How to refute this?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How to refute this?
How to refute this?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
No refutations. This is 100% legit
FPBP
SPBP
TPBP
/thread
No b***hes? Jesus H. Christ. Could that individual's impoverishment be any more self-evident? That reads like a cry for help. Brevity is valuable people. Learn it.
"Families, I hate you! Shut-in homes, closed doors, jealous possessions of happiness."
I stand alone.
But people are talking about importing 300 million immigrants and nobody is lynching them, this psycho needs his meds
Read "One Billion Americans"
No it isn’t.
You can't, he's right.
You can't refute the truth.
>The woman is also a crazy animal
>Once they achieve equality, they will be your masters
Correct.
Wish more women looked like that.
For all her muscle, I could easily rape her.
Yes, yes, rape is the ultimate power move a man has over a woman. Yet, the woman has an equally devastating attack, the “false rape” accusation. Then the man ends up in prison, threatened with the same fear that woman feels when she walks outside her house every night.
Such a power was devised by man and given by man and exists by the law of man and not by any power inherent to the female, go to Arabia and much of Asia and you will see no such circumstance, go to the majority of Africa and you will not see this, go to the poorest parts of America and Europe, who knows what will happen there.
And yet you don't. Why?
>Such a power was devised by man and given by man and exists by the law of man and not by any power inherent to the female
What is it with men that they bend over their backs to surrender their superior intellect, strength, wealth and worldly power to a women?
Do I sense a vestige of frightfulness and trepidation in these claims? Their intention was to condemn but all in all they merely brought to the fore their own ill disposition and impotence. Ha!
It’s not frightfulness, it’s simply an intellectual way of saying a universal male truth, you can’t consider your woman your equal because you’ll be b***h-whipped, because the woman’s place is not equality with the man, the fault of Adam was not dominating Eve.
If you go to the religious lit of so many religions, so many philosophers, so much literature, if you go to your local group of dudes, the boys, if you go to the ghetto and ask even the Black folk, they’ll all speak against not dominating your woman, against being b***h-whipped. It’s not fright, it’s simply the proper way of action. It’s like saying people are scared not to wipe their ass, or they’re frightful when they brush their teeth or wash their face. It’s simply a fact that if you are not the dominator you are the dominated and this is against the nature of the man. No dominated man is a healthy man mentally and often physically he also deteriorates.
The Yoke of society and work is heavy enough upon the man, why should they want another Yoke, given by an inferior master who will give them nothing for it but will give them less than if they were the dominant factor.
I say all this anon as a father of a sons and a daughter, you mustn’t see the female as equivalent to the male unless you want a ruinous outcome.
Now I want to kill your children. Frightfulness or not that mindset is born of a deficiency. Only an impotent worm would enforce their so called supremacy through duress.
> Frightfulness or not that mindset is born of a deficiency. Only an impotent worm would enforce their so called supremacy through duress.
Nah, force is the law of nature. Go to heaven and the force of God and his law is the determinant factor, go to the jungle and the force of the animal is the sole determinant, and in the world of men though we may be fooled for a short while, it is ultimately power of a sort and coercion by it that cleaves our states and nations into unity.
Force and power are married with authority, to fantasize otherwise is just that, fantasy.
I speak from experience they do not, my experience is both lived and of a religious and spiritual nature and derives also from philosophical analysis and the schema of a multitude of religious, esoteric and mystical models.
The male is the superior ontologically just as the sun is the superior of the moon. And any attempts at female worship are nothing more than worship of the faculty of perception itself symbolized by the female, for both are empty carriers and deliverers which are powerless without the male, whether that male is conscious and will, or the literal phallic impregnating force.
The way to remove the female from the pedestal is to interact with more women, you will find they are no different from men, except often worse in multiple ways.
I don't idolize women. I don't care for human beings at all. The female encompasses a generative and creative faculty. What you attempt to reificate are principles which are not reducible to sex but are correlatives of a psychic force or energia; polarities.
>I don't idolize women. I don't care for human beings at all.
What could be more proof of the degenerative results of the principles you hold, to at once claim you care about the generative force but not the generated, especially that generated substance which you are, which the generative force created to care for their fellow and to reproduce more of itself.
>The female encompasses a generative and creative faculty.
So does the male, and of the two the male is the superior for the force needed to create is given by the male. The substance is given by the male, the force and power is given by the male, the cultivation of the male’s force is the role of the female, and end product is the hermaphrodite who is esoterically identical to the male. Thus the originating force is male and the end result is male.
>What you attempt to reificate are principles which are not reducible to sex
As I said before, what people really mean by female is the faculty of perception in its capacity of producing representation, this is the shakti, this is the vibratory force, the reflective surface, the throb of nature. It is still dependent on the conscious which is the symbolic male.
>but are correlatives of a psychic force or energia; polarities.
In the world of pure unity there is only God and only the I am, in the world where there is any polarity there is the male who is lord and the female who is slave, the white(or red) king and black slave girl. Even in those systems which worship this feminine, they only do so to worship it as superior to the created male, the worshiper, in order to reveal the supreme ultimate, the genderless, the I am.
Firstly: both actualization and potentialization inhere in the female faculty for it prefigures the germ of that generated entity. It allows for its unfolding. Dependent upon the concious? Conciousness and generation are by definition dissolution. Conciousness is a snare. What the male faculty beholds is the mere dross that results from the feminine principle's emanation.
Consciousness rests upon the apprehension of 'accidental" matter and embodiment. How can a hermaphrodite be identical to a male? It's a composite!
>Consciousness rests upon the apprehension of 'accidental" matter and embodiment. How can a hermaphrodite be identical to a male? It's a composite
For just as the gender is allegorical so also is the hermaphrodite, the male, the self, that is like a man, the mirror (female) is what he looks into, and the man reflected in that mirror is likewise also a man, the same man but reflected into him. The reflected man is equally mirror and equally man, yet that man is the man revealed, thus the female, perception, has but revealed the male’s reflection as the male, the transcendental reflecting upon it self using representation to represent itself, thus the male views the male. This is the formula of I am who I am, AHYH AShR AHYH, for AShR is that/which, the relational entity, and the key to the mysteries of Asherah(AShRH) and it is the male which is revealed and original, the female being but the relational mirror.
Your argumention seems egregiously masturbatory.
“like sensation, gender is a characteristic of the composite substance, stemming from the soul”
“like sensation, gender is a characteristic of the composite substance, stemming from the soul”
Soul in the Hebrew; Greek and hindu modes refers to the mind which is already past the bifurcation process, it is spirit which is prior to the division of self with other, for this is the pneuma of the Greeks and Christian’s, the Ishvara of the Hindus, the dharmakaya of the Buddhists (which is manifest as the male Buddha and his female bride as the further expression of the male Buddha.) and the yechidah of the israelites,
That excerpt is from Aquinas.
He’s a small man compared to boehme In my eyes, the best work Aquinas did is in the aurora consurgens.
Boehme is good. Have you looked into Eriugena, Proclus, Plotinus?
I've been reading a lot from A.K. Coomaraswamy.
Not a fan of the perennialists, they’re too often anti the work of ritual, meditation, worship/Bhakti and will almost always bend the multitude of religions and philosophies to their specific one while pretending such was always the case.
I see where you're coming from. I enjoy Coomarawasmy because his work is comprehensive and offers a very rich bibliography for further learning. I've been thinking of attempting a chronological study of various texts.
Do you practice theurgy? I'm skeptical of ritual practices.
Bit more than just theurgy, I’ve practiced Solomonic evocation for years, theurgy of course, I’ve initiation into Hindu and Buddhist tantras and also a taoist initiation (which itself contains much Im ritual formulae for evocation, invocation, meditation, the usage of talisman, the correspondences of the joints of the hand with spirits and these with organs, the proper manner of dealing with and operating with Ku, etc.) my practice daily doesn’t resemble any of the above due to extreme syncretism and personal model developments.
If you’re skeptical about ritual practices or even just meditation, all you need do is see for yourself if they have value. Meditating every night for a month for example, or repetition of one of the invocations from the picatrix or PGM daily for a month. If you want to see the influence upon your mind it wouldn’t take much.
I might try invocations. What does PGM stand for? What's your view of Crowley?
What do you believe is the fount of primordial wisdom? Has it been articulated in any philosophical tradition?
What do you believe is the fount of primordial wisdom? Has it been articulated in any philosophical tradition?
Multiple, Fount in the end is God, but if you want the more elaborate form, read this.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S20395704#p20397815
Papyri Graecae Magicae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Magical_Papyri
As for Crowley, mostly a liar whose claim to fame is leaking Rosicrucian and Masonic mysteries/models but giving them an edgier coating of paint, (while still, internally according to the private Oto documents being fundamentally a Christian cult.)
He’s unimaginative and not an innovator, his idol eliphas levi is a lot better.
Isn't the pentagram a Pythagorean triangle transposed upon itself?
Of course, have you looked into iamblichus, bertiaux and vaughan? Study without practice isn’t very valuable.
I'm not familiar with Bertiaux or Vaughan. I might read De mysteriis in the future. I mostly read for pleasure. I haven't put thought into developing a praxis to complement my studies.
Read vaughan after Agrippa and iamblichus, bertiaux veils his work in foolishness lies, humor and so forth but is one of the biggest brain sources we have in the west, but it’s designed to fool you into thinking it’s either techno-babble or monkey tier.
At least meditate if you won’t do any ritual work or prayer, an active meditation practice will shake up and advance the model you hold surely, I’m sure you agree.
Which model is that?
Vaughan And Agrippa would be Renaissance esotericism, think heavy focus on astro-theology, platonism, Kabbalah and what bits they could get from Arabs and even mandaeans.
Bertiaux is in the typhonian tradition which is in a sub-section of Thelema which concerns with extreme ritual practice, imagination, western vamachara, the usage of art as vamachara, and so forth. Bertiaux and grant will mix everything from actual Gnosticism and voodoo to their fictional portrayals of both, to tantra and Kabbalah, to the fiction of lovecraft and even vampire flicks, it’s because they apply Salvador Dali’s method of art creation, paranoia-critical, to the purpose of creation of philosophy and religious models in order to create the most vibrant mental perceptions and strangest rituals they can, it’s a kind of controlled delirium/schizophrenia they aim for, if you’re not used to ritual practices, steer clear of them.
>in order to create the most vibrant mental perceptions and strangest rituals they can, it’s a kind of controlled delirium/schizophrenia they aim for
It's performative then. My disposition tends towards poetry. It's my medium of choice. I might be too cynical to immerse myself in any sort of practice. I'm predisposed to faithlessness and a brooding temperament. I lack discipline essentially.
Art production is one means they use, here have two poems I’ve written for ritual purposes.
I shall pray as a creature of sin
Night to dawn, dight the songs I sing my king,
With whirling sounds that ring with the roar of the writhing Hydra,
Give my gab the gabble of the gabr’el hound’s barking,
That invokes as odin the gamboling hymns of the Wild Hunt;
“I come drumming in revel I am one with the devil,
And obscene is my throb for unseen i have trod my Ensign Rust,
And that is the dust that is death to the hearth, and dearth to the earth that I tremble
With spectral gait, past garth and heath alike, I Rush
Past place and plain for i mark the main as man and hart,
I dart the crag and part by my hand the multitudes of Maya,
For mine are the gaunt in gloom who haunt the tombs dark,
And mine are the dakinis decked with the rouge of the blue Sky’s Blush,
And mine are the legioned legends of heaven, earth and the flesh,
For I formed the forbidden glories hidden Inside Lust,
And I have knit the knots of desire as a sixfold dress,
And the leaves of lead where i’ve writ are the inmost onus of Thy Must.”
League over league my legs are led past the spheres lit
By the fell fettle pits of dull grey light that Gaia
Melds to a stone mold ape, which is the birth of the human spirit,
To the babbling rill whose lilt was riled by the rattling of Fire Blood
And billowing breath that murmurs in wurther the words filled
With the undefiled knowledge of life, revealing the Sapphire Flush
Of undefiled life, the sought after sight that fulfills
The soul as the great wellspring quenching the flame or as a Spire Struck
By lightning leaving the land for the date palm to dwell
As the source of the great balm which is the psalm and spell of the Shaiva
Cult, I hold the trident held by the vi’lent hell
Dancer whose steps are vibrant levin and Dire Flood,
Riding the devil rage of the song of songs i ride
By wrath and by the ruinous rubrics of rudra i Hereby Thrust
The trident of self effulgence, which is the radiance of the head hid eye,
Interpenetrating essence with presence, Lord grant semblance to My Tongue,
And anoint assiah with the atziluthic voice of the Messiah.
Bask: a meditation
I bask in Bosky brooks of green,
That ever seem,
To stream and bask the morning sun,
In water’s run,
That running basks the dewy leaves,
That light receives,
To bask itself in selfsame gleam,
The rounding beam,
That basks the sprig and basks the rays
In ever Grace.
Gift from God the going growth,
Trice to trice from mo to mo,
Velum mouth to throat-inwit,
There I drink and there I sit,
Where the grigs that crick the sound,
And the grigs that drift abound,
Cont
There I’m found where windring gale,
Mutinous hail and snows pale
Do not harm the vale and comb,
Hushing not the soft sea foam,
Hushing not the thrush’s hum,
All at once the sounds become,
As one echoing and yet,
Count I still my ev’ry breath.
Dulcet gaud, meander’d letters,
Troding ‘fore and past hereafter,
Sweet is laughter laughed sans mew,
Soaring through the spangled hues
Of the sphery flames of eyne,
To the oes far more divine,
Where my lode’s design was wrought,
There the lodestars flame with ought.
Great God! these the leaves are lines
First forged from before all time!
Lief to achromatic life,
Loathe to leave this honyed hive,
But without the many hues,
All became an oozy slew,
Slaty lights environed all,
But then strangely silver brawled.
Grazing grass I gazed the vast,
With my galleon I passed,
An illimitable pale
Marked by margents made to veil,
So i sailed the gullies bright,
Trailing “I” the selfsame’s light.
Once I was the traveler,
Once I was the reveler,
Cont
Now revealed I transverse earth,
Place and planes of dimmer dirt.
Walking past the earthly lanes,
In the dusky fell demesnes,
Fell on causy foot in fall,
Fell on verdant grasses all,
Why I asked am I to pass
Streets of verdigris stained brass?
What to find and what to seek,
Asking what? i could not speak,
Who to speak then, i should ask,
Yet I could not face that task.
For a mo with woe i went,
Woe to know what all things meant,
There I dreamt my shadow me,
There I dreamt by sorcery,
Forms of thronging shadows cast,
Four by four and both ways fast,
For my four were fast to leave,
and my four to fasten cleaved,
I believe the meaning this,
For I felt a kind of bliss,
I was this and yet was not,
Shadows being naught I thought
were the paramount of lack,
Why then in there colly black
Was my body’s form and trace
Marching past and yet in chase
Of my self to self attend,
Dwelling darkling swerve to bend,
Without end my friends would walk,
“These be they? then let us talk”
Thronging self in nothing drest,
Where “I” lacks there I’m impressed!
Blessed be this epiphany,
Void is the epitome
Of my self as much as I,
For by “not” I know me by,
All things God has given shade,
Twinning shadows in their play,
Ever turning shade of time,
Ever lurking shade sublime,
Sweeter than the many lights
Is to know this sweet delight,
Mingled multitudes of forms
In monadic flame and storm,
Are reborn more than the one,
Not as single not as none,
Massy, mazy, many, my,
God is both, beyond confine,
Search the mind until you find,
God in kind and undefined;
From inverted heights of night,
Innermost shines ego’s light,
From the checkered streaks of night,
The ineffably still light,
Checkers self with other’s hint,
Checkers other with the dint
Of the mark of marks bereft,
Weaving’s whorl the webbing’s weft,
Warp and woof the wefting kedge,
Warping folds from edge to edge,
From stern head to straightened bow,
Bending trunk and staying bough,
Flaming font and kelson soft,
Swelling skies and oceans waft,
Lofty lightning leaps the land,
What of sand? can god fold sand?
Am I soft sift sands adrift?
Am I dolent grains in shift?
Lone to come, again to pass?
And alas are you the glass
Of some hourglass of years,
Coldly ordering the spheres?
God oh God I am the Cold!
You are warm to touch and hold,
You are fold and rose and hook,
You are gold and gross and book,
You are quincunx’d crisscrossed Christ,
Fourfold letters with one geist,
Good and evil, more and less
Trellis trellised in one breast.
Double shadows sweine the brine,
Shine from murk and murk from shine,
Circles words with aught and naught,
Clothing God with God for cloth,
Cont
God the Flag of God I droop,
Most high and the nether loops,
Symbolized and broken sign,
Signified ensigns assigned,
God has strung and God is wad,
Shadows cast the colored God.
Peawiener, peawiener, peawiener light,
Wherewith rainbow colors dight,
Burst the abrasaxon egg,
Stting still leg over leg,
Perichoresis ablaze
All eidolon idols slain,
Phantasmagoria dreamed,
Fresh eyed by the flowing stream,
God the bosky brooks unmasked!
All in all things always basks.
The oldest usage of the Pentagram is in Ur where it was a generic symbol of authority, however it has universal usage, the Pythagoreans also associated it with a word which meant health due to it representing the parts of the body of man, however the grandest symbolic meaning of the pentagram is it as identical to the five petal’d rose, which to not spam further, is meaning itself and the spirit of God in nature.
Where did the five petaled rose originate? It sounds somewhat familiar. Vaguely.
Rosicrucians?
The wild rose Itself usually has about 5 petals, the usage of it symbolically is very ancient, we know from the golden ass that it was already then an ancient symbol used by the cult of isis.
Nah, it’s an act of extreme conscious, it resembles automatic writing due to being the opposite intensity of it.
The sign and signified become one, as for according to who, its usage in Taoism, the Rosicrucians, tantra, kabbalistic lit and so forth all agree on this topic.
So it can be said to embody a conjunction of all opposites. A merging of subject and object.
"sight and the seen are one"
Y=transcendental subject and father
H=perception faculty, mother
V=the experience which is equal parts self and other, thus hermaphrodite, but its center and core is the self, thus the Son
H=the same but as the object of perception as the perception of an otherness, the Daughter.
The samadhi, the union of self and other is the experience itself when considered as being but the division of self and other as the expressions of self, the Baphomet is the empirical ego.
> meaning itself and the spirit of God in nature.
According to whom? I assume there is still distance between said rose and the Absolute. It's a referent, correct?
Your wording reminds me of James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake.
It’s the result of writing for one’s self and one’s spirit with no concern beyond the embodying of meaning for oneself.
Ah. Very redolent of Joyce then. Similar to automatic writing, no?
>both actualization and potentialization inhere in the female faculty
Neither neither, the imprint and germ which is the potential is masculine because it is the masculine which is unfolded and developed by the female in nature, which is to say, it is the self which is consciousness and the transcendental ego which is made manifest its diversity of qualities through perception/the female, and by this, both the origin of the qualities is the male and the resultant qualities are male.
>it allows for its unfolding.
It’s a matrix, a womb cannot reproduce without coom, dirt cannot grow anything without the seed, the seed is male and the resultant fruit is male
>Dependent upon the concious? Conciousness and generation are by definition dissolution.
Just the opposite, consciousness itself is the filling force, the more conscious I am the more I am present; the more I see myself in the other the more the other is completed.
>Conciousness is a snare.
Nah, the snare is identification of the consciousness and dweller in conscious as being identical only to the self in time, in perception and in narrative, which is to say the empirical ego, whereas the proper position is that one is both the dweller in perception and the dweller in conscious; and these are perichoretic with each other, as various Indian texts say like two birds on one branch.
>What the male faculty beholds is the mere dross that results from the feminine principle's emanation.
The female emanates nothing but the male, and the female is nothing but the male in a veil for the perception is a result of the conscious and the clitoris but a hidden phallus.
>the clitoris but a hidden phallus.
I'll forget you even brought that up. The more concious you are the more mired in differentiation you become. The passage quoted below might be relevant to this discussion.
"In the Indian texts we also meet with the notion of a meliorative dementation as noted above. For when ‘mind’ is thought of only as a part of the psychic organism, then to be ‘mindless’ and ‘unconscious’ is the superior, and conscious mental operation the inferior’ condition. Thus, ‘When the mind has been immolated in its own source for the love of Truth, then the Use controls of actions done when it was deluded by sensibilia likewise pass away’ Maitri Up, VI. 34. 1, 2); ‘None whose mind has not been immolated can attain to Him’ (Kaha Up. II. 24); viz., the Person, who being devoid of all limiting attributes is necessarily ‘mindless’, though the source of mind (Muaka Up. II. 1. 2, 3)."
>I'll forget you even
Do not, multiple literature brings it up.
>The more concious you are the more mired in differentiation you become.
Mired no, revealed yes, difference is the very feminine you claim to worship for the female is otherness, the female like art is image, empty in itself, the male is the essential meaning conveyed by the image, expressed by the image and prior to the image, the diversity of images but reveals the meaning in its fullness.
>In the Indian texts we also meet with the notion of a meliorative dementation as noted above. For when ‘mind’ is thought of only as a part of the psychic organism, then to be ‘mindless’ and ‘unconscious’ is the superior, and conscious mental operation the inferior’ condition.
Not universal to Hindu schools, the tantriks will tell you conscious and unconscious are both inferior to the union which is turiya,
>Thus, ‘When the mind has been immolated in its own source for the love of Truth, then the Use controls of actions done when it was deluded by sensibilia likewise pass away’
Only in the apophatic schools of which most western sources are biased towards. Nirguna is not the aim of all Hindus you know.
Perception is the masturbation of self with self to reveal self.
“ I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”
“I believe in you my soul, the other I am must not abase itself to you,
And you must not be abased to the other.
Loafe with me on the grass, loose the stop from your throat,
Not words, not music or rhyme I want, not custom or lecture, not even the best,
Only the lull I like, the hum of your valvèd voice.
I mind how once we lay such a transparent summer morning,
How you settled your head athwart my hips and gently turn’d over upon me,
And parted the shirt from my bosom-bone, and plunged your tongue to my bare-stript heart,
And reach’d till you felt my beard, and reach’d till you held my feet.
Swiftly arose and spread around me the peace and knowledge that pass all the argument of the earth,
And I know that the hand of God is the promise of my own,
And I know that the spirit of God is the brother of my own,
And that all the men ever born are also my brothers, and the women my sisters and lovers,
And that a kelson of the creation is love,
And limitless are leaves stiff or drooping in the fields,
And brown ants in the little wells beneath them,
And mossy scabs of the worm fence, heap’d stones, elder, mullein and poke-weed.”
You claim to worship generation yet you deny the generated, and by your fixation on the feminine you worship of your own obliteration, I do not deny the self love or the self expression, for nature is love, and just as the art is a masturbatory act which reveals the essence of the artist, so is nature, the perception, the art of the conscious which reveals the ego, this is the love of self with other.
Whitman is very fitting I guess. I don't worship a single thing.
Then your female worship is a lie, accept the worship of your own self then for all people worship for what one worships is what one says is the origin of meaning and what produces the Will, you may do as Nietzsche and say the Will worships the Will, and thus glorify the ego in the same manner; you may glorify the other, or you may worship the source of the self and the other.
There is in the end no option that is worshipless, the worship is simply either explicit or implicit.
And what of the possibility of a wrongful and unsound authority? True power is immanent and diffuse thus not inherently forceful -- it yields.
>And what of the possibility of a wrongful and unsound authority?
Such is determined by God in heaven, such is determined by the animal in nature and such is determined by the man in the society.
The good and lawful and just in heaven is determined by the Will of God, the Good and lawful in society is determined by the state, the Good and lawful in the animal world is determined by what makes the animal live.
>True power is immanent and diffuse thus not inherently forceful -- it yields
Yin, submission is but a method of resting and dwelling, it survives in the way all things that submit thrive, for all things are in a relationship both male and female by context, for I am male compared to the one I am master over, and In comparison to the master I have, I am the female. Nietzsche and deleuze elaborate very nicely on this topic of all wills and powers being either active or reactive and all of these wills fundamentally occurring and influencing each other at once, producing a singular body of Wills which constitutes the harmony of all dominant and dominated forces.
True Power is capacity and longevity, the male is superior in capacity in comparison to the female thus it is lord of the female.
*Active rest. Bear that in mind.
The female sex supersedes the male. I speak from experience. Equality is not feasible. You are correct. Female lordship at an individual level is what I strive for. I've turned my back to society. I am a wayfarer.
So your posts are meant to be an attempt at asserting your individuation? People who turn their back on society don't bother with IQfy threads about women being beneath men.
>X has been treated like shit their whole lives and will seek to be your masters
literally could be applied to any marginalized group, power is a universal virtue
Cato (both of them) were incels.
Ah yes women, who have historically made up the overwhelming majority of school shooters, murderers, violent criminals, rapists, etc.
Obviously they are all just crazy animals prone to violence.
I'll point out in the medical field there are now multiple studies showing women make better doctors than men and their patients often have better outcomes.
Maybe the scum manifesto was on to something...
>Ah yes women, who have historically made up the overwhelming majority of school shooters, murderers, violent criminals, rapists, etc.
Outside of edomites, woman are the primary cause of these things.
any evidence? sources?
Don't need it.
Unfortunately. Many great men have seen their demise because of women.
>Many great men have seen their demise because of women.
Name one (1).
Hector, Adam, Epstein
>epstein
Not a great man, and his demise was probably due to a male assassin.
>Adam
Mythical story written by a man. Not a valid example. Also, did Adam have no sense of agency? He knew what he was doing.
>Hector
Again, a mythical character/story written and told by men.
Can you really not do better than this? I don't even like women.
Yes I was obviously meme posting, thought you were too because you write like a woman despite there being no women on IQfy
Sorry for being higher in agreeableness than you.
You are forgiven. Let us both make an effort to make this world worse fellow anon.
Absolute israelite
>men have no of agency
oh no no we got too wienery incel bros
???
>edomites
>he doesn't know
>>
>I'll point out in the medical field there are now multiple studies showing women make better doctors than men and their patients often have better outcomes.
There are also widely accepted studies showing men can be pregnant. What's your point here exactly you dumb moron, lmao?
Both are true
Deal with it chud
>mistaking insanity for transcendence
A significant amount of prisoners have been brought up by single moms.
>I'll point out in the medical field there are now multiple studies showing
lol muh studies
women have a different skillset than men, and some women who can compete with men in the traditionally male arenas tend to be better than them in the female ones. big deal
A toxic, abusive mother is more evil than any of the characters you listed could ever be.
Women reward murderers, criminals, school shooters and rapists with sex
Your momma
If that’s how you get sex why doesn’t everyone do it
I tell you this, women are more pacifistic and docile than men, not because of any moral or ethical decision are their part to be that way, but because of the simple and undeniable fact that they lack the physical or mental ability for violence that men have. You cannot then say that women do not engage in violence out of goodness , because women are just as wicked as they claim men to be if not moreso, you cannot say it is moral to abstain from any action you are unable to perform. Therefore when women speak of violence or mercy or of war and peace they speak of matters outside their jurisdiction and power, because only those who have the strenght to violence have the power of mercy.
>because only those who have the strenght to violence have the power of mercy.
I heard this somewhere before. Rochefoucauld right?
It's my own notion, never even heard of Rochefoucauld, he's right though, just as I am right
This is a common saying across the world
Proof?
I did have some poor female doctors tend to me but they were clearly dogshit human beings in general and quite frankly the best doctors I have ever had were female.
The worst experience I had was with a ballsack doctor who was Indian. He greatly enjoyed wallowing in my pain as he squeazed tighter and tighter. Thought he was going to rip the c**t off and take it home.
You do know what pushes men to do those things right? Its usually chalked up to lack of access to vegana. I'm not saying incels are right or wrong but it wouldn't hurt to frick the weird loner kid once in awhile
le altruistic sex
This was my main argument against the "concept" of "entitlement". Things like basic transportation, a home, food and a job should go without saying
And I quote
>Even then now the elites are thinking of taxing the air we breath because they think we leave too large of a carbon footprint, that we're not "entitled" to the earth's resources because we came, we conquered and won the race to the top of the food chain. Just foul. On the other hand the very idea that someone is not entitled to "lovemaking" or "sex" is ludicrous considering its the very essential element to life, something that brings new life to the fore and replaces those deceased.
>just have charity sex
homie you are moronic
>it wouldn't hurt to frick the weird loner kid once in awhile
Since you believe in that, you probably were really nice with the ugly awkward fat b***h and gave her a great clitoral orgasm with your tongue, right? Right, anon?
a lot of Normies I know are fine with fricking fat chicks and often used that as a base to get to their friends.
>a lot of Normies I know are fine with fricking fat chicks
But are (you)?
>and often used that as a base to get to their friends.
Nobody is going to use fricking (you) as a base if (you) have no friends.
> But are (you)?
I wouldn’t, I’m religious and already married. If I wasn’t married I wouldn’t be sleeping around.
>Nobody is going to use fricking (you) as a base if (you) have no friends.
Idunno dude, the weirdo ugly boys usually group up and the fat ugly girls usually either group with each other or are the designated fat friend of other girls. But in any case I’ve known normies who will frick anything if it’s remotely female so I don’t think this works both ways.
this is moronic but women are still intrusive, read Sex and Character
LOL LOOK AT THIS DUDE
Looks like a based neo-Kantian who made Wittgenstein seethe
> Arch-conservative, republican is an incel.
Imagine my shock.
literally shaking in his cuck sandals
HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA
Weak balls as ever.
A barbarian destroyer of the peace can’t treat a woman equally without losing it.
Some books try to assure us women had many rights in Roman society. But they’d fall to pieces next to a woman who doesn’t want to live like cow.
You sound israeli (derogatory)
I am in no way israeli, you sniveling antisemic coward.
It’s comfy for the lazy. Which is why so many of you neets turn troony
Yeah yeah, highborn or high value pretty things. Divorce. Bravo. Seems a greater degree of freedom now, but still the barbaric want to blame them for their sand castles falling apart or their lack of attractiveness. (#NotAllMen)
Nice book rec. thanks.
>I am in no way israeli, you sniveling antisemic coward.
Lol
Lmao, even.
Good point on trannies trying to get that easy life which comes so easily to real women. Pathetic for them really.
philosemites are somehow even more cringe than the garden variety of self-hating european
>I am in no way israeli, you sniveling antisemic coward.
Lol
>Graze all day
>Become fat
>Hang out with friends
>Make a stereotypical sound once in a while
>Wait for a man to get milked
Idk anon, seems they live more like cows now than before
>some books try to assure us women had many rights in Roman society.
They often did, you moron.
Everything was based on what type of marriage contract she entered into. "In hand", she was essentially a slave, "out of hand" meant she could divorce, chose to live at home or at her parents, and had economic individuality. Essentially, what ended up mattering was the social class she was issued from, and the relation of social power her family had to that of the husband.
Read Ancient Laws and Early Law and Customs by Sir Henry Sumner Maine.
It’s impossible, because it’s absolutely, apodictically and a priori true.
It’s amazing that the only group of people in history to fail to understand this are modern Westoids
Its pretty funny, their ancestors owned slaves and conquered the world yet they're too meek to stand up to the hr lady. The type of people to grumble about the mandatory DEI meetings but still go to them. Pathetic
It's almost impossible to not hold at least a little bit of loathing towards women these days. Whenever I assess the worst illnesses of the world, I find that it's women who encompass them most uniformly. Who are the primary consumers of mass media and material products? Women. Who are the most self-indulgent, narcissistic, and obsessed with social media? Women. Who fill the Godless vacuum of modern life with garbage like dollar store witchcraft, pseudo-scientific psychology, new age spirituality, and astrology? Women. Who openly endorse promiscuity and anti-natalism? Women. Who are the dominant supporters of progressive ideology, constantly reinforcing the diseases of liberalism and regurgitating new demonic orthodoxies like prepubescent transgenderism and internet prostitution? Women.
It’s always women, because women are the herd. Whatever they are told to believe by any greater power, they will believe it. They will swallow every slogan, consume any product, and attack anyone who stands in their way of climbing arbitrary social hierarchies. I understand that not all women are like this; plenty are gentle, smart and compassionate. But largely because of social media, it’s becoming insanely difficult to find any woman who is not infected by any of the symptoms I’ve mentioned. Men have their own array of problems today, but women have a unique propensity for upholding systems and values that cause all the immeasurable malaise and degeneracy in the world today. A part of me wants to think that this is because women have been indoctrinated into these worldviews and are therefore victims of modern life. But another part of me wants to confront the truth that women have always been like this — always on the front lines of representing all the worst vices of certain societies and cultures because that’s their natural role. They are servants with no independence, inherently dependent on male dominance and social structures far beyond their grasp. Every society prior to ours understood this. Why should we deny it now when it's still so evident?
It’s mostly men who endorse antinatalism. Women are a lot more solipsistic about their desire not to reproduce, and will change their view if they shit out a kid and end up liking it
Most women in general are drawn towards marriage and reproduction. Outside the West and East Asia, virtually all of them are. Nowadays it's more that the contingencies for marriage and child-bearing don't satisfy them. They dislike most men and see them as incapable
I fantasize about raping and torturing men. It makes me wet.
No they're solipsistic about going through the motions of reproduction all the way up to the point of conception which they stifle. They literally can't understand that the reason they obsessively seek out men and sexual pleasure is the reproductive instinct and that by constantly foiling just as it would be satisfied they make themselves mentally ill.
I realised this at 11 when I was getting misdiagnosed with some made up autism spectrum shit despite not showing any signs other than not following moronic cultural norms (I understood why and what they meant too so I know it wasn't anything autism. The conflict came from when I answered double negatibe questions properly so teachers (female) thought I was being rude instead of understanding basic grammar.) And yet saw women encompass these traits tenfold then get tokd autism is harder to detect in women.
They've always been like this, anon.
Same here, got diagnosed in 1990 when I was 8. In high school I believed women should be autism sensitivity just like they do now for troons and nogs. They have stuff for the latter but not us yet. Probably because of our demographics
meant to say "be in autism sensitivity classes" just noticed.
I feel you man. There's no one irl who I can relate too because of a lot of this ASD nonsense. It's the primary thing that sent me to this place and started redpilling me. I hate reddit and only use it for questions about vidya and other simple things so actually talking to people here, actual discussion (albeit with crazy spergs in the mix) with the freedom of anonymity was a lifesaver. Just wish there was a place like this with less porn. It's taken over pretty much all the blue boards.
I stopped even using reddit (my younger brother uses it) because I would say deep, fricked up things or make "observations I wasn't supposed to make" and find this place quite comfy. A little info: I heard about this place back around 2005 but wasn't able to post until about just last year when the captcha function changed (for the better). I'm actually quite up there in age and have been roughly redpilled since 1994, when I was 12. Having subversive views in the 90s and early oughts caused me a lot grief online and IRL (I was one of the first younger guys to adopt anti feminism when those views were mainly held by old codgers). This place is nice.
Like I said I only go there for niche questions usually pertaining to obscure vidya. Actual discussion is nonexistent.
This is not a serious literary discourse.
Have you ever heard Islam is right about women? right about society, families, divorce, Prophets, etc?
Maybe it is right about everything else?
But only those who hear the most complex and most geometrically advance book on book will understand, those who have their hearts open to the truth, and are on the fitrah.
Quran.com/4 Is the chapter of women btw for those who are destined to meet Allah on the day of Judgement
ITT - "Men", who are afraid of women
Tell Cato the Elder he has a small dick, he can't get it up, and he gets no pussy because he's creepy.
By getting off IQfy and touching grass.
This.
That's not a refutation.
its hard to get a compromise without turning into a power struggle.
its also very easy to insert competitiveness within and between groups.
>No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them. ~ Weininger
>From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth -- her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance of beauty. ~ Nietzsche
>Women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. ~ Schopenhauer
>Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy, and certain forms of artistic production... women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. ~ Hegel
>No man should trust the words of a girl, nor anything a woman says. Women’s hearts are molded on a wobbly wheel. Deception lurks in their words. ~ Havamal
>I looked into Paradise and found that the majority of its dwellers were the poor people, and I looked into the Hell and found that the majority of its dwellers were women. ~ Bukhari
>The female is as it were a deformed male. The male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. ~ Aristotle
>While I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all. ~ Ecclesiastes
>Do not let a flaunting woman coax and cozen and deceive you: she is after your barn. The man who trusts womankind trust deceivers. ~ Hesiod
Who hurt you? All reasoning ends in an appeal to self-evidence. Anyone who claims to apprehend the nature or character of a woman must also concede that they might very well be wrong. The opposite could be true of every passage you quoted. It's conjectural at best. Fricking donkey.
I wish I was a man
Imagine having one chance at life and being born the inferior sex
the grass is always more phallic shaped on the other side, but it all gets cut by the neighborhood kid
Embrace who you are. Self-pity is the worst personality trait one can have.
The kind of women I respect the most has always been the one who're aware of themselves and their position in the world
Women like you are a fricking waste. Stupid b***h.
>woman rise to the top and secure power when allowed social equality to men.
I kneel before the female ubermensch
"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman."
- St John Chrysostom
For this they make him a saint.
Volcel bookworms who let themselves go down this path are so pathetic
wow you so edgy oyu say women are bad
Go back to r*ddit and twatter, you don't belong here
i still amazed and think it so funny when you say women are bad lol lmao
Boy there are a lot of angry boys when people call out their e girls
>How to refute this?
Going outside and talking to people.
>How to refute this?
You just need one word: incel.
I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.
- Arthur Schopenhauer, Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy
Oh, did I scare you? I
There is nothing else to say to you.
Awww. Your feefees got bruised! Fricking witless worm.
Silence, pussy.
I need sone books on how to work in this dynamic and foster a healthy relationship in dating. This realisation made me not really hate women anymore as I've stopped holding them to the same standards as men (it's like hating a knife for being sharp) and I want to actually use this insight for good if myself and others.
Get lost.
Some of us are trying to improve our lives here insyead of endlessly seething at our limitations.
Anyone read The Rational Male? I heard that's a place to go.
I've no limitations.
These are my comments. I updated my username.
The way of the superior man
Checked author
>Deida was born David Greenberg
???
Going in with caution
>Going in with caution
Always wise—he's right about how feminine people act but he does try to play the "if you can't handle her 24/7/365 then you're not a real man" card too many times. But it's a very light read that can be finished in a day that summarized how 99% of women think.
Women are biologically predisposed to lying, cheating, and deceit due to 10000s of years of being treated as the weaker sex and therefore had to manipulate men for their resources. Female intelligence isn't even centered around rational thought, it's mostly to do with diverting resources to themselves and being emotional morons.
It makes perfect sense if you view it through the lens of biology, how women act and behave, how they choose their sexual partners (primarily on immutable traits that one has no control over) and that's why the patriarchy makes perfect sense - its just a way of integrating beta males into the sexual market and equally distributing women. You'd also need religons like Christianity or Islam to keep women in check or they regress to their whorish degenerate nature.
Furthermore, women intellectually are inferior to men this is attributed to male variability, there are exponentially more men with higher IQs then women. To try and integrate women into positions males traditionally did contradicts the thousands of years of natural selection that men and women underwent. Giving women equal rights with men ultimately creates a miserable gynocentric society where high rates of single motherhood, mental illness, promiscuity, degeneracy, mass consumerism, unhealthy families, and degeneracy becomes ubiquitous. Furthermore, intersexual selection (female choice) favours immutable sexually dimorphic traits such as height and looks, where women chase the top 20% of males. This can be explained using Fisherian Runaway where female choice would favour sexually dimorphic traits rather then intrasexual selection where traits that conferred a survival advantage would be passed on. The former is eugenic and encourages the growth of civilisation, female choice would make sure only sexually dimorphic traits would be passed on – if not for the fact that when women are infertile at old they find a naive man to extract resources from. So yes women’s rights will halt human progress and feminism is a blight on humanity that contradicts basic biology. A new study that found IQ scores have being lowering dramatically decades proves the dysgenic nature of free female sexual selection.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
Further, studies show that Female brains have vastly different placement of white and gray matter. White matter improves communication between different parts of the brain while gray matter is where the actual processing takes place. Thus, it is not surprising that men almost always have the grayest matter. In men, gray matter appears primarily located in the left and center of the brain which explains our logic, depth of thought and ability to reason with accuracy. What little gray matter women have is primarily in the right hemisphere, the half generally more responsible for instinct and emotion.
Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm
Another study conducted by mostly female researchers found that men primarily use the left hemisphere of their brain which is related to logic, depth of thought, and intelligence while women rely on the right hemisphere of their brain.
Source:https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/us/men-and-women-use-brain-differently-study-discovers.html
Males also have higher variability in many attributes because differentiation had survival value for men but not for women, this high gene variability explains the IQ differences between women and men. Women have their IQ centred on the mean, but seldom have IQ’s that are in the genius level (140+), men on the contrary are more likely to be found on the low and high end of these distributions – these findings have been consistent for almost a decade.
https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp288.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x#articleCitationDownloadContainer
A study in 1921 that were given to a cohort of 11,000 children showed that males outnumbered on scores below 95 and scores above 115, while females were overrepresented in 95 – 115 IQ range. The authors concluded: The authors of the study concluded that “there were no significant mean differences in cognitive test scores between boys and girls, but there was a highly significant difference in their standard deviations. Boys were overrepresented at the low and high extremes of cognitive ability.” The authors speculate that their findings might “explain such cognitive outcomes as the slight excess of men achieving first class university degrees, and the excess of males with learning difficulties.” If the vast majority of women are in the 95 – 115 range this means the number of women who have an IQ fit for stem is quite low, and it is futile to push women into stem because women are genetically predisposed to being midwits that could only fulfill menial intellectual jobs. Thus women are utterly subhuman hedonistic boring prostitutes that are only fit to be maternal figures and wives, because they are genetically predisposed to be that way.
>being midwits that could only fulfill menial intellectual jobs. Thus women are utterly subhuman hedonistic boring prostitutes that are only fit to be maternal figures and wives, because they are genetically predisposed to be that way.
pure quality shit my homie however most jobs nowadays are bullshit jobs built for midwits (consulting, management, team coaches) which are filled with women.
Thanks, I just wrote that essay in pure hatred for women and also despair because I realized their true nature. And yeah finding women IQs high enough to do stem jobs is rare.
My dude, their inferiority is not a reason to hate or despair, it’s simply an ontological truth. If you accept it as simply a fact of life you won’t despair, you despair because your thoughts of justice, equality, standards and ought are harmed, because of the contemporary morality trained into you. If you realize the natural state of woman is image and subservience, then you won’t have them so negatively in your mind, it’s simply what they are.
You’re mad at a cat for chasing a rat, that’s just how it is and every respectable man you know has known this I’m sure, they don’t focus on it, they simply continue on living with it, acting accordingly.
I guess my despair derives from the idealized illustrations of love I saw in anime. Two years ago when I was 16 I discovered the 'black pill', and realized that 'love' is based on immutable traits that are outside of my control, it destroyed the illusion of love for me.
I never internalized female nature because I had idealized love and instead became hyperfixated on the privilege that women were afforded in society. I couldnt come to terms to the fact that women are slaves to the biochemical processes in their brain. But now im coming to accept female and human nature.
It no longer bothers me that women discriminate on immutable traits like race, height, dick size and facial attractiveness. Its ultimately the fault of society for allowing women to have rights.
Your right when you say 'you cannot get mad at a cat for chasing a rat', thats completely correct because women lack any capability for introspection at all. I guess this hyperfixation can be attributed to my OCD. But, at least now Im starting to feel more apathetic towards women.
Its just strange that women can put on this display of geuine affection for you, but you know deep inside that she could betray you at any time. Its logical to think that women may cheat but as you said, contemporary morality is ingrained deep within me - I should probably stop feeling guilty. The concept of romance didnt even exist until the medieval ages, romance before that then just equated to marriage.
>I guess my despair derives from the idealized illustrations of love I saw in anime. Two years ago when I was 16 I discovered the 'black pill', and realized that 'love' is based on immutable traits that are outside of my control, it destroyed the illusion of love for me.
Nah, the word you’re looking for is lust and women are more malleable than you realize, if you just know how to talk, if you flash money, if you have a fun friend group, All of these things and more are enough to make a woman fold. Even just being passionate enough about anything can get a woman to fold. I have absolutely ugly poor fat friends who got plenty of women, who are now married with children, who got women purely on the fact we were a group of guys hanging out and they could throw a joke every once in a while. Having a male friend group and not worrying too much about women is a better thing, in a bit I’ll elaborate on what is a better view of love.
> I never internalized female nature because I had idealized love and instead became hyperfixated on the privilege that women were afforded in society.
The counter argument to this is even with that, we are still man the masterly group, even with all of the social advantages western society gives women, men still outclass women in every economic and social question, even with all of this they still haven’t removed the difference.
>Its ultimately the fault of society for allowing women to have rights.
This is pathos-posting, calm yourself, men do the same, we all judge people by literally everything, the only people who lie and claim they only see “humans” are liars and internally have a heightened sense of how much they judge, to the point they feel bad about it. Do not hate judgement, accept it and accept you do it also, if it wasn’t for judgment we wouldn’t refine or have any quality in society.
>Its just strange that women can put on this display of geuine affection for you, but you know deep inside that she could betray you at any time.
That’s everyone, male and female, you’re still a kid so take it on word instead of learning it from experience, the only ones you can rely on are your family, if it’s a woman your long held wife (and not with your emotions and not completely.) and your longest held friends. You must have a friend group, the creation of a friend group remedies a high amount of the horrors of life.
>Its logical to think that women may cheat but as you said, contemporary morality is ingrained deep within me -
Again, men do it too, it makes no sense to hold women to standards your fellow man doesn’t even stand up to, not to say you should be a cuck, but rather accept that the majority of people are going to be scum and it’s your job to be better and find people male and female far above the average IF you want to be anyone in this world.
>The concept of romance didnt even exist until the medieval ages, romance before that then just equated to marriage.
Cont
The concept of romantic love existed prior but it was seen as soon dying, foolish, young and usually resulted in some form of punishment or problem. They did not deny that such desires can exist, simply that it doesn’t last and often leads to more problems than it seems to.
Now then as to love.
Actual love is superior to the common fictional portrayal, actual love isn’t random, actual love isn’t based on the sight of that person or some nebulous quality of their being. Actual real love is developed over a long period of knowing someone, sharing things with them and mutually working towards the benefit of each other, until slowly you associate so much with them as an aspect of your life that they may as well be so much a part of you that they basically are you, and deep love is when that person is so essential to you, has become so important, that they are more central to your identity than your body is, than your conception of self is. Your children automatically get this since they literally come out of you and you see every event in their life growing up. But you can have this with women, no matter a woman’s beauty or personality, once you stay in the house with them for a month or so, or depending even a few days, All of their quirks of personality, eccentricities, the accidents of who they are, their intellect, even their beauty, all of that disintegrates and they’re just a person. That romance lust/passion based relationships dies because of this, this is why the west has so many marriages that fail, they’re based on that fictional conception of love and when the natural thing happens, when you both see each other clearly, they want to end the marriage.
If they instead didn’t go in wanting this passion but instead understood the real emotion is a gradually built thing, not just about you, but about your family, their family, the future, what’s good for everyone, then I doubt such divorces would be common place. For by mutual work and caring for one another you become essential to each other, you may as well become one person.
Doesn’t matter if you even hate the girl, enough time together this will develop in most cases.
Cont
All love is simultaneously egoistical and selfless. Care for a thing is defined by how you believe it is related to yourself, the more important to who and what you are, the more you care for it. the complex of Will and desire aggregates is fundamentally regulated in experience by the force of care/concern, whether that Is of the most bestial aspects of the mind or the most intellectual higher faculties, care is what defines how you perceive and how you will.
Love then, love is when your care for an object, an otherness, something that is in your perception, is so much so that you believe it truly essential to your identity and manner of being, to your way of will, and the greatest love is such that you say “this thing that I love is I, so much I that even if I died, it would be better than if it died, for it is more important to who I am than my narrative of who I am, of my experience of who I am.”
Thus all love is a reflection of the self within the other. True love with a woman is not lust for her nor first sight, it is association with her identity and person internally so that, after years of mutual shared work and experience, you see her as not at all separate from yourself. Your children are more so this since they literally come out of you, everything in your mind screams the child is your emanation, it is you multiplied, all of the child’s history and identity is, for you, phenomenologically wrapped about who you are as a person, and even more so, you identify the child with your woman, thus all of the care and love you have for her is also in the child, just the love you have for self and the love you have for the woman are one in the child, thus it is inherently of a deeper sort than the love of a woman.
And the love of God, that is the origin of your self, that is love itself, that is the self by which your self was emanated, the original model of all that is and all you are, the most essential to who you are and all else is and the origin of all that one can care for. To truly feel the love for God is to experience the deepest love precisely because it is both the most egotistical and the most selfless at once. To feel the love of God is to love God with the love he loves you with, to look at his I/eye with your I/eye and find it is the same eye, self to self in mirror.
This opinion can be found in ’any philosophers and mystics of basically every culture.
Here have a poem by Blake on love.
Love seeketh not Itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care;
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hells despair.
So sang a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattles feet:
But a Pebble of the brook,
Warbled out these metres meet.
Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to Its delight:
Joys in anothers loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heavens despite.
The answer to the riddle of this poem is the marriage of heaven and hell.
>Two years ago when I was 16 I discovered the 'black pill'
The real mistake was giving unlimited internet access to teenagers
The internet was very keyed before it got monetized by corporations and filled with spam bots
total beta energy
second hand embarrassment reading this even 2000 years later
All men are suffering currently and this is all you got? Pathetic
They deserve to suffer. 🙂
Good news is it can only get worse for them.
>All men are suffering currently
if you're suffering, that's on u. do something about it, u little twat
ITT - "Romans", who are afraid of Greeks
This is the worst thread I've seen on IQfy in some time.
And I'm including the brony scat threads in the raid a few day ago.
I see a lot of posts saying "Incel" as if that is a refutation, but I argue that the creation of men who refuse to sleep with women is more of a condemnation of the state of modern women than the other way around
Incels don’t refuse to sleep with women, women refuse to sleep with them. You’re thinking volcels and mgtows.
Women be like I’m not a sex object whose existence is entirely relational to men but the best way for me to get back at my critics is to threaten to not have sex with them or to accuse them of not having sex which apparently teaches you the truth about women
Cato was a coward who was afraid a woman was gonna stand up to him should she have equal rights. What a pussy.
normal women want men to be authoritative and dominant. that's what they're attracted to. they do not like when a man defers to them, even when they claim to. deep down they lose respect and attraction and will eventually divorce.
giving women equal rights created a society of unhappy women and meek unattractive men. normal women are happier taking care of the family and household, not going out and working like a man. the man takes input from her but is always the leader and provider.
Women want confidence. Playable and fair. You describe a woman or two, but that’s not a universal you lay out, anon.
They like the equal rights fine. It’s you weak males that hate it and don’t know how to act. You never have. Your lack of proper parents and circle of friends are why you’re so awkward. Not because of women wearing pants and driving cars. Please dispense with that mindset and remember what I’ve said.
>Playable
I wrote pliable with a “y” and switched it. Arg.
women say they like whatever they're told to like. they're supposed to like equal rights and feminism, so they say so. but their meds and suicide rates tell a different story, not to mention their dwindling attraction to men, who simply become weaker and less attractive in a feminist society than in a normal society.
your response is just the usual shallow "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" libertarian thing people say when they don't want to face a problem. you'll agree that weak men are a problem but can't admit your preferred society made them that way, so you have to be an individualist about it
You’re talking about the domesticated human shell. A broken beast that is purposely raised wrong.
Your conditioning is pretty deeply cut, but let me reiterate. Put that trash out of your mind.
And no way is this my preferred society.