QUOTE: "The reality is that female trolls who frequently derail discussions, are scared. Women are scared men will or have found out the truth about women. Women work hard to hide from men who they really are. Women work hard at creating an avatar that enables them to manipulate men. Men-only gatherings present the ultimate insecurity for women, that their mask of deception will be torn down and the unpleasant truth about women will be exposed to men."
That’s a pretty good way of describing it. It’s like they know if all the prisoners start talking, they’ll figure it out that something is wrong, and they’ll escape. In projection terms, it makes one wonder what women have always been talking about at their Koffee Klatches, doesn’t it?
What’s the first thing that goes out of the house when your best buddy gets married?
You!
And the rest of his friends… especially the unmarried ones.
She’ll allow him some “approved” friends alright – the husbands of her friends, and they are allowed to go to approved events together – like bowling night for two hours on Thursday night – maybe. In the winter. If it doesn’t interfere with his kitchen-bitching duties too much.
Mostly I’ve found that even when in “just a boyfriend/girlfriend” relationship with a woman, my relationships with my friends deteriorates – sure because of “less time spent together” – but even more, is how often when you do see your friends, the women are with the guys and so conversations become “approved for mixed company” and after a year or so, you start to realize how while you are still friends, you never really “talk” anymore. In fact, you can’t remember the last time you really “talked” with your friend – you know, the reason you actually became friends with the guy for in the first place.
You have no idea how many friends I have “lost”… lol, usually for about 4 or 5 years – until the rotating polyandry, er, divorce court, plunks him back into my life again.
Hmmmm. Same phenomenon as what is going on here, but in a different area of life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the essay: A Bachelor’s Complaint of the Behaviour of Married People – by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)
...
But this is not the worst: one must be admitted into their familiarity at least, before they can complain of inattention. It implies visits, and some kind of intercourse. But if the husband be a man with whom you have lived on a friendly footing before marriage, if you did not come in on the wife's side, -- if you did not sneak into the house in her train, but were an old friend in fast habits of intimacy before their courtship was so much as thought on, -- look about you -- your tenure is precarious -- before a twelve-month shall roll over your head, you shall find your old friend gradually grow cool and altered towards you, and at last seek opportunities of breaking with you. I have scarce a married friend of my acquaintance, upon whose firm faith I can rely, whose friendship did not commence after the period of his marriage. With some limitations they can endure that: but that the good man should have dared to enter into a solemn league of friendship in which they were not consulted, though it happened before they knew him, -- before they that are now are man and wife ever met, -- this is intolerable to them. Every long friendship, every old authentic intimacy, must he brought into their office to be new stamped with their currency, as a sovereign Prince calls in the good old money that was coined in some reign before he was born or thought of, to be new marked and minted with the stamp of his authority, before he will let it pass current in the world. You may guess what luck generally befalls such a rusty piece of metal as I am in these new mintings.
Innumerable are the ways which they take to insult and worm you out of their husband's confidence. Laughing at all you say with a kind of wonder, as if you were a queer kind of fellow that said good things, but an oddity, is one of the ways -- they have a particular kind of stare for the purpose -- till at last the husband, who used to defer to your judgment, and would pass over some excrescences of understanding and manner for the sake of a general vein of observation (not quite vulgar) which he perceived in you, begins to suspect whether you are not altogether a humorist, -- a fellow well enough to have consorted with in his bachelor days, but not quite so proper to be introduced to ladies. This may be called the staring way; and is that which has oftenest been put in practice against me.
Then there is the exaggerating way, or the way of irony: that is, where they find you an object of especial regard with their husband, who is not so easily to be shaken from the lasting attachment founded on esteem which he has conceived towards you; by never-qualified exaggerations to cry up all that you say or do, till the good man, who understands well enough that it is all done in compliment to him, grows weary of the debt of gratitude which is due to so much candor, and by relaxing a little on his part, and taking down a peg or two in his enthusiasm, sinks at length to that kindly level of moderate esteem, -- that "decent affection and complacent kindness" towards you, where she herself can join in sympathy with him without much stretch and violence to her sincerity.
Another way (for the ways they have to accomplish so desirable a purpose are infinite) is, with a kind of innocent simplicity, continually to mistake what it was which first made their husband fond of you. If an esteem for something excellent in your moral character was that which riveted the chain which she is to break, upon any imaginary discovery of a want of poignancy in your conversation, she will cry, "I thought, my dear, you described your friend, Mr. -- as a great wit." If, on the other hand, it was for some supposed charm in your conversation that he first grew to like you, and was content for this to overlook some trifling irregularities in your moral deportment, upon the first notice of any of these she as readily exclaims, "This, my dear, is your good Mr. ----." One good lady whom I took the liberty of expostulating with for not showing me quite so much respect as I thought due to her husband's old friend, had the candour to confess to me that she had often heard Mr. -- - speak of me before marriage, and that she had conceived a great desire to be acquainted with me, but that the sight of me had very much disappointed her expectations; for from her husband's representations of me, she had formed a notion that she was to see a fine, tall, officer-like looking man (I use her very words); the very reverse of which proved to be the truth. This was candid; and I had the civility not to ask her in return, how she came to pitch upon a standard of personal accomplishments for her husband's friends which differed so much from his own; for my friend's dimensions as near as possible approximate to mine; he standing five feet five in his shoes, in which I have the advantage of him by about half an inch; and he no more than myself exhibiting any indications of a martial character in his air or countenance.
...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Philosophical Difference Between Capitalism and Marxism
What probably differentiates the Capitalist/Western System from Marxism/Communism the most is the completely opposite philosophies involved with each. It is rather tiresome to hear people continually point out all of the evils of Capitalism when Capitalism itself is a response to these very problems.
Capitalism is based upon the Bible. One inherent characteristic of The Bible is that it declares the imperfect nature of man which mankind is unable to correct, and therefore mankind must endure imperfection (sin) on this earth while we are here. Only through salvation and God’s power will things ever be “perfect” for us – and the Bible tells us not to even attempt to change this, but rather to work within the framework given to control these human imperfections. The Bible tells us to resist our temptations/evils, but also tells us we will never succeed in defeating evil – only God can do that.
Btw – I am not a Bible-banger promoting Christianity here. I am only pointing out the philosophical thought pattern that helped form Western Civilization, and because these thought patterns were based upon the Bible, the philosophical position of the Bible was also the philosophical position of society. The Bible preached that there is Black and White, Right and Wrong, and that only God can change these things – we cannot!
Therefore, Capitalism is not some attempt to create a utopia where evil does not exist, as so many Red-Sympathizers continually falsely allude to. Rather, Capitalism is the acknowledgement that humans are greedy and self-centered – that humans are inherently flawed – and Capitalism creates a framework to contain these baser, less honourable human instincts, and harnesses them in such a way that greed/self-centeredness are both more or less controlled, and that they are mostly directed in a positive manner for the greater good.
It is not much different than marriage 1.0 harnessing the human sex-drive and “putting it to work.” Capitalism merely harnesses human greed and “puts it work.” It’s kinda like we generally consider explosions to be dangerous and bad things, however, a controlled explosion in an environment of a cylinder and piston, as in a car engine, makes explosions positively beneficial for humankind.
An essential characteristic though is that these faults are inherent in humans and we cannot fix them, but rather, with must work with these flaws as we live in a flawed world.
In the nineteenth century, things began to change – philosophically speaking. G.W.F. Hegel identified “Dialectical Thought” and philosophically “proved” that “The Truth is Relative.” The idea of “The Truth is Relative” set the entire West upon its ear, after centuries of people using the Bible as the “standard” of Truth – and as far as the Bible goes, nothing is relative. God’s word in the Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH and it is not negotiable.
But, it is this idea of “relative truth” that Marxism is based upon. Also, Marxism is the belief that MAN is God himself, and therefore man has the power to change the fundamental nature of humans. It does not believe in firm rules about right and wrong – all truths are relative, and man himself gets to decide which truths he may follow. Also, if man is God himself, who puts limits on his behaviour or what he deems possible? After all, he deems himself even so powerful as to defeat the nature of humankind itself and create a Heaven on Earth. Why am I reminded of the arrogance of the Tower of Babel?
The Capitalist system forthrightly acknowledges that man is imperfect and will always BE imperfect. Sin is part of the world, and we have to live with it.
Marxism claims that man is God, and that through evolution and blank-slate hocus pocus, humans themselves can improve upon their nature so much that they can completely rid the world of all evil and create a Heaven on Earth, where we don’t need God’s offered paradise. (Who cares what God promises when WE are God?). Oh, and by the way, I recently read a history book describing the times of Stalin's five year plans - it said that most civil servants were making 4000 rubles a month while the peasants working on the collective farms were making around 150 rubles a month. Human greed and self-centeredness exists in the Marxist/Communist system just as much as it does in the Capitalist system.
Capitalists are like the car engine utilizing dangerous things (explosions) for the greater good. Marxists are people who want to create explosions from water rather than gasoline, not caring that water is not combustible – what does it matter to them? They are God after all, and even physics/nature must bend to their will.
Capitalism is based upon the Bible. One inherent characteristic of The Bible is that it declares the imperfect nature of man which mankind is unable to correct, and therefore mankind must endure imperfection (sin) on this earth while we are here. Only through salvation and God’s power will things ever be “perfect” for us – and the Bible tells us not to even attempt to change this, but rather to work within the framework given to control these human imperfections. The Bible tells us to resist our temptations/evils, but also tells us we will never succeed in defeating evil – only God can do that.
Btw – I am not a Bible-banger promoting Christianity here. I am only pointing out the philosophical thought pattern that helped form Western Civilization, and because these thought patterns were based upon the Bible, the philosophical position of the Bible was also the philosophical position of society. The Bible preached that there is Black and White, Right and Wrong, and that only God can change these things – we cannot!
Therefore, Capitalism is not some attempt to create a utopia where evil does not exist, as so many Red-Sympathizers continually falsely allude to. Rather, Capitalism is the acknowledgement that humans are greedy and self-centered – that humans are inherently flawed – and Capitalism creates a framework to contain these baser, less honourable human instincts, and harnesses them in such a way that greed/self-centeredness are both more or less controlled, and that they are mostly directed in a positive manner for the greater good.
It is not much different than marriage 1.0 harnessing the human sex-drive and “putting it to work.” Capitalism merely harnesses human greed and “puts it work.” It’s kinda like we generally consider explosions to be dangerous and bad things, however, a controlled explosion in an environment of a cylinder and piston, as in a car engine, makes explosions positively beneficial for humankind.
An essential characteristic though is that these faults are inherent in humans and we cannot fix them, but rather, with must work with these flaws as we live in a flawed world.
In the nineteenth century, things began to change – philosophically speaking. G.W.F. Hegel identified “Dialectical Thought” and philosophically “proved” that “The Truth is Relative.” The idea of “The Truth is Relative” set the entire West upon its ear, after centuries of people using the Bible as the “standard” of Truth – and as far as the Bible goes, nothing is relative. God’s word in the Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH and it is not negotiable.
But, it is this idea of “relative truth” that Marxism is based upon. Also, Marxism is the belief that MAN is God himself, and therefore man has the power to change the fundamental nature of humans. It does not believe in firm rules about right and wrong – all truths are relative, and man himself gets to decide which truths he may follow. Also, if man is God himself, who puts limits on his behaviour or what he deems possible? After all, he deems himself even so powerful as to defeat the nature of humankind itself and create a Heaven on Earth. Why am I reminded of the arrogance of the Tower of Babel?
The Capitalist system forthrightly acknowledges that man is imperfect and will always BE imperfect. Sin is part of the world, and we have to live with it.
Marxism claims that man is God, and that through evolution and blank-slate hocus pocus, humans themselves can improve upon their nature so much that they can completely rid the world of all evil and create a Heaven on Earth, where we don’t need God’s offered paradise. (Who cares what God promises when WE are God?). Oh, and by the way, I recently read a history book describing the times of Stalin's five year plans - it said that most civil servants were making 4000 rubles a month while the peasants working on the collective farms were making around 150 rubles a month. Human greed and self-centeredness exists in the Marxist/Communist system just as much as it does in the Capitalist system.
Capitalists are like the car engine utilizing dangerous things (explosions) for the greater good. Marxists are people who want to create explosions from water rather than gasoline, not caring that water is not combustible – what does it matter to them? They are God after all, and even physics/nature must bend to their will.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Feminine-ism: The "Nicest" Ideology in the World
“Feminine-ism” is a manifestation of the “feminine spirit” or, the “feminine principle.” Often we refer to “the totalitarianism of women,” and really what it is is the feminine principle which is trying to impose niceness on us. This is the underlying evil of the feminine principle. Women have no concept of cause and effect, but they do want everyone to be nice and they are willing to use totalitarianism to force it upon you.
.
.
Look at the Temperence Movement that arose at the exact same time that women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice and stop drinking. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such as the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so, when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it's the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!" It's a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if we only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.
There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. They are like a horse that's gotten into the oats, and will keep eating until they bloat up and die. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine that creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.
Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a woman’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power, but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their heads past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely cleaning their brains of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood and see how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.
The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% control of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they have to change their panties every half hour when in the presence of a man - someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.
Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:
- No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
- No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
- No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
- No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her own mistakes.
- No offensive language in the workplace that isn’t “nice.”
- No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
- No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
- Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.
"Everything that is not forbidden will be mandatory" -- Big Sister
“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.” -- Fred Reed
Previous Index Next
Further Reading:
Rites of Passage - Boys to Men
Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?
The War Against Men – by David Shackleton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
.
Look at the Temperence Movement that arose at the exact same time that women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice and stop drinking. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such as the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so, when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it's the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!" It's a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if we only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.
There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. They are like a horse that's gotten into the oats, and will keep eating until they bloat up and die. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine that creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.
Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a woman’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power, but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their heads past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely cleaning their brains of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood and see how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.
The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% control of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they have to change their panties every half hour when in the presence of a man - someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.
Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:
- No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
- No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
- No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
- No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her own mistakes.
- No offensive language in the workplace that isn’t “nice.”
- No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
- No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
- Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.
"Everything that is not forbidden will be mandatory" -- Big Sister
“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.” -- Fred Reed
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Further Reading:
Rites of Passage - Boys to Men
Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?
The War Against Men – by David Shackleton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
Sunday, January 15, 2006
MGTOW as a Form of "Cultural Game"
Women aren’t gonna stop eating our lunch because it's “the right thing to do.” They are only gonna stop when we stop them from doing it.
For all those who understand “game,” you certainly must realize that aloof indifference does not stop women – it makes them try to be noticed harder. If you ignore them, they will escalate until you do pay attention to them.
You have to keep in mind with men and women as well, that when a boy sins it is overt. He shouts and screams and kicks and makes a big scene that you cannot miss. And then he stays quiet again for a long, long time, causing no trouble, until the next overt outburst. But women are covert and their outbursts/sins are subtle but last for a much longer period of time. A woman can keep a subtle running battle going for months and even sometimes years at a time, like Chinese water torture.
And, practitioners of game also should know the rule of “it’s my way or the highway, Toots!” and that any man who doesn’t want to be ruined by woman has to learn to say no without bothering to explain, and say it often… no… No… NO… NO!!!
.
Merely because I said so.
Just because I want it that way.
Tough. There’s the door.
Well, this is merely game on a cultural level. Women really are powerless without us. That vote they keep yacking about doesn’t mean a thing without men enforcing its power. Everything that permits the “you go grrl” culture is provided to women by the indulgence of men. If men left the building, women’s vote couldn’t enforce a single thing – because their vote and their rights are not based upon “the barrel of a gun,” but rather upon indirect social manipulation of the people holding the gun.
If men leave the building, women will follow.
I think men understanding how women are manipulating us – as put forth by guys like Schopenhauer – will do ten thousand times more for our “movement” than any amount of billions of dollars funnelled to lobby-groups to manipulate the law into something even worse than we have today.
As much as women like to say that men don’t leave them alone, if the men said “fine, see ya” and actually left, the women would follow us to the ends of the earth.
And if they don’t… tough.
It’s such a joke for women to come around here and try to con us into believing how much we want and need them, when almost none of the men here are on their forums seeking them out. They find guys who are busy with other things and completely ignoring them, and try to intrude and take over. This is the entire history of “feminine-ism.”
And, herein lies the proof of the big lie, and the big paradox for women. Accusations that men don’t care only work when men do care. In order to get his mind in the right frame where he can attract women, he has to reach the place where he no longer cares if he does or not – and in many cases “not” starts to win.
Further Reading:
Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests
MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Friday, January 13, 2006
MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way
QUOTE: "MGTOW was never anything but a tool." – Ragnar
Actually there is one aspect of MGTOW that has not been utilized yet.
On a philosophical level, MGTOW is the answer to the Marxist Dialectic. If ever one studies the dialectic and how it is used to manipulate, you will see the one constant recommendation for how to “stop” the dialectic: Step out of it.
That means that on a philosophical level, you must “step out of the cycle” and take a stand. To stop the dialectic you must stop rationalizing to the lowest common denominator, stand up straight and tall, and declare, “THIS is right, and THAT is wrong. I will not budge.”
On philosophical level, MGTOW is the “right way” to fight this.
QUOTE: "…many don’t regard MGTOW as philosophical at all. Long ago Zenpriest/Jadedguy wrote something like that in a discussion at the old board. The opposition then was that we need action now – no philosophy. Futhermore MGTOW has started a life of it’s own and who can speak against that? LOL! Make a stand we should – I absolutely agree." — Ragnar
Yes, the philosophy stuff is not as flash as visions of planting a flag victoriously on Iwo Jima, and thus many men reject philosophy – however, just like the US Air Force doesn’t have much use for $100 million figher jets when your enemy isn’t fighting you in the air but on the street with low tech car bombs, so is this a different kind of warfare and it requires the proper tools to win the struggle.
In order to illustrate why making a stand is so important, one has to understand how the dialectic uses “consensus” to change the views and attitudes of the population. Here is a diagram I have which illustrates the general mechanics of the dialectic and how it can be used to alter the truth, or rather, to create new truths. Keep in mind that an important component of dialectical manipulation is thinking three steps ahead.
“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” — Leon Trotsky
So, dialectical thought manipulates the truth in the same way that a still picture is used, in multiple series, to make a motion-picture. In the same way, the dialectic makes “new truths” by pitting a “thesis” (truth) against an “anti-thesis” (anti-truth) – these two truths argue and argue and argue against eachother until they reach a consensus, or a compromise of the two. This compromise then becomes a synthesis, or a synthetic truth, which then becomes the new “truth,” (now you can repeat the whole process over again with a new argument) and like how still-pictures in a series creates a motion picture, a series of these new “synthesized truths” can lead to a completely altered sense of reality, and adhere to that reality’s “logical” conclusions.
This is why I always yammer on about the value of Absolute Truth.
Absolute Truth does not compromise. It scoffs at “consensus.” It takes a stand – Absolute Truth is a male principle. Relative Truth, while also present in males, is a female principle. This is something illustrated even in the story of the Garden of Eden.
So, think about how the dialectic can work to alter truth and also, destroy things.
Imagine that you believe 1 + 1 = 2 (Thesis), and your opponent’s argument is 1 + 1 = 3 (Anti-thesis). The anti-thesis argument asks you to compromise to reach an agreement, a consensus, a synthesized truth somewhere in between 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3. In this case let’s say we reach consensus half way – so, now we have 1 + 1 = 2.5 (Synthesis/New Truth)
Well, for some things, you cannot compromise. Not one frickin' millimeter.
1 + 1 = 2! No matter what you friggin’ say! No matter how many people in society say it is 2.5, I DON’T GIVE A SHIT, 1 + 1 = 2!
What good does 1 + 1 = 2.5 do for society, or even 1 + 1 = 2.1?
.
Once an Absolute Truth is identified, one must refuse to compromise it.
Marxism abolishes Absolute Truth. In a Marxist society everything is a Relative Truth. One thing you will hear many people who lived in Communist regimes claim they found to be the worst aspect of it all, were the lies! Everything becomes a lie, and there is no more truth.
Of course, one of the reasons why Communists abolish Christianity is because it competes with them for the allegiance of the masses, but another reason is because the Bible is firmly rooted in Absolute Truth, and it stops the dialectic dead in its tracks. God’s word is Black and White, and it does not compromise. Thus, it is very difficult to manipulate the dialectic when there is a standard of Absolute Truth to compare it to.
I sometimes suspect that this is why so many people in Communist countries were so willing to risk their lives to be Christians, and why when they got their hands on a Bible, they would take it out of its hiding place and go to read it again and again and again… sure, there is the Christianity/religious aspect to it, but also, it might possibly be the first time that person was exposed to Absolute Truth and they became addicted to it.
The Truth, the real truth, is addictive. Think about all of you guys who have been following along in the manosphere over the years… why do you hang around? Why do you keep coming back? I think it is because the manosphere is speaking the Truth and you find it addictive – infuriating for sure – but the Truth is very addictive.
Making a philosophical stand is of the utmost importance in defeating this whole gong-show.
Good thing for men that Absolute Truth is congruent with the Male Principle, as well as the willingness to sometimes stand on your principles, and refuse to compromise your position simply for the sake of going along with the crowd.
Would you rather be “right” according to the crowd, and thus use 1 + 1 = 2.5 in all of your worldly dealings, or would you choose to be willing to Go Your Own Way so you could live in a functional world where 1 + 1 = 2?
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
A Leading Philosophy Rather Than a Leader
Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Social Strategy: How Men And Women Are After Different Things When They "Debate"
Men and women are after different things when they “debate.”
Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthest and emotionally manipulates the other into submission. There truth matters not a bit to women.
Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once:
Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.
But women?
Not so much.
However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.
Social Strategy.
That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.
Socially manipulating people is what women do.
In fact, it is one of the only things they do.
I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. “A woman is the most responsible teenager in the house.”
Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from game to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.
Schopenhauer’s essay on women is bang-on:
"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851
It makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines, or why in Buddhism it is said that women cannot become Buddhas. It also makes perfectly good sense why men of the past used to often have “men only” spaces where women were forbidden.
When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.
Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.
Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”
Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”
You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.
And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature anymore than it does any good to convince three year olds that the Tea Party campaign is the right one.
Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?
There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway.
However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.
“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”
Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who wound up pedestalizing her. She was no different than the rest, and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she is in life.
Over the years, I suspect you might see the same thing from someone like Alte, too. She's not that old – around 30, I think. She has admitted to us that before her husband, she used to be a “man-killer” who brought emotional harm to her previous boyfriends for no real reason or purpose… and now suddenly, she has found God and submission to Him and her husband is what it's all about… until the divorce, then it becomes perfectly possible for women to move on into a new fantasy life, and forget all about the morals she had in the previous years, and she morphs into something completely new again.
Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21 who screwed you over and 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “empty vessels” who seek men to fill the void. Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one ever then assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.
There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval. But deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.
We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrcker #51 - Don't Argue With Women
Philalethes #3 - The Anti-Logic of Women
The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel – Dec, 26, 1868
Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)
Point, Counterpoint – Rollo Tomassi
Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthest and emotionally manipulates the other into submission. There truth matters not a bit to women.
Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once:
Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.
But women?
Not so much.
However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.
Social Strategy.
That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.
Socially manipulating people is what women do.
In fact, it is one of the only things they do.
I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. “A woman is the most responsible teenager in the house.”
Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from game to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.
Schopenhauer’s essay on women is bang-on:
"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851
It makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines, or why in Buddhism it is said that women cannot become Buddhas. It also makes perfectly good sense why men of the past used to often have “men only” spaces where women were forbidden.
When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.
Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.
Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”
Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”
You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.
And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature anymore than it does any good to convince three year olds that the Tea Party campaign is the right one.
Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?
There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway.
However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.
“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”
Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who wound up pedestalizing her. She was no different than the rest, and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she is in life.
Over the years, I suspect you might see the same thing from someone like Alte, too. She's not that old – around 30, I think. She has admitted to us that before her husband, she used to be a “man-killer” who brought emotional harm to her previous boyfriends for no real reason or purpose… and now suddenly, she has found God and submission to Him and her husband is what it's all about… until the divorce, then it becomes perfectly possible for women to move on into a new fantasy life, and forget all about the morals she had in the previous years, and she morphs into something completely new again.
Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21 who screwed you over and 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “empty vessels” who seek men to fill the void. Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one ever then assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.
There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval. But deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.
We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrcker #51 - Don't Argue With Women
Philalethes #3 - The Anti-Logic of Women
The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel – Dec, 26, 1868
Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)
Point, Counterpoint – Rollo Tomassi
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Western Culture's Inability to Pass Feminism's Shit Tests
QUOTE: "However, I think they may be wrong when they go on to say [marriage 1.0] was good for “civilization” too. Perhaps the inability of Western cultures to pass the shit test of feminism comes directly from allowing too many Betas to breed in the past and pass their passive and compliant genes down through the gene pool."
I sometimes suspect that this is what we are supposed to “do.” To pass the shit test… there is something better on the other side, something we are supposed to find out – maybe something that will change us, but we are never going to get there until we pass these shit tests that keep destroying us.
Many messages have been sent to us, obviously trying to warn us about “something.” These things are, I think, “twinkling reminders of humanity’s past.” The story of Pandora’s box… the legend of Atlantis… the Garden of Eden… Jason and the Argonauts… Egypt’s Punt… They are all of a similar theme, containing similar messages or warnings etc. They are talking to us from the deep, deep past. Perhaps if we pass the shit test and finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves like pathetic lemmings, our civilization will develop enough to finally “figure it out.”
What “it” is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a better way of living. Maybe without civilization always collapsing and needing to be rebuilt, we will figure out how the hell to get out of the solar system, maybe find other lifeforms?… because our technology won’t reset 500 years back in time if we don’t collapse.
I know it sounds kinda New Age, but, imagine how different the world would be today if say, Rome had never degraded its principles, and it had never fell. How advanced do you think our technology might be today if that had not happened but rather they kept pushing forward, advancing and learning, all the way up to the present day? I suspect I might be taking my hover-craft to the corner store instead of my crappy old car. Who knows? Maybe we “figure something out.” But it does seem like we keep getting sent “warnings” from the past from our ancestors saying “watch out” and “fix this problem.”
I’ll tell you one thing what I see – our “moral codes” try to tell us not to behave like animals. That means not succumbing to our base passions, such as monkey sex without responsibities. Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet etc. etc. – all things that animals do, but which humans are told not to do. The “Point” is to rise up from being beasts of the field – of living like animals and basing our decisions in passion, rather than reason.
If the point is to be anti-animal and pro-reason, then I wonder what would happen when we finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves by succumbing to our base animal passions, of which our sex drives are most likely the strongest, and the way women stop men from “thinking” and rather living by pure passion, as they do. Maybe if we overcome this lemming tendency that has plagued us for thousands of years, there is something else on the other side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
MGTOW as a Form of “Cultural Game”
Fitness Testing (Shit Tests)
I sometimes suspect that this is what we are supposed to “do.” To pass the shit test… there is something better on the other side, something we are supposed to find out – maybe something that will change us, but we are never going to get there until we pass these shit tests that keep destroying us.
Many messages have been sent to us, obviously trying to warn us about “something.” These things are, I think, “twinkling reminders of humanity’s past.” The story of Pandora’s box… the legend of Atlantis… the Garden of Eden… Jason and the Argonauts… Egypt’s Punt… They are all of a similar theme, containing similar messages or warnings etc. They are talking to us from the deep, deep past. Perhaps if we pass the shit test and finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves like pathetic lemmings, our civilization will develop enough to finally “figure it out.”
What “it” is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a better way of living. Maybe without civilization always collapsing and needing to be rebuilt, we will figure out how the hell to get out of the solar system, maybe find other lifeforms?… because our technology won’t reset 500 years back in time if we don’t collapse.
I know it sounds kinda New Age, but, imagine how different the world would be today if say, Rome had never degraded its principles, and it had never fell. How advanced do you think our technology might be today if that had not happened but rather they kept pushing forward, advancing and learning, all the way up to the present day? I suspect I might be taking my hover-craft to the corner store instead of my crappy old car. Who knows? Maybe we “figure something out.” But it does seem like we keep getting sent “warnings” from the past from our ancestors saying “watch out” and “fix this problem.”
I’ll tell you one thing what I see – our “moral codes” try to tell us not to behave like animals. That means not succumbing to our base passions, such as monkey sex without responsibities. Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet etc. etc. – all things that animals do, but which humans are told not to do. The “Point” is to rise up from being beasts of the field – of living like animals and basing our decisions in passion, rather than reason.
If the point is to be anti-animal and pro-reason, then I wonder what would happen when we finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves by succumbing to our base animal passions, of which our sex drives are most likely the strongest, and the way women stop men from “thinking” and rather living by pure passion, as they do. Maybe if we overcome this lemming tendency that has plagued us for thousands of years, there is something else on the other side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
MGTOW as a Form of “Cultural Game”
Fitness Testing (Shit Tests)
Monday, January 09, 2006
Women Pursuing Their "Dreams and Aspirations"
QUOTING A FEMALE: "As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)."
---
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.
Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.
One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!
And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
---
QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.
Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.
If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."
---
No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves, or their own sex.
And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.
But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.
And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
Previous Index Next
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds For Women
---
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.
Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.
One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!
And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
---
QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.
Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.
If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."
---
No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves, or their own sex.
And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.
But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.
And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds For Women
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Government, Keep Your Thievin' Mitts Outta My Pockets!
.
QUOTE: "…which is part of the reason I don't mind a little wealth redistribution. I also believe that if we aren't ensuring that individuals with the most merit are educated properly then we are harming our competitiveness versus the other world powers in the long run."
Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. It’s like pushing and pulling at the same time.
The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West) used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have.
For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there – but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc.
And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money.
For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions, you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up.
However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime!
That leads to excellence.
In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough.
However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto – because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization.
Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin’ light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead.
Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do.
For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, “Yup, yup. T’is a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh.”
No it isn’t! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers!
.
What is really going on is they are saying, “Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money.”
“Whack!” Fedrz swings his whacking stick.
”Whack! Whack! WHACK!”
Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didn’t want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh?
Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. It’s like pushing and pulling at the same time.
The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West) used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have.
For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there – but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc.
And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money.
For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions, you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up.
However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime!
That leads to excellence.
In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough.
However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto – because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization.
Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin’ light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead.
Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do.
For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, “Yup, yup. T’is a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh.”
No it isn’t! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers!
.
What is really going on is they are saying, “Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money.”
“Whack!” Fedrz swings his whacking stick.
”Whack! Whack! WHACK!”
Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didn’t want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh?
.
.
“Whack!”
But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it… my pockets are feeling a little light – especially after the gov’t has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other people’s labours.
“Whack,” goes the whacking stick. “Keep your theivin’ mittens outta Rob’s pockets!”
Related: The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
.“Whack!”
But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it… my pockets are feeling a little light – especially after the gov’t has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other people’s labours.
“Whack,” goes the whacking stick. “Keep your theivin’ mittens outta Rob’s pockets!”
Related: The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
Friday, January 06, 2006
The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth
I think there is something very fundamental about Absolute Truth over Relative Truth which is the very basic to the nature of humans… that which separates humans from animal living and allows us to rise up from being beasts of the field.
Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.
But…
This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”
In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.
Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.
Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”
Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.
And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.
You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO - than men do – and the differences are signficant!).
In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”
It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!
In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..."
Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.
You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.
.
- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals
Previous Index Next
The Feminization of Christianity
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?
In the Beginning
Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.
But…
This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”
In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.
.
.
There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:
- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).
- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.
And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.
“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”
There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:
- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).
- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.
And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.
“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”
Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.
Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”
Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.
.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.
Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’… (Man’s Curse)
It’s pretty clear.
Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.
Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.
Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.
Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’… (Man’s Curse)
It’s pretty clear.
Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.
Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.
And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.
You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO - than men do – and the differences are signficant!).
In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”
It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!
In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..."
Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.
You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.
.
.- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Further Reading:The Feminization of Christianity
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?
In the Beginning
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Truth, Truth, Truth... What is The Truth?
"Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable...
Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth." -- George Orwell
QUOTE: "Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers/John Locke got the order wrong. The way that it is actually practiced is the only way that it can be done (since we are on the inside looking out):
1 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
2 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth
This is the correct order because religion also uses the Scientific Method (Objective Truth), just not very well.
—
Yes, you are right – I have struggled with this before too, and this is why I say the need for Absolute Truth to be placed highest, may actually be important to human nature beyond even the scope of whether that truth is actually “true.”
I have come into this from the scope of what Karl Marx is “trying to do.”
Well, one thing Marx says he wants to do is to “Dethrone God and Destroy Capitalism.”
In other words – he wants to destroy the Absolute Truth.
How come? Because it prevents him from manipulating the subjective truth into overcoming the objective truth. (The world of Orwell’s 1984).
Humans have “the ability” to be blind to the “objective truth” because of how they allow their brains to process “subjective truth.” In other words, humans often get so confused with the subjective/relative truth that they manage to convince themselves that the objective truth does not matter… that’s why there has to be an Absolute Truth above the Objective Truth.
Take the way constitutions of free countries peg themselves to an Absolute Truth, whereas countries without freedom have no Absolute Truth, but only Subjective Truth – with the subjective truth creating objective truth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” — United States Declaration of Independence
versus the United Nations “constitution” (a knock off of all totalatiarian gov’t):
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State… the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” — Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The reason why the Founding Fathers placed rights in the hands of the Creator is because what God gives only God can take away… in other words, the tendency of mankind to trick himself with the subjective truth into not believing in the objective truth is completely curtailed by placing “rights” out of reach of mankind.
If we ever end up re-writing our constitutions to remove "God" from them, please, oh please, let me get my rights from Santa or the Easter Bunny, rather than the state and its subjective laws. I have much more faith that Santa won't come like a thief in the night to take back my rights, than I do for the government refraining from curtailing my rights in the future - especially in a democracy.
Whether “God is real” matters not so much as that “God ‘pins’ down the Truth” so that we don’t convince ourselves that what is all about us is not true… the same way we have convinced ourselves of such nonsense as feminism has produced. As far as anyone “objectively” looking at the situation, they would declare we are nuts and should just open our eyes… and yet, what is happening in society? We are choosing to place the Subjective above the Objective.
And that is very dangerous!
Now, think about how looooooooooong it takes to create “civilization.” It does not happen overnight. We have been “following the Bible” for approximately 3,300 years. (The Pentateuch was written by Moses, and Moses is thought to be contemporary of 1300BC or so).
During that timeframe, “the Truth” has more or less stayed the same. Humans are prevented, by the existence of an unchanging Absolute Truth that trumps all others, from convincing themselves that the subjective truth is higher than the objective.
Sooner or later, humans will convince themselves to overlook some sort of “objective truth” in favour of the “subjective truth” and then “Absolute Truth” will wipe them from the face of the earth… just like Sodom & Gommorah.
Perhaps it will be that we convince ourselves that sexual monogamy is silly… that this religion thing telling us not to hump like monkeys is just that – religious trappings. (Using the subjective truth to convince ourselves of what we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true). And so, everyone throws away their sexual restraint because they believe they are seeing objective truth, and perhaps 40 years later, STD’s start becoming so rampant throughout the population that the fertility rates begin to decline… or perhaps, the “unordering” of the male –> female –> child hierarchy, while it looks to be “objectively smart” in our heads, turns out to be something which repels men and women from eachother, and our birthrates decline below replacement levels… until we are wiped from the face of the earth.
“SMACK!” says the Absolute Truth.
Start over and don’t make that same mistake again!
How would a civilization manage to “stay on the right path” for thousands of years, while always having to battle this human tendency? I suspect that it could not, unless it somehow managed to contain this human tendency… and the best way to do that is to place an Absolute Truth above all others – for those things we know “we need to do” in order to sustain ourselves, but have a tendency to wish wasn’t true.
Whether that truth is real or not, is less significant in this purpose, than the need for Truth to exist.
I think it was Voltaire who quipped “If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent Him.” (Although, I don’t know if he was referring to my argument… but you get the point).
What Karl Marx believes he can do is change the world into a Utopia by manipulating truth.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it.” — Karl Marx
He means he is going to take philosophy, and use it to manipulate reality in order that he might change the world. And this is what he does, by using the Relative Truth uber Alles, which his predecessor Hegel identified with the Hegelian Dialectic.
1 – Relative Truth
2 – Relative Truth
3 – Relative Truth
(And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this is the Feminine Principle, and it is also the “animal principle.” Animals live completely from moment to moment – everything is subjective to them – their instincts lead, not their reason).
Karl Marx believes, through use of evolution, that he can “bend the truth” and by “bending reality” he can “evolve mankind into a new form of human” – one that has never existed before.
He believes if he can manipulate reality, he can remove man’s greed and desire to put the self first etc. etc. and then a completely new form of mankind will emerge, unencumbered by mankind’s worst traits, and therefore, he will have defeated God because he will have created Heaven on Earth. (Marx wants to make the Lion lie down with the Lamb).
One of the reasons why the Bible is so damaging to Marx’s plans is because it places Truth out of his reach and therefore Marx is severely handicapped in manipulating the truth for his own designs.
And, like I pointed out before, it appears that Marxism and Animal-ness are very closely related in how they process “Truth,” and in fact, Marxism is as old as the Garden of Eden itself.
So…, lol, I guess what I mean is, there are two roads here:
One can look at Truth for the purpose of “seeking Truth.”
and
There is also a human need for A truth to exist, in order to “temper” man’s mind, so that he doesn’t behave like a lemming and kill himself with his brain – which sometimes can create realities inside of our heads that don’t really exist (or will unwittingly kill us).
QUOTE: "As long as those above are supporting a specific Absolute Truth, those below (who are willing to accept truth that is independent of evidence) will be prevented from mucking things up, in a specific way.
But when those in charge wish to move in a different direction, all that they have to do is make a few minor modifications, like a farmer changing the fence lines..."
Yes, I know. This is why I quite often look at books like the Bible, and, realizing how incredibly wise it is in regard to understanding human nature, I have concluded that regardless of whether God exists or not, that book knows more about human nature than I, or anyone else around me does… so the Bible ought not to be dismissed lightly.
Also, keep in mind that this is how cultures “grow.”
They start off small, with perhaps a few hundred people hanging around on an internet forum… within a larger culture that perhaps might not even acknowledge they exist… but eventually, if their formula is correct, they will out-succeed the rest by following their form of “Truth” until they overtake the culture.
It appears that all cultures start out small, adhering to one form of truth (Cultural Hegemony), and because they have got “the right kind of formula in their truth” they grow and grow over time, until they overtake the culture.
That seems to be the way it works… rather than a small group of people convincing a large group of people of the error of their ways. Without “one truth” no Cultural Hegemony can occur, and thus, neither will civilization appear.
QUOTE: "For something to be an actual Absolute Truth, it would need to be pinned to objective reality, in order to be truly “out of reach of mankind” while being directly accessible to all."
I think the exact same thing… sometimes I say, when we identify a Truth, we have to “pin it to the wall.” (So that some asshole doesn’t come along and try to alter it with subjective truth).
But how can you pin any objective truth to anything, unless there is an absolute to pin it to?
Btw, I have sometimes philosophized if Absolute Truth can be created outside of the religious realm – with mathematics, for instance. Could mathematics be used as a replacement “pin”?
For example:
If we know that divorce/feminism causes ever falling birth rates… and yet we also know we need X number of babies to move forward… then the maximum tolerance of divorce that society can handle without destructing is X% of marriages ending in divorce.
Can that create a “morality” that humans can follow?
BUT, then you also start getting into the law of unintended consequences – as in, is it also then “morally proper” to say “this is the maximum amount of old people we can tolerate in society, while still sustaining ourselves… therefore…”
Scary business, when we think we are God.
The Bible knows a lot more than people give it credit for. I suspect it might still suprise us and show that it still knows more than we do… like how STD’s due to promiscuousness are causing our fertility rates to fall. (It is not just that we are choosing NOT to have children, but also, we are physically having more problems having them… in many cases due to STD’s).
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People have always spoken of the absolutely necessary [absolutnotwendigen] being, and have taken pains, not so much to understand whether and how a thing of this kind can even be thought, but rather to prove its existence.... if by means of the word unconditioned I dismiss all the conditions that the understanding always requires in order to regard something as necessary, this does not come close to enabling me to understand whether I then still think something through a concept of an unconditionally necessary being, or perhaps think nothing at all through it." -- Immanuel Kant, Critic of Pure Reason
.
Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. ... Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it. -- Friedrich Nietzche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
The Feminization of Christianity
In the Beginning
The Male's Ability to Reach the Truth
Totalitarianism and the Female Principle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
