Oh there are people where I lived that would eat you alive if you cheated on your mikitary spouse.
More evidence that women want to have their cake and to eat it too. Also, media pushing for men to be cucked
- Thread starter LifeisTiresome
- Start date
There is nothing, and has never been anything wrong with sexism. Men and women are different, they want different things from life and are suited to different things. These differences help build civilisations. Men are supposed to be the providers and women the homemakers; men are not supposed to be out pumping and dumping and women are not supposed to be working 9-5 until they're 60 while they fuck around with randoms. We are building a dysfunctional society of emotionally stunted whores (male and female) that treat sex as transactional or nonexistent.
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
What do you think of the below POV by any chance?
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we are experiencing is essentially the female psyche writ large, we are living in a female frame. Society used to be ordered on a male frame, which values things such as justice, fairness (of opportunity), tribalism, and a general trend of liberty over security.
Women are basically wired to be in a constant state of semi-panic when it comes to their security. This is normal; the vast majority of human evolution occurred during a time when a woman's entire reality could be erased by a conquering tribe in a matter of hours. They have a pathological need for security for themselves and their child. Feminized men share the same mindset, they are firmly in the female frame. You occasionally get some women who subscribe to the male frame, but they are increasingly rare nowadays.
Women basically want a 100% guarantee that there is a safety net for them and their children. They need looking after financially. It in written in their genetic make-up. When you extrapolate this onto society, you get the current clown world we live in today. There is no hierarchy, everyone is equal and a de facto sisterhood of care is applied to all manner of degenerate and unorthodox groups. Emotions trump reason. Rape is the highest crime of all. And men need to be endlessly and completely subdued; they cannot risk giving men power over them and their children ever again. It's primal fear.
Daddy government is more reliable than men. I don't need to perform for daddy government; no matter how ugly, fat, or unappealing I am, daddy government will give me and my children money and feminized society won't judge me for my poor choices. This is evidence that for society to function, it needs to be founded on a male frame. We need to build a patriarchy from the ashes. There can be no female emancipation and "women's lib" without what we are seeing today play out.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Found it online. Not mine.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Then again, modern society has these issues precisely because the “male frame” is no longer as essential.
The impersonal state can handle issues of defense, food, and the like. Better than the local patriarch.
The state likes this because dependency is best for it and it’s own expansion.
In a pre modern society-the female frame is not possible to work. Due to the insecurities requiring men take the lead(yes there are matrilineal cultures or what not-but there has never been a true Amazonian gynocracy in history).
How do we deal with the fact that men are not as needed as they were. The state and market provide food, they provide security and so on.
The very prosperity of our society is the reason for its feminization. To be sure soldiers, police, firemen and the like are masculine-but you guessed it they are under state authority and purview. And individual man today doesn’t need military experience or weapons training or even to be particularly strong physically. The state by and large takes that requirement away from him.
Not an individual man or the head of the family.
To restore some sort of patriarchy-you basically have to either change women’s innate primal behavior or collapse society into something resembling a post apocalyptic speculative fiction setting.
The impersonal state can handle issues of defense, food, and the like. Better than the local patriarch.
The state likes this because dependency is best for it and it’s own expansion.
In a pre modern society-the female frame is not possible to work. Due to the insecurities requiring men take the lead(yes there are matrilineal cultures or what not-but there has never been a true Amazonian gynocracy in history).
How do we deal with the fact that men are not as needed as they were. The state and market provide food, they provide security and so on.
The very prosperity of our society is the reason for its feminization. To be sure soldiers, police, firemen and the like are masculine-but you guessed it they are under state authority and purview. And individual man today doesn’t need military experience or weapons training or even to be particularly strong physically. The state by and large takes that requirement away from him.
Not an individual man or the head of the family.
To restore some sort of patriarchy-you basically have to either change women’s innate primal behavior or collapse society into something resembling a post apocalyptic speculative fiction setting.
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
Well thats why accelerationists exist.
@Abhorsen
So what do you think? Its not my post btw, just something I found online. What do you think? I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say,
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
Aside from your pointing out about modern civilization and how it affects things.
Do you agree with said POV?
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
To be entirely frank, I much like modern civilization(you know with all its comforts, technologies, advances, and securities-which coindentally came from men). I'd rather not live a life of subsistence farming or raiding farmers for food.
To some extent yes. The decline of proper morality and ongoing sinister agendas deserve their blame. I do not believe women are incapable of innate virtue. More I believe women are incentivized and rewarded for immoral and degenerate behavior. My mother, grandmothers, and cousins I consider to be virtuous women, by and large. Due to their Christianity and proper upbringing.
Even so, yes we do live in a feminized society. The only non tear society down ways I see to fix this are-genetic engineering or cybernetic alteration thus changing the very innate nature of man, or the sound of the trumpet and the judgment that follows it.
I think that women want someone that they can rely on, and that certain ideologies have poisoned our society to a point where the result is unreliable men dropping out of education, refusing to engage in commitment, and sleeping around; thus letting women sleep around by the mens lack of care.
I do agree that Daddy government offers incentives to women, but for the most part I disagree that it is a replacement; single motherhood does not create good children, it creates dumb children, and it creates a stressed mother. We definitely judge single mothers by the way the current system is designed to essentially fuck over single people and all but requires two incomes. That has the negative effect of strangling the child making of the middle classes, but also should hopefully have the effect of showing why single hood when having children is a bad dammed idea. We are returning to a point in terms of men and women where we have people in their late 20's/early 30's living at home and being unable to even rent due to the market being fucked in the UK.
In order for a woman to have children and raise them in a semi decent manner in this country she needs to either live with her parents forever or find a man and become a two parent household.
That is my most optimistic assessment. I do agree that the nature of male and female dynamics requires men to get off their arses and work, but that the current societal framework prenalises boys as they turn to men and creates a zeitgeist of casual sex and poor adult behaviour. But that seems to be changing.
I feel that it wouldn't take something as dramatic as a complete collapse to force people back into the mindset of male lead, I think that for the most part men and women are going to revert to it naturally (despite there being some holdouts) as we see the results of this mindset in modern society. Women do not want men that will not look after them, men do not want women that sleep around and earn more than them. But Men also want to look after women and women ultimately will want children. We are already seeing the horrors of regret slamming into women in their 40's right now; and I think that given time and a decent pushback by men and women in our society we'll reach a point where the gender roles and the gender ideas return to their proper place.
We know that when given the choice women will be homemakers and men will be breadwinners.
As a general comment; this is as a result of society at large losing social shame, religiosity and further on then embracing the idea that everyone is equal. Shame is a good thing; we have forgotten this, religion offers a bedrock to form societal rules with; the current church is a fucking cancer and should be scourged from the face of the earth so it can be rebuilt from the ground up. It has been subverted from within by outside powers and the only good form of Christianity right now is the Orthodox variant. Women should not be of the clergy (as they in the CoE), we should not be hearing priests ramble about how embracing our own destruction is a good thing; the pope should not be kissing the feet of some random migrant. Institutions of cultural power reflect through their actions the way that culture follows; the western worlds leaders have become feminized, weak and embracing the idea of feminine behavior.
The hard thing is that I don't know a lot about this topic. In regards to being cucked, I think that could be incredibly hot, but I'm kinky as all hell.
Mostly though, I wouldn't despair about civilization getting freer about sex. This sort of thing comes and goes. Oddly, the idea of putting consent as the thing of primary importance leads to a concept of personal responsibility for what happens, because YOU consented to it. You'd be surprised by the number of kinky libertarians, for example. So I wouldn't put it as all bad.
Crucially, a major win for the conservative culture war happened without them noticing it (actually, with them fighting it vigourously). Gay Marriage. Traditionally, gays (and lesbians) were basically doomed to a life of degeneracy (bi's like me were fine, as we would generally pass as straight). There were countless things in the way of them just being normal productive members of society, and so they weren't. They would have constant sex with different partners, because it was incredibly difficult to have and support a long term relationship, when being outed meant your job. Also, why be moral when everyone said you were innately immoral.
The gay marriage, gay families, and gays not being ostracized will eventually lead to a stronger social fabric.
The idea that gay marriage is good for conservatives is absurd. You cannot be a gay conservative, there is no 'gays become just like us'. It is sexual degeneracy. They engage in what is essentially open relationships with or without the knowledge of the other person. A gay conservative is simply a liberal who has a rational mindset towards money. There are no 'kinky conservatives' there are no 'gay conservatives' anymore than there are virginal hookers or moderate terrorists. The gays instead of being ashamed of their perverse choices now openly revel in it.
Sexual liberation does come and go, it alarmingly comes and goes with civilisations, acting as warning beacons of the decadence and imminent collapse.
I disagree. Ypu are using the definition of old school Conservative to describe new ones. Which is just not true.
No. New 'conservatives' are not conservative. They are economically minded liberals. There is nothing conservatives about embracing homosexuality, trannies, and immigrants (SO LOONG AS THEY ARE LEGAL REEEEEEE!!). You cannot be a conservatives degenerate. You can be a degenerate with an ISA and like guns, but that doesn't make you conservative.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean-how are we defining homosexual here?
Like the macho Richard the Lion Heart? Or something?
As in the macho warrior gay?
That's not the modern stereotype. But I digress. Von Stauben trained the continental army and was a known homosexual.
Being gay as a man doesn't necessarily mean feminine.
@Senor Hortler you would still say that's degenerate though would you not?
Like the macho Richard the Lion Heart? Or something?
As in the macho warrior gay?
That's not the modern stereotype. But I digress. Von Stauben trained the continental army and was a known homosexual.
Being gay as a man doesn't necessarily mean feminine.
@Senor Hortler you would still say that's degenerate though would you not?
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Economically Minded Liberals are MORE deserving of the term Liberal than all the Far Left Democrats combined
That is being a gatekeeper. You shouldn't go and stand in front of someone and say "you are not a conservative because you think gays are fine!" These are routed in the christian conservative notions and even then, you are basically saying if you dint fit this very tight rules you arnt a conservative and are just a fake.
It isnt right, and perhaps could be a reason the Left takes advantage of that to bring those that are pushed out by these standards.
This is a good point.
Same with those with diagnosed gender dysmorphia that ger surgery to allow thier mental state to not drive them jnsane...
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean homosexuality is wrong from the Christian perspective because it is indicative of spiritual degeneracy and going against God's law with regards to the proper ordering of sexual relations. Not because its male practitioners are feminine. There were in Bible times-men who were "macho" or "masculine" who engaged in such behavior.
If your only opposition to homosexuality is due to modern stereotypes-then you don't have much reason to oppose it.
Without God-there is frankly no reason to condemn it. With God, there is.
If your only opposition to homosexuality is due to modern stereotypes-then you don't have much reason to oppose it.
Without God-there is frankly no reason to condemn it. With God, there is.
I concur, the left exploits this "closed rank" attitude of conservatives. But we have to ask-how open are we before we cede our principles all together.
If you have sex with other men taking or giving then you are a sexual deviant and a degenerate yes.
Correct. Gatekeeping is a good thing, it keeps movements free of people that coopt them to fill out their own agenda. I have said to people arguing that being gay is 'normal' poor conservatives.
Fuck off does the left 'take advantage' of a strong, grounded morality. Libertarian bullshit is the wet dream of commies and other filth, acting as an individual, accepting everything and promoting freedom to be a degenerate is destructive. The left will use the systems of power if you will not, they will act as a gatekeeping force if you will not, they will act to suppress and push against you as a united front if you will not.
The only defence against the poison of a leftist is a strong moral foundation, gatekeeping that foundation against change, and actively moving to enforce that morality. The ideas of individualism do not work when the enemy uses the state because you "Don't want to be a busy body". They are poisoning our schools with their mindset to turn our children into rootless globalist units. They think it's okay to mutilate children, they welcome in peoples that wish us destroyed but so long as "It's done legally" to the individualist it doesn't matter.
Tolerance is the last mistake of a dying people exploited by enemies without and within. A strong moral foundation brooking no argument and no disagreement is needed. If that means that you can't rim your neighbouur then shit one for you. The alternative is to fiddle while the nation burns. You want to know what a liberalist future holds? It's a transexual mullato mutt twerking on the rubble of civilisation. Strength and unity builds and maintains greatness, individualistic hedonism destroys it.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
That's exactly what they want though.
Anyway-I have to respect your hard moral stance here. Whatever else, you are a man of conviction and I respect that.
And I think you'll find we agree, more often than not.
Not to open of course, we have to draw the line, but with how strong he is being makes it so the left will always have the advantage.
So gatekeeping those that do not agree with the left but do not conform to the very narrow minded attitude you have Is how the right loses. That is why the left has over taken the media, this is why the left have the power they do, because people like you. The saying "if you are gay you cant be on the right" is from people like you and the left then goes "see they hate you! Come to us!" That is why how they got where they are today.
Is someone a degenerate if they are gay but only ever sleep with one man and that be thier husband? Are they a degenerate of they are kinky with thier wife? You are literally making a strong moral ground to be this high ground that only people with certain stances can stand on.
And you know what the left do? Turn that against you. Why do you think they have all these things talking about how racist and sexist the right is? Why do you think they can point to certain people and say it to let it be known? Because of gatekeepers like you.
You want to know what your gatekeeping will cause? The death of the conservative. Your gatekeeping, will damage the foundation of freedom in this god damn amazing country.
You are misjudged on what is wrong or right if you think that strong moral means demeaning those that agree and making the other side have a stronger stance.
You can still have the Morale high ground without having to be a gatekeeper.
I agree on some of his thoughts as well, but I heavily disagree with the way he wants to go about it.
Invictus you are very outspoken about being a christian conservative, and yet are willing to agree to disagree and dont gatekeep when you know you can accept something, does not mean you have to like it or agree with everything about it, but you can accept something about thier life if they are willing to beilive in the foundation you do, or at least the major parts of it.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I'm a principled pragmatist.
On Judgment Day, the political dance stops. Until then, sometimes you have to make concessions or alliances, even if you feel sick doing so.
Right wing homosexuals may be useful, but I still condemn them. That doesn't mean they aren't useful.
Like in my personal life-I would never countenance any homosexual people. Ever. I would sooner slit my own throat than engage in or give my approval to homosexual behavior.
Personal principles and political pragmatism must be balanced for the advancement of both.