Reality-denial and masculinity, femininity, environments.
Yes, that’s right. Go fuck yourself, Kriswest.
First I will just note that when I am speaking about masculinity and femininity, I am talking from an evolutionary point of view. Men and women evolved to fulfill different sexual reproductive roles. Because of this, they evolved differently and have different traits and abilities. The abstract qualities and functions based on these traits/abilities are masculinity for those connected with the male sexual role and femininity for the female.
Men evolved to deal with the natural environment, the reality, directly, by either providing (extracting resources from nature) or protecting from it (sheltering). Both necessitate an honest relationship with reality because reality is objective, aka, outside of the human subject (brain) and thus doesn’t possess any potential needs or wants one could exploit to get what one wants. If you’re starving in the middle of the woods, reality doesn’t give a shit if you call it immoral that it doesn’t magically conjure food for you, or if you cry, or if you lie and say: „Food will appear in front of me!“ or „If food doesn’t appear in front of me, I will do X to harm reality“. None of that works. Either you learn how to acquire food, or you die. This was the male task.
Femininity is about seeking the best genes to replicate, the most alpha male, the one who can deal with reality most efficiently so that she is protected from it and provided for. Females are not on average as strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, etc. as males (although it is worth pointing out that the gap in intelligence is significantly smaller than other gaps), they are not capable of dealing with reality on their own, so they submit to the strongest masculine entity they find, which is either an individual alpha male (traditionalistic, obsolete in modernity), or the abstraction of the alpha male - the state. This protection and provision allows females to freely act on their nature and fulfill their reproductive role, within the safe confines of the alpha male’s physical and memetic domain. This means that not only did females evolve to be less capable of dealing with nature and thus less capable of an honest relationship with reality, but that in a typical environment in which humans live there is no incentive for them to have an honest relationship with nature because others deal with nature/reality for them.
This is the core reason for the detachment, in short – sheltering. And that is why it is so prevalent in feminine minds.
And while the feminine approach (reality-denial) may function, it is very situational – it only works while the said feminine entities are protected by a masculine entity from reality.
Just like a child can only play around and think that a tiger is a pussycat while its parents protect it.
Since the social environment created and maintained by the masculine entity of the state consists of mutually dependent subjective agents with their own needs and wants, feminine entities can manipulate those needs and wants to get away with their reality-denial and even force others to deny reality for the sake of their feelings. For example, a female may say that unless she is treated as equal to men (unless a man is willing to deny reality, suspend reason and evidence, and treat her as equal when she is not so), she will withhold sex and attempt to socially ostracize that male by speaking negatively about him to other females.
The problems occur when a feminine approach is taken to deal with reality. The perfect example of this is how feminists want to deal with Muslims… you can only blackmail and emotionally manipulate entities which are either feminine or forced to be feminine, an average female cannot control and manipulate an average male without the daddy state standing behind her and holding a gun/sword to that man’s throat. If the daddy state does nothing, females get groped, raped, beaten, etc. because masculinity dominates femininity unless prevented to do so by another masculine entity.
On the other hand, it can be more beneficial to take a feminine approach when dealing with society/social reality, because there masculine traits – openly saying what one thinks, honesty, etc. can be considered hurtful and aggressive., so perhaps also a masculine approach to dealing with the social environment is also a problem?
It is because the social environment necessitates pandering to people’s feelings that politicians are so feminine and have to constantly keep what they say under check. An exception to this are politicians who are/want to be the embodiment of masculinity themselves, instead of serving an abstraction – tyrants, dictators, monarchs, et cetera. Trump comes to mind – instead of playing the feminine game of pandering to feelings and not hurting anybody, he takes the more masculine approach of directly pointing out real problems and suggesting solutions. This is why many people have taken to him – he represents the masculinity that is lacking in modern times.
Memetic conflict cont. and more on environments
Memetic conflict works within the parameters of natural selection, and natural selection doesn’t give a shit about truth, it is about fitness and adaptation to environment, which may also include dishonesty in any of its forms.
Dishonesty/reality-denial is quintessentially feminine as it is a consequence of weakness and not being able to deal with reality, a response to this inability. Take for example some animals which puff themselves up to appear bigger and more menacing, which is a physical type of dishonesty, trying to present oneself as more than what one is because one cannot deal with the other as what one truly is because of weakness.
A human social environment prefers disconnection from reality because the harshness of reality upsets the dull masses.
However, disconnection from reality is only fit if the person is either 1) disconnected about something irrelevant/harmless, 2) if the person’s disconnection about a particular part of reality is compensated for by another person who is disconnected about it.
And it is not fit in the long-term as I will show below.
Natural environment necessitates an honest relationship with it, because otherwise one dies (as previously stated).
The human social environment exists within the natural environment, which exists within the larger environment of the cosmos. Most of the known cosmos is a very austere environment antagonistic to human needs. The comfortable, safe, sheltering environments are constructed by living organisms, the most comfortable/safest for humans being human constructed environments, particularly in the West. However, that is not how most of the universe is, that is not its default state.
What makes constructing such safe/comfortable environments possible in the first place is need which arises due to the lack of such an environment. Need is the mother of all invention, or something like that. Once human needs are placated in a sheltering environment, we can see the rise of stupidity, degeneracy, hedonism, and other kinds of behavior which lead to the downfall of a sheltering environment that made those behaviors possible in the first place, as it is impossible to be a hedonist in a natural environment of scarcity and impossible to be a degenerate without the system protecting you from the natural consequences of degeneracy.
The troubling contradiction is this – humans make it so that something which is unfit and swiftly punished in nature is acceptable and fit for human environments. Because the human environment exists within the natural one, it is still judged by natural standards, and so it will, eventually, collapse or get conquered because it contradicts the natural environment.
In a natural environment, because there is a scarcity of food, people will tend to eat as much as they can. This is evolutionarily fit behavior for this environment. However, to retain the same mindset in an environment of abundance leads to poor health and fatness. Yet, most people still do it – they respond very predictably and instinctively to their environment without giving much thought to long-term consequences of their actions.
This means that, in order to maintain civilization and resist succumbing to natural cycles of rise/fall of civilizations, it would be mandatory to think beyond the immediate environment and strive to be fit and remain strong in relation to nature/cosmos, not the human made environment, EVEN IF the human made environment currently allows for weakness. If one becomes weak, then one drains resources from the very environment that allows his weakness to persist. It is a self-defeating behavior in the long-term.
In other words, a behavior that is fit in human environments may only be made so in the short-term, until the human artifices fail, which is why it is important to think beyond human environments for fitness and be fit (strong) in relation to nature and cosmos.
Has this fantasy ever happened? That people, when given the chance to fuck things up and indulge in mindless hedonism and degeneracy, don’t do that, but rise above it and seek improvement through conflict even if there is no IMMEDIATE need for it?
Aside from a few, very few, exceptions, this is impossible. The majority of people, and I mean more than 90% , will always remain nothing more but manimals. Because of this, maintaining civilization seems impossible if humans are allowed to act on their instincts and fuck things up.
Thus the only way to maintain a civilization is to have a political system that doesn’t allow humans to act on their instincts and fuck things up - fascism or national-socialism or some other highly authoritarian system that forces people to remain strong and fit regardless of whether there is an immediate need for it or not, but I suspect that even in that case, sooner or later a generation would be born that would fuck it all up with nihilism and hedonism, thinking that they are “progressive”, “hip”, “rebellious” and the usual hippie nonsense. But maybe that can be prevented by proper education. Or the system would fail because authoritarian dictatorships are prone to corruption and can too easily turn into self-interested, short-term thinking oligarchies with no regard for their people.
It can be noticed that the masculine approach (adapting to nature/cosmos) signifies ascent progress, while the feminine approach (adapting to human environments) signifies descent, regress, collapse.
Because of this I also conclude that masculinity is generally superior to femininity, as males are better at adapting to more austere and demanding environments which constitute the majority of the cosmos, while females are better at adapting to sheltering male-made environments, reducing the significance of their adaptation, since it is dependant on masculine entities, and what is dependant on something else is weak/inferior in relation to it.
Then again, men are highly dependent on women to reproduce. Females give birth to a child, but it is because of the male that the child lives on.
Perhaps this analogy can be applied to natural cycles – the destruction/collapse of what was gives birth to a new system (feminine), and males make that system survive by providing for it and protecting it until accumulated feminine energies cause its collapse again in order to give birth to a new one…
Yes, I really went on a tangent with this environment talk, but it needed to be said.
