… means that she is not married (the intention of “women’s liberation”, as was very soundly proven during the 1970’s).
To get women to marry non-white men, you first have to free them up from their marriage to white men. Then teach their daughters the preferred route. It has been nothing but a serpentine race war.
Married people are NOT “individuals”. Individuals are NOT married. To be married is to “become one”.
“Respect me as an individual” means “respect me as though I’m NOT your wife ([size=85]because shortly I am not going to be[/size])”.
The Lover/Lover dynamic is difficult to maintain for extended periods of time.
You bring up something interesting. Can there be a really healthy longterm relationship for both if there are no children around?
I think no.
But if they choose so then I think it’s better if the man has the role of the father and the woman that of the daughter than your mother/boychild example. If the woman is pushy and the man is submissive we end up with the mother/boy dynamic.
Women are usually not suited for a dominant position, a leadership position, especially not in a relationship. As you’ve said, mothers don’t make boys into men, often they can’t or won’t.
And as Nietzsche writes -
"Lo! “Lo! now hath the world become perfect!”—thus thinks every woman when she obeyeth with all her love.
But at the same time this doesn’t mean that men are always suited for leadership positions, often they are not.
The tyrant is a child who throws a tantrum, forever.
You can’t squeeze good leadership out of just anybody. Not everything can be trained or taught to just anybody, either you have the potential for something or you don’t. You certainly can’t nag them into becoming better men, maybe nag them into becoming something lesser. Or nag them into manning up, cutting the losses and leaving.
Btw. nagging is feminizing men, it’s this constant psychological pressure and to avoid its feminizing effect one must remove himself from constant psychological pressure, either by packing up or by hitting back. Same principle as when they ‘break you’ as a new recruit in the army. It’s feminizing because you cannot fight back and at the same time you won’t take flight. No fight, no flight when under attack then the only escape is to surrender.
The very thought that it’s a matter of education, of training is feminizing in effect. It’s a we can integrate everything and everybody instead of separating and discriminating kind of thinking. ‘Let’s all huddle together.’
And so I think that high population density leads to very weird social behaviours, in particular in men, first.
You would be right more often than the reverse, especially over the past 400 years.
Man is a Man-ipulator.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
How in the hell would You know? If you don’t see it on TV news or on Wiki, it didn’t happen. You know nothing of the workings of Man, yet “presuppose” that you have a good grasp.
Also, I would agree that a financially well off Western man going to a poor Asian country has an advantage in that environment, in a similar way that an average Western woman has advantages due to the Western environment. Men going there did the cost-benefit analysis - Western women require shitloads of effort, yet they don’t give back much, whereas Asian women require less effort, and appreciate a man more, so it should be pretty obvious why some men make that choice. Frankly, the only reason I won’t do the same is because I want white children.
I mean that in the sense that a male has his own set of principles that are made clear when the relationship begins and which he enforces without capitulating to a woman’s nagging demands. It’s beneficial to nobody - a woman disrespects a man that modifies her behavior according to her will, and a man is inhibited in achieving his goals and loses focus by doing what he knows is not beneficial. In the end a woman will be left unsatisfied and move on, and a man will be left a broken loser.
More on-topic - feminism is obsolete in times of war. And I mean actual, physical war, not a war of ideas. The reason feminism is becoming obsolete in the West and more and more people are disagreeing with it is that the West is being threatened by Muslims, and feminism is a hedonistic/short-term/destructive ideology, it is a consequence of success and signifies decline. Feminism cannot deal with threats, feminism gets destroyed by threats because it is tolerant and pacifistic towards what wants to destroy it (Muslims enforcing Sharia Law).
In times of war, masculinity is on high demand because who the fuck else but masculine men will deal with invaders, fat feminists with colored hair? Does anybody actually think that these prissy, spoiled little girls will go and put their life on the line in a war? No, when there is a threat of war and shit needs to get done, that is when masculinity and masculine values such as heroism, courage, self-sacrifice for the nation, etc. are shortly and suddenly appreciated, then when the war ends the people who fought to protect the country and masculine values will be once again vilified by the leftists/liberals they saved. I’ve seen this happen myself, in Croatia veterans of the war in the 90s are constantly under attack by leftists/liberals.
The more serious the Muslim threat becomes, the more and more feminism will become obsolete. If European nationalists deal successfully with the Muslim threat and establish peace and order and begin the societal rise in terms of economic and technological progress, I predict that in a couple of generations feminism will rise again as a product of a safe, sheltering environment, then feminism will fuck everything up again, emasculate the men, and make the country vulnerable to an external threat.
Its all about balance. Star Trek is masculine feminism, if that makes any sense. Feminism has gone a bit too far for it to be worth any salt.
Star Trek is not my ideal utopia, they have no general sense…they follow dogma like the Prime Directive and ignore their judgement, all judgement and ethics is derived from a panel of prestigious morons.
Something I don’t understand about conspiracy theories:
It’s all well and good to place your bets on a conspiracy theory given that a false positive isn’t as bad as a false negative, but what happens if you have to choose between two opposing conspiracy theories?
Take the Skull and Bones society, for example. There are photographs circling around the media depicting both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as members, suggesting that the Bushes were most likely involved in whatever conspiracies Skull and Bones is said to have partaken in. But like any information spoon fed to us by the media, what reason do we have to believe that this is the real conspiracy and not a chimera concocted to deceive us by a whole other conspiracy going on behind our backs? That they’re telling us so?
Wouldn’t it be so convenient, in other words, if these photos were fabricated by someone wanting to tarnish the Bushes’ reputations (which is quite easy to do in Photoshop)–somebody like a Democrat perhaps.
So how do you choose between a rock and a hard place? Between the conspiracy theory the media is telling us about and the conspiracy theory the media doesn’t want us to know about it? This isn’t as easy a choice as that between a false positive and a false negative. You are forced to choose between two possible false negatives. You’re kinda screwed.
Feminism was supposed to protect and empower the dependent women who were left with a short end of the stick because they either had to endure emotional/physical abuse of their husbands or were left empty-handed when their role as lover/mother was served and were no longer needed.
I am going to bring this (historically) back a little. If a woman married a ‘wrong’ man who was not a good caretaker and was abusive to her (and himself), she had no (legal) recourse to remedy the situation, especially if they also had children together. She was stuck with the ‘unfit’ man; there was no ‘cut your losses’ and run/start again for her. Because women placed all their efforts into raising family, they often did not have the skill set necessary in the workforce; and if they husbands decided to leave them for a younger woman (or died) after years of marriage, they pretty much had no where to go. An older man with work experience and capable of bringing income could have a younger woman, can start a new family even, but an older woman without work experience and past her child bearing age was left with very little prospects. I am not saying that most men were abusive to their wives, but I do believe that many men followed their ‘needs’, leaving their wives stuck in a disadvantaged position.
Women have always organised themselves in communities. And this provided pressure or support on individual members of a community.
At the same time nobody is protected perfectly all the time, not women and certainly not men, neither should everybody be protected from his/her own stupidity. A woman making a careful choice when it comes to a husband (and vice versa) is an important element in genetic selection.
Maximising security for everybody at all costs is the downfall of any society, it promotes and selects for carelessness, stupidity and so forth.
Doesn’t mean that there should be no consideration for protection of weaknesses but maximising it is dysgenic in nature.
Another thing, depending on where and when, women were not throughout history without property or rights.
What feminism did and still does, from the first wave to the last wave is dismantle patriarchy, in other words, destroy the organisations of men.
Not that women had those feministic ideas all by themselves at large. It’s relatively few, usually those not invested in the communities themselves who propagate those destructive ideas and narratives. Men being often naive when it comes to women bought into those ideas as well. It’s kind of like Adam and Eve and the snake, now that I think about it.
Again, if anything to consider from what I just wrote it’s that feminism is not this magical creation and prior to it there were no women organising themselves.
There always have been. Point is that feminism is about destroying men’s organisation. Why? Because it’s oppressing women, apparently. And you know, it’s true, depending on how oppression is understood. Men try to dominate women and the patriarchal ways of organising (some of them good some of them not so much) help them do so. But without that domination - that leadership - women and effeminate men destroy society and a destroyed, weakened, society simply gets conquered or torn apart by another society and dominated or killed by them. And that’s usually not better, neither for men nor for the women overall.
Pure iron was one of the softer metals and easily corrupted. You can bend an iron nail with your fingers. Try that with brass or steel. Of course if they had aluminum back then, you might be calling them “males and alumales”.
The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, … (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.
If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.
