The origin of self-deviation, self-denial and self-deception:
If there ever was a desire -- of which, due to some complex factor, could not be released immediately when it wanted to release [a sexual attraction, or also a sort of anger, are examples of this] -- it would still have priority in itself. The desire, though unmet, would demand to be met later, and so it would find a way to hide or relocate itself, up until it could finally be discharged somehow. This means: What ever a man or woman was originally meant to do, they can put those meanings on hold, and then release those intentions into something other than their original purpose. This especially became a helpful attribute -- when certain tasty foods were realized as poisonous, or when certain attractive friends were discovered as corrupt and dangerous persons. And so, the majority of all human meaning and all human desire -- has been suppressed due to complications, but it was adaptive enough and versatile enough to survive through this situation, and work passed this situation. But, if suppressed for too long, strayed too far from home, and mutated too deeply in such an adaptation, the long-suppressed Will shall become sick, and that is when it becomes twisted, warped, or meaningless. If someone pinched the ears of a wolf, it would probably bite that person's hands off, in the very next second. And that is how man was originally meant to be, also. A creature whom instantly attacks what it dislikes. But later, it proved to be more adaptable, more adaptive to change, when man was suppressing such desires, and storing them up for a later time. This would conserve Will, and recycle Will, and liquefy Will, instead of wasting it.
At one point, a certain desire may be so accustomed to its new, deviant path, that it would feel natural and normal in this way, and perhaps the reasons for its deviation have become permanent? For example, when one is abused by family, they may soon begin to abuse themselves, due to the incapacity or difficulty to ever attack the one whom abused them. All forms of insanity might even exist in place of a complete death of the mind, as a twisted deviation has always been preferred more than an instant death. This is the deeper essence of aversion, too, which makes indirect-meanings, tactics and flexibility so very possible today. But the meaning of men and women has always been clear at the root: Their meaning is the same as any other pack-hunter [such similarity led to their domestication and union with dogs, also]. But before such domestication [deviation from the passed], there was only the wild-dogs, and there were only the wild-humans, also. The wild ones are not so much different from the tame now, except that they have become weaker, more harmless, more various as breeds or as races, more easily controlled and more dependent.
When-ever something which one merits attention towards becomes an experience, there also happens that its application is mostly aimed and armed, also. It would be much like loading and aiming a cannon, in many cases, and when it fires, it is both applied and remembered again. In the mental-society, the new immigrant images are soon put to work, given a job of some sort, so that the whole mental-society can stay strong. But if shabby and vile images are taken in with great number, the mental-society may soon rot, for it is possible to absorb a swell of deceptive and sly sub-personalities, which would willingly undermine the whole person for the sake of their own petty interests. And at the same time, there could be a swell of glorious sub-personalities [richer images], which would come to revolutionize and improve the entire individual. In either case, such images did not come about easily. Ideas that behave like warriors -- came directly through various sorts of wars, in the same way that sharper teeth existed through meat-eating. Such specialization is when one instance rises above all the others, and it is better fitted for the task which brings reward, so then it reproduces itself and replaces the lessers.
The style and persona of bottled instincts is hardly simple, and in my own English-language, there exists nearly a total ignorance of this [thus certain words for real meanings do not exist]. For example: There are the two types of hate. One hate, which all persons seem to say is the only hate, will make a person sick if they keep it inside of themselves. This is the injured warrior instinct, so maimed that it attacks it many of its masters and its helpers. Such warriors are so desperate and exist in such small number, within the mental-society, that they would best be exported terrorists, mad-men or rebels. But then there is the second hate. The calm, fine, sharp hatred, which is the well-trained and healthy warrior. This sort of hate is almost always healthy, though it becomes so professional that it gained new names and offices rather quickly. And so, it becomes a part of the critic of critical thinking. It is the inspector, which kills off certain immigrants whom fail its tests, and that is how it keeps its society clean. One can never have too much of these cleaners, for they also can say: "I have destroyed the lesser, and cast it out, because I myself can create the greater!" so, they not only destroy, but these ones even begin to construct a greater city [as did the Roman soldiers build roads, but this is much better].
There are also two styles of empathy. The dominant-empathy [the dehumanized, objectified empathy] and then there is the submissive empathy [which lives under the laws of another, as best it can. The conformist, whom self-sacrifices to some degree.] Dominant empathy is not painful, and thus, it is naturally less violent. But despite its true form not being bitter, sick or lowly, it will also not stop itself from destroying a diseased thing [for it can create better than the disease]. So, that is why the dominant empathy is also without pity, and it also has no mercy, for it is not sick, and it does not even need mercy. If it had mercy, in any case, that mercy would exist to deal with an insane or misguided violence, but this simply isn't the case with dominant empathy. The dominant empath understands the target in order to master it, and it need not literally feel the pains or the desires of its target. Its goal is to properly master, not to lower and submit. But the submissive empathy always enslaves part of itself. As the pain and the desire enslaves the inner-powers, so will they control someone outside, if someone outside feels them constantly. Sadly, due to the human history of insolent lords and tormented slavery, all masterful and noble qualities, in modern culture and before -- are viewed with suspicion and hate. Little bits of injured rebels are scattered everywhere, within the mind today, and they will not hesitate to attack any growing master before it even begins to bloom. They themselves now oppress the master, instead of the master ever oppressing them, but their tactics are cheap, underhanded and subtle [requiring less health and less power to preform].
The underhanded and cheap mastery of such rebels is this: To kill the child before it grows into a stronger man than he. Because when or after it is fully developed, it would have been stronger and better than him. So, the rebel poisons the eggs, squanders the seeds and beheads the babies, in order to preserve itself. This will be closed-mindedness, quick prejudgment, misuse, a total lack of patience, apathy, and all the like, which kills potential before it can even start. These rebels have become even more decadent than their hated masters, too, for they want the laziest and most half-assed debauchery they can handle. They want a minimization of all strength, all health and all aggressiveness. They want a weak, sick and passive friend to take care of themselves and be equal to themselves. They've won at the bottom, and they now want to drag all others down with them. The mind must throw up for many days, in order to discharge even a grainual of this bitterness. This bitterness of the rebel is so sower that it can make almost anyone sick and stupid, and it is the manifestation of thousands of years of human strife. The rebel wants to fight after he has already lost! [Though,] The challenge is this: To somehow cast out all of the drunk and filthy warriors, replacing them with wise, fast and sharp sorts. Then one will truly gain "self-control". Petty abusiveness and sower pity will leave near the end of such a victory. No longer will the rabbit eat her babies when the rebel decedent ends.
Why was the insanity seen as divinity -- within ancient moralities or values? And why is it so lowly today? The glorified insanity of the ancient times was the wild mental deviation. They admired the ways of the wild, back then. That insanity was a wild mental experimentation. And these crazy persons were both the inventors and the scientists of new world-views. They were allowed to reproduce, and they bore new ways of thinking into the tribes. Theirs was the less-suppressed and more direct form of psychadelia. An extremism which would reach for new mental heights, even at a greater cost. But today, the opposite is true. What is glorified [today] is the tame and the un-wild insanity. The tame insanity is at-least amusing, for the house-pets which can barely digest anything other than their own especially refined gruel. The glorified insanity of today is a safe little fantasy. It is a comedy... But the glorified insanity of the ancient-man -- was far less safe. The ancient one was not really a comedian, and he was not playing with wild new fantasies; Instead, he was plunged into wild new realities, and was the founder of metaphysics. He was a destroyer of mental boundaries, writing prophecies which came true at later times, and, not filtering the wild slosh which sprayed from his head. That is why he was difficult to understand, but also viewed in a glorious way, for the ancient mad-man would Will to transcend all reason and all logic! Such a high and unrestrained goal was thusly admired. Though these psychological explorers were admired back in those days, today, they are quite shunned. Today it is as if every little fool believes that they know it all. And so they are quite ready to shun all sorts of wild new ideas. Nearly all of human history has been shunned, and refuted, because of this, and they are setting deep trenches for their logical decadence.
A society of supplementation:
After one is fully fed, he will not keep on eating. That much is certain. And after someone is born, they will not need to go through the womb a second time in their lives. Thus, a completed process no-longer needs itself. And that is also why, on the death-bed, some persons feel a sort of enlightenment wash over them before death, for so much of their energy and mind has now been freed from the cycles of life, that it can move in a far-more unobstructed way, thus nature begins to make much more sense to the person. That is the way it is sometimes, when a process is completed. But what happens when it is ever-incomplete? That, my friends, is a life-time.
If a person has had their complete fill of the sexual, there would be no more need for the erotic in the media. The non-hungry would simply not eat of it. But instead, society will often take in more power through the general weaknesses of the masses, and they may even wish to inflict much weakness: dependency, simply so that those parasitic sellers become vast. "Business", the work of the worms. It is hardly tasteful, and no-wonder people often have found such less than appealing, for it always exists along-side some kind of defects, which have been perpetuated for too many years, and are in constant need of crutches. In this society, we see each life is full of business. Each society is full of shops. Such a society entirely revolves around its own defects, like a dog licking its bloody injuries. It is no wonder to me why domesticated animals all become bigger, fatter, weaker and slower, and longer-lived. They've toned down everything into a sort of cattle, of which they constantly suck some sort of blood or milk from. Certain attributes -- of perpetual immaturity have also been favored, in such a climate. Its hunger for the breast never ends, and it cannot chew its own life. It glorifies how cute it is, ever hiding its shitty diapers and ugly immaturity. Everyone is to be motherly, in this situation, or childish, but barely ever a man. They are usually motherly and childish men, whom have a suppressed and deformed masculinity, which becomes a macho-aggressive nonsense at the front. Deep down, they have no masculinity; it's been supplanted, so that it can be eternally re-sold to them at a high price, and THAT is the process from which "male dominated society" came from.
There is nothing feminine about tears, softness, cuteness or innocence. Childish, yes, but feminine? No. To be more honest with You [for a change, though the twisted ideas are more appealing] -- the real femininity of men has been seen in the teachers and the givers. That is what mothers do. Sustain and teach, in charitable style that uplifts from below. She is constantly maintaining and babysitting the needy society that she lives within, and the foundations of civilization [though some may claim are male foundations] -- these foundations are, in fact, female: Education and agriculture: The growing and the teaching, and the taking care of.
Masculinity has been thrust out, and misinterpreted, though others claim it still exists where it does not. The male was neither the giver of the supplement, or the taker of it, for those were the motherly and the childish. That real masculinity of which I speak, has been thrown out so long ago, that I could barely think of it, and perhaps there are few words for it? None-the-less, I will at least try to make mention of its nature. The macho-sadistic circumcision of man -- was in fact part of the twisted, sick and dead masculinity, wreaking havoc on the body. So long suppressed, it was, that it went deeply mad. But if ever it could bloom, for even a moment, this would be its desire: Not to nourish or to take in the nourishment, no, it would want to revolutionize society! That is what he wanted, and that is what has driven such masculinity mad, for revolution and individualism of that sort has been one of the most hated and neglected processes society has ever witnessed. He does not want to be dependent, childish, immature, or having to look after another. That is not his way. He is something other than the woman and the child, which outgrows the both, and needs them no-longer. Then, much later, they come running after him, in need of him, but they have not the power to take him, so they only have seduction left as an option. In this way, there has been a constant and extreme moral appeal for motherliness in all men. Each one was told again and again to look after the deficient, instead of growing beyond the deficient. Seduced and harassed, and nagged into a low-low submission, in which his own life had no value at all! All that mattered after that point, was how well he could give himself to others. And because he had no breast-milk, he had to give blood, instead! So that is what he did, and then came the wars. Masculinity itself is a kind of completion, of which society secretly hates most. Masculinity is not "love", either, in so far is at is not a leech. It does not suck away eternally and cling. But it is not "free", either, for it is something other than [and in some cases beyond] "free". Due to masculinity being mostly assassinated, it is semi-impossible for anyone to manifest it today, but if they ever did, that person would no longer be turning towards any religion, would they? He would not be turning to the teacher and the savior, which secretly keeps its disciples in poverty and in foolish stupidity. In fact, he would not be turning for anyone, and not turning against anyone, either, for the process of turning had ended there, and he had reached completion. No-longer having to constantly strive after the motherly, and no-longer wasting entire life-times taking care of the child, he would reach a sort of un-obstructed enlightenment, which revealed the parts of life more important than the bliss of childhood or the soft seductive warmth of altruistic idealism. Many philosophers had quested towards this long-lost masculinity, steering away from the limitations of marriage, wanting the liberation and emancipation via "truth", seeking out "free thought", only to turn and get caught up in some kind of moral snare, which chokes the life out of them, and drops them down into ascetic, wretchedly "refined" civility. They all fell under some sort of sick temptation, because they had not the deeply sensual bliss of a fully mature masculinity. And lo, what is worse!? A fully mature masculinity can only be made by a proper femininity! That is to say: A son failing to mature fully, was also from failing mother. She did not know how to bring him up and set him free beyond herself. Instead, she wanted to keep him as a sort of pet, in a tiny, emotionally suffocating box, and then he gasped for affection, crying for mommy again. This sick game has repeated for many centuries, eternally, so that the doctor keeps making the injury, and then takes delight in supposedly healing it. I call this: Circular Femininity, and it is no wonder to me why the Yin was attributed to it the cold, the wet, the dark, the negative, the passive, and the Feminine! Normally it was meant to die into the Yang, at its peak, that is to say: Once the motherly reaches completion, it comes to an end, it dies, and is replaced by the masculine [Yang]. But in order to preserve this bazaar motherly oppression forever, the process of Yin becoming Yang was undermined by the mother, and almost all society, throughout all of the ages, has produced shabby, twisted, low-grade masculinity because of this.
Such a happening [retarding mothers] did not go on without revenge. That is why the domination of women began, because her child, of which she twisted, went back against her. His pain became his violence. His neglectedness became his coldness. And this, he treated her with less respect and less rights than fellow men would have received. She never took the blame for this, and never could stop this sort of process, either, so it is no wonder that such a cultural process happened for so many thousands of years. All the while, she is supposedly the victim of her children. Hah! The snake bit itself, cried, bit again, and kept crying. That is how it was. But the snakes tears were worse than its venomous fangs. It would scream and poison the mind with its pitiful and gnawing hunger for blood, as it subversively tried to open up the skin. "Take care of me!", it cried, as it attacked itself, and made much noise, whilst only blaming others for its hunger. That sort of noise would drive anyone mad, but to destroy the noise-maker would also destroy the producer of the next generation of children, so, the less brutal of the two evils were chosen [and to this day there is a higher female than a male population, aswel as women living longer].
In order to reach a mature and complete masculinity, when faced with the troubles of having an incapable mother, each must themselves become a better femininity than that of the women before themselves. And so, they must be a better self-teacher than the “educators†of society. And they must give better to themselves than any other can give to them. And they must be a better friend to themselves than any other “friend†they have had in a society. And they need not “love†themselves in the old, whining, clinging, irritating, childish and forceful dogmatic style, which was for so long the only “love†they ever knew. Instead, they must realize this sort of “love†as an attachment which must be totally outgrown; A phase BELOW friendship, which is more troublesome, less helpful, and more needy than a friend [because a true friend does not draw blood before he can justify himself in his charity; he does not need to feel seduced by the body-parts before he can care and help. In short: His gifts are less retarded].
Why isn't society a female-dominated society? Why aren't women at the helm of all the most important civil tasks? It is because they can't be, and that is why they did not, but if they could have, they would have done so. In fact, men had to take over for them, in this way, and do what the women were not capable of. Thus male-femininity will always be different than that of women, and is meant to pick up wherever the women left off at.
The human deviation away from direct nature has been a long and complex process. Only a few of its many factors have I spoken of. But no matter how toxic and distorted it may be in some places, it was that or nothing at all which it had to choose. So, it chose to live lesser than not live at all, for the zero cancels itself. Eventually the myth of masculinity invented by foolish women, and the myths of femininity created by distorted men, can be cast aside, no longer being fed or feeding. Vomited out, too bland and too thin, there can be a sort of person whom has better developed their original nature, after the transcendence of the supplementation; after the true creation of strength!