/32/ - Psychopolitics

>Many of the women that we know in our lives today in many ways seem very different from the ideal.

When you say “we” you are talking for other people. I hope that you are referring to a specific group of people of which you are a part of, and not the general “we”, since ideals vary from person to person. I can say that the women in my life are different from my ideal because an ideal can be considered inherently unattainable, and I certainly don’t resent them or look down on them because of that.

>they became inherently selfless, living to help others before themselves.

When you claim that women became inherently selfless because they cared for others, I’m going to assume that this became a factor in sexual and natural selection, thus making women more empathetic. I will disagree with your statement that women “live” or “lived” to help others before themselves. There is no basis for that statement, and the only circumstances in which that could apply as far as I know is in regards to their own offspring, something that can be found both in males and females.

>Because they were so close to all the needs and wants of their people,

And men weren’t? Considering the small size of the first human communities, everyone was close to the needs and wants of everyone else. Do you think that the men would have gone out to hunt if they didn’t realize the wants and needs of the people for meat?

>they developed the instinct to trust them absolutely

I have no idea where you get that from. In modern times women can be more suspicious than men when it comes to strangers, especially considering that they are more physically vulnerable to attack. I would be very interested in any evidence you have that shows that any gender at any point in history trusted anyone absolutely.

>and a very deep and true understanding of their people was taken for granted

I’m having a hard time understanding what you mean by that sentence. If you could somehow rephrase it, I would appreciate it.

>the care and understanding of women maintained and sustained communities

There were a lot of different factors that allowed for communities to be sustained. All physical aspects aside (availability of resources and so on), the development of a language, a stable system of ethics and general cooperation seem much more important than this intangible, poorly-defined “care and understanding” which you seem to attribute exclusively to women.

>But while women tended the home, men traveled far and wide,

While the overwhelming majority of explorers were male (because they left the caring of the children for the women, not necessarily their choice), civilization could only expand geographically the way it did because entire family units were able and willing to migrate.

>and there came slavery, civilization, industry, and the global empire.

It’s a pretty big leap from “men traveled far and wide” to this. A very large, unexplained leap.

>>3365

>This vast change may be summed up to one critical point: freedom was ended. The vast majority of humanity was disrupted and kept in stasis to serve a few masters.

Can you be more explicit as to how this vast (really, really vast) change can be summed up to that one critical point, and what *precisely* you mean by “freedom was ended”? Also, explain who those masters are (bonus points if the answer is not related to jews), where they came from, what you mean by “keeping humanity in stasis” and how stasis (the state of equilibrium or inactivity caused by opposing equal forces) is in this case caused by disruption (disorder; turmoil; the destruction of the normal continuance or unity).

>Because masters/employers want the women they control as workers first and as mothers second, they were relieved of many long-standing responsibilities to their people by the 'modernization' of society. Industry provided substitutes for their love: ready-to-eat food, child care, school, and so on.

As far as I know, a lot of women welcomed the opportunity to work outside the home and not be financially dependent of their spouses. As for the substitutes that industry provided, they were also welcomed by women who up to very recently had no choice but to stay at home and care for their offspring. The feeding, caring and schooling of children wasn’t just a matter of “love”, it was also a matter of responsibility and perceived duty, stemming from social pressure and cultural conditioning.

>But being based in genetics rather than habit, their instincts remained.

Well, if they didn’t, the women wouldn’t even bother feeding the children at all. It’s also interesting to note how earlier in your post you claimed that women “became inherently selfless” because of habit, but now you claim that these instincts remained because they are genetic in origin.

>Without the traditional complementary habits, the instinctual traits of selflessness that were so precious to the livelihood of their people became discouraged, unused, and hollow, and so selflessness turned to nothing but self-unawareness: The instinct to implicitly trust their social sphere was left intact to be turned to purposes other than what made it to begin with.

This is a poetic passage, I’ll give you that, but the message isn’t conveyed clearly, especially on the first part. What “complementary habits”? Who is “their people”? Do you mean “people in the social group of which women were a part of”? Lastly, most human being have a social instinct to trust and seek approval of the society of which they are a part of, regardless of sex.

>Consider how the media interacts with the feminine instinct to believe and trust their social sphere absolutely.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that women (and only women) have an “instinct to believe and trust their social sphere absolutely”?

>The truth is that the women are turned to madness, acting completely against their nature.

Again, evidence? And it sounds like you are claiming that only women are affected by these developments in society, something for which I would also like evidence.

>Their nurturing instincts are used to nurture the interests of the upper classes

That is some impressive wordplay and mental gymnastics. You go from using the literal meaning of the term “nurturing” to the metaphorical without batting an eye.

>Instead of being warm with compassion they are cold with judgements calculated from the information they are brainwashed with.

A lot of what I’ve read about why men are supposedly superior to women is based on the latter’s “overly emotional” and “hysterical” nature, but now you complain that they are becoming too “cold” and “calculative”. I appreciate the novelty, but I would appreciate evidence to any of those claims even more.

>So it is that women are the primary tool of the upper classes to control us all, because men will do anything for their women.

You make it sound like the media, or maybe a superior understanding of mass psychology is their primary tool, and women are their primary victims. It’s also interesting that you claim that “men will do anything for their women”, when at the beginning of the post you talk about “inherent selflessness” as a fundamentally feminine feature, with their habit of “living to help pthers before themselves”.

>So it is that love is turned against us and the very foundation of our existence is betrayed.

Nice closing line. Nice in the sense that it sounds good, not in the sense that it actually makes any sense.

>>3365

I'll start by saying that although OP fudges the details and has stitled phrasing, I agree with the general theme of his post.

To me, your rebuttal seems like very extensive nitpicking of those details. You lose the forest for the trees.

I see his central point as this: "Women are more empathetic and socially-conscious than men. [Contemporary mainstream entertainment culture] has taken advantage of this, pandering to women in ways that inculcate values in them that run counter to [contemporary and traditional male culture]."

Now, to rebut your rebuttals:

>When you say “we” you are talking for other people. I hope that you are referring to a specific group of people of which you are a part of, and not the general “we”, since ideals vary from person to person.

First off, OP is clearly referring to the common ideal of [contemporary and traditional male culture].

Secondly, although ideals do vary from person to person, huge masses of people happen to share ideals. This is in the same way that "everyone is special", but you can look outside and everyone looks and acts the goddamn same.

>I can say that the women in my life are different from my ideal because an ideal can be considered inherently unattainable, and I certainly don’t resent them or look down on them because of that.

The poster is using "ideal" in the sense that a situation can be "less than ideal", which is to say, bad.

>When you claim that women became inherently selfless because they cared for others, I’m going to assume that this became a factor in sexual and natural selection, thus making women more empathetic.

Yeah, this is basically what OP is saying. Admittedly he's not great at saying it.

>I will disagree with your statement that women “live” or “lived” to help others before themselves. There is no basis for that statement, and the only circumstances in which that could apply as far as I know is in regards to their own offspring, something that can be found both in males and females.

The poster is either exaggerating or incorrect here, but the point is that women prioritize empathy and a community-oriented outlook. Your response sounds like a nitpick to me.

>And men weren’t? Considering the small size of the first human communities, everyone was close to the needs and wants of everyone else. Do you think that the men would have gone out to hunt if they didn’t realize the wants and needs of the people for meat?

Nitpick. Women were closer than men, and men and women were "close to the needs of their people" in different ways.

>I have no idea where you get that from. In modern times women can be more suspicious than men when it comes to strangers, especially considering that they are more physically vulnerable to attack. I would be very interested in any evidence you have that shows that any gender at any point in history trusted anyone absolutely.

Your point about strangers is actually really good. I disagree with the OP's characterization of women as "selfless" (though I absolutely agree with his characterization of women as more socially-oriented than men) and you do a good job of rebutting that. However, I don't see his use of the word "selflessness" or his assertion that women trust absolutely as central to his argument.

>There were a lot of different factors that allowed for communities to be sustained. All physical aspects aside (availability of resources and so on), the development of a language, a stable system of ethics and general cooperation seem much more important than this intangible, poorly-defined “care and understanding” which you seem to attribute exclusively to women.

"Good communication skills are vital to running a business." "There are a lot of different factors vital to running a business, such as availability of capital and customer demand."

Also, another "men do it too" response without regard that women do it a lot more.

>>3366

>As far as I know, a lot of women welcomed the opportunity to work outside the home and not be financially dependent of their spouses. As for the substitutes that industry provided, they were also welcomed by women who up to very recently had no choice but to stay at home and care for their offspring. The feeding, caring and schooling of children wasn’t just a matter of “love”, it was also a matter of responsibility and perceived duty, stemming from social pressure and cultural conditioning.

You missed the chance to say "If women are inherently selfless, why would they willingly turn their backs on their genetic impulses to nurture children and contribute to society?"

The OP would need to make the case that they were somehow forced into being workers (which I guess could be tenable if you invoke economic pressures, it's much harder today to be an unemployed housewife than it was 70 years ago)

My position, of course, is that women are not inherently selfless. They are, however, far more socially conscious, and changing social mores definitely played a part in women's changing roles.

>Lastly, most human being have a social instinct to trust and seek approval of the society of which they are a part of, regardless of sex.

x3 for "men do it too" without regard that women do it a lot more.

>A lot of what I’ve read about why men are supposedly superior to women is based on the latter’s “overly emotional” and “hysterical” nature, but now you complain that they are becoming too “cold” and “calculative”.

Now you're the one doing some assuming. OP never stated that men are superior to women or that excess emotions are bad.

>You make it sound like the media, or maybe a superior understanding of mass psychology is their primary tool, and women are their primary victims.

Yeah, that's pretty close to what he's saying.

>It’s also interesting that you claim that “men will do anything for their women”, when at the beginning of the post you talk about “inherent selflessness” as a fundamentally feminine feature, with their habit of “living to help pthers before themselves”.

False equivalence. The average dude desperate for pussy will do anything for women. That doesn't mean he's "selfless".

>>3365

>>3366

so basically its good, I should just write a book about it?

>>3366

I joked, but I really do appreciate you taking this to task. You are providing a gold mine of points to insulate against common criticism from more educated readers

obviously this whole thing has absolutely no substantiation other than the potential to resonate with the experience of the reader. Which I think it often does, when my spaghetti wording doesn't confuse.

I don't like this version of my note as well as the original. This one is definitely aimed at a less educated crowd than I intended originally. This whole thing is just such a mess. There are so many points that need extensive explaining and supporting with convincing evidence/testimony. And that's just for the educated audience. Trying to turn the masses on to understanding their slavery in these terms, which, stroking myself a bit, I think are really powerful and accurate, is kind of nightmarish.

>>3371

>When you claim that women became inherently selfless because they cared for others, I’m going to assume that this became a factor in sexual and natural selection, thus making women more empathetic.

>I will disagree with your statement that women “live” or “lived” to help others before themselves. There is no basis for that statement, and the only circumstances in which that could apply as far as I know is in regards to their own offspring, something that can be found both in males and females.

Woman are by nature selfless. Selflessness is an extremely complicated trait so I don't blame you for taking issue with it. The use of this word has been really triggering a lot of people causing them to toss out the whole thing. But I'm determined to use it.

This is true in more than one sense. They literally do not develop a sense of self over a sense of community. In another sense their bodies exist to serve others and have no immediate purpose without others than the self to lend it to.

At least one huge, huge support is the physical form that women take. They have huge big old titties compared to most mammals. Just sexual dimorphism in general. They are built to follow men, but are not built to lead. They don't have the strength to break through physical barriers to migration/exploration/etc but they have strength to abide and sustain others even in desperate circumstances with their fat reserves and low caloric upkeep cost for themselves.

Oh yeah and that whole child bearing thing...........

Selflessness is being a vessel. I think some buddhist said that before. This is just really trivial to support. This has been a focus of cultures everyone forever.

I'm going to mine anthropology/evolutionary theory/etc for supports. Seems trivial, but with academic censorship so rampant, who knows what "sexist" research is suppressed

>>3372

I wholly recommend video embedded on the topic of emotions and selfishness/selflessness dichotomy. Don't mind the long haired hippie, he makes some remarkable statements on the matter of neurochemistry and the management of internalized fear as well as linguistics.

>>3376

pretty sure you had no comprehension of the post whatsoever.

you are trying WAY too hard to cast my words into the new words you learned in philosophy 101 and all the meaning is lost

seriously your reply is TOTALLY incoherent, you need to go back to >>>/pol/

>>3377

I'm not about to follow the direction of some passive-feminine young man apparently suffering from hysterical symptoms from being put in his place.

Rather than direct me to a sub-university level education, I think rather you should seek a therapist to resolve the underlying structure of nastiness and slyness that hides underneath your polite and philosophical act.

>>3397

Your thoughts are a completely incoherent mess.

Where did I ascribe any cause of totalitarianism?

I can't even address the rest of your rambling nonsense.

You have rebutted NOTHING, try quoting and responding instead of throwing a temper tantrum and talking like a brainwashed fool

>>3397

Let's just dumb it down for you and expand the context since you're so ignorant of the world that your present confusion is hopeless otherwise:

The strength of men failed and so they were conquered along with the women. Men must find a new strength.

We rely on women to nurture us and our children.

Women are programmed to do otherwise by our captors.

We need to educated our women, take them back from the clutches their brainwashing, and raise strong children that were supported by a loving family with strong, rational, purposeful values and not terrorized by advocation of insane ideals passed down from the captors.

Women are most susceptible to brainwashing for reasons I touched on already. We need to shore up our weak points by exerting our will to reason and communicate with compassion.

Let me make fun of you a bit

>HEY DUDE YOU ARE TALKING SOME ANTI-FEMINISM ANTI-LIBERAL STUFF YOU'LL NEVER GET THE PUSSY LIKE THAT BRO YOU GOTTA LIVE TO GET THE PUSSY YOU GOTTA CONFORM TO THE PUSSY'S OWN IDEALS IF YOU WANNA GET ANY OF THAT BRO TRUST ME I ALMOST GOT LAID ONCE

>>3430

A lot of buzz words that reflect your buzz values. You're a hipster appropriating conservative ideology. Conservatism. Adusters was right in their deconstruction of your ilk -- there's no taboo you won't break.

You can't 'take back women' unless you are the Don Giovanni; seducer of myriads of women, which would be a difficult act if you were upholding puritan values.

I think your idea of universal problems is too narrow. Its as if you think it's all about the soft versus the hard elements of human character.

>>3431

Point out all the buzz words. Quote them.

Say SOMETHING to support your statements. You just plop them out with no explanation, connection to the discussion, or connection to reality whatsoever.

I perceived wrongly at first. In fact you are acting like a homosexual with hurt feelings mistaking that for justification for your views.

>>3432

>We need to educate our women, take them back from the clutches their brainwashing, and raise strong children that were supported by a loving family with strong, rational, purposeful values and not terrorized by advocation of insane ideals passed down from the captors.

>educate, strong, rational, purposeful values.

While this sounds like it could be a valid platform, it supposes that men are in a position of being able to sway women, yet previously it admits that 'the strength of men failed and they were conquered'. You use that term 'conquered' and you also use 'captors', so let's put your posts in this persepective: it's all talk equivalent to that of SS men in a Russian gulag discussing their fate, determining that their commanders failed them by surrendering. Unable to realise defeat, they resolve that they will need to elect new commanders with stronger and more pugnacious values to get them out of the gulag. Of course it's too late for that, they are in the gulag. Eventually the system around them will collapse, but until then they are prisoners in ice-cold freezing Siberia, where hagrid jewess communists lash their extremities with bucketfuls of sleet and kicks from clawed snow boots. The illusion of possibilly reversing the course of the war through the PoW's planning their plans is a necessary escapism.

When I call them buzz words, I mean in the sense that 'alt-rightism' is a sort of buzz movement, which uses 'strength' and 'rationality' as its 'liberty' and 'freedom'. The notion of 'strong children' will be quickly revealed as abhorrent if you ever see the trending page of youtube where 10 year olds are congratulated for having Jersey Shore bodies. You want your children to be children, not children inculculated into being cookie-cutter diablo 2 hammerite-paladins who wreck foreign influences with their flying hammers of strength, reason and purpose.

>We need to shore up our weak points by exerting our will to reason and communicate with compassion.

>communicate with compassion

What does that mean exactly? You mean we must reason and communicate with compassion? Does that mean to speak passionately or to be compassionate? To act more genuinely? If I should support statements then you should speak plainer than what you think is plain. Anyway as I see it your argument adds up like this: 1) Men must find a new strength 2) The new strength is women. 3) Women are really susceptible to brainwashing.

>>3433

We need to adapt and find strength to sustain our rationality, we need to use this strength to persuade our women, this will unlock more strength and let our strength proliferate, and this will allow us to change things

>When I call them buzz words, I mean in the sense that 'alt-rightism' is a sort of buzz movement

so you admit were just saying some bullshit you felt like saying then?

We aren't chained to the ground in a cage in a prison in the middle of a desert here. We are not dead. You speak as though we are. We have many options for action.

Your statements are really ridiculous and scattershot. You conflate things nonsensically. You're really scrabbling for any 'reason' to say I'm wrong. Maybe just admit that I'm right.

>>3437

I'm sorry your poetry or whatever that is supposed to be is utter shit (I tried to describe to you why in IRC; ) and that you can't take criticism, but stop polluting this board with your brainless tantrums you damn liberal fool

SOME ONE IS TRYING TO BE SMARTER THAN ME (ON THE INTERET!!!); THEY MUST BE STOPPED

bump for great post OP

When a man thinks of servitude, he thinks of being forced to do things instead of another.

When a woman thinks of such a thing, she thinks of helping others with her own power, of connecting with the world in a way that a man will never do.

Women are a whole lot more connected to everything around them than men are. For a man, the only judgement that counts is his own. For a woman, it's everyone's judgement, or at least everyone she perceives as part of her social group.

Don't take manly perspectives on feminine virtues. Your result will be incorrect, since it proceeds from incorrect basis.

>>3564

>Don't take manly perspectives on feminine virtues. Your result will be incorrect, since it proceeds from incorrect basis.

Maybe your advice would be considerable if you wouldn't contradict it yourself in the breath just before giving it.

Anyway that's total nonsense. Incorrect how? Manly how? There is no possibility of objective thought? There is no possible translation from woman-thought to man-thought? A translation that doesn't perfectly convey the energy is invalid? Yet the point of the translation is to make analogue of different energy.

Why did you bother posting?

>>3430

Ok, I just understood. I'm this guy btw: >>3376, >>3431, >>3437

The OP is saying we need superior women who don't fall prey to pshycological exploits to come rescue us. I'm on board now. I was annoyed at first reading as I didn't totally understand. Also because I've come to the conclusion It is NOT up to the male to impress his female by enticing her with a facebook account that is 'funny', 'well' photographed and offers glimpses of an exciting life. That's a fucking alien invention, yet I was led to believe this by peers, who also said you die at 30, rather than saying 30s is the best years of life and 40s is even better. They also said school is the best days too. Unbelievable shit, it's like they wanted me to kill myself and were supplying me with ammunition. All just the symptoms of a society that's had it's foundation undercut by the destruction of the superior woman to me now, at least, and so I can move on.

Thank you for posting, apologies for unfairly attacking you.

>>3570

I'm saying that women think in different fashion to men, and trying to truly bridge this gap is pointless. As for the other things, I honestly wouldn't know how to explain them simply. Apologies.

>>3573

>>3573

I don't agree with that, for the simple reason is that We are the one, the males, who failed first. The women only followed us.

The truth is that the world first need real men, before real women because I would say that women need real men to be real women.

I'm not saying that women are inferior to us, they certainly are superior in a lot of ways, but we so are superior in other ways too (no quality is superior to another one). Women are responsible of the new generation, since they are the mothers of this new generation. But since, from a political want, they are getting destroyed, or should I say the mother part of women is getting destroyed in profit of their quality of lover, mistress, then that's more or less the nihilist, destructive part of women that is getting developped and promoted.

We are the one, males, that can counter this political want. Politics, as much as fighting, belongs to the "noble" part of society. Without any males, having any noble heart, then the society is helpless in front of the attack, and so our childrens, our women.

We need real men, and especially the reconstitution of an elite, an aristocracy or noble men from one part, and men who master REAL science, real knowledge on the second part (They represent two casts, even though it was one and only cast at the beggining).

Without that, we can't do anything.

>Don't take manly perspectives on feminine virtues. Your result will be incorrect, since it proceeds from incorrect basis.

That's very retarded. For the simple reason that womens, as you said, have a property of being "in the move", the agent of change. One of males property, and superiority is spirituality (compared to women). A male would want nothing to move, and conserve as much possible light from the origin. But since we're human, we have to live, but we too have to maintain spirituality. So the job would be to direct women, the agent of change to maintain tradition as much possible.

To be shorter, we absolutly need women. Saying that you can rely only on yourself is incredibly retarded. Lightely saying, you need, to take a good decision, a lot of different viewpoint. If you don't care about what your wife think, then you close to yourself an entire different vision of the world. That's very idiotic.

If you want true knowledge about women and men, read Evola's books, and other traditionalist books. Not "psychologist" or "marxist" retarded shit. We have a soul, and the soul is the director element of ourself. Our body, our way of doing is only a consequence of a certain diposition of your soul. Trying to find out how things work by looking at the body is very idiotic, and ignoring the spiritual dimension of humans even more. You're going from the bottom, while ignoring the top. When you can go directly study the top.

Read Evola, get knowledge from the one who truly know, and don't try to invent theories in a time of such obscurantism.

>>3582

Nah go into Bhutan, no need to excuse quality posts on a molasses board.

>>3576

i think this whole thing of chasing one sex's errors is a mistake.

we need to look at the race as a system and not focus on dividing in half. It's tempting to do as we analyze the faults and strengths of each sex in their roles, but this is not information for direct action.

This is just the beginnings of our model of a functional race and society.

>>3582

the entire problem with industrial automation is the intent of the plutocracy. It's directly geared at replacing human instinct and function in all ways, inspired from a hate of humanity.

I think its more productive to look at this issue form the perspective of class.

It was the failure of our ARISTOCRACY that lead us into this mess. Or rather, their inability to deal with as much success as they earned.

This is simply a matter of letting double standards infect our society. We've turned our backs on true law.

The only thing to do is to forge new law in the chaos of war unlike any that has been seen or imagined yet.

>>3632

which is exactly what 1776 was all about

we just have to do it harder