dominant male, in other words authority, the status quo.
Women cannot do so, because their sexual role is about preserving, nurturing, producing safe, stable social environments to raise their offspring.
A female is always pro status quo, unless she senses a shift in power.
She then finds pride in perceiving this shift and being on the forefront of its coming.

Also why the loss of the European male will not be without severe intellectual consequences.
Consequences that will be denied, dismissed as not happening, then an attempt to correct it with education, with 'proper' nurturing, as the intellectual levels declining.

then there's the Transhumanist hope that this decline can be remedied by outsourcing creativity to machines, or by compensating gadgetry integrated into the human form (cyborgs) so that mankind can finally become a uniform infantile mass of dependence, or a collective of mechanical zombies - Feminization.

Did anyone say Feminization of Mankind?
Well, for the western man. 
War on Terror is really a war on a bastion of masculinity, as a representation of Allah, the big cock in the vast universal vagina. 
Degenerates will have to reduce all down to emasculated pussies, like them, and make a new population of females sexually dissatisfied and confused as to why they are attracted, pragmatically, to the memetical male ideal, while they hide a secret wet-spot for the natural, genetic masculine ideal. 

Meme contra Gene, when meme is in disharmony with reality, or nature, in other words when it is a Nihilistic meme.

Satyr wrote:

Meme contra Gene, when meme is in disharmony with reality, or nature, in other words when it is a Nihilistic meme.

The feminist attraction to Islam is a psychological dysfunction, like many, of the absent dominant male. For example, the transsexual disorder in a woman to want to biologically become a man is, in part, the mimetic manifestation in physical form, of the rise of the beta and an extreme overcompensation for them to build up the ideal male in a purely feminine identity within themselves, isolating and abominating its nature entirely. In regards to Islam, for them, it's choosing one aberration for a lessor one; like being sexually attracted to a homosexual man simply because he may act more masculine than a heterosexual. They take what they can get, essentially. This particular nihilistic social activist feminist trend is still new, so i will wait to see how it continues to evolve. As feminization becomes more extreme, so does the sexual behavior of women.

What is certain however, is their loyalties lie with their real long time lover and daddy which is the institution and the State.  And right now, big daddy State wants Islamic cultural infection and wants his white daughter to wed a Muslim and adopt Islamic customs. It seems to me a feminist putting on a burka and virtue signaling has to do more with what her Big Daddy wants and slightly less with that secret wet-spot, even though it plays its guiding part.

Comments:

--- Defending a weaker individual may be alpha, tolerating an inferior individual who declares himself/herself your equal or superior, is not.
Alpha is giving what others deserve, and living with the consequences of this value-judgment.

--- Alpha is being so in tune with yourself, and the world you emerge within that it shows in the way you carry yourself - how you behave.
Others intuitively know.
Overman, in the Nietzschean nomenclature:  to have come to terms with your temporality, your mortality - to not resent your own existence, or its limits, its cost.
Such an individual would dominate without even trying, without intending to, those that resent their own existence, and seek for manmade "corrections", escapes, word-games.

--- Stoic: Spartan minimalism, Doric asceticism, corrupted by Christianity to mean self-denial, self-repression, self-deceit.

On-line Ditionary wrote:

sto·i·cism
ˈstōəˌsizəm/Submit
noun
noun: stoicism; noun: Stoicism
1.
the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint.
synonyms: patience, forbearance, resignation, fortitude, endurance, acceptance, tolerance, phlegm
"she accepted her sufferings with remarkable stoicism"
antonyms: intolerance
2.
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

--- Leader - someone who understands the responsibilities, in relation to the accolades, to a degree that he accepts leadership, as necessary, and does not enjoy it.
Platonic philosopher king.
The one who covets, exposes need, weakness, in his coveting.
Like an arts who becomes artistic, calls himself by that name, not because of a necessity, but because he or she covets the admiration, the fame and fortune.
In philosophy: the one who covets the admiration a dead thinker receives, wanting to associate with him, wanting to be like him...but, lacking the mind, the gift, the daemon, the talent, he imitates his style, adopts his metaphors, his language, and declares himself his successor.
He coverts being for inferior others, what the icon/idol was to him - a superior being, a leader, a father figure, an inspiration, a guide, a shaman.

Peterson and Molyneux are baffled by the double standard: how could they be against Nazism and say nothing against Marxism.
Well?
One was created by a group, and the other slaughtered the same group.  
Peterson's Abrahamism prevents him from seeing the obvious, when he can analyze complex issues.
He has a cognitive blindness, produced by his Abrahamic, Christian traditionalism.

Communists, as Molyneux said, slaughtered ten times more people than Nazis, and in Charlottesville they condemn the alt-right, but say nothing about the post-modern Marxist on the other side.  
The most obvious is right before their eyes.
Decades of brainwashing has blinded them to it.

The "tendency of the post-modern left to become nihilistic", he says.
The left IS nihilistic.
Positive-Nihilism, projecting into the world what it is missing to make it tolerable to cowards and vermin.

Molyneux says "language has been fragmented"...yes!!!
They've been ripped to shreds, pulled from their connections to reality, and converted to meaningless metaphors that any douche-bag can rearrange to construct the most pleasing sentence, implying the most gratifying concept.
Look at ILP.
Words as free-association, expressing internal desire, esoteric motives.
Words rearranged and then declared profound, expressing deep ideas...this is like a moron splashing paint on canvas, or taking a dump on a sheet and placing it in a art gallery, implying that it is profound, and that if you do not see it then there's something wrong with you.
Nihilism's primary symptom is in how it uses art....how it uses words. It exposes their psychosis, their internal trauma, in relation to reality.

Yes, Ashkenazim Jews are gifted in symbols/ words, linguistics, like all feminine minds are.
Who got out and survived Hitler's wrath?
The educated, the gifted with words.
Words are the basis of nihilism.
Nihilism is worthless, impotent, without words - beyond the application and effect of symbols/words.
You increase IQ by using stress...weeding out those who cannot endure, and adapt.
Like you weed out the bad athlete: you push him to his limits, you stress his body, and then see which one's performs at a higher range and consistency.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Shelter minds and you create imbeciles.
Protect them from reality's "cruelty" and you produce dim-wits, with a lot of data, knowledge, information, and no talent to use it, to apply it...on understanding of it.

Take away a short-hand philosophy, which is what religions like Christianity are, and you leave behind dim-wits seeking meaning and purpose, because they cannot produce it themselves...they need it to be given, to be a given.
Feed them the spiritual nihilism that kept them in check, and you have a disciplined herd, liberate them from this comforting myth and you create mindless free-radicals with nothing to lose, because they can find nothing of value.

Christianity is the mother of Marxism....Marxism minus god.
It requires a higher abstraction....that most cannot produce. The majority need the anthropomorphic, the familiar, the easy.

Another casualty of post-modern feminism, and political correctness censorship.
Anything relating to the real, is to be suppressed to accommodate the ideal.
The sacrifice is always of a European male.