MISC.
TO ZOOM PAGE: Hold Ctrl and press+/- or use Mouse wheel
---------------
YOU CAN COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY by clicking "Comments" under each post, and then, chose "anonimac" (anonymous). Write your comment, chose a nickname (Vaš nadimak), and send the comment (POŠALJI)
---------------
Who was Captain Nemo?
Scroll down the post.
---------------
Beautiful Melodious Music
Some changes in the forum's software made the videos in the posts from pp1-16 disappear. Just open the links visible in the posts in new tabs.

---------------
Great Craftsmanship and Industrial Design
---------------
Topic about substances that could inhibit the Coronavirus infection
---------------
Sunburns: how to treat and prevent
---------------
Dr Brad Stanfield YouTube Channel
---------------
Dr. Sten Ekberg YouTube Channel
---------------
Dr. Eric Berg DC YouTube Channel
---------------
KenDBerryMD YouTube Channel
---------------
motivationaldoc YouTube Channel
---------------
Istria is the world's best region for extra virgin olive oils, six years in a row (Well it had to be said ;-))
---------------
THE BEST ANSWER TO WHITE GUILT (Don't know if it is the "best", but definitely a usable one.)
---------------
JENNIFER MOLESKI - YouTube Channel
One of the best channels out there, particularly for women, and particularly for those tempted by feminism and who are not irretrievable yet.

----------------
YOUR WINGMAM (dating advice)
Although I do not agree with some things, like the apparent acceptance of casual dating as something normal (although she seems to have changed after some criticism from me, and even incorporated some of my comments in her videos), the channel is still very worth watching if one filters these aspects out.

---------------
TAYLOR THE FIEND
Channel about modern dating and relationships. Often caricatural and exterme, and oriented resolutely against marriage, which I disapprove, but there are also some very useful insights to be found, if one keeps thinking with one's own head.

----------------
MANOSPHERE
Channel about modern dating and relationships. Similar to "Taylor the Fiend", but sometimes with a different emphasis and some studies results. I actually didn't watch much of his videos, and learned about them recently on "Taylor the Fiend" as they seem to have a cooperation.


HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT COOPERATION, and mostly a great video to watch, although I don't agree with some things, but despite that very much worth watching.
----------------
FAIL FOR YOU
Hilarious and instructive. Don't agree with everything, but gets seal of approval. (I must admit that I didn't check it for a long time.)

---------------
RED WOLF
Former Russian psychologist talks about female nature, psychology, dating, relationship. Unfortunately, he doesn't make videos anymore,but those he made are worth watching

---------------
All those YouTube channels make me cringe for various reasons, because they do not represent levels of humanity high enough, but still, as someone said, a wise man can learn something from everyone. Particularly if he uses his own critical thinking.
---------------
Casey Zander YouTube Channel
Video channel about building a masculine frame. I do not consider the masculinity paradigm presented here to be complete, but it's a start, although some things are quite simplistic and do not include a higher life wisdom about how a Man and a Woman must create life together. Masculine frame is one thing, but knowing what to do with it is complete masculinity. In the following links, more comments on Stormfront:
Comment 1
Comment 2
---------------
Alexander Grace YouTube Channel
Channel analyzing the relationship of the sexes, mostly through a perspective connecting biological evolution and the psychological dimension. While the author has recently more or less evolved from the advocacy of promiscuity to more fundamental values (still unclear), he is still stuck into reductive individualism and libertarianism, not understanding the importance of the collective and the need for a political transformation of culture. However, some very good psychological insights, but insights that have a "ceiling" in the spiritual height of that individual, which is not sufficient; too stuck in relativism. He is also too stuck inside animal models, not understanding that Humans are not animals, and have much higher potentials that must be activated. His ideas unfortunately don't help in that process of humanization and spiritualization. That little cunt even silent banned me for contradicting him and for offering better paradigms than his, but if you keep your critical mind, the channel is still worth watching.
















Captain's Blog

01.03.2023., srijeda

The Masculine imprint on a Girl/Woman

This is a work in progress, and I will just sketch it for now instead of writing the full article, so that I feel motivated to actually write that full article. The first step is taken, so that others can follow.
This is the reason why the style might appear a bit awkward sometimes, because I might make additions that are difficult to seamlessly integrate into the existing text, without rewriting the whole thing.

See ADDITION from 11.3.2023
(European notation)

I'm not sure if I mentioned masculine imprint in previous posts, but if I didn't explicitly, here it is.

A Woman, or more exactly a girl, more often that not needs to be imprinted by masculinity and humanity to become a real person, a human person, an individual.

Otherwise many girls are empty and without a core, and the slaves of various sensual energies that control them; energies of sexual absorption and being absorbed, o a purely physical level, often manifested as "fun". They often are just interested to try this sensory stimulation or that sensory stimulation, all are external sensory stimulation. They don't have an individualized core (a soul) searching for another individualized core, just "fun", cute, exciting stuff...

A high quality girl has that core. Maybe not fully developed, because she still must find the Man to put in that core, for it to be complete, but that's the kind of Man she is searching, the one with a full masculine core, to become her life core.

Boys need imprint too, but there is an evolutionary difference that demands responsibility and leadership from men, and the imprint on Boys is of a very different nature.

When there is no soul imprint on girls, boys tend to compete for being the most fun, interesting and exciting externality for girls, instead of being and imposing strong leadership and masculinity and refusing that kind of female coreless, soulless animality, probably because boys are not imprinted the right way these days to develop true core/soul masculinity.

The initial imprint should ideally come from the father, but even with a strong leader type father, girls can make the wrong choices because they of course separate their father from the potential partners the have around them, because it is not the same energy. And also because that father might be clueless about modern girls, and give them an insufficient soul imprint, maybe idolizing his daughters instead of individualizing their souls.

So a Man must be able to imprint the psyche of a girl with his full Masculinity, regardless of the job done by her father, because his imprint has logically a different range that the one of the father. It must be full range, full spectrum, including the body at levels specific to a masculine-feminine relationship.
This is not just sex, but also emotionality that must be totally personalized, and beyond that the creation of the person of a girl in its completeness.

A Man must be able to do that if the groundwork has been made before and if the girl is quality enough, and not contaminated by various other wrong imprints.


What does it mean?
It means that You must be a full and complete person first, to be capable of such full imprint.
It means that you must have an individualized core, a soul, not just be an animal of the senses, an intelligent animal without a life core, and made just of senses.

People like that don't have any real substance, no real core individuality, just an endless stream of sensual experiences, and some of them are very good at providing for those experiences for themselves and for others, basically drowning them into that overload of superficial sensuality of all kinds and losing the little individual soul that they had.
For them, sexuality is not this deep core personal individual human thing, it's just something impersonal, external, not an unique exchange between two cores unique to each other, united in one.

They definitely don't search for the experiences of the soul, going deeper and deeper into the individual causal core from which true and complete life is created, but are satisfied with the sensual stream on the surface, and soon loose the ability to identify their core at all.
What does it mean energetically?

It means that you stand above automatic reactive energies of sensuality and sexuality, and integrate the full spectrum of body energies into awareness coming from your aware masculine core of will and action.

You become a reality that is stronger and more true than the external sensory inputs a girl receives, because you are the active, directing core of your own reality, the active transforming force and core of life and external reality, and therefore become her core, her spiritual leader.
Your imprint in a girl is You, your core itself, and you become the central part of her psyche, her core.

(Of course, if you are dealing with a lost sensual intelligent animal, get away fast!)

This is the basis of individualization of a relationship with a girl/woman: becoming her core, the masculine core that is you in your full individuality, and which moves things in reality, and also in the inner reality of both of you.
You are the creator of life, the life force, the giver of direction, and you become that core of life for her - life that she will then nurture under your leadership and protection, and give you her feminine feedback through the communication you must always encourage. Then you can start creating together.


Always pay attention to that feedback, even if it is non verbal. Pay attention to her emotions and encourage her to express her emotions instead of considering them silly. It shows that you care.

But you should be able to lead them towards the integration into the core.

Of course, it is far easier if you actually care and are the type comfortable with your own emotions and don't see them as weaknesses - unless the are actually weaknesses...

Masculinity is strength, and is having emotions from that benevolent masculine strength. But it is NOT the good boy's need to feel accepted, doing everything to please her like a good doggie.That is not masculine at all. You show your emotions and care for her emotions because it is not a problem for you to care, and because you do care, or you are an idiot. Caring strength is not weakness or "vulnerability", it is masculine strength and showing that you are a person who cares in general , and for her in particular.



So OK I digressed a bit there. Back to the core imprint:

Body energies of sensuality and sexuality are not impersonal anymore, not just impersonal reactive energies but are totally integrated into the aware core, and their nature transmuted into that integrated being, person and individuality that is the true Human being.

In other words you are first the master and leader of yourself, and all your body energies are subordinated to You, what is essentially the spiritual core of the being, the individual, the directing core of action of the individual.

If your energy integration is strong enough, it creates it's own causal reality that is stronger that the chaotic, uncentered sensual and sexual energies in a girl, and she becomes a full human being too, a full person, a full individual with a core, and those loose impersonal sensual energies disappear as such from her and become integrated in a core of integrated individualized life that is now Her, and you can then have a true partnership with that girl or woman.

In a way, You will have set her free from the cage of her disconnected sensual reactivity, and given her a core, a full soul. That liberation is a source of joy, because one is not a slave of reactivity anymore and enters into the realm of light, that is freedom.

This is what masculine leadership ultimately means vis a vis a woman. Not just leadership in life, but a spiritual leadership.
Through that leadership of the masculine core - YOU - which is now her core, you become true partners in life, the true life unit.

And the exchange at all levels between that core that is You, and her who is your focus of interest for life together, becomes constant.
However, when I say that she must be your focus of interest for life together, that doesn't mean that she is your focus as such, which is the mistake some men make. Your focus is "You", not in the sense of egoism and desires, but your core, your action, something independent of her.
You are the force of life first and foremost, and it is from this position of independent self-existing force of life that you interact with her.
Benevolently, lovingly, but always as this untouchable core that is you, that untouchable and unshakeable force of life from within, existing by yourself as such. Only then do you have your masculine core and can imprint it in her.

Of course, it is also possible to grow together in that direction, and correct each other. But in this day and age of extreme challenges to the spiritual development of human beings, you must count on yourself to be capable of doing the job, and be stronger that everything else.

Of course again, your job is not to salvage the contaminated, but to find someone who is of sufficient quality, with a sufficient human and individualization potential, and then to lead in the right direction.
Because if you feel that she is resisting that individualization and is invested in superficial fun and superficial external stimuli, don't waste your time with her.

Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen to her input, because sometimes, she might be spiritually more developed than you in some areas, more of a full person. But you must assess that input carefully, to determine if it comes from the development of core spirituality or from the various feminist garbage she might have been subjected to.


This page can only contain 30 posts.You can access the previous posts with the link "Arhiva" (Archive) at the bottom of the page, which will open, not just the subsequent posts to the last one on this page, but posts for the whole month those subsequent posts have been written or dated.



ADDITION (11.3.2023 - European notation)


I would like to "correct" certain things in the "Sexualization" part of the "Dating Advice for Boys".

I cannot do it there because it seems that post reached its size limit and won't accept any additions.

The thing is that in modern times, girls are already sexualized in the wrong way by so many external influences, even if they are virgins (see my article "Why men must demand virginity from women), that what one must do first is to desexualize them.

It means that one must reposition their being in its true human place the core, the "soul"- the "heart", not just as the place of emotions, but the place that integrates and transcends all reactive body energies, going beyond them into the true Self.

This is done by being a full human masculine being, a MAN, whose reality is more real than anything external. Your core, your soul, must be more real that any externality.

Sex, as I said before, in itself is impersonal, and at that impersonal level is animal.

Its essence is breaking the barriers. It is something that breaks rules and even derives perverse pleasure in breaking them and penetrating barriers.

BUT, this is true only if the being is at an animal level depending on the external and relations of power in the external World. The human animal then derives perverse pleasure in breaking human rules and in reverting to animal relations of power. Those rules are perceived as weak and those who follow them, also as weak,good little boys, while animals are perceived as strong. This is one of the reasons of female infidelity, the search for that animal, perverse power (from the human point of view) and the breaking of rules and penetration of barriers that are perceived as things of external power to be broken with animal power, not something coming from the inner core..

The solution for being Human is obviously not in rules then, but in the creation of a life core that is above this animal level of power vis a vis the external and of others, so the external rules and barriers are not there to be broken, because humanity is not based on following them, but having a true human core, an inner source of self, an individuality.

A quality girl has a core like that to a certain extent, if created by her father or in other ways (books she read, or other influences), but in entering a relationship with her, one must reinforce that core and make it the core of the relationship, and then go sexual, but not animal sexual in perversely breaking rules and penetrating barriers,but by taking over her entire psyche and body energy system from the Masculine Core, and she must will fully surrender to that core in her heart first, becoming part of that core, the result being a COMMON CORE.

Then, the sexual act becomes a spiritual act from that core of life, and the "sexual" pleasure itself becomes of a different transcending nature because unifying two complete individualities with a common core. And if you think that it is weaker than animal sex, you are completely wrong...
It is far stronger, and doesn't have this destructive property on the soul, but a reinforcing quality instead.

I'm aware that these few words might not be enough to convey what I mean, so use your intuition, because the subject would indeed deserve an entire book.


- 08:47 - Comments (0) - Print - #

03.12.2022., subota





If anyone friendly to the White cause wants to repost any of the articles on this Blog somewhere, feel free to do so.

Some of these articles are a work in progress, and additions might be made in time.


Just an information about the publishing dates of the posts on this Blog: they do not necessarily correspond to the real dates when they were published (including for this post), but editing dates is the only way for me to reorder the posts on the Blog. Many of the posts were actually written long before the date displayed.





- 18:50 - Comments (1) - Print - #

Real Men are Givers, Not Takers.

As the title says Real Men are givers, not takers.

That doesn't mean that a Man is a servant simp, a doormat, it means that he doesn't use girls/women for fun, but creates life preconditions and frame, takes charge of life, takes responsibility for life and for humanizing and spiritualizing women, which is also a Man's role.

A Real Man gives that frame of life, and doesn't see life or women just as sensory entertainment, but as part of that life he creates.

Of course, for a Man giving his Masculinity, there are preconditions.

He will not give it to any woman, only a high quality woman, or a girl of high quality who can be completely humanized and spiritualized or already is. Although a girl can probably only be fully humanized and spiritualized with a Real Man.

To do that, a Man must be fully individualized, meaning that his awareness of self is not an awareness that comes from the validation of the physical and sensory ego or sensory inputs in general, but from inside, from the inner causality and source from inside, and creates life on the outside that corresponds to the quality of that inner source.

Jung was wrong to search for individualization in the piles of reactive sensory garbage accumulated in the unconscious. You will never find it there. Self awareness is the awareness of the cause, the source, the order and the creation.

There is something to be found in the unconscious, but it is the structure and the mechanisms, not the garbage accumulated by the race or the individual, although there are also higher archetypes, archetypes defining what our race really is, what Man is and what Woman is, and what Life is.
Those are worth becoming aware of and ACTUALIZED, because real awareness is practical actualization, and this is what this Blog is mostly about.

But I digress...

Real Manhood is it, that source, that core, that force, that responsibility for the creation of life and giving that act of creation to life with a woman who can complete it, and it becomes a common action and endeavor.

For that, a woman must also be individualized, not be a pleasure and fun toy, but an aware participant in the creation of life under the leadership of a Real Man.

I must warn you that if you indulge in women as just sources of sensory pleasure and entertainment, you are doing three very bad things.

One to yourself because this behavior corrodes your true Masculinity or the ability develop one. You become a sensory robot, an animal, instead of the aware core, self activated force of life that in a MAN.

One other to women, because you fail in your role of humanizer, spiritualizer and individualizer.

And finally to society, White society, because you are sustaining wrong and destructive patterns of male-female relationship in our race.





- 18:10 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Why Monogamy is a Must.

I read claims on SF that men are polygamous by nature, and women hypergamous.
And also that polygamy accelerates evolution.


Someone then asked why should we want monogamy in the first place since it contributes to the spreading of inferior genetic material.

I may give the long answer later, but for now let me say that there is "evolution" and there is "evolution".

In biology, the notion of evolution is not equivalent to progress, just transformation.

While polygamy might have played a positive role in the earlier days of our evolution (maybe, perhaps, maybe not), in the context of a more evolved society that in those times, it would play a negative role.

"Evolution" by polygamy in a more complex social context than the original human communities, means evolution back towards a form of animality, not higher forms of humanity.
This is demonstrated by societies where polygamy is practiced, like Muslim societies and sub-Saharan societies, where individuals don't exactly show a high level of human quality, simply because the connection leading to a couple and to children is not based on humanity, but on more primal animal principles.

I am aware that I should define "human" here, but I don't have the time. I think I wrote something about that in previous posts, and also about "spirituality", and a Man and Woman being the spiritual unit of life.

Summa summarum, if there is no real, completely human/spiritual relationship between a man and a woman, and if the process of M-F coupling in society is not based on that, the selection will no be based on full humanity and spirituality (the way I define it) but on subhuman principles, producing subhuman offspring through generations.

While polygamy is not legal in our societies, the existing explosion of promiscuity and casual sex, could well lead to biological degeneracy towards animality, like I explained in a previous post.
This is not exactly the same as polygamy, but the analogy seems good enough to me to confirm the degenerative property of polygamy.

And I would not say that men are polygamous by nature, as "nature" is the problematic part of that claim. Our "nature" changes with evolution and is not the same as in our ancestors.

And while the animal or subhuman principles are still present in most, other principles are also present in our biological nature (our nature is made of different biological components in selective competition, mostly through culture), although probably not homogeneously spread inside the population.
However, it is that human component of our nature, that the design of society should favor in its evolution, not the preexisting animal components.

Don't get me wrong, humanity is not weakness or lack of masculinity, it is Human Masculinity, and not just animal maleness.
And part of that Masculinity, embedded in the human part of its nature is morality, the creation of a moral order, which is eminently a masculine trait that human evolution has selected, and that polygamy and sexual promiscuity is deselecting, and is reducing men to predators for females again.

I don't have the time right now to talk extensively about the selective role culture should play for true human Masculinity and Femininity (instead of animal maleness and femaleness) in our "nature", or should we say among individuals displaying more pronounced human or animal natures.

Culture should be designed to be biologically selective by favoring human Masculinity and Femininity, not animality, and continue to transform our nature in the human direction.

PS: Ah and another detail. There is this concept that if something in us needs culture to actualize itself in individuals, it is not our "natural state", Only what would not need culture would be natural.

This conception doesn't understand that human nature is different from animal nature and that what is indeed biologically natural to us, more often than not needs culture to actualize itself.
Speaking, for example. If you didn't learn a language, it would not have instinctively popped out of your genes, and yet speaking/language is biologically natural to us.

Humans are creatures of culture, but that doesn't make some of our behaviors, properties or abilities unnatural if they need culture to actualize themselves, it just means that functions that are very much part of our biological nature are intertwined with culture in their actualization.


If Humanity and spirituality is not insufflated sufficiently early into kids by Masculinity (as I explained in previous articles), then they will turn towards exploring sensuality instead of searching for the right thing.
They will become sensory reactive beings without a real aware spiritual core, they will be animalized for lack of a true human core.

This is particularly true for women, for two reasons. One is that Men are the natural leaders, and without the leadership of true Masculinity found in men around them, women have no direction and try different things, while Men, even if partially masculinized (not just "male-nized" if there is such a word) will try to find the right thing, but if they are not complete Men, they cannot offer the leadership of masculinity to women, and even impose it by conditioning the dedication of their masculinity to life with a woman by her being completely humanized and not a hypegamous animal tasting this one and tasting that one.

The other is that if women have not been humanized by the presence of a true Masculine patriarchal father, they will not have a model of the right thing to search around, and then will go into tasting various fruits, losing value in the process for the real Man, because falling into animality and losing purity.

There is a third reason actually, which was explained in the "why men must demand virginity from women", and that's the relative ease a woman can get sex, even a very average woman. They may not get a relationship with the man that they want, but sex with some random dude, yes they can.
So it is easier for them to fall into sensory dependent animal patterns

PS: I recently read an article linked on Strormfront about polygamy:

Will Polygamy Fix Slumped White Demographics?

Will Polygamy Save the White Race?


Fortunately the article reaches the right conclusions in the end BUT... a lot of nonsense in it, like the idea that polygamy is the default setting without the constraints of civilization, and that society naturally evolves towards polygamy in the case of declining morality, like in Rome, or whatever the reason was for Islam or Mormons.
Rome never became polygamous, despite its lack or morality, and the polygamy of Mormons or Islam was for the purpose of a bunch of men wanting to multiply as a group, against other groups threatening them. But there was nothing natural about that, as it was strongly supported by the religions they had, Mormons managing to convince women through religion, while Muslims didn't have to even do that, they would take women by force in that first period of expansion of Islam, and the tradition persisted because it was enshrined by a very inflexible religion.

As for the Subsaharans, what made them polygamous is unknown, but their closeness to animality could explain it.They didn't evolve true humanity and did compose with animality in the creation of their societies.

So the argument of "naturality", particularly for the White race, which has evolved humanity further, goes down the toilet in those examples.

As for today's immorality leading to polygamy, it is a gratuitous claim. What it leads to is disintegration of society, no matter the "whooping" 23% of Americans in favor of polygamy or other poly practices. LOL.

And the idea that in difficult times, society would revert to polygamy is also false, because there were a LOT of difficult periods in White history, and White society didn't revert to polygamy. Perhaps was monogamy even strengthened in those times of trial.

I really don't have the time to properly deconstruct all the fallacies in what is a rather large article, but at least it has the merit to make the right conclusions in the end. Only monogamy is good for the White race.


The Market Approach Versus the Aware Masculinity Approach

Here I will comment the market approach in the attempt of changing the dating practices in Western societies explained by The Q, and contrast it with my own approach of aware masculinity, and try to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses.

That will have to wait for some other day, but you can probably already guess that it will include the question of the Masculine role in morality, and the question if women can change their behavior by mere rational understanding of the market, or if Aware Masculinity must impose its conditions to them.
Also, can market "red pilling" of men, (while absolutely necessary for understanding that a change is necessary) be sufficient for any change in that market, or is aware Masculinity what can actually realize the change.

OK, a little addition:

Women need masculinity to give them direction (that's why making women aware to the White race on an intellectual level is statistically a losing proposition, because they are aware of their race through its Masculinity), if that masculinity is missing from the White race, if White men are incapable of self affirmation and defense of their group, if they negate themselves and see their own masculinity as bad, White women will search for "masculinity" somewhere else, even though that masculinity would be inferior than the White archetype of masculinity, the strong creator, warrior and creator of a life order.

This decline of masculinity in the White race is not just due to the enemy's propaganda, but to a search of external pleasures, a search of sensuality. This is how all decadence in civilizations happened in the past, by a deficit of masculinity.

This is also why the red pilling of women through dating market awareness cannot work, because masculinity is not just maleness on the market, it is a moral order, and a human and a spiritual order.

If White Masculinity does not impose that order, and we could call it the White order, because it is generated by White Masculinity, women will act inside an animal order and no amount of market red pilling of women will work, and they will search for animality in the dating market.
But of course, White Masculinity must be there and be widespread...




- 18:08 - Comments (0) - Print - #

21.10.2022., petak

Double Standards? (Significantly updated 25.12.2022, particularly the part in Bold, about Masculinity not being domesticated)



Before anything, I would like to say how sad I am to be forced to write articles like this one.
The realities it talks about make me deeply unhappy, but one has to look reality in the eyes and try to improve it.




Under a YouTube video about double standards in women, I saw the comment of a guy saying that he's perfectly fine if a woman has a high body count, because she has the right to her own life.

Of course she has, but her choice of life determines her quality.

Because I felt a little lazy, I quoted Emperor Lelouches comment from a Stormfront topic:

"Don't be a traditional man for a non-traditional women. Since women in today's society think it's completely acceptable to have a "Hoe phase" in their early years, yet want a traditional man later in life.
No, that's not how it works. Traditionally the woman was a virgin until marriage, so if the woman is not a virgin, she has no right to demand a traditional man.
The day's in which men were the workhorses and women were the prize ponies are over. Women should be held to the same standards as men, and held accountable, just like men."


Feeling suddenly a bit less lazy, I added that as far as "double standards" are concerned (the subject of the video), that concept is an illusion in the case of expecting virginity from women (although I do NOT praise promiscuity for men), because it is based on the idea of symmetry in a relationship, when in fact a man-woman relationship is a balanced asymmetry, which means that it is an exchange where what is exchanged has to have the same reciprocal value, BUT it is not the same thing that is exchanged.

A Man must bring strength, leadership, responsibility, taking charge, protection and the creation of an order (which implies a moral order), while a woman must bring everything that makes it worth for a Man to fully invest his masculinity in the life with a woman, to create life together.

Purity is part of that deal, and makes it worth for a man to completely invest himself. Otherwise he might as well become a predator, because, as someone else said: "why pay full price for what a woman has given for free to others?"

If a woman wants full masculinity from a Man, she must give full femininity, which includes purity. And women who are not pure know very well the value of purity in the exchange, because they pretend to be pure, purity being one of the essential component that attracts men to women.
In the light of this, the "holding women to the same standards" from the quote above would mean holding them accountable for their feminine side of the bargain, for what they must bring in order to have the right to expect the full commitment of a Man.


Having said that, I hold men accountable for the present situation, because, as Anna, the author of the video rightly said, they let it happen.
And they did it by abandoning the patriarchal moral order for the vain promises of the sexual revolution and its "freedom", and now many among them cry because of that bad choice, but do not realize that they must reinstate patriarchy, not in any primitive form of the past, but as a moral order created by masculine leadership and responsibility, a moral order for themselves, but which, because it is leadership, also makes clear moral demands on women, if they want to get what such Men can give.


This is what I said, but of course it doesn't solve anything on the individual level, for a man searching for the right women in the degenerate modern world.
The best I can advise is for boys to develop aware masculinity from the youngest possible age, and use its force of masculine energy to find and lock a quality girl as early as possible.

That awakened masculinity makes a Man from a boy, and since it implies leadership, it will incite a girl tending towards quality to definitely chose that path.


Just a word about the SF topic from which I extracted Emperor Lelouches post.

There, there are invertebrate Beta Simps, pretending to be "Red Pilled" and "having understood the "game" and how to "play the game" by accepting women to whore in their younger years, and getting those women when they get tired of whoring and need a provider, by being a good Simp provider, which is exactly the opposite of "Red Pill" which tells to not be a Simp provider to sluts.
And these slimy invertebrate slugs dare to insult men with spine who will not accept the game played by sluts (although Lelouches choice of MGTOW is the wrong one)...

There is even a deranged imbecile who suggests that men should not want virgins because taking a girl's virginity is an "extremely painful process" and he doesn't like to hurt girls... As if it was the issue, and not the systemic problem represented by a dehumanized amoral degenerate society.
Not to even mention that it is an act of the deepest intimacy, and of course what was said above about exchange, where the feminine side of the exchange should include purity.
But then he brags about having had virgins and is "screwing" young girls... Of course he didn't marry any of these virgins or young girls, despite claiming that he wanted to "stay with them", but probably sweettalked them into sex, and probably ruined some of them in the process.

I know this type, they make all sorts of pseudo-logical acrobatics to justify the way they behave, and are really good at lying, because they train their lying on themselves first.
And then there are the crybabies and the weirdos with their weirdo theories.

The cretinism on that topic is unbelievable... If not the highest in all SF topics ever, it must be close.
The genius moderators let it go through though, but close or delete what they shouldn't.
Typical. rofl

Such topics make me almost regret that I left SF... smijeh

Almost but not quite.




Addition:

First, Watch this video about Simps and sluts.

It was suggested to me by chance by the YouTube algorithm today, and it was perfect for this article.

The most interesting part is the interview of the five or six college girls (5:34 - 8:55 - 11:29). All except one admit that they have at least one "fuck friend" (they have probably many more than they admit): a guy they just fuck with, and wait for the guy they will have a relationship with, AND make him wait, so that he pays full price for what they give for free to some garbage.

And then one of the girls admits without any shame that the guy she will have a relationship with will never know all of this, that she will lie to him and present herself in a fake light, as pure, basically using him and getting him under false pretenses, as an utility.

Btw., when she says that her fuck buddies are not good enough for a relationship, she actually means that they are not Simp enough to serve her. That's what it means "not being good for a relationship" to her. It's not about some qualities of the soul she would seek, because she has none herself, it's just about being there for her, while she fucks with those who are not stupid enough to believe in her acting.

What self respecting man would marry such a girl? What qualities of the soul does she have?
Did she sincerely repent at least, or is she a happy liar and user - a happy life vampire?
How would such life vampire perform as a wife (video)?

I don't know if the interviewed girls are representative of American college girls, I really hope not, but the author of the video seems to think so, and he claims that he got Red Pilled not because he could not get laid, but because he could, and realized how girls were behaving these days.

I went to college in Croatia, and at that time, the situation seemed better than what it appears to be now in the US
(Here I deleted a part, about my personal experience concerning women's behaviour, that may have appeared as tasteless bragging, but which was not its purpose. I wanted to say that my Croatian and not just Croatian experience is not the one of someone usually ignored by women, but also someone who never adhered to casual sex and promiscuity...)
I believe that the situation in my country is still better than in the US, but is getting worse.



Btw. the girls or women who have "summer adventures", which are about casual sex, and those women who have so called "relationships" (so not a hidden fuck buddy) that are just an excuse for animal sex, while they are perfectly aware that this "relationship" is temporary and just for fun and sex, but cannot publicly admit they are sluts, so they pretend it's a "relationship", those women also degrade the value of sex, make it cheap, below human level, and personally I don't see how a self respecting Man could have anything serious or at all with them.

So if a guy is good looking, exciting and promises fun, including bedroom fun, they will quickly have sex with him, even if he is not promising as a long term partner. But a solid man who is not as sexually exciting, or even an attractive and seductive man, but a man of quality, and who can take care of her, she will have him wait for sex, until she is convinced that he will commit to her.

For "Chad" she will condition nothing, and let him fuck her almost right away (just with the smallest possible delay, so that she doesn't feel like totally cheap), but for the less attractive man or the quality man, she will make all kinds of conditions. (Of course a quality man who is also a Man, will not tolerate that crap.)

How is it possible to respect such a woman, and how is she different from the "assholes" she might complain about, and what kind of self respecting man would commit to her, invest efforts in her if she fucks for free with the fun-boys? What is her intrinsic value if she has double standards like that for what should be the highest level of human intimacy, if she degrades its value to mere animal fun with the fun-boy, but suddenly pretends it to be super-valuable on a human level, for the average or quality guy, and suddenly and miraculously, it's so valuable that he has to pay the highest price for what "Chad" had to pay nothing?
Average or quality guy has to be "human" and pay the full price, because for them, she is "valuable", but fun-boy just has to fuck her good... For him she is very cheap.


And the quality guy should accept, I guess, that she fucks without making conditions with low quality men and her being an animal with them, but he should nevertheless see her as highly valuable, cherish her, and should invest his human quality into life with her.
Where is HER quality, so that his investment makes sense?
She thinks that she can be a slut and an animal when she finds it convenient, but suddenly and miraculously becomes high quality material and demands quality when she hopes to lock a quality man.
That quality man should really be an idiot to accept that. This behavior by these women is deeply dehumanizing, and dehumanizes relationships, making them a travesty.


Spiritual people have no double standards and they don't respect double standards. For them it's always human, not conveniently "human" in some cases, but animal in others, when humanity is "not required".
IT IS ALWAYS REQUIRED!. Otherwise it is never human. Double standards and hypocrisy are not human, they are dehumanizing and degrading for what a relationship should be.
Being double faced is not a sign of a quality human being.

I am fascinated by people who don't see the shocking contradiction and hypocrisy in those double standards.

How can sex with her be that deep spiritual intimacy that it should be, if she soiled it and reduced it's value to basically nothing, or even degrading in the spiritual sense? How can it regain its, not only specialness, but uniqueness of spiritual intimacy and value as spiritual union if it could have been used in such a way, and how can femininity, including her beauty mean anything anymore?

For a spiritual Man, her value is gone.

There is the very, very theoretical possibility of total repentance, which means a total cleansing of all the animal energies and traces of what she did, but a real repentance is probably as likely as the jackpot on the lottery.
There are exceptions to everything, and there are traumatic situations and pain that sometimes pushes someone towards wrong choices as a way to alleviate pain, but if it is hypocrisy and classical animal slutting, as it is in a wast majority of cases, forget it.

Repentance is not a superficial thing, or even an emotional thing in its essence, although it produces strong emotions, it is not a pragmatic thing either; you know, of the type: "I made some mistakes but I learned my lesson now, I will do better".
It is something far deeper. It is the complete renouncement and rejection of the actions and the patterns of being from the past, complete in the deepest core and all the recesses of the soul, and a fundamental respiritualization and rehumanization of the whole soul, a restructuring on the deepest core level. It basically creates a new being, cleansed from the energies and attachments of the past, where the old patterns are nowhere to be found anymore, and the awareness of the true being completely replaced them.

True repentance is possible, but probably very rare. It is far more than just a pragmatic change of lifestyle. I often hear: "I made all those mistakes, they caused those bad results, but I don't regret anything". Now, there's a new serious mistake right there! That means that they didn't really change, they just understood with their reason the relationship between actions and consequences, but they didn't transform themselves spiritually, they are mostly the same and only have their fragile reason to support them.

Although, regrets as such are useless or even counterproductive without repentance.
Repentance is not the same as regrets. It is a deep change, a deep transformation of the whole being to the core, not a mere feeling sorry for oneself or some little rational readjustment.

And the so called "born again virgins" apparently do exist, but those seem to be mostly just attempts of promiscuous women to lock naive religious Simps into marriage.

Women who had "relationships" for sex and fun will usually have the fake excuse that they had a "failed relationship", and claim they were sincere and serious in that "relationship". Don't fall for it, they were slutting, and they know it.



So, it is clear that It is crucial that Men return to Patriarchy and, first impose moral behavior on themselves, and then on women. For that process, the fundamental revalorization of virginity is essential, otherwise the female slutting will only get worse, because it gets rewarded by men, instead of being punished by rejecting sluts.
Only purity must be rewarded.

I disagree with the author of the above video who says that the hookup culture is the women's fault.
It is the fault of men, because they should have the role of leaders, but they accept and reward female slutting, while only purity should be rewarded.
But to be able to change things, men should recreate a Patriarchal moral system, and yes... first for themselves, because men relinquished their responsibility for the creation of a moral order (what Patriarchy essentially is) because of the fake promises of the sexual revolution, and now that they are paying for that choice, they must return to the right path, or things will only get worse.

-

And another video, courtesy of the YouTube algorithm. About the difference between modern girls and girls of older generations, which also explains why some men become promiscuous, even if it wasn't their original intention. They see no point in treating these girls right.

I say, don't be promiscuous, but try your best to find the right girl, and use your intelligence for that!

But the reason modern girls are like that is that in a society without the frame of Patriarchal masculinity, which is the real masculinity, leading, taking charge and responsibility, creating a life order and a moral order, and demanding from women to respect that or being rejected, women have no model of masculinity to be attracted to, other than the asshole model.
They believe that this primitive subhuman model is masculinity, because the "good boys" to be masculine, must develop into patriarchal masculinity, the leading and uncompromising one, but no one teaches them that anymore.
The only thing they see around them is asshole primitive masculinity, which is not on a true human level and doesn't represent the human potential.

And women cannot invent by themselves the real model of masculinity, they take what is available, and what is available are assholes and good boys who haven't developed real human Patriarchal masculinity, because they had no real role model.

Women WANT to be dominated, this is in their nature, but if they haven't in their minds the model of the essential Patriarchal Man they really want to be dominated by, they will go for the asshole, because he also dominates them, but in a destructive way, ultimately for these women themselves, but also to society in general. The asshole also appears to lead, but he leads to nowhere, only to superficial and destructive illusions.

The only girls these days, who are decent, are those who had a father who was a real Patriarch, or who were educated in a context that made them appreciate the real model of masculinity, the Patriarchal one (even though they might feel reluctant to call it that way because of feminist brainwashing), a real model of true strong human masculinity, and then they search that in a Man.

If they didn't have such model in a young age, they don't know what masculinity is and think masculinity is what the asshole bad boys and various predators "offer", which is essentially nothing; some empty and dehumanizing fun, parties and animal sex.
One of the problems is that among boys, those who appear to (falsely) show masculinity, are the more stupid ones, various aggressive idiots without self control, and foolish girls think that this is masculinity, and that the animality they "lead" towards, is life, when it is actually the destruction of true human life.

Unfortunately the quality boys, tend to develop their masculinity slower, because they are more complex beings and there are more things to mature in them than in a quasi animal. Later, they can become far more masculine than the assholes, but at that time, many girls were already ruined by fucking with various garbage. (And this is an additional reason why a culture valorizing virginity is essential.)

This would change in a patriarchal culture where quality boys would be taught by their fathers to be Men, and girls would be given the example of true masculinity by their father, so that they can search for something like that in a future partner and husband.

Can a Man with real Patriarchal masculinity compete with asshole masculinity these days?
You bet he can! Every time. His authority makes the assholes pale.
But he must become a Man, and not remain a good boy anymore. Unfortunately, the asshole is the main cultural alternative to the good boy, available these days. No Patriarchal awareness of real masculinity on the cultural market nowadays...


BUT...One thing... Patriarchal Masculinity is not a domesticated masculinity, predictable, "safe".
It can create safety, but always remains dangerous...
Its dangerousness comes from being the sole cause of its actions, in essence not relying on any patterns and being unpredictable.
It is the causal action par excellence, the source. Not dependent on anything or anyone.
If it creates safety, it is its good will, not because it needs it.
If it leads in the right direction, it is not because of wanting to be validated as "good", but because it wants to, it is its will.

It is like the Will of God, which creates righteousness, not because it needs a safe environment, but because it wants it so. (For good life-systemic reasons, of course.)

Aware Masculinity, although it does the right things, doesn't do it because it is domesticated and needs a domesticated frame.
Totally independent, it remains the wildest thing, the wildest causal energy, but under the total control of self awareness, and self purposefulness.

You can lead on pleasant, fun and creative paths in life, but that's because you really lead, and know that there is no safety. You become the safety for those you lead, but you remain wildness, but aware and self controlled wild energy of the core of the inner fire.

Masculinity may appear to be "good" in the way those who search a cocoon conceive it. It is protective and benevolent, but in essence it stands alone facing the void, and is completely uncompromising and ruthless in the realization of its inner purpose.
---------------
AND ANOTHER THING.

The Humanity of women often doesn't exist by itself. "Human" is a spiritual ORDER created by Masculinity. It is the role of true, aware Masculinity to insufflate Humanity into women.
If Masculinity doesn't do it, women rebel against the Human order and go back to the animal order. Those who are not humanized by Masculinity in their core, take their revenge on the Human order with perverse pleasure because they see it as something external, imposed to them. Only if Masculinity has created a human core for Women, a "soul", can they understand Humanity from the start.

Women perceive the human and spiritual order THROUGH MASCULINITY.
This is particularly true for the White race, where masculinity has created a human order.
But if there is a lack of masculinity in the White race these days, women will search for masculinity elsewhere, What they will find is not masculinity but animality, but one cannot principally blame them because without the masculinity of their own race, what are they left with, most of them?

One can blame the enemy and his propaganda, BUT blaming the enemy is a mistake. Enemies are just a fact of life, a constant in life's evolution. MEN must have the Masculinity to defeat the enemy.

But isn't the issue of humanity also true for many men? Yes it is, but still true Masculinity is what creates Humanity, what creates a life order, a morality, not femininity. Femininity can be imprinted by it one way or the other.

The only exception is when the maternal instinct of women extends beyond their children, but even then, this doesn't go very far without the frame of duty and moral order that must be created by Masculinity.

Young girls are predisposed by nature to receive that breath of Humanity, that breath coming from Masculinity and positive Human Masculine order and leadership, but if they don't receive it sufficiently early, they have a good chance to revert to animality.
They must be imprinted by Humanity sufficiently early. Best by a father having full Masculinity, although that imprint can happen in other ways, if the girl is sufficiently self reflective by nature or by circumstances.

By "Masculinity" here, I do not mean a single Man, but Masculinity as a historical process extracting humanity from animality and creating Humanity, the Human order.

Sometimes I wonder if it is not the true meaning of the Biblical story of Eve being created from the rib of Adam...

It may be a "teleological" process of sorts, something implicit in the human species that extracts itself from animality and is also doing the extracting as the Word, the Principle, the Archetype that is in the process of manifestation, and which is in its essence Masculinity.

The Masculine principle, the "Word", the ORDER, may even be something deeper and universal manifesting itself into Humanity.


Men have created female beauty as an ideal of Humanity, almost as a religious IDOL, and then hope that women will be those who are the guardians of Humanity. They will not be. Men are its guardians when they have full aware Masculinity, which then CREATES complete Humanity together with Women.

Do never be impressed by female beauty and confuse it with spirituality. Spirituality is aware life that, on a collective level, can only come from aware Masculinity, and is insufflated into women and society by Masculinity, creating Humanity.

Do never feel invalidated or devalued by female animal behavior, because you were expecting something spiritual instead from such beauty.
That beauty is just an IDOL, a projection Masculinity has made of Spirituality, but an incomplete projection.
YOU must be Spirituality, aware Life and Masculinity that creates, You must be the WORD!
YOU must imprint spirituality into the World and into women, not just expect spirituality from them.

They were made to be imprinted by it and surrender to it, but are more and more imprinted with animality these days.
Do not "save" them", but be and "beam" your Masculinity unconditionally, undisturbed and unhurt by what you can see around you. Do not resent, just be full aware creative unconditional Masculinity and act.



Now take a look at this video:

“They’re Miserable!” - @JedediahBilaLIVE & @JustPearlyThings Tell The TRUTH About Promiscuous Women

Those two women try to find the answer to the promiscuous behavior of women.

One thinks that modern women are like that because they were fooled by feminism, while the other thinks that girls (by nature?) just want to have fun, and realize the consequences only too late.

The point escapes them both; which is the increasing deficit of humanity in modern women, which is caused by a deficit in Masculinity, what I explained above.

Here is my comment under the video.:


The answer is that without Patriarchy, starting with a strong loving but uncompromising Patriarch father, a girl looks up to, women are out of control.

I was going to start this comment with the question: "are (those) girls/women even human?", and then I remembered what I myself wrote on my Blog; that women become human if humanity is insufflated in them by true Masculinity (not what passes as masculinity these days), one way or the other.

Ideally it should be by a strong Masculine father, who is a loving Patriarch they respect and seek approval from, instead of disrespecting and rebelling, if he is not a full Man. Sometimes it can be someone else if the girl is naturally self reflective, even a mother or women whose humanity has been insufflated by true Masculinity. If true Masculinity doesn't insufflate and imprint humanity into a girl sufficiently early, that girl will revert to animal instincts, and that's why Patriarchy is the most natural order for Human beings, it makes them Human.

Unfortunately Patriarchy has been arrested in its development at a level of social roles, that is not adapted to present times, because man fell into the trap of promiscuity offered by the sexual revolution, and also because of some economic factors not favorable to Patriarchy.

Now men are crying about female behavior, but that behavior exists because men relinquished their responsibility of being Full Men, and conceived masculinity as just maleness. Masculinity is far more than that. It is strength (in life), self reliance, leadership, taking responsibility, taking charge and creating a human life order, a moral order in life, with their Masculine authority, and all this in a loving benevolent, but strong uncompromising way.

Masculinity deficiency in modern society is the cause of the destructive behavior of modern women. True masculinity structures women and imprints humanity in them, directly (Father) or indirectly (Patriarchal society).

But it cannot be any primitive patriarchy of the past, it must be a new evolved one, just as strong or even stronger, but based on a fundamental awareness and realization of Masculinity and what it fully means, instead of mere social gender roles.
Until men don't become full Men again, this dissolution will continue... Masculinity IS Patriarchy.


Take a look at this video too:

THIS Is Why Women End Up Lonely And Unhappy

The comments are particularly interesting, and I would underline the comment of a certain Paul Weston, who "drove limos for girls/hens/nights/weekends away"

"I once drove limos for girls/hens/nights/weekends away and the amount of cheating was incredible married, engaged, girl friends, even a good amount of brides to be. They would egg each other on with games like first to get laid, cutest guy, cubicle sex, most guys etc etc some had already sourced guys online for hook ups and of course they make plans to cover up for each other once home. Rarely was there a job ( and I did hundreds ) that this did not happen. It really opened my eyes to female nature and there are a hell of a lot of guys out there that have absolutely no idea what their women get up too."

The destructive influence of social media these days is so strong, that to prevent such herd influenced behavior of women, this dependence of the lowest common denominator of their women's group, a Patriarch father must imprint humanity in his girls as early as possible, and give them a human individuality.
The creation of a human individuality in girls as early as possible is key.

In boys too, but for girls it is particularly critical, because evolutionarily, they need that imprint from Masculinity fast and really bad because by nature they depend on Masculine leadership and Patriarchy for that.

For women not to date other races, the most important thing is their father, who must be a strong, fully masculine White loving Patriarch, a girl will look up to and search for his approval.

This is very much connected to the humanization of girls, which goes through the human imprint given to them at an early age. Girls/women are in fact humanized by Masculinity and if they get the full model and example of White masculinity from their father, they will search for it later.

That fully Masculine Patriarch must also make clear to his girls that he loves them (tell them and act that way, but in a full Patriarchal Masculine frame) and that they can completely believe him, and talk with him about anything in full confidence.

In the two videos above, my comments are not directly connected to the White race, BUT if a White father displays full loving Patriarchal Masculinity in contact with his Daughters, Wife and family, chances are that they will later search for that full White Masculinity in a Man.





The Key to Selection


The relationship of a woman to true Patriarchal Masculinity, her reaction to a true Man is the key for selecting a woman.
If the contact with that true Masculinity makes a woman react so that she displays that a relationship with such a Man is a spiritual thing (in the sense of spirituality being aware, self activated life, as I explained in previous articles), if it makes her feel that with such a Man and his masculinity, she finds spiritual completeness of life and of the part of that aware life (spirituality) she represents in the couple with that Man. If it actualizes the spirituality of life for her, she is quality material.
It doesn't mean that she must immediately decide that you are IT, but she must react to real masculinity from a spiritual perspective about the potential union of the two sides of life that a Man and a Woman are. A woman must display the potential for ever better and more complete spiritualization.

If on the other hand she perceives masculinity in an animal way, as just a hypergamous female excited by mere animal maleness, but there is no spiritual dimension of finding and developing the spiritual meaning of life with that Man, in the sense of an integration of aware life from the Masculine and Feminine side, she is not the full human being that you need.

How will you know? You observe. You don't babble about it, you observe how she interacts with you, what she says, talks about, how you talk together. You observe, you don't ask her if she feels this spiritual dimension with you, you just look carefully if she displays it in her acts and words with you.

And truly human sexual attraction passes through this spiritual dimension first, which is then expressed in the joy of physical intimacy, which also becomes a spiritual thing, as integrated in the wholeness of aware life.

This appears to slightly contradict what I said about sexualization in the article on advice about dating for boys, but just in appearance, because the masculine energy you use to "take over" a woman is not animal energy, but full complete masculine energy, and the resulting sexualization is not a mere animal one, but passes through that spiritual dimension for life that true Masculinity actually is.




- 17:57 - Comments (0) - Print - #

29.09.2022., četvrtak

What is Confidence?



I watched the video: How To Initiate & HOLD A CONVERSATION WITH A WOMAN You're Attracted To

This was my comment:


For me, confidence is being self activated instead of being reactive, which means to always be the aware cause of what I'm doing instead of going on reactive autopilot, reacting to any automatic emotion that arises from a situation.

Emotions are what automatically moves us IF we are in the reactive mode (and it can move us in the wrong direction), but if we are in an active, causal mode, we can actually activate the desired body energies (usually called "emotions") that are usually automatic, and then these energies activate our mind in a certain way adapted to a situation, for example to know spontaneously what to say to someone.

Some people probably call it a state of "flow", but the important thing to understand is that it is caused by an awareness that is self activated, impervious to the exterior, in a certain way (its core), and which activates various modes of body energies at will, which in return activate the mind in a certain way to spontaneously adapt to the situation.

This is a feedback process between the mind and the body. The body and the mind form a whole, and I sometimes say that we think with our body, but all that feedback loop must be activated by the untouched unreactive but active, self activating awareness core.

At a certain level, we can call it "The Will", but it is different than what people usually mean by "will", which is usually just a fight against automatic reactivity.

"Will", is actually the aware "I", the "I am" of the mystics, the real self awareness that establishes the right hierarchy between the self activating core of awareness and the mind-body, or body-mind.

WRITTEN THE NEXT DAY:

I know that what I wrote is too general and will try to make it more practical.

It has to do with the hierarchy of purposes and goals.

If someone is like a reactive pinball in a pinball machine, he has no direction of his own but is at the mercy of various external impulses. For example a man in relation to women can be in a situation where he faces a whole confusion of goals and purposes he is unable to order: "should I do this, should I want that, or that... what should I do, what should I want" (a human asks himself those questions, a mere "biped" has animal purposes). This applies to all kinds of life situations, not just male-female relationships.

Someone aware of his "I", his inner causal core, someone self activated, becomes aware of himself as the initial aware purpose, aware self activated life. One realizes that one is life and aware life. That life is the purpose.
Then this is articulated into a hierarchy of more specific life purposes and goals serving those purposes, which is the articulation of awareness into all dimensions and aspects of life, it is a process of maturation of life, a process of becoming an adult.

So many people don't become adults in many aspects of their lives, particularly in M-F relationships, and it would help them to establish this awareness of purposes and goals from the top, the self activated awareness to specific articulations of that life core in all aspects of their lives. They would have a clear direction, and confronted to various situations, they would not be at their mercy, but would assess them in relation to their own direction.

This is what I call Clarity - the Clarity of purposes and goals from the top, the awareness of self, the aware life, the "I Am".

M-F relationship is also a question of life and awareness of the purpose of that life union and make it a real functional union of the unit of life that is the couple. Having that purpose in mind one can assess other people and if they are capable to be part of that, and become that union of life and grow into adulthood in that direction. In this World this is a problem, and it would be the role of a Man to lead in that direction, but Clarity in that area is very deficient.

But when one becomes confident and self assured in Clarity, one can become very playful inside it and also develop strong emotions in accordance to that Clarity. This is not a stern "discipline", it's life.

And another detail: The "I AM" always stays the I AM, but it also integrates and absorbs all its purposes and goals in itself.







- 18:21 - Comments (0) - Print - #

23.07.2022., subota

What is Leadership in a Relationship and in Marriage?

I may write something longer in the future, but just a few words for now.

Leadership has many aspects, for example making clear that you demand the acceptance of leadership and will not accept nonsense, but what I want to mention here is the real practical goal of the masculine leadership, which is the creation of a team!

The leader must be able to take decisions alone if the situation demands it, and will not debate about it, but in a relatively normal situation, the leader must, first create a team, and them lead that team.

This presupposes that he will make himself accepted as the leader, firstly by showing leadership ability (aka masculinity) and secondly by demanding that recognition, otherwise... no relationship or marriage (aka "adio bella").

But then he must build a team with him as leader and with a woman and her feminine nature and role.

That means that he must make conscious to both, to himself and to the woman that they are a team and that they are in it together.
The boyfriend-girlfriend phase serves the purpose of establishing the team and establishing the basics of its functioning.

Those basics are leadership, but also communication and constant feedback - leadership is not tyranny, but a team thing.

But it is even much more than that: it is voluntary and eager participation and contribution.

Only when this community, this team based on participation of both to create something better in common is established, only when the commitment of both for that common enterprise is assured can come marriage.

And when children come, you, as the team leader, have to make them members of the team under the leadership of you and your wife, but you being the ultimate leader.
You have to get your children to feel that they are also part of a team, and that you are all in it together. They accept your authority as benevolent leader, understanding that whatever you do is for the common good, BUT, they also must feel part of it, participate and contribute, give feedback and ideas, and you have to take it all in account and make them welcome to participate, and even feel the responsibility to participate.

None of this is a game for power, neither between you or your wife, not with or between your children. Your leadership must be unconditional, precisely because it is not about your egoism, but you must correct egoism if it appears among the members of your team, and make them understand that this is not about egoism, but about working and progressing together,

Of course it absolutely does NOT mean that anyone's individuality must be suppressed.
It is exactly the opposite. It is through the development of each individuality, including your own, that each individuality can contribute the best.






- 07:30 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Left Stormfront

I CAME BACK WITH THE IDENTITY OF "COR TAURI" FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

A long overdue decision, postponed a few times.
Through time, differences and conflicts with the moderating-administrative team accumulated to such a level that, not unexpectedly, the last drop eventually came, and I had to draw the line.

For example my topic on morality (the same one as on this blog) was deleted because a senior moderator found it more convenient than to sanction some dimwits who sabotaged it. Then there was a moderator who used to delete my posts so that he could have the last word, because he was not able to articulate a cogent argument, and sanctioned me if I dared to dismantle his childish babble. Of course the very principled admin did nothing.
And there were also so many good people and friends on SF who left because of the culpable indulgence of the moderating-administrative team towards some arrogant idiots (some old boys network, probably), and also because of the numerous nonsensical decisions by the moderators.
So when came a final deletion of a post of mine that I could not accept and continue to post on SF, even though I put up with a lot for the common good until that point, I left.
The threshold was passed, enough was enough.

This was not a hasty decision but the result of a long buildup.

PS: I'm actually surprised how indifferent I am, now that I left. It was really grand time...

I will miss some people I'm sure, but sometimes dignity comes at a price.

PS: Another reason, that was not the direct cause of my leaving, but definitely contributed to it in the background, is the widespread admiration for Hitler on SF, I was always irritated by that. But now that there is widespread support for the subhuman garbage Putin and his murderous aggression, I had even more difficulties to perceive SF as a place that I would feel good about.


Just an information about the publishing dates of the posts on this Blog: they do not necessarily correspond to the real dates when they were published (including for this post), but editing dates is the only way for me to reorder the posts on the Blog. Many of the posts were actually written long before the date displayed.







- 07:00 - Comments (0) - Print - #

How to Beat a Loudmouth (Attention Grabber) in a Social Situation?

YouTube suggested the following video to me:

6 Personality Types Women Obsess Over

So, I thought: "Oh, why not, can't hurt" and I watched it.

It presents six types of charisma in social situations, identified by the author of the video:

- The Cool Guy
- The Giver
- The Goofball
- The Suave
- The Attention Grabber
- The Storyteller

My attention (no pun intended) was mostly intrigued by the issue of the "Attention Grabber", because, without living in the USA, I get the impression that this is a tactic often used by Negroids to make them the focus of a social situation, and I could see that this could represent a problem for a White man who doesn't want to make a monkey of himself by competing with a monkey on his own terms, by using monkey patterns of behavior.

So here is what I wanted to post as initial comment under the video, but I renounced and posted it here instead:


"The really interesting question is how to beat the loudmouth (attention grabber) in a social situation, if you are not a loudmouth yourself and it would be beneath you to act like a (negroid) monkey, but you have complete confidence in yourself at the same time?

Definitely not by making something confrontational, that would make you look small and threatened, but something that makes the loudmouth look small and insignificant, despite his grand gestures. Something that completely neutralizes the apparent importance of what he says and the way he expresses it.

One should analyze the patterns of the loudmouth. They probably exists and can be analyzed better than in this general video, because loudmouths are about selling themselves as the ones who are referential in a social situation.
Probably something in the lines of an intelligent humor that makes their pretension to be the focus of attention ridiculous. Or some clever (and humorous) questions that deflate the whole frame the loudmouth has created for himself and "exists" through. This deserves a very specific analysis."


Then after a minute, I came up with the obvious solution:


One must be on a higher awareness level - a higher frame than them, and see completely their frame from above and control it from a more causal transcending frame, that transcends their frame.

But one must also deflect attention, meaning that what one says must deflect the subject of discussion from "them", because loudmouths basically talk only about themselves, not anything else, towards a more general frame where the minds of the other interlocutors shift from the subject of the loudmouth to some frame outside of his monkeying, and then you can redirect and take control of the audience's attention and impose the higher pattern of charisma that you have: the "Calm Unquestionable Leader".

The video didn't envision that highest form of charisma: The Leader.

(That's the higher mind frame I was talking about, btw.)

The Leader can do everything the other types can, but from a vantage point higher and transcending any of them. Then, the behaviors described in the video become just some tools among others, and one can make a number of of other tools and improvise various useful behaviors (like you improvise a solution to fix some mechanical problem or some house repair, or whatever problem needs improvisation, you use imagination).

Basically you play the instrument that needs to be played at a given moment, like in a piece of music, but never forgetting the main theme: you are The Leader, and you control the situation as a Leader with total potency, not by just being reduced to a narrow pattern of behavior.

You are the composer and the conductor of your own orchestra.

By being the totipotent Leader, you can beat any of the "single instrument" guys, because you are on a level of awareness and action higher than them, and control all the parameters of the situation from that level.

You also must enter any situation by physically embodying leadership. You enter it as THE Leader, not as someone trying to find a niche for himself in that situation.
You control, you don't even think about the others, you just control.

And what you say must not be on the same level of yapping and monkeying of your opponent, but something outside and above that content placing yourself as the real arbiter of the situation, completely above the frame they use and establishing a higher frame of verbal content, controlling the lower frames. You don't follow the existing dynamic, you create a new one. You don't fit in, you don't follow, you take over and you LEAD.

And don't worry how you look. If you manifest total confidence and leadership superiority, those who only have their body for them, will look weak compared to you, because they rely on something external that they have, not on the core that they are - because they aren't.





- 06:10 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Dating Advice for Boys (Added a new part about "Personalization")



DUE TO SOME SPIRITUAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN MYSELF, I CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POST OBSOLETE AND I WILL HAVE TO REWRITE IT COMPLETELY R MAYBE DELETE IT, AS THE MASCULINITY DESCRIBED IN IT AND THE WAYS SUCH MASCULINITY TAKES POSSESSION OF A WOMAN IS STILL TOO ANIMAL, EVEN THOUGH I MENTIONED SPIRITUALIZATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE SPIRITUAL FORCE, THAT IS FAR MORE POWERFUL, BUT ALSO QUITE DIFFERENT THAN MERE MALENESS, WHICH IS STILL LOCATED IN THE REALM OF ANIMAL DARKNESS AND FEAR, AND PULLS A WOMAN DOWN INTO THAT REALM, WHILE THE SPIRITUAL FORCE REPRESENTS THE SOURCE OF LIGHT LIBERATING BOTH MAN AND WOMAN INTO THE REALM OF CREATION.


I'm adding this first part after I wrote the entire article, and I can't believe that I didn't start it originally with it.

BEFORE ANYTHING, you should develop aware Masculinity, the real one, the Patriarchal one: strength, self reliance, leadership, responsibility, the ability to take charge, and to be the only real cause of your actions, instead of needing any validation.
You must become complete as a self activated force of action, and not a boy needy for emotional support.
You are the support, the rock a woman and your couple and family lean on.
You don't search for a mommy to support you and validate you. You are the leader and the strenght, a force by yourself.

Watch this video. Very instructive:
There's Only One Rule To Remember To Attract A Woman
The number of confused morons in the comments section, who misunderstood the author is amazing...

Although I do not exactly agree that a complete Man needs to be "needed", because it is still of form of good doggie external validation, which is psychological dependence.
A Man does what is needed, and wants surrender of a woman to his masculinity and its attributes. And if she disrespects that masculinity and his efforts, then good bye...

As for women needing to be "wanted", it doesn't mean just sexually, but wanting her as whole.
But to want a woman, she should have quality femininity, human femininity.
Wanting love with her, which is not a mere emotion but a deep union of lives into one.


OK, now:

"Flirting" is not about pleasing a woman and making her feel good, so that she "likes" you. It is about establishing a fundamental Man-Woman relationship.
The content of flirting (or should I say "non-flirting") is what is exchanged between them:
masculinity as leadership and femininity about accepting that leadership and accepting to participate and contribute in the life shaped by Masculinity.

It is about taking over the woman, making her accept the Male dominance as positive life leadership, and her to surrender to his masculinity.

You DON'T CHASE A WOMAN, you establish the Male-Female energy dynamics!

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be benevolent, fun and playful - it definitely should (and with the message that you are amusing yourself, not trying to entertain her - you are not her entertainer), it can and should also be warm, if it is the right type of girl, but the goal is not to be in the good graces of a woman or pleasing her, but to take her over with masculine energy and making her accept that takeover - to lead and make her accept that lead by taking her over in the interaction with her.
The warmness is the message that this takeover is done with good intentions by a potentially protective male force, if she accepts benevolent masculine leadership.

(Being fun, being playful, teasing, doing fun things comes completely naturallly when you are not trying to be liked or impress. You are just playing and having fun yourself, not trying to provide fun for her per se, so that she likes you. She participates in your fun, the fun you lead.)

By "making her" I don't mean any coercion or pressure, but simply the natural imposition of male energy, by its mere leading presence, activity and through interacting with her.

If you flirt to please a woman, hoping she will like you, you are defining yourself as a friend and servant, not the male force she wants (yes, wants) to submit to (as leadership, not as slave master), and contribute with her femininity.

I partially watched a video where a female dating coach was giving advice to men how to date. I didn't finish it because it was wrong, because focusing on creating a pleasant dynamics, which is not necessarily wrong in itself, but was missing the essential point I stated above.

The best date is to not have a "date" in the classical sense, that is often a job interview, where the guy is trying to impress the girl with his qualities and by what a good guy he is, and trying to establish "meaningful communication".

The point of that interaction isn't that, it is to establish the natural male-female relationship. The point is establishing the natural exchange between Masculinity and Femininity, and not being pleasant and being "liked".

It doesn't necessary exclude being pleasant or likeable, but that's not the goal one should have in mind.

Sometimes these things can even start during a conflict about... anything, when a woman feels your calm benevolent masculine control and dominance over the situation. She might be angry at that moment, but ask for your favor a little later, or the next day.

For example, I once very sharply reprimanded a college girl who was smoking in a place where it was forbidden. I was not trying to convince, but had very severe words for her (nothing vulgar or insulting) with a totally dominant unquestionable tone and attitude. She was livid with rage and left the area.
About a year later, she saw me on the street and almost run to me with a big smile. She asked me if I remembered her (I didn't), and started to recount the event, as if it was a fond memory of her...


But back to my main point.
Generally speaking, by being masculine, and by leading in the interaction and allowing a woman to participate in the world of a Man, and contribute to it, her feminine nature will be satisfied.

It is not about being allowed into her world, but allowing her into yours and to participate in it, the world of your leadership, and enriching it with her femininity - creating a mutual enriching situation and interaction, based on the roles of masculinity and femininity.

Of course it is not about talking about you, but establishing a communication where the implicit content is masculinity and femininity, where both sides make their offer, so to speak, you of masculinity (by demonstrating it), her of femininity. But you are leading and determining if you want her into your world. You are offering the value of masculinity, imposing its presence and activity, and she offers her femininity, her participation in the reality you create, and then participates and enriches that creation.

You offer her the opportunity to enter that world that you lead, and show her femininity in her interaction with you.
Depending how it goes, the deal is sealed or not (implicitly and mostly subconsciously for her).

Friendship (not the "friend-zone" type, but a spiritual one) and love come as a result of all this, not as a cause.
It comes after the correct exchange between masculinity and femininity has been established.

I'm sure I could have written this far more succinctly, but it's the morning and I feel chewed up, and needed something to activate my mind a bit.

It is impossible to detail all the practical implications and variations of this in a short post, this is just the core idea one must start with.

It can be quite subtle actually, For example you can open her world and make it yours... integrate it into yours.

You can let her be part of your world, the one you create, yes, but your core, no, it must always remain a mystery to her.

Generally speaking, your masculine core must always be out of reach for her, untouchable, unfathomable, always leading in the right direction, always ready for benevolence, but not as a servant, but as the untouchable king.

I will let you chew on that.



SELECTION

ABOVE ALL, Select, Select, Select!

With your intelligence, of course!

A high quality girl, with a true human core, not just a female reactive animal.
One who is capable of understanding that common life task a man and a woman must participate in, under the leadership of a man, and understand love, not as affirmation and validation of her ego, but as union and deep bond in that task. Those things were explained elsewhere in this post and this blog.
You will have to talk with her about that at some point.
Not in those abstract words, of course.
You can also use more subtle tactics to make her tell you who she really is, without her understanding that you are selecting.
Never neglect your intuition, because you are impressed by her looks. And don't be impressed by her looks!

And don't accept any crap from her, do not be conciliatory, don't be accommodant don't be a puppy, don't close your eyes, test her instead, enter in conflict to see how it turns out (not out of childish emotional motives, but on purpose, if she enters in conflict with you. Engage in the conflict. but as a Man, with a purpose and a completely cold head, to figure out who she is and if you should stay with her or not, and not because you would be emotionally triggered like a child.
Never be assuaging, never be appeasing, but see where it leads you. And if you conclude she's no good, dump her.





SEXUALIZATION

Very Important Warning !!!

If you pass your time in a state of sexual energy, you will want to have sex with any girl, even the low quality ones.

You shouldn't.

This is important because once you enter a sexual dynamic, all the talk about selection can easily go out of the window, and you might end up with a very low quality woman, or enter a period of drama that you definitely don't need, and that could leave scars on your psyche.

The solution is to be constantly in a state of aware life, of causal life, and search for a girl who can fit inside that frame an be the other side of aware life.
Only then can you enter sexual energy with her, but even then, it is not the usual animal one, but one that has been "spiritualized" by its integration in aware causal life, and which is not animal reactivity anymore.

All the sexualization I'm talking about here, must be done from the point of view of aware causal life, not animal reactivity, with the goal of establishing an energy bond with a person who can be part of that common aware life.
(To understand what I mean about "spirituality" - aware, non reactive life - you might want to read some other posts in this Blog)


Now, back to the subject:

It is about the necessary sexualization in "flirting", and what it actually means.

I will not detail any "techniques", because if you understand the point explained in the following post, you should be able to intuitively understand what to do, once you mentally enter the Masculine mindset. Until then, you will ask yourself all kinds of unnecessary questions and search for recipes from others, when in fact you got to understand what it means to be a Man, and then that Man will know what to do.

OK, sexualization in flirting means that the approach to a woman, consisting in wondering what you could talk about with her to keep her interested and impress her into believing that you are a good guy worthy of her attention... is the completely wrong approach.
It is wrong because it is basically a search for approval where you put yourself in a subservient position, and there is a good chance that she will not be impressed, unless she looks for a subservient provider.
This is the classical "date" approach", and these days, I definitely don't recommend it.

What one should do instead is to express a male energy representing the complete physical takeover of a woman.
It doesn't ask for approval, the energy already takes her, even before anything happened.
When a woman is surrounded, absorbed by such energy, when she is taken over by it, then she will really react to you.

That doesn't mean that you have to say anything sexual, or suggest anything of the kind. The "energy" does the work.
You can talk about whatever you want, it is not important, although verbal messages are important in the sense that they reflect that takeover energy.

If you have it, if you express it, with words or otherwise, it can even attract women you had absolutely no intention in attracting.
For example, the other day I watched a YouTube video by an attractive woman, in which there was a scene of a blonde in a bubble bath drinking Champaign (nothing to do with the real subject of the video), and it was not entirely clear if that was her because she looked younger and the author of the video is a brunette.

So, being myself, instead of praising her video and saying how great she is, like all the boys in the comments section, I just posted the comment: "are you the (fake) blonde in the bubble bath?", and an hour later I received a reply in a hidden comment visible only to myself in the notifications.

The way this worked, and that was absolutely not my intention, just the way I sometimes communicate, was that I appropriated her physicality by indirectly suggesting that I wanted her physically, but the word "fake" (blonde) put me in a position above being subordinated to her beauty, but defining it and teasingly controlling it instead.

I didn't contact her, because it was absolutely not my intention to have anything with her, but this is an example of what works, even unintentionally.

Most women define themselves by their look, and the key is to appropriate their physicality, not to have an interesting conversation, although you can make that appropriation using conversation, but the conversation is not the goal, appropriation is.
You can have all kinds of interesting conversations, after this physical energy appropriation,

And this is not a technique to get women into bed, although it can be misused for that, and in fact it is not a technique at all, it is just male energy expressing itself in whatever one does or says.

Also, this doesn't mean that you are even interested by (animal) sex, it is just the way to approach a woman you are interested in, by taking possession of her at the level of physical energy first, and then move to deeper communication. But this should come first.

Let's be precise, this male energy is not, or should not be mere animal male energy, but human masculine energy, manifesting patriarchal benevolence.

If a woman is taken over physically by such energy that is also benevolent and signifies that it doesn't just want her for sex, but is also protective and ready to lead into something meaningful, then she will tend to surrender at much deeper levels, and then you could actually go somewhere worthwhile with her.

But for that you should really like her first at that deeper level, so that you are appropriating her and taking responsibility for her already at that deeper level of her energy.

But it doesn't mean "friendliness" in the sense of showing that you are "friendly", searching approval, to be liked. A woman should always fear a man a bit (not physically, but his decisions), and benevolence and friendliness come as a reward and reassurance, not as a means to be liked by her.

Ideally, the establishment of a relationship between masculinity and femininity should be made implicitly. It's like saying who you are and who she is, and then INSIDE that frame one can move to establish a deeper bond of liking each other, but not by trying to impress her with what a good guy you are. You are not searching for approval, not trying to impress, just to know each other, and THEN you have to make some leadership moves, taking the initiative and leadership for something of an active nature. It can be a physical contact, but inside the frame of that benevolent dominant masculine energy.
Basically,you become her world and you lead in it and you determine if she can become part of your world and can and will contribute in it, and you take her over physically.


PERSONALIZATION


The problem is that sexual energy is impersonal. If it is activated it can lead to indiscriminate sex with various women and if you activate it in a woman, she can also perceive it impersonally, and not link it to you exclusively.

Therefore, it must be PERSONALIZED first. It must be clear to her that it is YOU she wants, not just a male with male sexual energy, and that her surrender to your energy must be totally personal.
It must be clear that it is not just male energy, but YOUR energy - YOU.

One of the best ways to achieve that is for her to be a virgin, but even in that case it is not fail proof, and a deep personal connection should be made, conditioning the sexual energy.

If you cannot establish that personal connection, that spiritual connection, as two aware lives together, you have a problem.

You must be that unique individual, YOU, conditioning the sexual energy, not allowing her to have it, if she hasn't surrendered to YOU, not to an impersonal sexual energy.
And if you do that, you too will not perceive her as "just one of the", to have sex with.

If sexual energy is personalized, deeply connected to the person and not just an impersonal energy, then impersonal sex becomes repulsive and disgusting.

It is tricky to explain how to personalize the sexual energy of a woman and link it to you exclusively, because it depends on the type of woman.
It mostly has to do with your power of limiting it, conditioning it, not giving your male energy unconditionally, but clearly conditioning it by her surrender to You personally and individually, not just to impersonal male energy.

All this should be natural and spontaneous in a perfect World, but in this World, even a quality girl, can fall into the impersonal animal mode, and that's why you must make sure that you personalize her sexual energy.

It is also connected to LOVE, when the energy of the heart is united with the sexual energy, and they become one.

You must become aware of the energy of the heart, distinguish it from your male sexual energy, and unite them. Then, even the wildest sex becomes something deeply individual and personal, and the animal one becomes repulsive.

But Love, not as an emotion, and not even just as an emotional connection, but as a deep aware personal union of lives.
Sex must be potentiated as something unique and deeply personal and individual, not as just sex.

You must activate her heart energy, her Love as something completely individualized and personal.
Here it is also about conditioning things, and and making her understand implicitly or explicitly if necessary, that you will not accept anything else other than complete indivudual dedication and surrender.

Love is not this pinkish romantic thing from chick-lit: candles and roses and all that stuff, (although it can sometimes be used as a reward, and NOT as a way to endear yourself to her, where you try to gain her favors), it is a union of lives under your masculine leadership.

I did the rose thing (just one rose) with great success with a girl who was already sexualized and personalized and submitted to my leadership. That was the message that I really meant it, and it completely bounded her emotionally to me.

Roses and stuff are not to get the favors of a girl, but to give her a favor when she is already surrendering or is surrendered to you, and never like those birds of paradise males who prepared some special nest and expect approval from a female bird (look what I did for you, love me please).
They are your approval of her, your reward for her, done from a position of masculine leadership and dominance.
Later in marriage, it is a sign of appreciation for what she does in the life union with you under your leadership. It is also a reward, not a search for approval, and a celebration of your union that exists under your masculine leadership.

Also, even if you just sexualized a girl, connecting the energy of the heart with your male sexual energy, you should hint, suggest a perspective about where it all leads to: a union of aware lives in the creation of life together, so that sex becomes that togetherness too.

You must give sex a meaning that is far more than just fucking. But for that sexualization must be personalized, spiritualized (aware life) and humanized (part of a human order).

When you do everything from your individuality and nothing from impersonal sexual energy, it will sort of "magnetize" the girl into a similar individualized mode where sex becomes love.

BUT, to achieve that result, you must have total masculine and male authority, an authority that says: "if you don't completely personalize your sexual energy, I will throw you away quicker than you can think of it". Of course, you don't say that verbally, but your entire attitude must condition your takeover of her, by her personalizing her sexual energy to you. You must take her over, activate her energy, and then condition it before you give it to her.
The other part of the message is that if she does that you will give her security and protection.

Of course, selection is also an important factor in all this, as this will not work as well for all types of women. Some are naturally inclined to this personalization and individualization, some far less.

A girl really aware of herself as an individual, not just a reactive ego, will tend to search for a man who is also individualized, who is aware individualized life.

The best is to find a girl who equally wants something deeply personal as you do, and is not confused by all the impersonality of sexual energy circulating inside the modern culture.

Actually, "Personalization" is not the right word. "Soulization would be, if it existed: a connection of the souls, but always with the spiritual leadership of the masculine soul. A Man does not beg for that connection, he demands it and assesses if the girl is ready to give herself into it.



BOUNDARIES

One of the most important things you have to learn about how to deal with women are boundaries.

You are not the good doggie who strives to please his mistress, you are the Patriarch, the leader of life who establishes the frame for life, relationship and potential marriage.

You establish that frame, its purpose, goals, perspectives and also boundaries in which all happens, and make it clear that outside those bounds there will be nothing for you two.

Of course you have to do it wisely and not out of childish egoism and caprice, but out of the understanding that life together is a common act of creation, a common effort under your enlightened patriarchal leadership, and also common satisfaction and happiness in that creation, and yes... playfulness in that process, but always in the frame set by your patriarchal leadership.

This is what love is, that joining together in the creation of life, and your role as a Man is to lead it.

Responsibility is the key for those boundaries and that frame, not your egoistic immature desires.

A woman who reacts positively to that is potentially the right one.
The ones who don't...

And don't misunderstand me here. Establishing the frame for life and boundaries is not stiffness, stubbornness and lack of flexibility.
On the contrary, communication is key, and also the feedback you get from that communication.

This is not a dictatorship, but a benevolent leadership inside a full partnership and love.

However, you should be intransigent with yourself and not ignore even the little things, the little signs that tell you that something is wrong. Never put anything under the carpet and let it develop into something really bad. It doesn't mean that you should lose control and lose it, on the contrary. It's time to show your full leadership and control of the situation.
This is done from a higher vantage point of meaning of the whole situation, a higher frame.

BUT!!! To go to that vantage point you must also reassess yourself and what you do. Is what you do coming from that higher vantage point or from some petty weaknesses of yours.

It doesn't mean that you should then accept the unacceptable, even in its budding state, with excuses like "I am too harsh", "it's nothing" etc. which is cowardly and is NOT the reassessment of yourself I am talking about. I am talking about you rising to the "big picture", and see if your boundaries come from there, or from some petty egoism of yours. If it comes from the big picture, aware life and your positive holistic leadership of it, do not make any compromises.

On the practical side, you don't have to be confrontational or aggressive, this is weakness, but think how to solve the problem intelligently, but not shy away from the possibility that the problem cannot be solved, because you made an initial bad choice of partner.
Don't sulk like a child, you are the leader, first of yourself, so make sure that you are coming from the right place when you set boundaries, and then figure out the practical aspects, never letting thing develop into something catastrophic by ignoring "insignificant" things, ignoring your gut feelings.

Boundaries are not mere interdictions, not merely or principally or at all some set of negative rules.
Boundaries come from the positive understanding of aware life and from you leading it, and if something starts to go in the wrong direction, don't ignore it out of cowardliness, but remedy to it immediately before it becomes hard to correct or is too late.
Reset life in the right direction from the vantage point of its big picture and transmit that to your partner.

If it can't be done, if she's to entangled in her on egoism, leave her! You should never have chosen her in the first place.

(I will progressively improve this part, and also the whole post. This is a work in progress.)




SPIRITUALIZATION

This is something on another level.

When you have established an initial Masculinity-Femininity rapport, taking over a woman's energy can and should ideally be done on a spiritual level, to establish if she is a spiritual being, capable of creating life together, and more importantly if she is fundamentally oriented towards that, instead of being oriented towards animal sexual and sensual reactivity and energy.

Does she exist only on the level of animal energy, or is she a true human wanting primarily to create life at a fully aware human level, aware life. Is she an aware life, or a reactive sensual animal.

Of course, if you are not a spiritual being yourself, you don't know what I am talking about, and this part is incomprehensible to you.
You might imagine that spirituality is about religion. It is not in itself. What it is, is aware integrated life, coming from the aware core of life, the awareness integrating life in one - life aware and complete, and not reactive sensual energies - a sensual energy automaton.

Making a worthy woman's energy yours, means to raise it to a spiritual level, an aware spiritual level under your guidance and spiritual leadership. This obviously means sharing your masculine spiritual energy, both spiritual energies becoming one.

But for that, you got to become a causal, aware, spiritual human being first.

And... don't be impressed by her angelic look. Many boys think that if a girl looks like an angel, she has to be a spiritual being.
Nope, sorry, it doesn't mean a thing (or it can mean it if you know how to look, but you probably don't, and this is excessively difficult to explain).
You got to figure out if she is a spiritual being much more directly, and a spiritual woman will not resent you for that, because that is what she wants too.

ADDITION

Aware Masculine energy is a Spiritual energy.
If a girl has been imprinted by it from a young age by the example of a truly Masculine father or sometimes by the example of someone else, uncle, maybe a woman imprinted by it and transmitting it, or even her readings or some other experiences in life, she will seek it.

Otherwise she might fall on the level of life energy constantly searching for external stimulation, constantly picking and choosing external stimulation that create this or that emotion in her. She will stay on the level of sensual-emotional body energy and constantly seeking new stimulation when the energy of the old one runs out. She will constantly be searching for "fun", which is a level of life energy without an inner core, dependent on external stimuli.

A MAN, with his aware Masculine energy of life, is the referential reality, a reality that creates reality through his leadership and action. He is not just another stimulus among other external stimuli, he is erasing that level of being, and puts emotions and sensoricity at their correct subordinated place putting the Aware creation of life together at the center, and leading it.

True Masculinity erases wrong animal sensual-animal reactive patterns of life, and ELEVATES life at its true human level, its spiritual level of aware life, activated and created from inside from one's core.

Very rare are the girls these days that have been imprinted an elevated like that by true masculinity.
This is actually not new, but previous forms of patriarchy kept in check female reactivity ans stimulation dependency by force, while I suggest an INNER FORCE that imprints, erases animal patterns and ELEVATES to spirituality.

This is btw. a way for a spiritual Man to defeat animals, by presenting a higher level of life to girls/women, and putting it in direct comparison to the lower patterns animal men represent.

That Masculine Spiritual force erases the emotional signifcance of the physicality of animal men and elevates a girl to a higher level of awareness.

Of course, if the girl has been compromised, don't bother, BUT keep beaming that energy always, not just for a specific girl, because it is simply yourself, and by doing that you elevate the whole spiritual atmosphere around you and increase the chances to find the right girl.




HUMANIZATION

The difficulties both sexes have with each other in these degenerate times is due to a lack of humanization. The societies existing in the past were not really human, they relied on fixed patterns that worked, but that will not work anymore.
Men complain that feminism made women evil, or that they are evil by nature, and that now that they have power in society, that evil just comes out.

Evil comes out from all people who are not humanized, who don't know what it means, and who are reduced to animal patterns of sex and power.
This is the civilization we are in, right now, and the duty of Men is to rehumanize it, by establishing fully aware and human masculinity, and also offer and demand humanization from women.

Men must demand humanization from themselves and from women.

I talked about aware masculinity in some topics below, but it won't work without aware humanity, without humanization on an aware level. And in the frame of that humanization, the roles of Men and Women must be established.

The socioeconomic patterns and resulting cultural patterns sustaining stable relationships, marriage and family of the past are gone, awareness must replace those patterns. Men must lead in that direction, but also aware women.

Humanization is an order in life, a moral and spiritual order, a structure in life, but coming from inside, from aware life Masculine and Feminine, not as a set of external rules, and it is the duty of a Man to establish and sustain that order.

(To be continued.)




DON'T WHINE, DON'T COMPLAIN, BUT DO BUILD EMOTIONAL RAPPORT

If you are in a relationship, you should never buy the crap about showing her your vulnerabilities etc. This is the sure path for being dumped. You must be her rock and everyone else's in the family, and never whine how you have it hard and expect respect. DO NOT do that!
You are the LEADER! Leaders don't whine!

However, if your girlfriend or wife is not appreciative - grateful for everything you bring to her and your couple, dump her pronto!

That doesn't mean that you cannot show your emotions about something, anything, deep emotions about things that move you. Perhaps compassion or generally speaking, how you feel about many things. You don't want to be one of those idiots without emotions, or you will never build emotional connection, and the best way to do that is to actually have emotions and not be afraid to show them.

This is not whining, this is not weakness, it is strength. Showing that you have deep emotions about things in life, but never from a position of weakness.

For example, you can even talk about certain traumatic events that happened in your past, but not whining about them, but showing how you are overcoming them or have overcomed them.
This shows emotional competence in life instead of helplessness. It shows strenght.

You can feel deeply, but you are not beaten by those emotions, you are showing how you are getting better and stronger out of them.
By doing so, you will make a girl want to participate in your further betterment, if she understands that you are not the guy who will be beaten by adversity, but who is capable to stand up by himself and strengthen and improve himself..



COMMUNICATION


I said no whining about how you have it hard, and no "sharing of vulnerabilities", BUT this doesn't mean no communication!
Communication is key, and a deep one.
You can actually talk about everything, even your emotions (the non whining ones), IF you keep your masculine frame of leadership in life at all times.

One girl once told me that one thing she really liked about me was that we could talk about absolutely anything, there were no taboos.
But you can bet that at all moments I kept my masculine frame in those communications.

Communication is key to develop a deep understanding and deep closeness with each other.

Through communication you always get feedback about your relationship, and show that you care and respect her as human being (but always in a very masculine way).

Now, what is that communication all about?
It is about life.

I already said elsewhere that the union of a Man and Woman is a union of life, in the creation of life, and communication is about that life.
Not philosophically and theoretically but through the myriad of dimensions and facets of life, all its major issues, but mostly about the "little" things, through which that playful, creative and increasingly deep union of life takes place, and the two understand each other and bond.

And don't be afraid to show your emotions about all those facets of life, but again, as someone who is not beaten by them, but who feels and acts.

This part will be expanded later, particularly in relation to friendship (not the "friend zone" type), and deep bonding in the creation of a team working together to overcome the challenges of life, and enjoying each other in and through that process, which is love.
Love is not an emotion of the ego searching for its validation, it is this enjoyment and mutual validation as true human beings in the common creation of life. If that dynamic is established, love cannot vane, because it is not just an emotion of the ego feeling validated, but that principle of life from which one derives deep satisfaction.




FRIENDSHIP

Lots to say about that, but just a few words for now .

One message your Masculine being must be sending is the one of potential friendship, of benevolence, of the strong potential for caring you have.

BUT not like a good doggie. When you indicate that it is your nature to be caring and to be a friend to her, it must be clear that it must be inside the frame of your masculinity, your leadership, your responsibility and that it is conditioned by her surrendering to your caring leadership and Masculinity.
Your friendship is not to be a servant, but the benevolent leader and ruler and... her true friend.

If you both realize your natural respective masculine and feminine roles, then a natural deep friendship can develop, which is a joy of the soul and is in fact love, which is that deep union of lives and the will for that union and to walk together in life, a deep partnership, that becomes a full spiritual union (in the sense I defined spirituality in various places).



ADVICE FOR GIRLS SEARCHING FOR A GOOD MAN

Watch this video, and look for some others on the same channel.

What Do Good Men Deserve | How To Keep A Good Man


The only thing I have to add to this video is what I wrote in a post below: Men must demand virginity from women!

Here's another good one: What Is The Role of Women

The French have this expression for a (good) woman: "Le repos du guerrier" - "The rest of the warrior". Of course a woman is more than that, and must enrich the world created together under a Man's leadership, and this is also part of it.

Or: Women's Unrealistic Expectations And Why They Have Them

Or: Are You Giving Your Wife Too Much? | Make Your Demands

Jennifer Moleski's YouTube Channel

Jennifer Moleski's chronological list of YouTube videos.

Jennifer Moleski supports Patriarchy.
(Don't get stuck with the "height" thing. It is true that women tend to like tall men, but even a short man who is very masculine in all of the dimensions of masculinity and is very individualized, can often overshadow tall men who only have their physical attractiveness, and not much more.)



-

- 06:00 - Comments (0) - Print - #

10.06.2022., petak

The Transformation Sequence

The following link leads to my contribution to the SF topic "Views on Traditionalism?".

There I explain what I call the "Transformation Sequence", which is the only structurally possible way to transform Western Civilization from a culture of promiscuity and immorality into a culture of responsibility, through Neo-Patriarchy.

The full explanation comes towards the end of the topic - read it all.

Here's a quote:
"There is an order, a transformation sequence in this, and one cannot put the cart before the oxes: Men must retake leadership and responsibility and make women valuable again so that taking responsibility makes sense to them, and by taking responsibility in such a society that is valuable for them, they will be incentivized to become even more complete humans, because such culture would naturally promote it."

In essence, men must retake leadership and demand value from women (purity, virginity); demand that women become once again valuable to them, Then those women will take great care with whom they will have sex, because their value will be at stake, and by doing that women will in fact demand value from men, thus closing the virtuous circle.

This is the simplified transformation sequence: the initialization and completion of the virtuous circle.


ADDITION:

A woman asked me what is the interest for women to remain virgins.

The answer is not to be found on a purely individual and direct level (although, for full humans it is to be found there too), but for the average population, the answer lies in the collective level in an indirect way.

It would not be a choice for women, but a demand of Men to women, or they will not marry them.
If they want to marry, women (girls) will not engage in promiscuous sex with the bad boys, which will make them sexually unavailable for men who want just sex, forcing even those men to reconsider their motivations.
The result would be a different culture where promiscuity from both women and men would be excluded, and that culture would develop in a much healthier and humane direction, which would benefit women, marriage and children.

But read the "Transformation Sequence" above.









- 14:53 - Comments (0) - Print - #

09.06.2022., četvrtak

What is Femininity?

Same post on Stormfront

To define both femininity and masculinity, one must start with the correct paradigm they are both inscribed in.
And that paradigm is life.

The essence of femininity and masculinity is life. They both join to create, perpetuate, protect, educate, stabilize, improve, advance life on all of its levels and dimensions, biologic, material, cultural, social, economic, psychological and spiritual.

The essence of masculinity and femininity is therefore the same, it is to serve life.
But having different properties, men and women have different roles in that common purpose.

Those roles extend not only to the biological part of life, but also to all the other dimensions of life that I have mentioned and some I probably forgot, and in which both feminine and masculine natures have important roles, among other things in the creation, of not only new biological entities, but to create all the necessary conditions to create quality, sane, equilibrated and responsible individuals inside a quality family and a quality society, and to establish an integrated feedback between all those dimensions, and in that context the feminine role is to contribute in it's own way to the quality of ALL these aspects.

The way to look at femininity and masculinity is therefore holistic - it is integrated, and femininity in the same way as masculinity, must permeate human life on all of its levels, and add its feminine side to it.

Femininity is also expressed in different ways in the different phases of life of a woman.

Once this is understood, one can analyze what are the specific and preferential roles of femininity and masculinity in all those dimensions and aspects of life individually, and how those interact, which is a very interesting and important issue.


Same post on Stormfront




- 08:52 - Comments (0) - Print - #

What is Feminism?

There may be various definitions and waves of feminism, but the only really important thing about feminism, is its practical implications in life, how it makes feminist women behave in the present time and what are the consequences.

Feminism increases the ego of women, makes them entitled and demanding, focused on what they can get from men, and not what they can give or what they can be and create together.
Feminism convinced modern women that they are entitled to everything, that they deserve everything just by being women, and makes them believe that this sense of entitlement is what a woman is all about or should be.

Feminism also drives women away from their natural feminine nature into an artificial ideological identity.
That artificial ideological identity if focused on power and ego, and a number of ideological axioms or rules.

Women like that become woke ideological automatons instead of being women.

Except... whatever their ideology, their female nature remains (not "feminine", but "female", because "feminine" is the human nature, "female" the animal), and that creates a contradiction in those women vis a vis men.

Because they ideologically want leftie men, who are not real men but infantile versions (or liars who pretend to be leftie to get laid), but they still desire real Men, and that contradiction results in lots of failures and eventual bitterness, because feminism made them ideological automatons instead of women who are ready to build a common family life with a Man.
For such women a relationship with a man is not a natural human thing, but an ideological enterprise, an ideological mission where they have some ideological points to prove.
These women are afraid to love a man, because in their artificial reality, it would be a betrayal of feminism and of its "men are bad - men are oppressors" ideology.

And the fact that feminism in practice views men as the enemy, removes women even further from the idea of a harmonious quality life together, both sides must work for as a team.

It may also be that when they meet a real Man, to whose leadership a natural woman would naturally want to surrender, their artificial ideological identity automaton takes over, and they get frightened by such a Man because his very existence and her attraction to him contradicts her artificial ideological identity, and she feels threatened, because she identifies herself with that fake identity.

Not being a natural woman but an ideological automaton, she cannot do what is natural for a woman, but will always have a potentially conflictual relationship with any man, and loses her ability to surrender to him and to a higher common purpose.

One other practical consequence of feminism for society is that it made women lose a lot of their value for Men. Women are less and less perceived as worthy of a Man's love, care and protection. This loss of value is something I already mentioned in some previous posts.
Unfortunately, even high quality women suffer from that general loss of value, and may be treated as low value.

Because those "strong and independent" feminist women think that it is so empowering to live a promiscuous life and participate in hookup culture, and have all those "enriching, empowering" experiences, which actually feed their ego and destroy their natural soul and femininity, and then those women whine about men not caring about them and just using them for sex, perpetuating the myth of "men bad" because they just want to use women, when in fact those women destroyed their value for men, who then use them for what these women have themselves demonstrated they are only good for...
So "men bad" is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Feminism creates the "evil" it supposedly fights against, because men will not respect sluts and the more women behave like sluts, the less respect they will get from Men.

Of course, as I said before,women cannot really be blamed, because men should have kept patriarchy and should have prevented feminism from happening. When there is no masculine leadership, women go the wrong path. Women only respect Men who lead and control, they will definitely not respect men who can be led and manipulated by women.
Women only respect Men they are too afraid to disrespect. So never put yourself in a subordinate position vis a vis a woman, and never try to get validation from her. Make her search for your validation instead.

On the other hand, this happened because the old forms of patriarchy were not adapted to new socioeconomic and technological conditions anymore, and it is imperative that men understand that a return to patriarchy implies its evolution to a higher level of maturity, responsibility and awareness - an aware masculinity in all its aspects of leadership and responsibility.

Neo-Patriarchy is NOT any kind of old Patriarchy based on superficial gender roles, it is something new and evolved into a fundamental understanding of the real natures and roles of Men and Women in their couple.

Neo-patriarchy is the only viable solution for both sexes. It gives the correct human frame for their relationship.

Aware masculinity is the key because men cannot continue to have" boyish love" for women (a notion I explained in a previous post) where they just instinctively and without awareness follow their masculine instinct to protect, give and provide, and then get burned by these modern feminist women, or they see other men get burned, which makes them either turn away from women, or become predators that use women for sex.
But none of these reactions is the solution, aware masculinity is, because it is a true aware taking charge of life instead of an immature "good boy" masculinity, that is not really taking full aware responsibility for leading life where it should go.
Aware masculinity is mature masculinity, the transition from a boy to a Man.

Aware masculinity will generate a new form of patriarchy, a neo-patriarchy, not relying on traditional social forms like before, but on the active awareness of Men.

And you know what... returning to the subject of feminism, what women really need, what their nature really needs in order to function, is a strong controlling hand; a benevolent loving, leading hand that gives and rewards, but a hand that can take all that away if necessary - the hand of patriarchy.

Continue reading...


ADDITION:

Left to itself and not existing inside the frame of true Masculinity, true Patriarchy as moral system, women's morality is a morality of the weak.
She wants to be protected, particularly from those strong frightening men, and the solution presented to her is the promotion of weakness in society and among men, emasculate them, and to also emasculate their male children teaching them the morality of the weak. The schizophrenia in that kicks when she realizes that she is actually only attracted by those strong frightening men...

The only solution, obviously, is Patriarchy, a morality of strength not weakness, and promoting strength and leadership among men, but also controlling that strength by strength, not by weakness.

Women also tend to be conformists. From their evolution they have the need to be validated as "good" by society. In the past by a patriarchal society of strength, i.e. by men, but since the cultural left has effectively taken over, and the left has also a feminine morality of the weak, they are now under the control of the left.
The only exceptions are women who have experienced the benefits of patriarchy in childhood through a strong, responsible benevolent Patriarch father, and understand the need for strong, responsible Patriarchal Men, who are really the only ones who can protect women and society from the chaos produced by a civilization of weakness, which has eliminated Patriarchs, but in which predators prosper because... we should be nice to them and put our collective head in the sand in the name of weakness ideology...

In a weak society, predators of all kinds thrive.

In a patriarchy women can be women and realize what it means to be a balanced woman, without having a split personality wanting to weaken and emasculate men, and at the same time desiring strong men.
Because of that contradiction women get attracted by the only strong men prospering in the society of the weak: the predators, but they cannot build a happy life with those, and they don't realize that they actually need strong Patriarchs creating a stable society and civilization of strength, controlled by the strength of stable, responsible and strong Patriarchal Men.
In such society, women become more and more unstable in their promiscuity with predators and destroy healthy society.

But I don't blame women, I blame men who bought this idea of a civilization of the weak, and that such model based on promoting weakness is good. The only way out is to reestablish a morality of strength controlled by responsible and wise strength.
Aware men must act, helped by aware women who understand that even for women, a society of strength controlled by strong benevolent Patriarchal men is the only really viable solution.

Of course, and again, not any form of primitive obsolete patriarchy, but an evolved Patriarchy in the sense that the control of strength by strength must be done in a much wiser, more aware form, where Patriarchy is combined with real structural and systemic knowledge of all dimensions of human life, individual and collective, male and female - a holistic knowledge guiding Patriarchy.

PS: And remember, Masculinity IS Patriarchy.
Maculinity is not about being able to get sluts into bed, it is about taking responsibility for oneself and society, which means NEVER accepting what is unacceptable and never making compromises with the unacceptable - that's what it means to be a MAN, otherwise you are just a wimp and a slug without backbone.

Men accepted women's slutting, something they should had never accepted, and should NEVER accept! If you accept it, you are not a MAN, no matter how many sluts you can get into bed.
You may just have maleness but not Masculinity. Masculinity has maleness as a component, but Masculinity is much more than mere maleness, it is being a Man, a real Man who takes uncompromising leadership and responsibility, not just an animal who is, make no mistake, NOT a Man.








- 08:49 - Comments (0) - Print - #

19.03.2022., subota

Masculinity - Its Present Stage of Development and Maturation

Link to the same article on Stormfront





There was a time when patriarchy reigned and when the position of men, marriage, family was insured by the social order they existed and lived in.
Then changes came: industrialization, sexual revolution, cultural Marxism, liberalism, progressivism, postmodernism, feminism and it's three waves, legal transformations, and I'm probably forgetting other factors...

The position of men and masculinity, as of marriage and family, became compromised because the social order and infrastructure didn't support the dominant position of men and of traditional marriage and family anymore, on the contrary.

These various changes created immense challenges to masculinity, which found itself in a void without the frames of reference and support that previously existed.
In that confusion, men often reacted in various, sometimes dysfunctional ways.

One of those was the reversion to the male-predator (which I explained in the "Morality/Patriarchy" article in my Blog - scroll down), which is not true human masculinity but animal masculinity.
So all kinds of pick-up artistry, previously called "womanizing", flourished and are still flourishing, but more men who believed in it are starting to realize that it is not the solution and is a dead end that will not make them happy and realized.

Another reaction, not totally dysfunctional but incomplete, was the "Red Pill": the realization by men that women are not the angelic creatures worth of worship, boys were made to believe they are, by the preexistant and now obsolete culture and social order, female identities which were actually dependent on the patriarchal order.
When that order collapsed, women also reverted to their animal nature as there were no higher values conveyed by patriarchy anymore framing women inside those values. The scaffolds of socially reinforced patriarchy disappeared for women too, and they too reverted to animality and superficial reactivity, which was also potentiated by various feminist anti-men, anti-patriarchy ideas.

This devolution of women is presently potentiated by technology, particularly the Social Media which exacerbate female hypergamy and make 80-90% of women chase the 20-10% top (often superficially) attractive men. A new dynamics was created which destimulates any deeper human values and orients more and more the population towards the superficial and the animal.

Then there was the emergence of MGTOW...
One must realize that in common women's perception, there are two kinds of men: the 20-10% they chase, and the rest, and obviously all 80-90 % of women cannot insure commitment and marriage with the top attractive men, but they try, and mathematically are in majority bound to fail (which produces the myth of all men being bad, when in fact "bad men" are mostly restricted to the population of the top physically attractive men, who have now unprecedented options and enormous sexual choice, and a number of them reverted to animality for that reason too - they are in a way a product of women's choices).
Such situation created vast promiscuity options for the top attractive men, but Social Media also potentiated promiscuity among women, who were inebriated and brain fried by the superficiality of all the attention they got from simpletons, lost all healthy life frames of reference and engaged in increased superficiality and promiscuity with the top men, who would not commit to them, resulting in failure and bitterness for these women.

Then those women marry some naive simp provider whom they don't love, often having children from sexual encounters with the more attractive men, and after some time divorce, and since the divorce laws heavily favor women in most Western countries, the men who are the victims of that whole situation turn to MGTOW.
Incels are a variation of the same thing: products of the new social dynamics that lacks the framework to efficiently and durably integrate the majority of men into stable marriage and family, like it was the case before.


To sum it up, masculinity is facing the enormous challenges of various socioeconomic, cultural and technological changes, and the situation is rather gloomy and worsening...

So, is all lost?
Is it a total catastrophe?

-------------------------------------------

There is a way of looking at the situation that gives a glimmer of hope, and even more than that.
One can look at it from the angle of evolution.

Masculinity relied so far on external social scaffolding but those scaffolds collapsed. Necessity creates the pressure and the opportunity for masculinity to rise to new levels of self awareness, self reliance and self activation, and also transform society into a new form of Patriarchy, a Neo-Patriarchy based on a new completely self aware self realized masculinity.

Masculinity faces challenges and after a period of unsurprising confusion, stumbling, vagaries and various incomplete or even dysfunctional reactions, there are encouraging signs that the right ideas are starting to coalesce and crystallize, ever so timidly for now.

Since I wrote my misguidedly deleted topic on Morality and Patriarchy on SF (!), and reposted it on my blog I started to observe what is going on in the manosphere on YouTube and elsewhere, and I noticed that in the last year or so new ideas are slowly emerging and being expressed in those circles.

Still lots of Red Pill and MGTOW, but some men who were advocating pick-up artistry and promiscuity on YouTube, are starting to change and drift away from it.
This is not yet the awareness and expression of the need for establishing Neo-Patriarchy (the fear of YouTube Woke censorship, demonetization and de-platforming also plays a role), but I noticed that there are more and more authors who are starting to advocate not only a return to any masculinity, but an aware masculinity, that is responsible for creating the correct relationship between Men and Women - a truly human and humanizing masculinity taking leadership.

A lot of those men still have one foot in Red Pill and pick-up artistry, but the other is moving towards the next phase of masculine evolution, the full true self aware, responsible human leadership type of masculinity.

The World they knew collapsed for many men and they got disappointed by women who are not the angels they thought, but they now start to realize that sulking will not get them anywhere, and a predatory masculinity neither.

They are starting to realize that women will be what true human responsible masculinity will shape them into, because by nature women need true Men's leadership - a leadership that is "spiritual" in the sense that spirituality is self aware, self activated life, instead of a reactive "animal " life - and that's what humanity actually is: the evolution towards that kind of self aware self responsible life.


Almost on a side note I would like to expand a little on what I call "boyish love" for women, the kind of love that worships and idealizes women.
This is not just immaturity, as one might think. There is a deep evolutionary root in that attitude.
Some say that men fall in love more readily than women, who are more calculating because their survival and the survival of their children depended on it, because men have the "luxury" to do so. But that's not it.
Evolutionarily, there is a clear advantage for the human species if men are ready to fully invest themselves in their women and children, if they are ready to "love" in a way that implies self sacrifice in the protection of women and children.

This is a neotenic trait that has big evolutionary advantages for the species.
It is not just about protection, such men are also capable of great deeds, turn mountains and bring the Moon for a woman they love. The development of humanity actually depends on that masculine trait. It gives men ideals and the energy to perform great acts.

However, previously existing patriarchy kept that trait in infancy, so to speak, which was not helped by a culture misrepresenting women.
From this instinctual need to create and give, men must now move to the level of self aware responsibility and leadership, which is true Manhood.
From instinctual "boyish love" to true responsible mature Manhood.


This is what is actually going on: a process of maturation.
After a period of being hurt by changes, men are starting to realize that the only way forward is to take full responsibility and leadership again, but this time on another level of human awareness instead of relying on instinctuality and social scaffolds.


Link to the same article on Stormfront


--------------------------------------------------

In the same Stormfront topic I added:

When I was a High School kid, my father shared an instructive story with me, like he used to.

He said that a younger colleague of his was about to get married. He already had the house but it was empty, and he was boasting how he would buy all the best and most expensive furniture and equipment for his wife.

My father said: No, no, no, that's not how you do it, you don't give everything to your wife from the beginning. You start modestly, and then you both work to improve your situation. You have to both contribute to progressively build your life together and work on your common life project and gradually improve.
Apparently his colleague took his advice to heart.

That story really stuck into my mind, and later, when I was thinking about the subject of marriage, I noticed how some people (particularly women) mentioned "growing apart and becoming different persons" as a reason for their divorce.

You know why that happened? Because their life was not a common life project they both worked to constantly improve. Each one had their own separate project.
Again, the example of my parents was very instructive. Those two people never "grew apart", because they grew together. Everything one of them learned in life, they shared it, discussed it (also with their children), and constituted a "war chest" of common experience used for building a better life together.

"Growing apart" is only possible if marriage is not a permanently improving life project both spouses work together for.

And it is your duty as a Man to think about those things, and organize common life in such a way. You also have to choose a woman who is capable and inclined to work on such a common life project.

-------------------------------------------------

Then a member responded this:

Men and women typically have different interests. In the past, and in some places today, it was not uncommon for a man to spend his spare time hunting and fishing with his buddies, and for a woman to spend her spare time persuing ladies' interests such as knitting, crocheting, and needlepoint. This was never considered an impediment to a successful marriage; on the contrary, it was expected and considered completely normal.

Men and women are, by nature, different and, as a consequence, have different interests. The primary common interest of husband and wife is their children; beyond that, their interests typically diverge. When we are children, boys and girls typically like to play with different toys. This divergence of interest does not all of a sudden vanish when we become adults.

Our enemies have been spending decades convincing people that men and women are fundamentally the same, and that a successful relationship is based on common interests. This is nothing but propaganda calculated to drive men and women apart. Men and women share a common interest in their children and in preserving their race, but, otherwise, it is perfectly normal and healthy for them to pursue their own separate interests. We must not allow our enemies to define our essential nature or set the terms for our relationships.



To which I replied:


Of course, and this was not the point.
It is not about interests, but about the project of common life building.

But it is also true that some patterns of behavior that worked in the past inside a specific social structure that will never come back will not suffice anymore, also because among other things, the life contents of the human species have moved past hunting and crocheting to a much larger set of life potentialities, and while men and women are obviously not the same, communication and exchange between the two polarities is essential.

And communication is key. Not the nonsense the left would like to convince men communication should be for them, namely to share their weaknesses and vulnerabilities and similar idiotic emasculating stuff, which is definitely not something a man should do, but a communication integrating the male and the female into a whole, while both keep their respective properties.

For a Man, it means leadership and thinking things over, and constantly keeping contact and exchange between that role and the role played by the woman, so that they can both work productively together.

The times when a man could just go fishing, while the woman stays home and chats with the other girls about cooking and stuff is over.
(It doesn't mean that a man can't go fishing and women should not exchange recipes, and for the sake of good cuisine, I definitely encourage that... )

For wise families, it was actually never like that, but it "worked" in certain socioeconomic contexts of the past, in some cases and communities.
Those fixed patterns are not adaptable though, and fantasizing about a return to them is an error. Whatever is not adaptable dies - law of evolution.

I was talking about the aware masculinity, but there also must be a conscious couple and an aware interaction between the spouses, not reliance on some static patterns that might have "worked" in more primitive settings, but were not adaptable enough.

Awareness and an aware couple as action and work together is the solution, although aware masculinity has the responsibility to establish all that, because leadership is the duty of masculinity.

And while a Man must obviously do all that for his couple and family, Men in general must transform society into a new Patriarchy, significantly more evolved that the static ossified forms of patriarchy from the past.

Because yes... leadership means to lead.
It is dynamic, not resting on some static stuff or reminisce about "good ole times".

And for efficient and self correcting leadership, the feedback of communication is key.




- 13:10 - Comments (1) - Print - #

Way to Biological Degeneracy?


First take a look at these three videos:

19 Yr Old Girl Reacts To Women 'Monkey Branching'

BEWARE! There's 3 Sides To Every Woman

Women Are Terrified That Men Will Realize THIS

My comment:

Another interesting thing is how a number of women, despite being calculating etc. make the wrong choices and consistently chase men who will not stick with them, while ignoring or using the good boys. So the "myth" of bad men may come from the choices many women consistently do, concentrating on the top attractive men and using the rest, but being ultimately rejected by the top men who have a lot of options.

Funny thing though, narcissist men (falsely) appear to display the most ostentatiously the masculine qualities women search, and then if a woman gets with such a man, she will get burned. Apparently, the calculations many women do, often lead to failure. That tendency seems increased these days because social media potentiate hypergamy, but also makes 80-90% of women chase the 20-10% top attractive men, which potentiates the chances for failure for women, who then settle for the "unattractive" good boys, and then divorce easily because the divorce laws in most Western countries so heavily favor women.

Interestingly, the more a man develops his masculinity, the less he is inclined to fall in love with a woman, because he sees women as they are, not those angels worthy of worship, but just cute little instinctual animals. The exception being if such a man meets a woman who is really an individualized human being, but even then, he will not feel the kind of love boys feel, but will establish a mature life union with the woman, but even then by never relinquishing his masculinity position of "King" and Patriarch.

There might be an evolutionary reason for boyish love for women though, and it's not just about the "luxury" men have to do it. A species is more successful when a number of men are like that, because their tendency to invest themselves in an ideal makes them protect women and children and do great things in self sacrifice. Very masculine men can do it too, but only out of individualized awareness, not so much out of biological programming to "love" and lose themselves in that love.

But the thing is that men were far more protected by marriage laws in the past than they are now, so they could have that boyish neotenic attitude, but in the present times it doesn't work anymore and "success" with women goes through heightened animal masculinity, which could even lead to biological degeneracy. We already have increased animalization in the cultural sphere, but that could lead to negative partner selection leading to the loss of biological programming for higher idealistic motives in men and a progressive biological dehumanization of the species, particularly of the White race, because that same process seems to have happened with the Black race, and in the present cultural context, the White race faces the same danger.

If we want to save our race, we must reestablish patriarchal social structures, as they protect men who have that ability to be more than just animal males, but at the same time teach those men to be more masculine in a truly human, aware, individualized way - to become real Patriarchs.
A patriarchal culture also teaches women to be more than their animal programming and become true individualized human beings with higher motives and ideals.

BTW. a real Patriarch Man actually doesn't want to sleep with a woman just because she is attractive. His physical desire is dependent on the establishment of a higher spiritual relationship with a woman, but not like you probably think, because you probably think "emotions", which is not what spirituality is. Spirituality is about life: aware conscious life - self-activated aware life, instead of reactive instinctual life.
This is a higher level of life, an individualized, self aware, self activated life, not an automatic instinctual life anymore. This is what it means to be a realized individual, a realized human.


But is this just about individuals? For each individual yes, but what generates individuals is not just their personal journey. Culture, the collective software is extremely important - critical in the production of certain types of individuals in socially significant numbers. Culture is important, not just as an issue of conformity, but much more importantly in the way it can help or impede the development of a full mature individuality, an aware, individual self activated life, which is what "spirituality" really is.

It is a mistake to ignore the political, because culture is highly political, and the reduction of society to individuals is the greatest error of our times. Culture is not transforming itself only through software "updates", but these days those are not "updates" but bugs, and there must be a way to get rid culture of these bugs and make new correct software changes, and this is the domain of politics in relation to culture.
Of course this doesn't solve everything on the individual level, but is not only important but necessary. To avoid it means to not be completely consistent and not to push the logic of cultural "software" to its logical conclusion that this is an eminently political issue.
Who cares if you "don't like it" (or are you afraid of it?), it is not honest to dismiss the obvious need for politics.


- 00:11 - Comments (0) - Print - #

15.05.2021., subota

Why Men Must Demand Virginity From Women





There is a number of reasons why Men must demand virginity from women.

The first is that most women can have sex whenever they want. They can walk to some guy on the street and propose sex, and in most cases they will get it.
For men it is far more difficult, unless they are exceptionally attractive, and even in that case they would probably be rejected unless they invent some nice story.

This is a very significant difference and asymmetry between the sexes, and because of that, a Man who wants to invest his life in marriage with a woman must know that she is worth it, that she is high value for him, and that for her, intimacy with a Man is something exceptional, individual and unique, not something she does casually, otherwise there is nothing exceptional and precious in that woman for a Man to invest his life, love and soul into. Otherwise there is nothing unique about that woman to be invested in, she is just good for getting sex from her.
(See "Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry" below, for the expansion of that argument of asymmetry)

By demanding virginity, men protect society and marriage and protect women, because if the mentioned sexual asymmetry is acted by women, then they become worthless for Men, marriage becomes worthless and a scam, and society degenerates. A "permissive" society eventually goes to hell.

The second reason is humanity. A Man who wants to invest his soul into life with a woman must be sure that she is fully a human being, not just a reactive sensual animal without a human core. To live one's life with a reactive sensual animal instead of a self aware human with a self activated life core is a recipe for catastrophe and failure.

And a woman who practices casual sex is a reactive sensual animal, not a self aware human being with an aware human core.
She will be volatile and act according to her whims and various sensory stimuli coming along the way.

The third reason is female beauty.
Many men, mostly the simpletons, believe that female beauty is a reflection of her soul, which is extremely naive.
Many women use that masculine naivete, to fascinate men and entrap them psychologically, so that they provide for them and serve them as some kind of goddesses.
Those naive men will move mountains for these women, but when those women meet the super alpha male, they will often abandon or cheat on the provider simpleton without the shadow of a remorse.

That means that a Man must know that the looks of a woman are not a lie in her flesh, that her flesh, her meat is not a lie in itself.

I's like when you buy a product and there is a beautiful picture of it on the box, but if the quality of the product doesn't match the picture, then it is false advertisement.
If a woman fascinates with her look, suggesting exceptional quality, she better be of that quality, or the picture on the box is a lie.
Some men will be "pragmatic" and will compromise because they think that they cannot demand a product matching the picture, but actually they should demand it, otherwise why should they buy it and treat it as if it was a high quality product, care for it as something precious etc. when it is really a cheap product.

If a woman attracts men with her looks of purity, and she is not pure, then her very flesh is a lie, a manipulation, and she is a walking lie.
She in fact degrades the very meaning of feminine beauty, making it a lie.
Women know that, and when they want to marry they lie that they just had one or two unhappy relationships, when they might had dozens and dozens of instances of casual sex. They know that only purity is worth a man's love and protection.
Men must demand that purity, and not marry the liars.

A girl who practiced casual sex, for "fun", degraded the meaning and value of sex itself as an exceptional, unique intimacy event, and her own value as this pure creature worth of a Man's love and devotion.

Imagine that you want the whole package with a girl, including sex as the deepest most unique intimacy between two people, just to discover that she has cheapen it to the level of worthless, meaningless animality. It is as if she laughed at and ridiculed the meaning sex should have.

How could you want anything deep with that girl, and how could there be a deep sense of intimacy and meaning in sex with her?
Only if you lie to yourself, or buy her lies about herself.

Let's be frank, these cute girls are, more often than not, just cute little reactive animals and not complete human individuals . Or their looks are the expression of their ego and of their cunningness in attracting men. It is not the expression of their souls, or more exactly it is, but you have to know how to look and see through the first level of appearances.This you can do only if you understand how women function when not framed by patriarchy.

Without the human personality forming by patriarchy, women left to their own devices tend to regress to cute little sensual animals levels. Only with the cultural factor of patriarchy can women truly develop in the direction of integrated human individuals, not just reactive automatons.

For a Man to love a woman, he must feel that she is high value, and a girl who screwed around is of no value. What is there to love in such a woman? What is there a Man would want to protect and cherish in such a woman? What is there in such a woman he would want to be devoted to?
She degraded the sexual act to animality, and then should be respected and cherished as a human being?


Now the classic question of why men should be allowed one type of behavior and women not.

From the human point of view, for two real humans, there is absolutely no difference, and they should both act like true humans and not reactive sensual automatons - animals.

However, there is a difference in a woman practicing casual sex and the reason a man often had sex with multiple women.

For most men, for whom it is incomparably more difficult to get sex than for most women, because of the way women are attracted to men, and most are not attracted by weak men, but men who will basically "take" them, they are practically obliged to conquer a woman, or they will be relegated in the "friend zone". There are of course exceptions for everything, but exceptions don't help us to understand how the dynamics between the sexes generally works.

There where times when things were different, but these times have passed... particularly with the disastrous appearance of social media, dating and hookup apps.

Only exceptionally strong Men with a very pronounced male force can make demands on women before having any sex with them, and demand that a woman proves her worth to them before accepting to have anything with them.

For most men, they must first conquer the girl and then determine if she is worth of more. Besides, the way a woman reacts is also a sign about her quality. (When she is young and not when she hits the wall and is not that attractive anymore, not being very fertile anymore, and then fakes virtue.)
This is or can be part of the wetting process for men to select the right woman. Although I do not advocate it, in some cases it may seem practically necessary, unless the woman/girl is truly exceptional and is not just searching for a male, but for a Man. If you meet such a woman still truly framed by patriarchy, you must take it into account.

Women do not practice (casual) sex for that reason, but as part of animal sensual or emotional reactivity, and therefore a woman who practices casual sex is of low value for a Man, for all the aforementioned reasons.

Of course there are men-sluts out there, and men are also often reactive animals, however, the value of women for a man still depends on her sexual behavior, because of the easiness a woman can get sex, while a man who can "get women" does not lose value in the same way, precisely because of the comparative difficulty he has to get women.

For women who say that it is a double standard for men to expect virginity or at least a low "body count" (the horrible expression used these days) one has to respond that, among other things, the fact that women can (and these days often do) have a body count in the triple digits, does not mean that they are of high value, just the opposite, because they didn't have to demonstrate value for getting that many men to sleep with them, while most men have to work hard to be valuable to women and get them to bed (with the exception of very attractive, very masculine or very popular men).
So for a man it's the opposite than for a woman, it's the woman/girl who has a low body count, or is virgin, even though she could have a high body count, that displays human value and is perhaps worth of life investment. The others are not, and definitely not the ones who indulged in the c*ck carousel like animals in their youth and suddenly discover that they are out of time and want "true love" and stability, aka a man to serve and provide for them, or at least provide an ego validation that they cannot get from the c*ck carousel anymore.

Because for these women, "true love" is what they can get from a man, not about giving.
Remarquably, even though they demonstrated no value, they think that they "deserve" anything they want, that they are "worth" it by default.
No you don't, you don't deserve or are worth anything by default.

There are young women out there who do understand love as this kind of life union both sides give themselves to, to create life together, but they seem more and more rare these days, (particularly because of the number of those infected by the feminist ideology focused on external and animal demands by women, not what both partners can give to the couple and create together).
Those are women who don't perceive life as a perpetual string of external stimuli that they got to get, like feminist culture teaches them to, but see life as giving and creating something together.
And those are the women who will chose a real Man who also wants the same thing, not a fake man just giving cheap thrills/stimuli to their ego. And if a woman chooses such a fake man, that means that she is fake value too and deserves what she gets.

Of course on a purely human level, the one that I advocate, men would also lose their value if they do not behave in a completely human, non-animal manner, but reality being what it is, women, except the ones of really exceptional quality, do not see a diminished value in a man who had a number of sexual partners, because of the same asymmetry mentioned at the beginning of this post.
In reality women are often attracted by such men, because it means that their masculinity has been corroborated by other women.
It is the opposite for women who had multiple sexual partners, their feminine value is not enhanced but diminished or nullified.

Patriarchy is the only healthy moral order, in which Men demand virginity from women, and create a culture valuing virginity.

Patriarchy also improves the moral quality of men who must prove their true Manhood (not just animal maleness).
In a culture not valuing virginity, people sink into animality, women lose their value for men, who are not interested in marriage anymore, just sex, and society deteriorates in all kinds of ways, as can be seen in many Western countries, particularly the USA.

This all is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not.

The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership.

It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership.

The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead.

In this article I explained two things.
Why female virginity is important from the point of view of men, and what that demand for virginity implies for men themselves, i.e. the reestablishment of Patriarchy by Men taking responsibility and moral leadership for the moral order of their society.



ADDITIONS:



Addition 1

Someone asked:
Do you agree that the one expecting a virgin should also be a virgin?

I replied:
Yes I do.
But as I suggested in my Blog and also here, this is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not.

The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership.

It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership.

The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead.

But this I already stated, and now I made it even more explicit.
Actually I will add this reply to my Blog, to make it completely clear, thanks.


Addition 2

Someone said:
That’s good. I had to ask because whenever the staying a virgin until marriage topic comes up, it’s almost always about women, with not a care about men being held to the same standard.

I replied:
This is what I think from a human point of view, as I consider that "sex" as mere (animal) sex should not exist between two human beings.
What should exist is intimacy, which is different.
There is also the issue of modern Patriarchy having to be moral responsibility and leadership rather than an imposition by force, as it perhaps was in the past.

However, I clearly explained in my Blog's article that the female and male virginity cannot be equated from the point of view of their value for the opposite sex.
Because of the sexual asymmetry I also explained at the beginning of the article, female virginity is far more important for men, than male virginity for women.

This is simply effectively so, and is not affected by any ideology of justice or equality. The two are objectively not equally important for the opposite sex, and my article aims among other things to explain to men that they should not be fooled by that discourse of equality into believing that they should renounce the demand of virginity from women, because for them it is an objectively important one, while for women that demand on men is not of equal objective importance in the context of the sexes objective sexual asymmetry.

However, in the present civilizational context, that demand by men on women cannot be enforced in the same way as it was in the past. It has to do be done by taking full responsibility and leadership, rather than force, which implies that a renewed Patriarchy, a "Neo-Patriarchy" demands a higher level of humanity on men in general.
It demands from them to be complete Men, and not just physically men with some male animal properties, and demands from them to impose real complete Manhood as the main defining frame for society, as it is the role of Men to create that social moral frame.
Real Manhood is and must actually be that frame itself.

Men must reimpose patriarchy, not by force but by taking full leadership in the moral order of society, by being Men, and then woman can follow their lead.


Addition 3

Someone reacted:

Female virginity maybe important for men but hypocrisy/double standards are important for women , no one has the right to demand of others they don't of themselves and still claim integrity that's where men fail and that's why feminism came about ...as they said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".


I replied:
Hypocrisy is important for everyone, and from a historical point of view previous forms of patriarchy had many flaws.

One can discus what made feminism appear and one must quickly note that it also spread because men allowed it. If they didn't, it wouldn't have. There were also various ideological factors that created a deficit in the awareness for a need for Patriarchy (the part in one of my previous posts where I talk about Patriarchy not having been explicited fundamentally, but being in the collective unconscious), which prevented further evolution of Patriarchy.

Feminism is a complex issue, but not directly relevant for my discourse, because from my point of view Patriarchy is essential for society and whatever its flaws in the past, it is imperative to be reestablished in a new form, a Neo-Patriarchy, in the way I sketched in my previous post.

Basically Neo-Patriarchy is a process of humanization, in which men must become Men, and women must become Women.


PS: for the superficial reader I must clarify that the humanization I am talking about has NOTHING to do with the ideological code lefties call "humanism", which is actually a dehumanization.



Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry



Asymmetrical Balance

Another important thing is that for a man to dedicate his life and provide for a woman, he must know that she is worth it.

And a girl/woman who practices casual sex may be worth some casual sex, but not providing for her, protecting her, caring for her, devoting one's life to life with her, as she does not provide the feminine quality that would made her worth it.

I'm sure that some will reply that women don't want providers, but the reality is that they do.
Even women who objectively don't need a provider usually search for men more financially secure than themselves and want men who look like they can physically protect them etc.

This is another answer to the "hypocrisy" argument about men demanding virginity without them being virgins.

The thing is that if women want men to bring something to the table, they also have to bring something to the table, and since something is expected from men, men also have the right to expect something from women, and that exchange doesn't have to be of the same thing and it isn't.

This of course doesn't invalidate anything that I said about moral responsibility, leadership, humanization and real Manhood. Those things are necessary for Neo-Patriarchy, but it contextualizes the fallacy of the claim that if men expect one thing from women, then women have the right to expect the same thing from men, because the exchange between men and women in most cases is not symmetric, but asymmetric again.
There are no double standards in this, because while the value of what is exchanged must be the same, what is exchanged is not the same.

Ideally, and prospectively, humanity should move to a higher level, but the way things are, the existing exchange of values between the sexes is asymmetrical. What is exchanged is not the same thing, but it has to be of the same reciprocal value.
It's an asymmetrical balance.


These days that reciprocity is broken by feminism, which gives the idea to young women that it is OK for women to sleep around, and then expect men to respect them, love them, cherish them and provide for them, when they do not do their part.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If a women expects to be treated with respect, be loved, protected, provided for and cherished, but acts in a way that makes her totally unworthy of those things for a Man, then she should not be surprised if she gets exactly the "respect" she is really worth...

Some naive simps might actually do all those things, but Men won't, and many of the marriages established under such conditions will end up in divorce, simply because women in the USA and the West have learned that they do not have to provide themselves something important to men in that marriage, reciprocal to what they expect from men .
They have learned to expect, but not having to bring something of equal value to the table.
And then they get "unsatisfied", "bored", "unhappy", cheat and divorce, because they are focusing on their expectations, what is done for them, not what they do for the man.

PS: Those who have read the article about morality on my Blog, will recognize in this issue the same morality's principle of reciprocity of exchange identified there.




Addition 5 - Blaming Women?

Someone suggested that women might be to blame. I replied:

Whatever the responsibility of women, and all that women did and do, men allowed it, directly and by relinquishing their leadership, the only important point is that there is no purpose at all for men in blaming women, but to take responsibility for themselves and society again.
The moment (neo)patriarchal awareness gets sufficiently established and realized among men, the problems caused by feminism (and lack of patriarchy) will dissolve, not by any violence or coercion but by natural leadership.

Nothing will ever happen by blaming women, because if men don't get back on their leadership position by themselves, women will not put them there just because they would whine about it. It would be a complete contradiction to expect that.

But Neo-Patriarchy implies a significantly higher level of maturity, and therefore active self aware and self responsible Manhood among the male population than in previous patriarchal periods.

Leadership is not given, it is actively created and must be deserved.

But while blaming women has no purpose, revealing to men the real situation in the World vis a vis the relation of the sexes is very important, so that they realize the consequences of their abandonment of Patriarchy.



Addition 6 - Diagnosis of the Demise

The most important thing is for men to realize that something must be done, and that something is a rethink of what men are and of their role in society, which leads to the realization of the necessity for a new patriarchal moral order to be established.
(...)
Can the White race survive without offering a new societal model? I sincerely doubt it. One cannot go back, one has to move forwards and offer new models that will replace the false paradigms that are pervading the World now.
It is not just about creating an awareness of saving the race as biological entity, but awakening the race to the fact that its demise came from the generation of a false moral order.

This diagnosis is critical. What caused the demise of the White race was the creation of a false moral order, a false moral order that destroyed the old moral order of the White race which was its backbone and was preserving it.

A correct moral order is a holistic thing. One cannot say that we will just correct the issue of the white race not caring for its survival, because this issue of survival, its moral dimension of being good is inscribed in the issue of a larger moral frame that must be defined, a complete moral frame which also defines the correct relation of men and women inside that moral frame. This relation being essentially important for obvious reasons of biological survival.
It must all be treated as a whole, which is something I have been trying to do in various posts on SF and also on my Blog.

The practical point now is that we cannot go back, and it is the character of the White race, not to go back but to go a step forward further.
One must find new paradigms and redefine the basis of society in a more fundamental way, offering a new and better model than the one that has been destroyed and than the false moral order that destroyed it.


Addition 7 - Statistical Considerations - Yet another asymmetry

Statistics have shown that if a woman is promiscuous and lost her virginity early, the chances that she will be material for a stable marriage decreases dramatically.
On the other hand this does not apply to men.

This is a statistical asymmetry that is objectively quantifiable, so even if none of the arguments I used so far did convince you, this one should.

Women who are promiscuous, eventually become incapable to be good wives and live a stable family life.

Of course, for me it is just pragmatic stuff, and one should be able to realize that Men must demand virginity for deeper reasons mentioned above, and a true Man, a truly human, integrated, self aware individualized man does not need to know those statistics for him to be obvious that Men must demand virginity from women.
But Men also must demand women to be Women, true individualized human beings with a self activated human core, not reactive animals, slave to some animal programmings.

We humans have those animal programs in us, but those programs are not us.
Unfortunately, for the true biological human potential beyond these animal programs to be actualized, culture is necessary, the right form of culture that will develop and actualize these potentials for becoming a true human.
Make no mistake, the human potential is also a biological thing, just like the animal programs, but it needs the right cultural frame to develop and actualize in a person.

And that humanizing culture should frame children from the earliest age.
If the young are constantly submitted to influences encouraging animality, and there's nothing or very little to make them realize and actualize their humanity - their human biological potential, they will basically actualize animality in the way their brains are wired, and the more they actualize animality, the more difficult it is to expect real humanity from them.

This is particularly true of girls, because a man is a creature of performance and success, that's a man's metrics in society and with women. Men are forced to think about what a successful life means in a broader picture, while women are creatures of external attention, and the extent many of them think about life is how to get attention in the short term.

And generating true humanity in girls is not just making them behave like "good girls" without having the stimulation to develop into truly individualized humans with their own causal core.
Because just framing them to be "good girls" will not do the trick, as it makes them just automatons for external approval, not self aware human beings.


This humanizing moral order must be a patriarchy, because women cannot create it, but not any form of patriarchy from the past, but a Neo-Patriarchy that represents an evolution to what Patriarchy fundamentally is and must be.










- 20:11 - Comments (0) - Print - #

12.04.2021., ponedjeljak

The Fundamental Objective Basis of Morality and why it Implies Patriarchy






My post on Stormfront, that triggered this article:

If there is no death penalty, there is no reciprocity in value between the crime and the punishment at the worst level of crime.
It creates a disbalance in society's values, and undermines the only real sense of morality which is reciprocity.

Morality is exchange. It started with the exchange of goods and services, but also the exchange of rights and obligations.
It is a moral contract.

Rights do not exist in nature, and there is no natural right to live, as some philosophers imagine. Rights exist only as a systemic function of that system of exchanges we call society.

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

If that system is disrupted at its highest level of exchange of rights: the exchange of the mutual recognition of the right to live for the members of a society, then the sense of morality at its most essential level of reciprocal valorization of life itself is deeply compromised.
And if the moral system of exchanges is compromised on that level, then all kinds of other deformations and degradations of the system ensue.

If one considers culture as software, and values as software instructions, then one could say that a bug is introduced at the highest level of that software, making the idea of a software full of bugs acceptable - a system where the basic moral principle of reciprocity of exchange would be relativized and ultimately completely diluted.

This is what is happening in modern societies right now. The basis for good and bad became totally arbitrary, as it is believed that there is no fundamental basis for morality. That it is just some kind of emotional thing that can change as emotional whims through time.
But there is a fundamental principle: reciprocity of exchange.

To digress a little, I will just add that this exchange has two dimensions: the horizontal one, which includes exchanges between discrete elements of a society (mostly individuals, but also groups of various kinds), and the vertical one, which is the exchange between the discrete elements and the whole of society itself.
This vertical dimension is the most compromised in modern society, as one can hear that if some action doesn't affect directly some other person (horizontal interaction), then it is nobody else's business. But that logic is fallacious, because some action and behavior can affect the quality of the whole itself, improve it or degrade it, and therefore moral responsibility extends beyond mere direct effects on other individuals.

Because of that vertical dimension of exchanges, one could theoretically envision the question if it would not be better to drop the death sentence for reasons concerning the quality of the whole: make it more "human".
But humanity is not weak sentimentality, and the fundamental sense of the reciprocity of value of life must be maintained at that core level, no matter how unpleasant the death penalty might seem, particularly in a more and more infantile civilization.

Civilization and humanity are not synonyms of infantilization, and a civilization which keeps preciously its core exchange moral sense of value is not "barbaric", as it is claimed, but is keeping the core of morality intact.

Life is not a game for children. Morality is therefore not a game for children. It is extremely serious. It is about life itself inside a common system of life.

Having said that, if the legal system of a country is a joke, then many punishments become problematic, not only the capital one.

~~~~~~~~~

(The following article was the object of a Stormfront topic. Alas it was deleted by an incompetent moderator, supposedly because some religious fanatics and one village idiot sabotaged it, leading to an exchange of "compliments" between a religious fanatic and some materialists. Eventually, the incompetent senior moderator deemed the topic "too divisive" and deleted it, instead of deleting the posts of the fanatics. I suspect that this was not the real motive for the deletion...)

~~~~~~~~~

Now, it is not my purpose here to talk again about capital punishment but about the objective theory of morality I sketched there.

The idea being that the real objective nature of morality derives from the fundamental nature of human society, and which makes it human and different from animal societies: I am talking about reciprocal exchange.

Human society, or the "Human system" as I call it, is specifically human in being based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange, which I call the "Human principle".

Human societies also incorporate previous animal principles, like the predatory principle, as people still predate on people in various ways, mostly economic, and also elements of prehuman cooperation of implicit, non-reciprocal exchange, like in a pack of wolves who cooperate to hunt a deer, but where every wolf doesn't get a part of the meat in reciprocity to his role in the hunt.

Still, despite animal principles being present, what makes human societies human, and what is new about them, is the specific "Human principle" of reciprocity of exchange.

And this is, I posit, the real, objective basis for morality.
It is the basis for our sense of justice, for our sense of rights and having or not having a right, but also for the other side of the coin, which is moral duty and obligations.

To put it in simple terms, morality is basically a social contract based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange.
(Interestingly, the God of the Bible seems to understand this principle, because his "testaments" are in fact moral contracts, "covenants" or agreements)

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

That principle of reciprocity has more than probably been integrated in our biological being as a biological potential and impulse, although probably to various degrees in the genetic structure of various individuals.
And I would argue, that having it in our genetic structure is what makes us human - more or less human, depending on how completely that moral tendency has been embedded in the genes of each individual (or race).

But as for every biologic potential, humans need culture to really actualize that potential, similarly to the fact that we have to learn to walk and talk, despite being biologically predetermined for those abilities.

And this is the reason why the correct cultural articulation of morality is essential. Biology and culture walk hand in hand, as far as human beings are concerned.
Each one relies on the other, and they develop together in a feedback relationship.

Errors in the cultural articulation of morality can therefore be catastrophic for the healthy and correct development of human society (and this is what is going on these days in the Western civilization).

So far morality (the Human principle) has not been fundamentally and objectively articulated in human societies.
Existing definitions, either abstractly philosophical (and there are almost thirty in ethics), or those practically applied in real life by various societies, are non-fundamental, non-objective and non-scientific.
All are very partial, incomplete, and those in application are very idiosyncratic, mostly based on idiosyncratic and often mixed human-animal principles articulated through religious idiosyncrasies dating back to the bronze and iron ages.

Without a real, objective and complete articulation of morality, we will continue to sink, because we lack the conceptual infrastructure to stop that sinking, as the existing idiosyncratic articulations from a distant past, do not respond efficiently anymore to the new challenges of modern society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So the real, objective foundation of morality is reciprocity of exchange.

Exchange of what, you might ask.


There is of course the exchange of goods and services: I give you a stone axe I made, and you give me a clay pot that you made. We spit on our palms, shake hands, and the deal is sealed.
But we also live in a society, and have duties towards our tribe and some reciprocal rights coming from that membership, that cooperation where we put certain things and functions in common, in order to more easily fulfill our needs, than just as isolated individuals.

One of the basic things we exchange is the mutual recognition of the right to live.
It doesn't exist in nature, and every lion, tiger, wolf, bear or leopard can kill us, without it being a crime, because there is no contract, implicit or explicit, of mutual recognition between us.

Now, these moral contracts existing in society about rights and obligations are mostly implicit, but become explicit when articulated in laws.
Obviously a new member of society, a child, doesn't sign an explicit contract with society, but if a human continues to live in a society, and uses its common infrastructure, it can be implicitly considered that he accepts the contract.
(There are obviously problems here, because if society too imperfectly respects its side of the deal, then the implicit belonging to that deal becomes questionable).



So, what we exchange are goods and work, but also rights and obligations.
But how does that exchange take place?


There are two essential dimensions of that exchange.

One that I call horizontal, which contains all the exchanges between the discrete elements of a society, meaning individuals and various groups of individuals, biologic or economic or whatever, between each other.

The other is the vertical dimension of exchange, the one where the various discrete elements of a society exchange with the whole of that society.
It is the holistic dimension of exchange.

The reciprocity in the first dimension is relatively easier to understand, but the second one is more tricky, particularly because its historical articulations were strongly idiosyncratic in the way they defined the relationship between the individuals and society as a whole.

This is the reason why everything tends to be reduced to individuals these days. Society is conceived as a bunch of individuals, having individual rights, but the relationship to the whole barely exists as the whole is not understood as a side in the deal and as an entity transcending its individual components and being a reality in itself having specific needs related to its level of existence above its individual components. Similarly to the way an organism is not just the sum of its cells, and the needs of an organism cannot just be reduced to the needs of the cells, but represent another level of existence, with its specific functions and demands, in order to function correctly.

The whole, the collectivity is an entity in itself.

For example the whole must adapt or respond to new situations as a whole, not on the level of individual components of that whole.

Also, as a whole, it has functions specific to that whole, and performed by the whole, not by the individual components at their individual levels.
For example external functions of survival and protection of the whole, but also internal functions of interaction of the whole with its components or groups of components, assigning them duties and obligations vis a vis that whole, and giving them rights derived from their exchanges with the hole, not just between themselves at their individual levels.

One essential basic function, is the self reproduction of the whole, at the biological and cultural levels, and the assignment of rights to promote that function.

I will repeat the simple example I gave in the quote in the first post.

These days it is popular to consider that if some activity or behavior doesn't directly affect other individuals, then that behavior is nobody else's business other than the one individual acting that way, or those who mutually consent to those behaviors.
But this is a fallacy, because a behavior can degrade the properties of society as a whole. make it less able to fulfill its systemic functions in relation to the challenges it faces as a hole, or its duties towards individuals.
It can degrade (or improve) the quality of the whole, and make a society worse or better, for the functions of the whole or for its individuals indirectly.
Pornography or the promotion of promiscuous behaviors are such an example, degrading the substrate of society for its healthy reproduction of quality humans in a quality society. It degrades the "human" at all of its holistic and evolutionary levels, individual and social, taking it back to the animal level.

(The issue of "quality humans" can be precisely discussed, both from a moral point of view concerning their moral interactions between each other and also interactions with the whole, but also on the level of an even higher holism in relation to how society develops higher human forms, pushing the human far beyond the animal level - but this will be a special subject, if time permits.)
(PS: it has to do with what is the best quality human for human society, and developing that human. Is it a social insect, a sheep, or a fully individualized individual, taking full holistic responsibility for himself and society, on all levels, and where developing such a totally individualized holistic human actually leads.)


As said, one of the essential aspects of these functions of the whole is the self reproduction of society, which cannot be reduced to the mere biological reproduction of individuals as the responsibility of individuals, but, particularly modern society must insure certain conditions so that such reproduction can take place at a statistically satisfactory rate, and take measures for that.

Society must also care for its cultural reproduction and transformation as it changes.This is the reproduction and transformation of cultural "software instructions" in order to create a healthy functional society.

And in that sense the exchanges between society and the individuals must be defined correctly.
For example the question of what is marriage as recognized by society; is it an union of a man and a woman, or can it be something else.

It can be determined with precision that from the point of view of exchanges between society and a couple, the union of a man and a woman represents a distinct fundamental value for society, for its biological and cultural reproduction, and therefore nothing else other than a community of a man and a woman can have that same status for society and cannot be recognized of having the same (enormous) value for society. And therefore society must grant to that special community of a man and a woman a special and unique status, and special care, because its exchange with that particular form of union is unique.

As I said in my quote above, if fundamental errors (bugs) are introduced in the cultural software concerning the morality of the exchange between the individuals and the whole, what follows is a complete degradation of the whole, where the reciprocity of exchange between those two levels is increasingly disrupted, and self-destruction ensues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attempts have been made in the past to define the correct relationship between the individuals and society. The pendulum has shifted from the collective principle to the individual principle and back and forth, again and again, and the failure to understand the true relationship between the individual and collective levels is what ultimately leads to the demise of civilizations.

However, the situation we are facing is unique, because the movements of the pendulum in the past were not made in the context of a society more and more based on science.
They existed in a context of beliefs and philosophical subjectivism, but that will not do anymore.

One must go beyond beliefs and philosophy, and try to articulate that relationship scientifically.

What is that science that can go beyond beliefs and beyond philosophical subjectivism?

It is Systemics - the science of systems.


Only by studying the human phenomenon from the perspective of systems, can we understand what it is in nature and what it should be in form, as systems always contain a system specific purpose in their systemic nature, derived from that nature.

Religions are the idiosyncratic repositories of systemic thought, trying to define a healthy relationship between the individual and collective levels.
They were intuitive articulations, attempts to shape an intuitive feeling of unity between the individual and the collective principle.

Philosophies are more a feeble attempt to define things intellectually, but generally lack the intuitive core of religions about the need for a deep holistic systemic health of a human system.

I am generalizing too much, but it will have to do for now, in this context.

What is important is that this intuitive sense of unity has been lost and modern society is now completely turned towards its reduction to the individual principle.
The pendulum cannot really go back on its own, because the whole context has changed through the development of science, and one cannot rely on systems of beliefs anymore.

The pendulum will go back however, in the sense that a civilization relying on the individual principle alone, destroys itself, and this is what is happening.
That civilization is then replaced by more primitive ones, relying on the collective principle.

The solution is not just to find the "right balance", it is beyond "balance".
The solution is to understand (not just to feel) the holistic interpenetrating nature of the individual and collective principles inside the human system, and realize that union in practice as an implementation in social structures and culture.

The understanding of society (human system) as a system of exchanges, horizontal and vertical, gives the correct frame, from which practical issues can be resolved.


How does that holism work in practice?

A hologram is a picture where all points of that picture contain the whole image, from the point of view of that point (more or less).

Where is the collective principle situated in practice? It is situated in the individuals, and for the holistic system to function the collective principle must be completely embodied in its individuals.

Does it mean that I advocate a society of ants, of robots submitted to the collective principle, or of sheep, following "enlightened leaders", and remaining themselves sheep?

No, precisely because the individual and the collective principles are not contradictory, and the full individualization of individuals also represents the full embodiment of the collective principle in individuals.

It is about taking full responsibility for oneself and for the society, as one is an individual living in a society.


What is the best human form for society, and for the individuals themselves?
It is the one that is fully individualized, and takes responsibility for itself and the collectivity. That responsibility itself is exchange in nature.

The human principle of morality implies a development in that direction, because reciprocity of exchange implies both the affirmation of the individual principle, individuals who exchange, and implies the collective principle through the vertical exchange humans are participating in and must take responsibility for as individuals.


Morality, the human principle, therefore develops the individual, his individuality and responsibility, leading to the evolution of higher forms of humans, capable of full individualization inside a collective context.
Not individual predators lurking in the dark, but full responsible individuals living in the light of the sun.

The more an individual is really individualized, the more he takes responsibility in a holistic way.

The implications of this holistic individualization go far beyond the frame of this subforum, and this topic could best be continued in the theology subforum,

I'm joking, best not go that far, at least for now, but the implicit antique ideals of the God-man, the development of the truly human archetype (which is in danger of destruction, right now) are to be reached through complete human individualization, the holistic interpenetration of the individual and collective principle.

So, where is the place of race in all this?

The white race is the highest and most complete form of development and advancement of the human archetype, the principle of full individualization and holistic responsibility, and it is not just a question of degree, but also of direction.
The White race is the one best aligned with the direction towards the realization of that archetype.
Some other races even seem to go backwards and always pull things down, wherever they appear in larger numbers.


Holistic responsibility implies the care for our race, and a fully individualized White is one who acts to preserve and improve the human holism his race represents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PATRIARCHY


The subject of morality would not be complete without explaining the implication of a correctly understood morality, for the order a society (and a race) must adopt in order to survive, and that order is Patriarchy, or the Patriarchal moral order.

The Patriarchal moral order is the only order which will allow the White race to survive, because societies that have abandoned the Patriarchal moral order, fall into decadence, degenerate and are replaced by other groups based on patriarchy.

What is the Patriarchal moral order?

It is not about the enslavement of women, as feminists believe, it is about the creation of a society where men and women take their natural places inside the holism of a group, a society and collectivity, and only in this way can be the life, survival and advancement of that group be assured.

In a previous post, I talked about individualization as the complete taking of responsibility for himself and for society, by the individual -complete interpenetration of the individual and collective levels.

But that understanding would be very incomplete, and basically useless if it didn't take into account a reality of human life, and that is that the human species is not composed of abstract individuals but of two kinds of individuals: men and women.
Those real individuals, men and women, are the ones having the relationship with the whole, not some abstract imaginary individuals.

In the holism linking individuals with the collectivity, men and women have different roles, and disregarding that natural functional dichotomy, which is not a division, but a complementarity, leads to the demise and the disintegration of the whole.

More than two years ago, I was watching the cultural show "Interdit, d'interdire" (Forbidden to Forbid) on the French channel of RT, and there was this woman, Bénédicte Martin, of French Asian mix, who wrote a book about masculinity: "l'homme necessaire"" (The necessary man), as it was called, and was about how men today are less masculine.
The female author was complaining how men today are less inclined to die for their country, or for a woman.
In the discussion that ensued, it became apparent though that the woman was a slut, who had numerous sexual partners and didn't see any problems with that.

Perhaps not so unsurprisingly, despite having written a book about how it is necessary for men to be men and take responsibility as men and warriors, she failed to see the connection between that decline of masculinity, and the behavior of women like herself.
She failed to see that for men to be ready to die for "a woman and a country", women must be worth it.

If women are sluts, men don't see a value in them to protect, and fight for, nor do they see the value in fighting for their collectivity, building it and protecting it, because for them, the fundamental unit of stable social life, the couple, loses its sense, as women, the other part of that unit of life lose their value for them, and therefore, the construction and protection of the social whole loses sense too. And if women engage in sex and mixing with other races, then the value to protect of women or of the tribe becomes even lower.

Men then revert to more primitive biological programs, and metaphorically become "pillagers", individually or in small groups, and one of the paradoxical results of an anti-Patriarchal, feminism infected society, it the progressive loss of interest of men for a holistic life, where they defend women and society as a whole (both have lost their value). The more a society becomes anti-patriarchal, the more men, and particularly warrior men (the others whine), revert to be "pillagers", for whom women are just to be used sexually, and not a value to protect inside a social whole to build and protect.

But this is not what warrior men should do, as it is their individual and collective failure to do so...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One could think that in my previous post, I blame women or feminism for the deliquescence and demise of the White race.

I don't, because in the sexual dichotomy of the human species, it is the role of men to build and protect, and create a moral and social infrastructure and order, conductive to the holistic, healthy life and survival of the collectivity.

Men are the leaders, and if they relinquish that role, everything goes to hell eventually.
Women can be excellent in nurturing that order, but if men fail in their role as leaders, then women tend to cease to play their part and revert to more primitive biological animal programs.


Many men tend to put women on a pedestal. Why?

Because women are the goal of their protection, and of the protection of a collective social order.
Women must be perceived as high value, in order to be worthy of protection.

This is a spiritual thing for men, in the sense I defined spirituality previously, as aware holistic life, and the advancement and integration of life, both at an individual and collective level - the full integration of these levels of life in the individual.

When that spiritual, holistic perception of women disappears in men, then women are seen as low value sluts, not worth building a life with or building a society with.
But they, men are responsible for women to be that way. Women cannot do it by themselves, and the women who are that way, are the ones who were strongly shaped and framed by patriarchal holism in their childhood, probably through the example of their benevolent and enlightened patriarch father.

Women, without the living example of the correct holism of the patriarchal order, cannot take their role fully, because their role is in relation to men as leaders in the couple and in life.
Women on their own, therefore do not perceive men at the same spiritual level (of holistic life), like most men perceive and desire women, because they need men to lead in the creation of that moral order. Women cannot create the correct patriarchal order on their own, precisely because it IS patriarchal.


Some women, even here on Stormfront, will say that women don't need men, just for sex, etc. But for the construction, maintenance, advancement and protection of a society, the leading role of men is essential, or they stop to care, and when they stop to care, society degenerates and crumbles as it loses its holistic life structure and reverts to gangs of pillagers.

Again, who cares what these women say. It is the role of men to take charge and impose a patriarchal moral order, and not listen to these women to tell them what to do, because these women are just the mere female-reversion-to-animality result of men relinquishing their role as leaders in a human society.


Women can perceive men spiritually only if men are "worth it", if they lead.

This is the other side of the coin. Men perceive women spiritually, because they intuitively understand the importance of women's value for them to be motivated to create higher forms of life in personal life, society, civilization etc.

Women, on the other side perceive men spiritually (holistically) only if they lead and impose the correct moral order for themselves first (!), and then for women to fit in and play their role in the creation of a higher holistic life.
Without the leading role of men, women cannot lead in that direction.

Otherwise women tend to become party girls, just searching for studs for sex and power, etc. The spiritual model of the male patriarch is erased from their minds, or never existed as they have not seen it.

There are exceptions of course. but they are just that, exceptions. And those women are precisely those who understand the absolute necessity of a patriarchal moral order.

Without patriarchy and male leadership, men revert to pillagers and women to egotistic sluts, and if they happen to realize their error, it is often too late to create a harmonious life together, have children etc. and the whole of society is also damaged because it is composed of dysfunctional individuals (often trying to compensate for their life-spiritual vacuity with hate filled "Social Justice Warrior" leftist engagement, as an expression of their personal dissatisfaction and emptiness of their own lives).

(As a small digression, it is interesting to note how younger women can quickly adopt correct patterns if given the right male patriarchal leadership example.
Some years ago, I took a teaching position for a few months, replacing a professor who was on sick leave. It was interesting to notice how quickly girls who were smoking for example, stopped smoking and how the bad girls sought redemption in my approval, and started to be receptive to higher meanings.

These days when I meet these girls on the street, now women with children, they always have big smiles... wave to me, and are happy when I recognize them.
One recently told me that even though I was her professor for only a relatively short time, I was the only professor she thinks of, now and then, and another even thanked me profusely... I was a bit taken by surprise, and it took me some time to figure out why she thanked me. I finally realized that it was because of the model I was giving, which perhaps helped her to find the right man, and adopt a correct meaningful way of life.)


Now, some people might say that I am babbling, because there were "successful" matriarchal societies in the past. Actually there weren't, and the myth of matriarchy has been debunked by science.

But the truth is that it doesn't even matter, because in a context of competition between various groups. The group that loses the patriarchal order, strong morality for men and women alike, where men are motivated to build an ever better and stronger society, and do not fall into egotistic decadence, gets eventually overrun by patriarchy based groups.
Some anomalous little groups can exist here and there, but none of them has the potential of creation of an ever growing holistic human life, a civilization. And the White race, because of it's, let's say... "Aryan" originated, warrior patriarchal morality, is the best archetype for the building of an integrated holistic life of ever-increasing level, unless there is a historical "bug" in the software, that destroys that patriarchal model, like there is now...

I already hear those who will say that everything was not great in the past, etc... Of course not, and by the way, there were "bugs" in the past too, for various socio-economic reasons, but however imperfect the articulation of patriarchy was in any given period, this is not a reason for abandoning patriarchy, because it leads to a complete catastrophe, but to reestablish it in full force, but at an enlightened, fundamental level, where both men and women understand their respective holistic roles at their core levels, not on the level of enslavement of women, and similar.
Then they become the "two sides of God in action", like I metaphorically said in my blog, as two sides of the holistic human life in action and ever higher progression.



So... for those who say that anything goes, when survival is concerned: NO anything goes not!
Only a strong, self perfecting patriarchy goes, where men and women take their respective places and responsibilities in the building of an ever increasing and improving individual, marital and collective holistic life.

And for this to happen, men must retake their leading role and reestablish a patriarchy at a new, enlightened, aware and holistic level.

For WNs, it is absolutely imperative to understand that patriarchy is essential for the survival of the White race.

All levels of life are imbricated one in the other, and for that holism to exist and to function correctly, patriarchy is the only viable model.



Patriarchal morality is also a warrior morality, meaning that it approaches life the way life really is: something serious, something adult, where one has to fight for life and in that fight, nothing is arbitrary - it is not a game, it is a life or death battle.

The relativist concept of "morality" promoted these days is not a warrior morality, it is a weaklings' morality, an infantile morality, a morality for little children, incapable of creating, sustaining and protecting life, because it pushes under the carpet the reality of life and replaces it with child play, with arbitrary fantasies not connected to real life.

An adult male morality, a man's morality looks at the reality of life in the eyes and takes responsibility for it and demands responsibility from others, as this is also an exchange of responsibility, demanded from all members of society, while the weaklings', childish morality relativizes everything, as if life was something arbitrary, completely diluting the responsibility for life that is morality. And when the life software becomes arbitrary and alienated from life, it doesn't serve life, it serves its destruction.

The "wokes" are so afraid of reality that they call "barbarism" any social order asking for true objective responsibility for life, while they proclaim that their infantile, relativist, weaklings' model IS what civilization is.

It is not, it is the degeneracy and the destruction of civilization.

ADDITION

Someone said:

Nature has only one moral law, and that is the law of survival. Scientific knowledge can certainly be used to help us determine the best way to survive.

I responded:

We don't live in mere nature anymore, we live in society, and the "survival", or more exactly the healthy, complete life (because life cannot be just reduced to survival, a too narrow concept for human life that went far beyond mere dependence on nature's givens) of the human system (society) goes now through the right systemic structuring of that system, and ultimately only the systemically healthy and complete life of a human system insures its survival.

One can argue that it is mere semantics. It is not, because the difference is between a reductionist narrow paradigm or mind frame adapted to animals, and a more complete paradigm, adapted to the "quantum jump" represented by the human reality.
From conceptual reductionism and simplicism, to a complete systemic understanding, it is of of practical importance how we think about this.

When one thinks "survival", one has a tendency to think in simplistic naturalistic terms, not adapted to the complex holistic level of life a human system represents.

The science giving answers about morality is called Systemics, the study of systems, and it brings us beyond naturalist simplistic conceptual frames for morality, and beyond emotional frames.
Systemics is what can bring humanity beyond philosophy.


LINK: Jennifer Moleski. A woman who supports Patriarchy.

This is my comment on her video:

Men must reestablish Patriarchy. Not any kind of old primitive model of Patriarchy, but a Patriarchy that has evolved from previous stages of restrictive social patterns into a fundamental understanding of what Patriarchy really is in essence, and apply it to modern life.
It is Invaluable that you as a woman explain to women what Patriarchy fundamentally is, and that Patriarchy is the right path, but men must also do their part and must collectively decide that Patriarchy must be reinstated, and learn to impose Patriarchy, not by violence, but by making demands on women again - And... on themselves!
The problem is that men abandoned Patriarchy, mostly because of the sexual revolution and the promise of free sex, and now it bites them back.
They relinquished their main role, which is even more important that being protectors and dragon slayers: moral leadership! Men abandoned their moral role in society, and now they whine that women are immoral, when in fact it was their duty to keep society moral - themselves and women.
Patriarchy is a moral order, and it is the role of Men to be moral leaders, not just leaders in their couple's life, but morally lead society.
Until men don't understand that reestablishing Patriarchy means reestablishing a Patriarchal moral order, we will not advance (or recover) as a society.


SUBJECTIVITY

This article occupies itself with with the objective basis of morality found in horizontal and vertical relations of exchange, it doesn't cover the phenomenon of internalization of morality and of the structural prerequisites for that internalization.
Morality is not entirely logical in the human species (although it could be possible for highly intelligent individuals) but largely depends on a psychological internalization, that seems necessary for it to be really operative in an average population, but since that internalization is not a perfect reflection of the objective nature of morality, but a derivative, it can lead to moral nonsense in some cases.

Let's take the example of empathy. Empathy internalizes the states and positions of other persons and helps to intuitively understand the reciprocity of our relationship with them.

On the other hand, empathy, being emotional, can lead us to moral errors, which is common on the Left and the "Progressives". They often feel empathy for criminals and murderers, more than to their victims for various ideological reasons that have programmed their empathic emotionality. Their natural function of empathy was not framed by an objective understanding of morality, but by often manipulative ideologies, playing with emotions.

Morality in practice also depends on the ability to internalize on an intuitive level the whole of the relations between an individual and society in all of its dimensions, including various potentialities and needs,including the consequences of individual actions on the whole.

Some people have the ability to integrate those holistic relations intuitively, but some much less so, and there are differences among races too.

The holistic interpenetration of the individual, other individuals and the collective is an ability, that depends on intelligence, but also on some inherent tendencies towards an intuitive integration of that holism in the individual psyche.
In that sense not all "humans" are equally Human, as this ability of intuitive holistic integradion differs among individuals, but also among races.

This is a vast subject and would be particularly important for designing the correct relationship between the objective nature of morality and its subjective internalization.
There is space for a whole new moral science there, which would not be philosophical at all, but very practical, in the sense that it would structurally correctly integrate the objective and subjective aspects of morality into one correctly operative whole.

This is basically the integration of all the dimensions of our lives into awareness.

But this is for another time and another article.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------



- 15:17 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Replies to questions by forum members and ex-forum members



You don't have any a priori "legitimate" right to live, outside of an agreement inside society representing the exchange of that right (mutual recognition) between the members of society.

Legitimacy doesn't simply float in the air. It is a question of mutual recognition of a right inside the system of exchanges we call society.

And for the exchange with the whole, the implicit moral exchange is that an individual has no right to do what harms the whole.

Can the whole always a priori recognize or not if something is harmful to it, is a different question. This thing is done a posteriori, by analyzing the consequences for the whole, but in the context of a preexisting moral frame of exchanges between the individuals and the whole.
And it is the whole that decides (by whatever social mechanism it establishes), not just individuals directly affected, like you claim.

Btw. the issue of practical decisions has to be partially discriminated from essential moral issues.

For example, even if it is established that a behavior is harmful for the whole, a society might not have the resources to weed it out efficiently, and then must, at least temporarily, weight if its forceful efforts to do so are productive or counterproductive in the sense that they can do even more harm, and adopt other ways to progressively curb such behavior.

But such activity by the whole is also the consequence of an agreement or lack of agreement about giving the right to the whole to decide if some behaviors are acceptable for the whole or not. This is a practical issue concerning the question of members of a society giving or not giving that right to society for everything/something, or not, and can they collectively live with the consequences of that decision.
(If they decide wrong, that can even lead to the destruction of society.)

All those things are implicit and often poorly defined, but a correct theory of morality should precisely make it all explicit, or more exactly, give a correct frame for the moral explicitness in any kind of situation, so that things can be weighted correctly inside a frame defining the relations of exchange involved.

The reason why it is important to understand morality as exchange based, is precisely in areas concerning the exchange with the whole, where some ideologies claim that some rights exist by themselves, and that the "natural" rights of some people are infringed if one does not allow them to do something.

Without the correct frame of understanding, it is sometimes hard to find the right fundamental arguments why it is not so.

A correct theory of morality allows moving from ideological arbitrariness and subjectivism, to an objective analysis of moral situations.

It doesn't mean that in some cases even such analysis cannot result in a dilemma, it can, but there are other cases that are far more clear cut morally, but are muddied by purely ideological false beliefs and choices.



- 15:16 - Comments (0) - Print - #



Survival is not moral or immoral per se, since the motivation for life doesn't come from morality, but from life itself.

And life per se is not determined by any kind of right or lack of right. The right to live comes into play, as I explained, only vis a vis other members of a system of exchanges.
So for you, another person has the right to live, if you are part of a social contract recognizing the life of others, and for them it is the same: you have the right to live from their perspective.

But for life in itself, outside the context of a social contract, there is no right or not-right to live. It is something outside the domain of definition of rights and morality, as it is not defined by any exchange or contract.

(I know that this may be difficult to intuitively understand, because of the interpersonal nature of our identities and the way we are aware of ourselves as selves. We project the "others" from our interpersonal identity, and the reciprocity of exchange with them, into the non-human and even into the non-living universe, as some kind of absolute, but this is a psychological illusion coming from the structure of the interpersonal self.)


What is moral or immoral is our relationship as individual lives with the life goal of survival of our collectivity. And in that relationship of vertical exchange of contributions to life, individuals have with the collective, one of the moral duties they get in that exchange is to preserve and advance the life of that collectivity, in this case, their race.

It is also connected to the holistic interpenetration of the collective and individual levels I talked about, as the collective is actually manifested in the individual.

And since the biological collective, its life, evolution and evolutionary "archetype", is also manifested in the individual, the individual has a duty towards his biological collective.
Those who negate that biologically founded duty are indeed traitors.

- 15:15 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Clarification



I realized that in my posts I seem to claim that being human is reduced to morality and the holistic interaction between the individual and the collectivity and that individualization is reduced to responsibility.
I don't, and in some of my other posts I talked about individualization as the activation of the inner causality of life within. Individualized life, not as reactivity, but as causality and creation.

The full individual cannot be reduced to its relationship with the social whole and morality, he is causal life. But life also existing in the context of social life, and the full individual becomes causal also in that dimension of life, taking full responsibility for it from his inner causality.

A property of holism is that if one does live correctly in one dimension of life, it tends to spread in the other dimensions, as life is a whole, and a well understood and integrated morality also develops the individual in his other dimensions of (individual) life, and vice versa.

I also want to clarify that even though the theory of morality above seems materialist, I am not a materialist, far from it, and this theory of morality is inscribed into a much larger spiritual concept, which would alas be too problematic to elaborate here.



- 15:14 - Comments (0) - Print - #

17.03.2021., srijeda

CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE POSTS BELOW



The posts before this one were written a long time ago, have been erased and now reloaded.
Some are a bit outdated, some even quite outdated, and my views may have evolved since then in different ways. I don't have the time to review and modify their contents for now, and they will have to do, as they are probably good enough. A couple of details have already been changed though.

The posts about "Biosemantics" and my biosemantic definition of race are the core.
You should start with these. Scroll way down.

- 12:33 - Comments (0) - Print - #

16.03.2021., utorak

Man and Woman are the two Sides of God in Action



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

The reason why gender roles are messed up (in certain countries) is a very complex one involving a lot of factors not mentioned in this thread. It would certainly be interesting to start a real comprehensive discussion about this issue some day. Causalities in this matter are complex and deserve a complex approach.

However, a few general notes on genders:

A woman is not an idol, a goddess. The relationship is not of subservience and superiority. A complete woman is a woman in a complementary holistic relationship with a man, as it is true of the opposite.
A complete woman is not this kind of de-feminized quasi-man proposed by feminists, her completeness comes in the form of her femininity.
Men and women have complementary interdependent roles that are not defined only in relation to each other, but in relation of what they both represent as a whole.

It is only from this holistic point that unites and transcends them both that man and woman can be understood.

Man and woman are the two sides of God in action, so to speak.

For us, God is Life and Life is God.
Man and woman both serve life by their complementary and interdependent roles.
When a man loves and serves his wife, he serves the feminine aspect of life, but also life that they form and create in common. He does so by being a full man, not "subservient" but creator, leader and patriarch.
This has nothing to do with domination.
When a woman serves and loves her husband, she serves the masculine aspect of life and also the whole that they form together.
When she gives herself in her feminine way, this is not enslavement, this is her way to give herself to the life they both represent.
A man gives himself in his masculine way by fully taking charge.

The problem with genders (in certain countries) is that they have lost the sense of what they both represent as a whole.
The couple is the unit of life, not the individual.

There is no "goddess", nor other similar insecure phantasmagoria coming from the view of the other being something remote and unreachable leading to such ideas of dominator and dominated from both sides, which are the reactions to fear.

When both genders realize their respective complementary roles in their full complete maturity, they realize that they are the two sides of God walking hand in hand serving the same sacred fire of life.

The Couple is the Divine reality. It is life created by its two complementary parts who are united in it and transcended in it.

God is holistic and life is holistic. Life is a meaning that unites its parts without dissolving them. It unites them into a higher meaning that becomes the meaning of each one of them. It is the meaning that they serve. It is who they really are.

Someone said almost correctly: "to love is not to look at each other, but to look in the same direction".

I would rephrase it a bit, and say that when a man and a woman look at each other, they see that common life they are and create together.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 21:00 - Comments (0) - Print - #

The Meaning of Life



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


A Stormfront member asked:

"If God does not exist, then does this mean that life has no meaning?"


Here is what I replied:


OK, but even with a God, what would be life's meaning?
Would it be just the perpetuation of one's existence?
Would it be being "good"?

What meaning would one like life to have anyway? And what is meaning to you or me anyway?

Perhaps before trying to answer the question if life has a meaning, should we ask ourselves what "meaning" is for us, what is its structure in our psyche.

Is it something that is part of our structure as beings? To what is it connected? To external things?
Or is this connection an illusion, the illusion that our reactions are conditioned by the exterior?
Could it be that the external conditioning is like a parasitic wedge planted in a feedback process that has its own inner causality?
Could it be that our "meaning" is ourselves, not the images that we have of ourselves or our lives, but the very process of conscious life that we are, and that this process has its own causality that is not conditioned by anything exterior?
Could it be that your meaning is you in this instant, the inner life causality that you are now, independent of any external conditions?

If it was so, the "feeling" of meaning could be in fact the tendency of your system, of your true inner unconditioned causality, to complete itself, to integrate life IN ITSELF, not to be integrated into something exterior.

That would mean that a system would reach its full "meaning" when it realizes the full circle between the inner causality of the system and the external actions that are integrated as the act of creation of the free inner causality.

What I am saying is that what we call meaning "could" well be the very structure of life that we are, the full completion, not of something exterior, but of our own structure, of the inner causal life process that we are.
The idea is that it is not (exterior) life that gives us meaning. It is us who give meaning to life in its specific external forms, because the source of meaning is the very structure of life that we are.
Meaning is ourselves, when we realize our inner causality, the causality of the system that is us.
Meaning is the full circle of realization of that causality, the full implementation of the principle of the system. Then, what you get as feedback from the exterior is not something that conditions YOU, it is something that gets integrated in the logic of your inner causality, of the creative life process that you are, not something defining that process.
Meaning is the freedom that you are, as a Human.

The trick is to turn things around, or more exactly to turn them straight up again, as they are generally turned up side down in most people.

Meaning is a function of the system, a structural property of what humans are as systems.

Meaning is not a function of the external. It is the full integration of life's contents in the process of inner causality that we are. It is the full circle that starts from the inner causality and returns to it, never defining that causality trough the contents that this causality processes.

Meaning is life itself, as the fully realized system that we are.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


- 20:51 - Comments (0) - Print - #

From the Stormfront Topic "Major Problems"



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

One issue that I noticed is that beyond the question of legitimacy that I emphasized before, there is a psychological obstacle that poses serious problem.

The thing is that one can use excellent rational arguments, unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of what I call legitimate racism (or racialism, like some people on this forum seem to call it), unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of the preservation and preferential care for one's own White race, but there are people out there who simply can't be touched by such arguments.

Why? because they have purely irrational psychological reasons to prefer to care for other races.
They feel noble, they feel that they are breaking some evil obstacle to universal goodness and humanity. Even when they see some Black who is obviously an individual of the worst category, they don't see that, they see some image in their head about poor good Blacks, always persecuted, always misunderstood etc, etc...
Such people feel that they are good if they feel that way, and if you want to take that from them, they will perceive you as their worst personal enemy, because you are trying to take from them the patterns that they use to feel self-worthy, the basis of their self-worth.

So, for those people, very subtle psychological strategies are needed.
One must deconstruct for them, how their feelings function, the semantic and emotional frames involved in the hierarchy of meanings that leads to the self-worth feeling must be made clear for them.
Then, one must reconstruct, showing how their particular pattern is misguided, how their self-worth is not dependent of the patterns of meanings that they used, but that, on the contrary, there are better ways to self-worth, involving the meaning that to care about the world you must first care for your own, that self-destruction and racial suicide are in fact the wrong way, etc, etc...


-----------------------------------------
Another post in the same topic:
-----------------------------------------

One must understand that if someone has linked certain beliefs to his sense of self-worth or to any core values of that person, one can't change these beliefs by purely attacking them, because this is perceived as an attack on those core values and the self-worth of that person.

One must take the deeper layers linked to those beliefs. One must address the link between the belief and the core values.

It is not realistic to expect to change someone's mind by telling them that they are dirty pieces of race traitors, when in fact they feel that their beliefs are representative of core positive values.

The thing is that the beliefs you want to change are not the only layer involved. There is at least one other layer involved, perhaps more. Attacking the surface layer without addressing the deeper ones is a loss of time and effort, and could be in fact reinforcing those very beliefs you are trying to change.

The semantic relationship between layers must be uncovered first, then deconstructed and de-linked. Only then can you reconstruct another way using the very same core values that you de-linked from unwanted beliefs as a starting point.

People versed in such things don't even always do these steps sequentially. It is possible to design messages that cover the full semantic depth at once, and not even explicitly but implicitly, so that the message is reinforced by the subjects own reflections and efforts to fill the gaps.
Different reinforcing messages from various angles are also a good tactic.

But This sounds more complicated than it really is. This is just fancy vocabulary for the need to understand why people chose to believe what they believe, what are their real reasons, they are sometimes even unaware of themselves.
Sometimes, clarifying those motivations to them can do half the work. Clarifying how they were manipulated to link their values to certain beliefs can help too.

Core values are important.
If one person wants to be "good" (or any value) and has linked this value of goodness to certain beliefs, you can't just attack those beliefs, you must make that person realize that what he or she believes does not determine his or her goodness. You must send the message that you too share the same value of "goodness" and that it is this very same goodness that leads you to another vision of reality.
One must make clear that the core values are in no way threatened by the change of beliefs, but rather elevated to an even higher level of these values.

Yes I know how it must sound to some of you... When the war erupted in my country a little more than a decade ago, I mail ordered all kinds of military manuals, some from the United States.
Having no clue about military affairs at the time, I was baffled by the zillions of things that I was supposed to remember. Things like checking for booby traps ALL the time etc. seemed like just too much for me. This wasn't the simplistic war seen on the movies where the hero kills a hundred men with thirty rounds of ammo and without checking once if he was under fire...
But, when your life depends on it, you learn some things quick.

Fortunately, I don't think that there is a necessity to address these semantic beliefs and values issues on an individual base. I think that there are mass frames out there with very similar standard structures of belief-values links, and very similar semantic paths that lead to certain beliefs.
I believe that we can find standard layers of meaning connected in similar ways. A strategy must be designed having these collective frames in mind.

I would even potentially propose to those who are interested in the design of such semantic strategies to engage in discussions with the members or people under the influence of organizations that promote multiethnicism and multiculturalism. Not to try to convince them, but to figure out how their minds work.

It is important to distinguish the enemy from those who are simply manipulated. The minds of these manipulated ones are the ones that interest us. It would be unrealistic to expect to convince the enemy, even if sometimes...

Of course, I am not saying that the aspects I am talking about here cover it all, not by a long shot.
There are people who have strong beliefs, strongly connected to values that are important to them.
Other people live in an more loosely connected personal universe. But even in those people certain belief-values connection exist as a "background music". For addressing the issue of legitimacy, that I was talking about before, this "background sound" must be taken into account and can in fact be a leverage more than a hindrance if people are made comfortable that a new orientation is not disrupting their sense of values and sense of relationship with the world.
Of course, on the other hand, at a certain level, this is exactly what you want, but the trick is to make those inner revolutions compatible with the vision people have of themselves in relation to the world. :D

Besides values, there are also questions of interests etc.

One last thing.
I emphasized the link of beliefs and values, but even if there is a direct hierarchic path between them, there are other semantic paths that either reinforce that link or inhibit the change of that link. Those frames can be of a totally different nature than the main path.

For example, the main path can be a sense of value and goodness if one is loving all races equally, if "we are all the same" etc.
A parallel path could be of a totally different nature. It could be fear for example. People would be afraid to change their beliefs because they are afraid of conflicts, they feel that it would lead to conflict, racial conflict etc.
These reinforcing or inhibiting paths must be addressed too by convincing them for example that change doesn't lead to chaos but to more security (the value in question in the example).
I must add here, and it will not please some people, that a "Nazi" projection is not exactly what is needed (and an advice in general: forget Nazism and the Nazis).

What I am saying is that there are main hierarchies of meaning linking certain beliefs and values, but there are parallel secondary ones that either reinforce these links or block other links from other angles.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront




- 20:45 - Comments (0) - Print - #

You Can't Dance if You don't Learn the Steps - The Relationship Between Goals and Strategy



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

If your car broke down, you may want to repair it. Your goal is to make it run again.
But having that goal won't make your car run. You have to have a strategy for realizing that goal.

You must first run some diagnostics and try to figure out what is wrong.
When you think that you got it, if there are parts that must be removed, replaced or repaired, very often you can't reach them immediately, you got to disassemble many other parts before you can reach the faulty one. Then there is the question of the replacement part - do you have it, or should you contact someone to get it.
Then you must replace the part and reassemble everything in the right order. You must follow that order, the structure of the engine imposes a certain sequence, you simply can't do certain things before some others.
You will probably have to do many other things, tune or re-tune parts that you have disassembled etc...

You see, having goals is not much in itself, particularly if those goals might not correspond to what is needed in reality.
You can jump around your car as much as you want. You can scream at the defective part as much as you want, your car won't budge an inch.

And if you think that you did everything needed and the engine still doesn't want to start, you must ask yourself if you didn't do something wrong, if you didn't miss some necessary preconditions, some things that you should have done and the car won't simply run without, no matter how much you want it to.

I will not enter the various goals various people have mentioned in this thread or what I think about some of these goals, but I will emphasize that for any goal one must think strategically. That applies for things as banal as repairing a car and much more so for political goals.

Certain things must be done before some others, there are necessary sequences. There are also things to be done in parallel. There are necessary preconditions that must be met too.
Otherwise, whatever you want will simply not cut it.

And of course... in order to do all those things the right way, you got to know the structure of what you are working on, exactly like you got to know the mechanics of your car before even dreaming of repairing it.

One necessary condition for any White goals is to win the mainstream. One must figure out how to do that, what is the structure one deals with, the mechanisms involved. One must figure out what is blocked, how. One must run diagnostics, make suppositions, deconstruct, reconstruct and be damn sure that one has something to replace what one plans to remove.

And if you do certain things and it doesn't work, you got to ask yourself if it is really all the fault of that bad, bad boogie man "Zog" who is always blocking your brave efforts with his perfidious methods, or could it be that you are doing something wrong. Could it be that you do certain things in the wrong sequence? Could it be that you do certain things plain wrong? Could it be that you project the wrong image for example... the image that simply can't be integrated in the mainstream? Could it be that there are necessary preconditions that you simply ignore while you do your "rain dance" around your car?

If we are to achieve anything, we got to start thinking strategically and realistically.

And... lets go back to the goals themselves...

For goal designing, daydreaming desires are not the best strategy.

Because... YES! There is also a goal designing strategy!

That strategy implies a constant dialogue between the general level of goals with the specific level of realities involved.
You can't simply say: " Yeah, here's the goal, let's realize it". It doesn't go that one way path.
There must always be feedback loops between the general and specific, "real" level, a constant dialogue between the two.
Its not just the general goal that determines the specific ones, it is also the other way around.
You must start fuzzy, and then define and refine both general and specific levels in a constant feedback process.

And above all things, when you want to do anything, the key question you GOT to ask yourself is: "Do I really want to succeed, do I really want to win?".

If the answer is yes, then you know that there are certain things you simply have to do, and there is no way around them.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:43 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Selfishness, Altruism, Benevolence and the Core Strategic Issue of Winning the Mainstream White Opinion



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I believe that one must distinguish something that I would call "ideological altruism" from natural benevolence.

Ideological altruism is something artificial, like all ideologies. One could even say that it has a pathological basis or at least expresses immature psychological need for approval - an immature need to be approved as "good" by abstract internalized "others".

Natural benevolence, or natural goodness is something different. It is the natural state of the mature human being.
Benevolence is not a blind ideology connected to psychological immaturity. Benevolence, not being ideological reductionist blindness, doesn't exclude rationality or common sense.

Being benevolent does not mean the kind of indiscriminativeness that leads to blind unquestioning acceptance of the destruction of one's own house in the name of ideological principles.

Benevolence is simply the natural human tendency for cooperation. It is a natural human mature psychological trait that is proactive. But such tendency exists without being indiscriminate.

Personally I am a priori benevolent towards everyone and anything. To grass and trees, to bees and birds, cats and dogs, Whites, Blacks, Reds and Yellow, and even (oh horror :D ) to Jews.

But that benevolence does not mean that I would like my own race to disappear, that I would like Blacks, Asians or Muslims to fill my continent or my country. My benevolence does not mean that I think that everyone is equal or that I should equally care for all.
Benevolence as a non ideological attitude, does not imply that the truth should be pushed under the carpet.

I am benevolent and racist! How about that?


One does not need to develop the opposite of the ideology of altruism in order to fight liberals. One does not need an ideology of egoism.

Egoism is not the human model of life (nor is some ideological altruism).
The human model is holistic cooperation and exchange in the boundaries of rationality and common sense (humans often still practice the predatory model too, but that one is not human, it is a relict).

The natural human state is of cooperative benevolence, but one that is not indiscriminate and blind, but included in a hierarchy of common sense priorities, where one first cares for one's own house.

One should not look at these things through exclusive alternatives. That's what the liberals would like us to believe:

Either you have to be indiscriminately "good" to the level of self-destruction, and would have no right to preferentially care for the preservation of your own race or nation, either you are "bad".

We must take great care not to fall into that trap, in the dichotomous frame in which they have imprisoned the issue.

We must propose another common sense model where benevolence naturally coexists with discriminating common sense.
Not only does it coexist, it is part of a natural whole.

One can even be benevolent on a global scale and still be aware of one's own race, aware of the importance and LEGITIMACY of caring for its preservation and affirmation.


Personally I think that in order to win the mainstream White opinion for the cause of White self-preservation, one MUST reconcile general benevolence, - the need of most people to be "good", with the realization that it is also good and legitimate to care about one's own.
We must be able to pass on the realization that BOTH ARE GOOD. That caring about one's own is good and does not diminish in ANY way general benevolence.
We must be able to pass on the realization that being self destructive is not good for anybody and that you can only be good to the world if you value what you are, and care and preserve it.

THE VERY ESSENCE of what needs to be achieved in the minds of mainstream people is to separate the notion of benevolence from nondiscrimination.


Liberal ideologists try precisely to manipulate people into believing that the two are inseparable, that one cannot be good and still have the common sense to care for one's own heritage, biologic and cultural, put value in it and preserve it.

What we must do is to deconstruct this manipulation, to decouple the things that liberals have somehow glued together in the minds of too many people, and to reinstate common sense priorities and common sense differential approach.

We must completely debunk the manipulation that one cannot be good and care for one's own.


It is ESSENTIAL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND that NO ONE can take away the need to feel that one is "good" from the mainstream !!!

To try to do that is a complete waste of efforts and is absolutely counterproductive to our cause.

On the contrary, one must reconcile benevolence with discriminativeness and eventually racism - racism in the sense of legitimate preferential care for one's own heritage.
We absolutely must change the connotation of racism as something "bad" into something good and legitimate. But in order to do that, we cannot separate racism from benevolence. We must pass the realization that benevolence and racism are not in contradiction.

I cannot stress enough how important these points are.
Those who would dismiss them would really, really make a cardinal error.



For the mainstream people, White self-preservationists must NOT be associated with ANY negativism, even implicit.
They must be associated with life - a harmonious, mature, common sense life. a life benevolent in nature, confident in itself, but also associated with the common sense to discriminate between the truth and what is not the truth, the common sense to care for one's own and not be blindly ideologically suicidal.
It must be a life with clear common sense natural priorities, as opposed to immature and blind liberal ideologies.

Life is structured, stratified, selective and differentiated.
What we must convince people of, is that they will not be any less good if they keep being capable of common sense differentiated approach to reality. We must make them realize that such blind ideological "goodness" is a FALSE GOODNESS.

We must present our own model of goodness, a better one, and NOT LET THE LIBERALS DEFINE GOODNESS.
This cannot be done with ideologies of egoism, but with the realization that natural benevolence is in perfect harmony with the care for our own race.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


- 20:41 - Comments (0) - Print - #

About a Core Anti-racist Argument (Biosemantics 4)



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

The way I see it, the main, or one of the main anti-racist arguments in the scientific sphere is that diversity inside races is so big that that there can be a bigger difference between two Whites than between a White and a Black, for example.

Following that logic, anti-racists claim that there are in fact no races, just individuals.

This anti-racist argument is very important in my view, because it may sound convincing to many. Therefore it must be put in its right place...

Let's first start with the easy stuff and then move to more subtle dimensions.

One weak point of the anti's argument lies in the relationship between quantity and quality.
The "diversity" argument usually addresses the issue of having or not having certain variety/alleles of genes. But theoretically, even if a White and a Black would have all the same alleles, that would not mean a thing because it is not just a question of having or not having them, it is also a question of how many. The same genes may have multiple occurrences in the genome and the number of those copies can be different.

Difference in quantity can also mean a difference in quality, because more or less products of a gene can shift the balance of various biochemical processes, and such differences can lead to different chains of biochemical events. Quantitative differences can affect the activation of other genes differently and lead to different outcomes.

One could call this the "Quantity amplification" counterargument to the "diversity" argument of the anti-racists.

Another weakness of the "diversity" argument is the issue of key genes. Research about genetic diversity targets genetic markers regardless of their function and importance. Data about similarities or differences of genome between members of different races or groups does not take into account the relative importance of particular genes, and it doesn't discriminate between "brick and mortar" genes and key regulatory genes.
For racial differences, what is important are not the "brick and mortar" genes, but some key genes that discriminate between cellular processes and the way these processes will go. Such key genes may be few and still make a big difference, a far bigger functional difference than all the inconsequential genes that any two members of different races might have in common.

We could call this the "key genes amplification" counterargument.

In the case of the Lewontin's fallacy, the truth is that not even "brick and mortar" genes are taken into account, but every variation in non coding structural DNA, which is pure nonsense in terms of the properties of the organism.



I would like now to come to a much more subtle area, the reason why I started this thread in the first place, and which will give a clearer meaning to the previously mentioned factors.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there can be a greater apparent significant similarity between certain members of different races than between some members of the same race.

There could still be a small common racial factor in those very different members of the same race that far outweighs everything else in the sense that it indeed determines racial differences far more important than the similarities of a member of one race with the member of another.
This is obviously linked to the two previous factors, but let's see what it could really mean.

That small difference may not be apparent when individuals are compared, because it may appear insignificant and undetectable at the level of individual comparison.

But that may not be so on the collective level. The importance of that factor might manifest itself only trough collective interactions.

An apparently small difference in character between individual members of different races might appear irrelevant at the individual level, but it might be very important on a collective level and as far as collective dynamics are concerned.

Apparently small differences in character, that may not seem significant when individuals are compared, can be hugely amplified in a collective context, if they are racially specific.

Those meaningful small racial differences, apparently inconsequential at the individual level could be central to group dynamics, group interactions and the shaping of society and its dynamics.

An essential thing to understand is that this "common factor" doesn't even have to be genetically identical in all members of the same race!
The important thing would be that these racial factors would be part of a common logic, a common system. They fit together into one.

Like in a hologram where all points of the image contain information about the whole image, but different informations from their own points of view, this racial "common factor" might not be a simplistic one - something that is the same in everyone.
It can be something different in each individual, but containing information about a larger whole, a larger picture. The information in each individual might be different but still make sense only in relation to a whole forming a system. That whole would be defined precisely by difference, not by uniformity.

So there we have it. Diversity inside a race can mean racial unity when we look at factors defining collective dynamics. The AGGREGATIVE PROPERTIES (how they aggregate together in a whole) of individuals don't have to be the same to make a very specific collective system that has inner coherence and a distinct individuality - a race.

The common factor might not be readily recognized at the individual level, because individuals are so different, but that common factor might not exist at the simplistic level of uniformity. The important thing is that the aggregative, collectively oriented properties of each individual are part of a same logic, a system, even if they are different for each individual.

What it means becomes clear if we consider a race as a semantic system, a collective system based on semantics.

Individuals might be different, but their individual meanings are a part of a larger system of meanings. Basically race is a biological language and individual differences of meaning (what the individual means to others in the interpersonal and collective sense) get their full meaning in the meta-context of the language itself and its logic.

In fact, this is a feedback relationship. Individuals form the whole, the semantic logic of the whole, but the whole also select individuals that are adapted to it, its language, to its system of exchange and grouping of meanings.

Races are biologic languages, or more precisely bio-cultural languages, as there is a feedback relationship between biology and culture.

When one looks at races as such semantic collective systems, the anti-racist "diversity argument" crumbles completely because this new systemic approach does not focus on the individual, but on collective systems based on diversity and still making distinct individualized and separated semantic wholes/systems.

This is not to say that these collective racial factors are not recognizable in the individual. They are indeed, but only if one looks for them trough their meaning in relation to the logic of collective and interpersonal semantic interactions (relations of meaning between individuals in the collective system). They are intuitively and implicitly understood by all members of a race, because this is their language, their system of meanings that they use to interact at interpersonal and collective levels.

I have discussed other aspects of this theory in a number of posts. You can find them here.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:40 - Comments (0) - Print - #

A Problem of Race - My Answers in a Stormfront Topic (Biosemantics 3)



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

1)

I think that too many people try to define race at the individual level with concepts of IQ's, criminality etc.
While those aspects are real, they are always opposed with the counterargument of "generalization", and examples of intelligent and honest blacks.

Arguments about IQ's, criminal tendencies etc. are right but insufficient because they focus on the individual, and in fact put the whole issue in the individual frame.

What is needed is a collective perspective of races - races as collective systems.

I already wrote something about how I view those systems, as holistic bio-cultural languages, as holistic bio-cultural semantic systems.

Races are semantic wholes and they are differentiated by the feedback systems of meanings that are embedded in their biology and cultures, and in fact in the feedback system between their biology and cultures.

This difference of races as semantic systems is even physically visible in the meanings conveyed by the facial physiognomies selected by those races. Those physiognomies are a biological non verbal language used as feedback between the units/individuals and defining the spirit of their relationships, and therefore the natural spirit of their societies in their traditional cultures or cultures that contain their traditional values to a large degree.

The White race is the semantically most subtle and rich bio-cultural language. It contains a system of meanings unparalleled by other races.

2)

I would also just like to add that societies should be looked as cybernetic self-regulating, self reproductive systems.

Race, as a biological semantic category, enters into the logic of that cybernetic system. The meanings that are embedded in the biological tissue of the race are a part of the cybernetics system, they are a part of the logic of how certain goals and issues are solved by the societies these races belong.
These biological meanings are a natural tendency inside the natural feedback system between biology and the traditional cultures that were part of the selective biological processes in races.

However, if the link between the traditional values and biology is broken, there is a resulting chaos, and the more subtle the system, the more fragile can it be, if it is not explicitly aware of itself.

Unfortunately, the traditional values that have a feedback relationship with our biology are not scientifically explicit. They are idiosyncratic systems of beliefs, often conveyed by religions.
This kind of vector for the cultural software needed for the formation of a working bio-cultural whole are problematic in modern times when science has challenged the old beliefs, which were prescientific vectors for an important set of software instructions, vital for the health of the cybernetic system as a whole.

3)

When we talk about meanings, I would say that the White race represents (also biologically) higher meanings - meanings that have a more pronounced vertical dimension. It possesses a more pronounced tendency towards the search of higher, encompassing meanings.

Vertical meanings are those that try to encompass the wholeness of life, at the individual and social levels. They are generally manifested in what we call values and ideals. Ideals are a manifestation of that tendency towards higher levels of meaning in the structure of life.
The tendency towards the vertical meanings leads to a hierarchy of abstract levels ordering the different dimensions of life, from the purely individual to the social and even to the purely transcendent abstractions that distill the essence of humanity.

Transcendence in meaning, this is what it means to be human. The more this tendency is present in a human group, the more human it is.

These meanings are also manifested in human archetypes. Those archetypes are collective, racial models of what a man and a woman should be. The ideal true man, the ideal true woman. Those ideals are not just cultural, they are embedded in biology. They don't represent mere physical ideals, but racial ideals of completeness of meaning of what it means to be human.
But physiognomy is important too in a semantic sense. Where the Black physiognomy archetype expresses mostly lower horizontal meanings of life (strength, aggressiveness etc), the White archetype expresses a much higher level of life where the lower more animal meanings are integrated in higher meanings, higher more integrated perspectives.
The White archetype exists at a human meta-level compared to the Black archetype, for example.
The White archetype is a model of a more fully integrated human who extracts higher abstract meanings from life and directs and shapes life according to those higher meanings and values. This is the archetype of a more fully human being integrating the horizontal concrete aspects of life into vertical higher meanings and values and shapes life according to those principles.


BUT, it is IMPORTANT to realize two things about racial human archetypes:

Firstly, it is like a holographic image. Individuals contain an image of that archetype from their own position, but they don't necessarily express the full image in themselves. Every individual may not understand the fullness of the archetype or express it, but they have a tendency towards it, they are attracted to it.
Those archetypes are like attractors, magnets that attract the representatives of a race and make them orbit around them and to try to approach them.

The second important thing to understand is that those archetypes are just POTENTIALS. Our tendency towards a certain human model of life is just a biologic potential that doesn't realize itself by itself. It needs culture, like all human potentials.

We have the biologic potential for speech, but it needs culture to be realized.
We don't even walk without culture. We are anatomically made for bipedal walk, but as the evidence of "wild children" has shown (children raised by animals), humans cannot even start to walk bipedally by their own. Culture is necessary even for that most basic potential.

There is an organic feedback link between biology and culture in humans.
We are biologically shaped for culture. We have certain biologic potentials, but they need culture to develop and express themselves.
Human biology has shaped culture, but culture has shaped human biology. They form an indivisible whole.

This is not to say that culture is all. On the contrary, the archetypes I was talking about represent different potentials in different races, and they need their culture to realize themselves.

The full White biologic potential needs the cultural context in which it has evolved to express itself. It needs a society of meanings, ideals, higher values, higher order of life.

Unfortunately, the cultural elements (software) needed for the full development of the biologic human potential are carried by idiosyncratic vectors like beliefs, religions etc.
This is not a bad thing in itself, but it makes them fragile as they are not explicitly understood, but implicitly hidden if traditional forms.
In modern times, the fundamental values of the White race needed for the full development of its biologic potential are under enormous pressure. We are witnessing the destruction of the idea of a society of meaning, and particularly of higher fundamental meaning.

Liberal relativist ideologies attack that essential cultural idea from all sides.

The very human archetype of the White race is under attack, as it needs its natural cultural context to flourish and realize the full White human model.

That's why there are "Whiggers" these days.

They are those who cannot find the full cultural contextual support for the development of their potential. That cultural support has become very thin in modern societies. It exists more in pockets of meaning than in a strongly meaningful society.
So many young people get absorbed by inferior racial systems of meanings - systems of lower, more horizontal human archetypes, more primitive and animal.

Without the needed higher semantic cultural context, even higher biological forms represented by Whites cannot develop to the level of their potential, they slide to the lower available levels to them.

What does it all mean?

The human archetype of the White race is more complete. It is more vertical, more "meta".
It represents a much more pronounced tendency towards meta-levels of life - the organization of life trough a vertical hierarchy of meanings.
The White race is more the "universal man". It represents a more complete and higher meaningful organizing human tendency.
But unless the White race finds a way to maintain a culture of meaning in society, unless it doesn't retake the reigns of the creation and shaping of meaning in society and culture, unless it doesn't defeat liberal relativists and finds a way to integrate fundamental meaning in a new explicit way into social structure, its perspective is bleak.

The battle for the White race will be at the level of meaning.
Not only in some universal sense, but the battle for the White race to understand what it is as a potential, and to understand what it needs in terms of cultural context.

It is the battle for the White race to understand what it really represents and what are the two legs it walks on (biology and culture).

It is the battle for the White race to understand that IT is the values that it needs (in the sense of bio-cultural interpenetration explained above), and that the White race must be preserved if those values are to be preserved.

We must understand who we are and what we are, in order to want to preserve ourselves

So, this topic started by maxhmeu is excellent, because it touches the very core of the battle for the white race, the very thing that must be won if we want our race to survive.

4)

When I mention meanings and values, I am not talking about values that get alienated from their true cybernetic function.

I will explain what I mean.

Values are part of the cultural software - they serve a role in the cybernetic principle of society, which is basically self-regulation and self-reproduction, and all that it implies.
Values serve that purpose, they serve the creation of a better more fully human and meaningful life and the preservation of that life.
Values are human life software.

But as I underlined it previously, culture and biology go hand in hand.
So, the values of the White man are the White man - they are reflected in his biological potential in the same way that potential is reflected in the culture.
They form a whole.

Values exist, not to preserve only themselves, they preserve the humans that are their counterparts. Values exist to preserve the human potential existing in our biological structure and without which, they would not have any meaning or purpose, as they are precisely the software needed for the development of those potentials.
Values exist for US, the way we are as humans, biologically adapted to ideas of vertical values, principles and meanings.


But certain values like "brotherhood" or "love" can be easily misunderstood.
Many people think that they should apply them indiscriminately to all humans and all human races.
Those do not understand that these values have only a meaning if they preserve their biologic foundation, only if they perform their cybernetic function explained above.

It is not a bad thing in itself to wish well to the rest of the world. I myself wish all the best to Africans in Africa, Asians in Asia, Middle Easterners in the Middle East, etc. But one must not lose from sight that values of "goodness" have a specific structural role in human society. They have a feedback link with their biological base, and serve the purpose of preserving it, making it better, fuller, making it express itself, not negate itself.

It serves no purpose to be "good2 if that means destroying or net preserving the very biological basis of that "goodness".

To caricature it: it would have no meaning to be good to dogs if it meant to chose dogs over humans. One can be good to them, but it doesn't mean that one should lose the ability to distinguish between a human and a dog.

The highest human values have only a meaning if they preserve us, their biological foundation biological potentials for those values that are embedded in our biology.
These values only have a meaning if they preserve their other indivisible half - those who have the biological potential for those values and the biologic semantic systems - biosemantic systems of meaning which are what we call races.

("Biosemantic" not in Ruth Millikan's sense, which means "biological purpose/meaning", but in the sense of "biological language" - a language embedded in the biological structure)

Simply put, to preserve values, ve must preserve ourselves, because we, as biological beings, are the other half of the equation.

The cultural software of meaning has precisely no meaning without the biological potential for which that meaning exists.
And that biologic potential has no meaning without the cultural context of meaning in which it can only develop and realise itself.

This an indivisible holistic relationship.


In a society of meaning where the cultural meaningful atmosphere would be all pervading, individuals would naturally mix only with those in whom they recognize that biological potential for meaning. They would also naturally recognize, even in the visible facial semantic features, the biologic semantic system (race) that has those meanings biologically embedded in it.

There would be no "whiggers" in such society, because people would return to their natural holistic feedback relationship between culture and biology, and would never think of mixing with those who belong to racial semantic systems of lower biological meaning potential, even visible on their faces. They would naturally feel the importance od preserving the racial biological basis for meaning, the biologic semantic system carrying that potential.


But of course. it doesn't mean that things should not be made explicit even before such society of meaning is reached.
People of our race long for meaning, clearing things up in their minds would make a big difference in their awareness of the importance of preservation of our race. The other reason is that time is short and certain tendencies catastrophic.

So, it is important for people of our race to understand this organic link between culture and biology - between meaning in culture and the potential for meaning in biology. It is important because if they understand that, they will understand that the meaning they are naturally drawn to is in the end linked to the preservation of themselves as a race.

With the explicit understanding of that relationship, people will understand the full biological meaning of meaning itself.
They will understand the importance of preserving the race that literally embodies these meanings.


There is no worse fallacy than to believe that the highest human values make the preservation of the White race redundant.

The correct understanding of the relationship between biology and culture, and the effort and program for the establishment of a society of meaning are the two ways to prevent the belief in that fallacy and instill the belief in the essential importance of the preservation of our race.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:36 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Race as a Holographic Language (Biosemantics 2)



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I would like to clear a possible misunderstanding from the previous post "Race and Collective Dynamics - Races as Collective Phenomena (Biosemantics 1)"

I said that races can only be fully understood at the collective level - the level of frame of humanity that they represent - their collective spirit.

It doesn't mean that that these collective racial qualities cannot be seen on the individual level, quite the opposite.

It's a bit like a hologram.
A hologram is a picture where every part of the picture contains an image of the whole picture from the point of view of that part.
In a hologram, every part reflects the whole.

The fullness of the hologram - the fullness of the spirit of a race is not always apparent in every individual, but once it is perceived as a whole, one can see its aspects in individuals, and how individuals are part of it.

The best among Blacks still exist in relation to their hologram - their model of humanity embedded in their biology. They exist inside their frame of humanity, inside the spirit of their race.

The worst representatives of the White race also exist in relation to the frame of humanity of their race.
Each individual, even the worse ones, reflects the whole he belongs to, in a specific way.
Even those who negate that spirit, negate it in relation to that spirit. Even the negation exists in relation to the frame.

Even the best among Blacks are defined inside their racial human frame, inside the aspirations of that frame, and I would even say - inside the level of transcendence of their model of humanity.
That level of transcendence is the tendency of a race to transcend itself, the tendency visible among the individuals of that race to transcend the status quo.

This is not just something very abstract and intellectual. No, this is something everybody automatically feels if unimpeded by liberal leftist ideologies.

We all feel such things. We feel that even the best representatives of the Black race represent a different sort of humanity, a narrower, more limited one, whose shape is less in a form of an arrow aiming for the sky.
They represent a frame of lower level of transcendence and of lesser value.

Yes, there are plenty of Whites who are not worthy of their human frame, not worthy of the spirit of their race. They are deformations and malformations inside that frame, but they don't diminish the spirit of the frame itself, they don't diminish its collective logic and aspiration.

That's why the individualistic approach to races is insufficient. It could lead to the erroneous conclusion that races don't matter, only the relative qualities of individuals would.

This is wrong because the individual qualities exist also and in a very essential way, in relation to racial human frames. An individual doesn't represent only himself biologically, he represents a wider collective order, a way the whole is arranged and organised on the basis of individuals.

Each individual contains collective properties projecting a model of humanity inside the society.

Ignoring that dimension is totally wrong, because even if we would accept quality individuals from other races, we would also dilute the collective shape of humanity that our race represents. We would sabotage the collective spirit, the whole collective dynamics that we reflect as individuals.

Individual abilities are secondary to the preservation of a superior holistic model of humanity - a superior collective biologic substance or spirit reflecting itself in the individuals. That spirit exists in itself and is more than just the sum of individual abilities.

The arrow of the White race, as a whole larger than the sum of its parts, aims higher. It is an entity, a system by itself, and it aims higher - this is the simple truth.
Replacing it by a lesser one, which aims much lower, would be a catastrophe.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:34 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Race and Collective Dynamics - Races as Collective Phenomena (Biosemantics 1)



Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I come from a country where there are almost no Blacks. And still, Blacks are the racial issue that preoccupies me the most.
In the context of demographic catastrophe of the White race, Africanization threatens the European continent, and will reach my country as well, sooner or later.

Some people (not from this forum) would ask me if I hate Blacks. I don't.
I even believe that some individual Blacks can be decent and productive individuals.

I Explained in another topic treating the justification for the preservation of the White race (which can be found in my Blog) some of my views on the subject. I would like to expand a little here.


For me, the issue of race cannot be observed at the individual level but at the collective one.
It is an issue far more subtle than IQs and things like that.

I believe (actually, this is a theory in an advanced stage) that races are primarily a semantic phenomenon and a phenomenon of collective dynamics where people's individual characteristics are integrated by others into a system of collective complementary interpersonal meanings.
Such system creates an embedded collective dynamics - a biologically driven tendency in society to certain types of interpersonal interactions leading to a certain direction of the society itself.

If one observes a molecule of water alone, it has certain attributes in itself, but it is difficult to extrapolate from these individual characteristics, what will be the properties of water as an aggregate of billions of molecules.
These individual characteristics are important, not only for the single molecule, but mostly for the way these molecules interact together and the collective properties that result.

I believe that this principle also applies to humans.

Individual properties can be observed for themselves, but they get their true meaning in the way they interact inside the social tissue.
In fact I believe that individual properties and the dynamics of the collective represent a whole, a holistic system. It is not just a one way street like in molecules, it is a two way street, where the collectivity also select certain types of individuals that are consistent with its dynamics.

Those aggregating characteristics of the individuals are semantic in nature. They represent meanings - meanings of one individual within the group, meanings of the individual inside the group dynamics.

These meanings are best seen in the facial physiognomies, which express certain meanings of the individual in relation to others. They represent meanings about ways individuals interact and aggregate. They represent certain interpersonal goals and aspirations, certain social orders.
Faces are a subtle biological social language and are part of a semantic collective system, not a random stack of individual properties.

There are also other factors participating in the embedded aggregative processes of collective dynamics. They may be more subtle than faces. I call them "psycho-physical energies" and are embedded in some rhythms that punctuate activities and interactions. But this is too complex for this topic.

What I am saying is that races cannot be primarily be observed as just a random collection of individuals. They constitute a semantic whole, a holistic biological language - a biosemantic system ("Biosemantic" not in Ruth Millikan's sense, which means "biological purpose/meaning", but in the sense of "biological language" - a language embedded in the biological structure), and must be observed at the level of collective dynamics sustained by the aggregative properties of the individuals. These aggregative properties being themselves selected by the whole, which creates a two-way, feedback holistic system.

The opponents, but also the proponents of racism use arguments that target the individual level, comparing individual performances.
I believe that this is an insufficient way of looking at the issue. Races cannot be understood at the level of the individual components alone, but at the level of the whole, the collective dynamics that they represent.
Individuals do not exist by themselves, they are part of a semantic biological network having its own collective properties.



Individual aggregative properties may not always be apparent or manifested.

For example, if a Black is isolated among whites, he will adapt to the prevalent collective dynamics. This is also the case when there are small numbers of blacks in a large White majority.
Some Black individuals can function very well in a White environment and be very productive, but when the social proportion changes and Black become a significant factor, their innate aggregative properties take over, They tend to create the collective dynamics corresponding to their own biological collective language, creating a different collective dynamics.

Unfortunately, that dynamics soon interferes with the dynamics embedded in the White biology.

This evolution can be seen in Music for example. When Black culture was still framed by the White culture, it expressed itself in forms like Jazz, but as the Black collective emancipates itself more and more, it returns to more primitive basic forms like Rap.
This is just a symptom, but it illustrates how, when the collective dynamics of Blacks takes over, they fall on their natural level, a more primitive collective level.

I believe that the augmentation of the number of Blacks in a white society is a big problem because their natural collective dynamics takes over and drags down the White collective dynamics, as it is always easier to go down than up.
If a significant collective factor drags culture down, it will go down. The balance of the civilizational and anti-civilizational factors is delicate in the White race, even if it is left to itself, but if a significant source of disruption exists in the same social tissue, civilization goes down to more primitive levels.

It is no coincidence that culture takes a plunge to basic more animal levels of social interaction, wherever Blacks pass a certain aggregating threshold.

I believe that racial theory used by WN should rise to a new level of understanding, from the individual atomized view to a higher perspective that encompasses the collective holistic meaning of what races are.


Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


- 20:32 - Comments (0) - Print - #

<< Arhiva >>

< ožujak, 2023  
P U S Č P S N
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31