difference is, women carry out their day to day interactions like politicians, men don’t. Society is feminizing because it promotes dishonest politician type mechanisms in order to get careers and social things. The female instinct is to be sensitive and censor their own words for social reasons, male instinct is to get to the bottom of things. Most people are 50/50 these days, female some of the day and male some of the other part of the day. real men have bottom feeder jobs, like factories auto parts and shit, because they dont feel like dealing with all the political and social bullshit they need to get a white collar job.
Or gay…Arcturus likes her men homosexuals…the more she can’t have them, the more she wants them. Like an insane little girl.
Not sure i get what you are saying…what do you mean male attributes dangling…chicks with dicks? And why are you around other couples? Does it bother you because you are jealous, or just don’t like how dumb they look?
Your original argument was saying women expect men to go to war for them. Im saying that’s bullshit.
Besides what Trixie says and what may be partially true, the main issue is that rock stars are doing something, they expend a lot of energy, which is masculine.
They do. I am always getting the fuck away when she tries to give me a first layer of wax.
With one girl I held out for years because she was so incredible but in the end I was depleted by the huge importance she attached to her role in society, and the forms of establishing this role. I left her and broke my own heart, still had no fucking choice.
Of course, I am hopeful, but my experiences have been that its fucked up and that there is not even anyone to be jealous of.
I’m working on establishing my own proper terms, because Ive realized the world just does not provide the terms I can accept right now. You can call that weak and jealous, but I’d retort that this is the analysis of an ignorant spoiled little brat.
Taking on a mans role in the world isn’t easy. Women seem to think it is some kind of escape they’re entitled to. Look at Hillary Clinton - the perfect example of irrational entitlement complex. Her whole argument is that she’s simply entitled. She has no notion of merit.
The bitch actually thinks that flying around the world to more countries than any predecessor constitutes hard statecraft. Again, just a whore collecting trophy items.
Yes, also a popular solution. Also not an option.
Its the conversations. Utterly domesticated, pointless, no Dionysos in it.
Why am I around them? Because I have friends and family that I see.
To be frank, it is usually not the case that women understand or correctly represents their own genders response patterns. Usually what they think they are is the opposite of how they behave. That is well known among men who know how to ‘handle’ women; players, manipulators.
Not always, naturally - but very very often.
In the olden days, this used to be cute, the charm of a woman; but then, she knew and she accepted her ‘lunacy’.
Just as she accepted the mans foolishness, which is a universal masculine trait - now, she accepts all sorts of things about the man that keep him down, but nothing about herself.
Those are lamos. Girls like that are more reserved and such. Also they probably just don’t share the dionysos in public but do it in private.
You still are losing the argument…women don’t want men to go to war.
“Go to war, leave our family and die for your country” said no woman ever, unless it was an ex or hateful wife or something.
Adonis is self-absorbed, not expanding energy or trying to impress and a goddess flocks to him.
Only hedonistic/feminine ones, like Hugh Hefner. You’re assuming that all men who came to power did it in order to get a woman. You’re not even considering the multitude of all other reasons a man might want power. I say that men are by nature competitive among each other and the power struggle is all about man-vs-man relationship (over territory, resources, standing, etc.). Women are just a windfall, not the cause. If a woman is the cause, then the men is too attached to the feminine to begin with.
This?..
And you take it as a fact? Homer was a poet, remember, and he incorporated a lot of mythology into his stories. The Trojan War itself is still a subject of debate among historians.
Then join the Joker and his kind and wait for the world to “change its terms”…just for you. And let those ignorant spoiled brats accept and deal with what they have before them (so you don’t have to).
There are women that have to take on men’s jobs so they can make a living, and men that sit in offices, get their pedicures and head massages at malls, and then going to the gyms in order to compensate. The roles are getting flipped and you’d be mistaken to think that all women are enjoying it, or that they want to turn all men into women, like them. As far as Hillary goes - don’t worry, I’m sure she gets her share of beating.
I have hardly ever done anything to “get a woman”. I might do things so as to keep a woman or two, but that’s only if those things don’t get in the way of what I am trying to accomplish. As far as I am concerned, I hold onto nothing that doesn’t hold onto me. Women inherently seek powerful men. But powerful men don’t become powerful by trying to satisfy that scenario, quite the opposite.
From the Book of JamesSS:
“Gain a life before a wife.”
males have invented everything… FREUD… RIGHT!!!
Century of the Self, the Freud and Bernaise 's legacies, a must watch BBC blockbuster
youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
… by MEN. This vid debunks the OP completely. Men are as naive and gullible as women and falling prey to various social cliches which perpetuate the same fallacies…
only a money free society can restore the male-female interaction. Until then we are ALL pawns.
Electricity rules living creature and organism, and decides all outcomes, what my book explains pretty well. Psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis are bunk, that is as simple as that.
Ah yes, the inversion. Men who lust after women are feminine, and men who don’t care about women are masculine. Right…
So I guess you de-inverted it to fix your original inversion.
Ah , the inversion again. Men are not supposed lust after and chase women, but women are supposed to lust after, and chase men. Right…
Who said anything about a wife?
Power in terms of - animal magnetism, or power in terms of - the ability to manipulate other men, get a disproportionately large amount of money with minimal effort and get to the top using feminine manipulation techniques? Perhaps both, I’d assume.
Beta men, you mean.
A bit ridiculous don’t you think? money is simply a transference system to denote worth of resources. removing it won’t change social dogma…baby steps…Perhaps we should simply try to make the monetary system not so lopsided…rather than abolishing it altogether, and see how that works.
Not sure if it does. It’s a bit like saying electricity decides all outcomes of the computer, giving the plastic and metal too little credit.
It is bunk, but i wouldn’t say that it’s bunk is so simply explained.
Lol. Thanks Trixie, for clearing through all that … stuff. Cause I sure couldnt identify what people were claiming anymore.
I have the feeling that the OP still largely stands, i.e. that its been supported (often apparently by someone trying to debunk it) more than challenged.
The argument about war Im happy to lose if it refers only to physical war between states. Thats not how I see war though - “All things are born of war” - H
You didnt really pay attention to Freud or Bernays in action.
THEY ONLY WORKED ON WOMEN.
Did you not fucking GET it?
I am only pointing to a distinction between men who are vulnerable to a woman’s charm and manipulation (easily pliable), and men who are not. If you don’t want to draw a conclusion that one is more ‘feminine’ (soft, insecure, easily manipulated) than the other, then fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that a distinction exists between the two.
This doesn’t mean gays are more masculine because they are sexually indifferent to women, if that’s where you were going - now that would be an inversion. A gay man, emotionally, is already like a woman, and for a man it would be a severe form of self mutilation, as he would move his self to the opposite end of the spectrum of being a man - more feminine. Alternatively, this also doesn’t mean that a man who’s not easily manipulated by a woman is really gay. That’s also another way of saying that a man’s masculinity is defined by feminine wiles. My question to you: if a man is not easily influenced by a woman’s charm, can he still be a man?
You did not understand where I was coming from. Naturally, the feminine-masculine continuum has no-go zones for each sex, trespassing which, up to now, has only been allowed in isolated situations, and usually only temporarily. And for a reason. Nowadays, it is allowed and encouraged, and everything is getting out of balance. Look at gay men who are also into body building - a woman-in-becoming still trying to preserve what is left of his masculinity, his body. A transitionary limbo state which has been granted its own niche by the society. The natural next step would be to let go of the body and become a transsexual - a ‘woman’. Does it not look right to you?
Eventually the entire field of philosophy and psychology will have to be REwritten. Their premises are just erroneous.
I think you need to research the electric universe theory a bit … emotions are electric impulses released by synapses which handle our neural electric network… so it is KEY to understand electricity, because this Natural Law is immutable, hence controsl everything. We do not do what we want as long as this awareness is lacking, our choices and their consequences are embedded in the fabric of the universe since every particle is ruled by electricity which births itself from the AEther. My book explains the metaphysics of emotions.
EXAMPLE: ‘Bees find pollen through electrical signals from flowers’
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … z4AFnlKCqV
This whole electric universe is a complex maze of similar tensions. Every particle of matter in the universe is separated from its condition of oneness, just as the return ball is separated from the hand, and each is connected with the other one by an electric thread of light which measures the tension of that separateness – Walter Russell
All opposites of all kinds extend from a mutual equator which is their common unity, and to that equator they must eventually return in order to repeat. Every pair must become one in order to again become two. Men and women do not escape this two-way reciprocatve law. Each becomes what the other is. Both are always compromising each other’s unbalance. If the two unbalances are equal and opposite, each type will survive and grow mentally, spiritually and physically. If the two unbalanced mates are unequal in their opposition, the penalty is degeneration - mentally, spiritually and physically. The quality of one mate is a compromise with the quality of the other. The pattern resulting from this spiritual, mental and moral development is compromised for good or bad by every contact between them - no matter how slight. This is true even outside the sex union - Walter Russel
No, they worked on beta males and women. Don’t get mad bro.
I’m not sure James can identify what he’s saying either.
“get a life before you get a wife” sounds to me like he’s being chased by hunters and golddiggers (women taking on the male hunting role and chasing men…the inversion I was talking of earlier.) Essentially, James is “accidentally” garnering the approval of women, putting himself on display pedestal status as prey in order to get users and golddiggers to hunt him. And of course, he’s not "trying’ to do this, that it’s just a side effect, because if you make it obvious that you are bait, the bait doesn’t work. The equivalent of dolling oneself up and passively attracting members of the opposite sex, then claiming they aren’t trying to attract anyone they dress for themselves… extremely feminine. It’s not even on the level of fishing (passively hunting), because James says he’s not even trying to fish, so its actually (according to James) isn’t even on the level of women who doll themselves up. And he gives this kind of advice to men.
The term “real man” is a nonsense term that has no concrete meaning. But I’d say if a man cannot be seduced by a fair woman he isn’t a real man. I’d say he’s either secretly queer or [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONdLEqzhXOI[/youtube]
It’s not my business, I don’t care to look at gays as they body build…and gay’s are not transgenders - they are not women-in-becoming.
First time I saw a naked chick with a penis I thought it was unusual. Then it grew on me. Now, even in my dreams, it feels natural. All I’m saying is if my ex took my day’s salary and paid for me some sheboys I wouldn’t be complaining. But if she took my hard earned salary and bought me a bunch of porn with two BodyBuilding men kissing each other I’d make her eat the DVDs.
Thanks. I see where you stand.
I can see why You would think that.
And thus believe this:
Ooooh… I am so hurt James…(except not all, hehehe) 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhmXoEr9z0[/youtube]
As I said again…real man has no actual objective, consistent, absolute definition outside of the flux of the mind…
If a man is not sterile, he is a functional male…
Males are start out as females and over-time, develop various degrees and components of masculinity.
Man, as in mankind, from which we began using the word “man” for males refers to a “manager” and even “manipulator”, one who deals with and maintains the order in his surroundings. A “real man” refers to a man who maintains the order in his environment, thus regarded as strong, decisive, domineering, and compassionate.
So yes “real men” has an objective meaning (as much of a fantasy as it might be).