PGP

I'm reading "Brave New World" atm. They bypassed all of this by pre-programming and brainwashing. No suffering.

I heard a theory (and I cannot remember where from), that because women have the selective power in choosing a partner, that there is a tension in this for her. As men, we do the chasing (dynamics may be different in the young folks now, IDK). So, when women "give in" and submit to penetration there is a release of tension, alot of it maybe even subconscious. So, the degree to which a man screws the living daylights out of her, the tension is released and indeed there is a reciprocal relationship in how much the man wants her and this relates to her resistance and standards in choosing. The evolutionary function is still there physiologically but social imperative to choose wisely or sparingly is gone. Therefore, it may be that women will need more and more extreme sex, and more of it, to get the same simulated rush of a socially vestigial, physiological function that in the past was an advantage in sex selection. I experienced this, I think, with a Mexican girl that was here learning english and hadn't had sex in a year. Always reminds me of the scene from Southpark when the cat is in heat, gets catnip and goes completely haywire. Another, tragic example, is a girl I lived with in college that literally needed me to pin her down and simulate forcing myself on her, for her to enjoy it. She had been sexually abused as a child, I found out toward the end of the relationship, such as it was. Another one of those dodged bullets.

A wild shot in the dark. I read some quotes from the bible recently relating to the anti-christ. Thessalonians. Seems to me that peaceful parenting and scepticism would be a good anti-dote to whatever potential anti-christ the world vomits forth. I am thinking of politicians and their friends in business.

Rosanna Davison, former Miss World 2003 advises a confused pregnant woman on how to proceed with her relationship. Nice. http://www.independent.ie/style/sex-relationships/dear-rosanna-im-six-months-pregnant-but-im-not-sure-if-my-boyfriend-or-his-best-friend-is-the-father-31094031.html Q. I’m six months pregnant and I’m not sure that my partner is the father of our child. I had a one night stand with his friend and now timing-wise this child could belong to either man. My boyfriend is so thrilled at the prospect of becoming a father and I want to just go along with that because it’s something that we had planned to do anyway. His pal and I have not said one word to each other since we slept together but I can see how he looks at me since we announced my pregnancy. He has a wife and two children, so it’s not like he wants any of this to come out, but this is a pretty big secret to have lurking in the background – if there was no chance whatsoever that the pal could be the dad of my baby then I’d try put it behind us, but time wise I can’t lie to myself that this is the case. I think the fact that myself and this other man have not spoken about what happened or the possibility that this child is his is not helping – if we can both agree to chalk it up as a mistake that we will never mention to another soul then maybe I can just plough on with my partner? A. This pregnancy must have come as a shock timing-wise, but your focus really needs to be on having a healthy and stress-free pregnancy, and delivering a healthy baby. It’s happened now, you’re bringing a new life into the world and it would be pointless to get caught up in guilt and regret. I do think that you need to speak to your boyfriend’s friend before the baby is born, and to make it clear to him that the baby could be his but if he is willing to forget that the one night stand happened, then you are too. I would imagine that he’s happy to get back to his normal life and not get caught up in another woman’s child, as well as the huge problems it will cause with your boyfriend. You might consider taking a paternity test on your child, but for now it’s most important to speak to this man and agree on how you both want to proceed. My advice is to focus on your boyfriend as being the father and cut contact with this other man once you have spoken to him.

Not ridiculous, but does this remind you folks of anyone?

Is it like there's this "perfect" form or you could call it a soul? It's "you" in some sense but it only exists if certain illusion is adhered to. I've come onto this in my own writing lately. In my own case (my current understanding etc.) , it relates to recognition of my existence as an entity by those that conferred existence in my childhood, mainly my mother. This "perfect" form is what gained approval and therefore is a dependent and highly unstable entity that must be calibrated constantly to meet the requirements of approval. In this way, it became the ultimate method of control, namely that of "existence" itself. All energy and effort is fed into this illusion to the expense of the true self. I consider it masochism. And you have to learn to love being a masochist in order to survive. For me, this led in my teens and early twenties to a "walling" off of negative emotion and then to walling off of all emotion. In the numbness, behind the wall, the illusion can be maintained. Any "attack" on the "perfect" form, especially in how it gained approval was an attack not on some aspect of my personality or behaviour or performance, but much more dangerously, an attack on my very existence. I can relate alot to the convoluted language. It's like you do not want to leave any angle for attack and thereby come across as incomprehensible. Circles within circles within circles to avoid saying anything at all that could be deemed offensive. I'm just a pilgrim at this aswell, so maybe the more advanced chaps could comment further.

Preponderance of Bucky Balls subsection.

I think it has to do with how people deal with uncertainty. There is risk in trusting other people in a free market. It requires a common frame of reference for the world, perhaps abundance, and where there is a disagreement, this is dealt with through negotiation rather than tyranny or slavery. The driving force to secure and tame our environment to raise the probability of successful reproduction necessarily places women at the centre. This is the imperative and the different hierarchies of dominance developed to best meet this imperative in the different conditions of the time. I think attempts at a free market will revert to type of fear and an absence of an agreed moral framework exists. I think we are getting to the point in history where the risk is, that any enforced (through violence and threat) moral structure will consume itself and devolve to tyranny/slavery once again. It will come down, I think, to who wants it the most. That, or fear will totally dominate, and the snake of Communism will promise the elimination of all risk.

Firstly, tremendous courage on behalf of the caller. To be in that position with kids and to find a middle ground way forward is heroic in my opinion. Secondly, I think that the dissemination of philosophy in these conditions is possible because of the bones and blood and suffering of countless generations. This needn't have been true, but I think it is. I have the possibility of pursuing philosophy by chance and the dichotomy I see in the world is along the lines of those who will allow that choice in the future and those who will not. Here I place what I consider the jackals of the Left and Marxism in contempt. They will lead us all to the pit if they are let. The middle ground for me is the right to choose and I think it relates strongly to Natural Rights. In this sense, there is something far greater than each individual at stake today.

It may be what the Germans term fremdscham : http://betterthanenglish.com/fremdscham-german/ Embarrassment felt on behalf of someone else (often someone so ignorant to what they have done that they don’t know that they should be embarrassed for themselves); vicarious embarrassment. Also termed "vicarious shame". I related it to what I think is the oppostie first, that is schadenfreude, pleasure derived at the misfortune of others. I think it has to do with feeling shame at the wrongness of the action of an actor on another who does not resist or is unable to resist based on the standard that is thought right. You may be have emotion both toward the actor and the person acted upon. I think it relates to the powerful force of shame in establishing status. It is a primeval force and emotion that, as an establishment of status, placed the acted upon lower down the hierarchy and this could have meant death in a tribe setting in terms of food rights and mating rights etc. For me this relates to the threat of abandonment in childhood if conformity was not elicited.

It may be Potempkin village. I'd recommend the Yuri Bezmenov video on youtube also for this stuff.

.....the more you save!!! I'm sure this makes sense, right? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/every-government-emu-will-soon-be-paid-borrow Every Government In The EMU Will Soon Be Paid To Borrow With Monday set as the day the ECB will embark on an ill-fated crusade to monetize the entirety of euro fixed income net issuance twice over, inquiring minds want to know how long it will be before yields on all EMU government bonds fall into negative territory. Here’s WSJ: The yields on bonds issued by one-time trouble spots including Spain, Italy and bailout recipient Portugal struck record lows on Friday. Short-dated Irish bond yields fluctuated around 0% and Spanish two-year bonds dropped to around 0.08%. Traders and investors often position for well-flagged monetary policy shifts in advance, pulling back once details are released, but in the case of the ECB’s bond-buying program, that hasn’t materialized. “We could see the two-year Spanish, Portuguese and Italian bonds yields falling below zero in coming months,” said Azad Zangana, a European economist at Schroders , which has about £300 billion ($455 billion) of assets under management. “It is only a matter of time,” said Nick Gartside, chief investment officer for fixed income at J.P. Morgan Asset management, with $1.7 trillion under management. “We’re still big buyers of debt in those countries.” Alberto Gallo, head of macro credit research at Royal Bank of Scotland , said that the restriction of only buying debt yielding more than minus 0.2%, will likely generate even more demand for long-term debt in southern Europe, in contrast to elsewhere in the region, “since many core countries already trade very close to the no-buy zone.” Oh, how far we’ve come in three short years. Recall that in mid-2012, many periphery governments were priced out of the debt market altogether and yet now, not even 34 months on, these same countries are being paid to take investors’ money. Not only has the market been stripped of its ability to serve as a price discovery mechanism, it has been destroyed altogether. In this environment there is virtually no question that in short order, everything that’s not tied down in the eurozone will be monetized and will trade with a negative yield. In fact, we’ve been headed that way for quite some time as the following chart shows: … and as you can see from the following, the core is well on its way towards being paid for each and every piece of government guaranteed paper they care to issue with nearly half of bonds issued by Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, and Austria already trading with negative yields… Here’s where it gets particularly interesting. Yesterday, Mario Draghi virtually guaranteed the ECB will soon operate from a position of accounting insolvency by pledging to buy €1.1 trillion in bonds at a weighted average price of 124% of par. Buying above par effectively means the ECB will only have to buy 80% of the number of bonds it would otherwise have to buy to hit its monthly targets (a way of silencing critics who claimed the central bank wouldn’t be able to locate enough assets). It also means that should periphery sovereign spreads suddenly blow out (i.e. begin to price in 2012-like redenomination premia due to a deterioration in Greece or a Podemos victory in Spain), balance sheets engorged with EGBs will incur massive losses plunging the ECB into a negative equity position. Central banks will generally counter the accounting insolvency argument by claiming they plan to hold the bonds until maturity and thus will not actually realize any losses. However, if you drive yields so low that every issue you’re chasing sports a negative yield, you can no longer use that argument. That is, buying bonds with a negative yield and holding them to maturity guarantees a loss. It’s quite difficult to see how this ends well.

I tend towards equating open-mindedness with relativism in terms of how it is used today. If I am asked to be open-minded about having Sharia law or communism, I say, no thank you!!! To function in and adapt to an environment, learning is about knowing enough about something so that you don't have to think about it again. Like riding a bike. To be open-minded is important if you know nothing about a subject like philosophy where there are rules that can be followed to arrive at truths. I think open-mindedness is pushed to distract and confuse and keep people in a hyper-vigilant state that leads to nihilism. Why this is done, I cannot say.

It seemed to me that your breathing was shallow and I wanted to see if I was correct in this or even if I was correct, whether it is of any significance.

I agree. I am curious as to your breathing and chest during the video?

Yes, and do it all by 30 years of age. Lesson to men: Modern women are the pinnacle of your ambition in life and they don't really NEED you. But to qualify for their attention, you must be evolved into a conscious man that is perfect in every way. Well, I'll do my thing and they can do their thing and let the chips fall as they may. Let's rephrase this: 0 SHADES OF??? A 50 year old man Writes a book about a 27 year old billionaire female. Who craves a 21 year old male virgin. Based on erotic fiction for 15 year old boys. The sex ranges from a few slimy yet loose contractions to climax to a few minutes of submission. I wonder, is that kind of sex based on a 15 year old' boys experience or a 50 year old womans fantasy? Millions of men resonated with the material in the book and have seen the movie, some loved it, some didn't, many refuse to read or watch it - but why did it hit a nerve? Now men (as they have always been) can look after their own physical and financial needs, they want the other things a relationship represents - passion and feminine presence. 50 Shades is a depiction of a kind of woman that's hard to find - a woman ferociously committed to making a statement with her life and passionately connected to the man she's identified as the catalyst for her inspiration. 50 Shades connected because it represented a woman willing to lay claim to her life and 'love' without apology, maybe not a conscious woman, but at least she felt like a feminine woman. Women have the ability to evolve to the point where they are feminine AND conscious - as long as men refuse to settle for anything less. Don't settle for a fantasy. Insist on a woman who shows up magnificently in all circumstances of life, particularly when the pressure is on. Follow the truth of your intuition and demand that women rise to actually fulfill their potential rather than accepting just the 'promise' of the potential you believe is in them. (or rape in the courts). Aspiring king of the manginas esquire.

Random idea: could it have anything to do with cartoons? Like Coyote, the rooster cartoon thing, bugs bunny etc. A bit like the comicon, Star trek phenomenon. Seems to me alot of kids might have had more time with cartoons than parents. Might explain why this is appearing now?

As is my current stage of philosophical development (all over the place and limited), I have two contributions that I think may be of value. The first is from the book "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe. It is a quote from Walter Lippmann writing during WW1: "We are unsettled to the very roots o f our being. There isn't a human relation, whether of parent or child, husband and wife, worker and employer, that doesn't move in a strange situation. We are not used to a complicated civilization, we don't know how to behave when personal contact and eternal authority have disappeared. There are no precedents to guide us, no wisdom that was not meant for a simpler age." The second is from Stardusk. He delves into a theory for "contented irrationality". It goes into belief systems, immortality, tribalism, gender dimorphisms, stress response and a whole lot more.

Interesting point made at ~29m to 34m on Rousseau, the state, decision-making, paternalism and feminism.

Sophist hat on. One of the things that always bothered me is how people can earn a degree in for example environmental science and then espouse the evils of human activity while driving a jeep and living in a monstrous house heated with kerosene while advocating for "protection" of the environment by banning oil exploration. When I ask them about this, they will say that the work they are doing is qualitatively benefitting the environment and whatever cost they are incurring to the environment is justified on this basis. It takes a long time to get this out of them. If we accept that we live in a gynocentric society, then automatically, females are "in" the society from birth. Men are "outside" the system and must choose to enter it. They must have the willingness and the ability to contribute to the structure to maintain gynocentricity. Hence rites of passage. As I have said previously, I think feminism has done me a big favour in revealing female nature and the nature of the society. It is not that feminists want to tear down the structure of society and replace it with a system based on merit, it is that they want to "change" it to their benefit, using the tools available (government). With Hoff-Summers (not that familiar with her work), there is a peculiarity of a feminist that is expressing an objective analysis. Similarly, I have heard Karen Straughan say that if feminism was about equality, then she would call herself a feminist. A man that enters the structure and has cause to question it and sufficient cause and courage to leave has been a rare phenomenon. Now though, the cause to leave is stronger IMO. Hence MGTOW. If we had an economic or other collapse, I would have a very difficult time ignoring the plight of women that previously, mindlessly seeked to manipulate the structure to their advantage. It is the silver bullet for a man, a woman in need. TBH, I'm still not sure why a woman in todays culture would want to leave the structure and seek philosophy. I have seen women writing that they are virtuous but for me, it is the why that matters. Why do something that does not benefit you?

This is classic "stakeholder analysis" consensus - based decision -making model. It is IMO just a reincarnation (a very smart reincarnation) of communism. This type of stuff is going to be pushed more and more.

The first point is a bit ambiguous. It is advantageous to the girl/boy to seek self-knowledge at any stage. My observation is that current Western social conditions make the decision to pursue it easier for boys/men than girls/women. Why this is, perhaps women on the board could put forward ideas on this if they agree or disagree. The second point is interesting for me. If a person is brought up knowing only "good" example and virtue, then have they "achieved" virtue? Objectively, they are virtuous, but have they "achieved" it? Does it matter? I think it matters just the same as if someone is brought up knowing only abuse and continues the abuse in adulthood. A measure of a persons virtuous behaviour is not a measure of the entire person without knowing how and why they arrived at virtue. They could just be very good mimics. The virtue is not objectively greater in a person who has overcome great challenges but the person is greater IMO. Just my opinion.

What came to mind when reading this was the scene in Braveheart where the uncle comes to take young Wallace away. They are at the lament with the pipes and the young Wallace wants revenge and to learn to use the sword and the uncle taps his head and says to "first learn to use this". If boys get to ~18yo not knowing what it is to be a man, then it is because of what has gone before. It is not that they are unprepared, it is that they do not know what they want in order to be happy because they haven't seen happiness. A young man, any man needs a goal to give him purpose and I'm sure the military will give them an option, like "listen son, said the man with the gun....". The rites of passage I have seen in my life hinge on capability to conform and more than that, capability and willingness to reject independent thought in order to benefit the collective. IMO (as all of this is), it's not a whole lot more complex than the chimp behaviour mentioned in the article and lets face it, just look around and see the results. Teaching young men and women to think independently is dangerous and thus avoided.

Some thoughts on the last few posts. I think of it as animal nature and mastery of nature and mind to something else such as a philosophical-aspiring (PA) life. So, for instance, back in the day, women would have children much earlier in life. Biologically ideal, philosophically not ideal for the species. Now, it's generally later in life, so the possibility of the development of PA life is there to a much greater degree. Anecdotally, I have found that women that achieve virtue, have had to overcome a great challenge in life and search for meaning and understanding of their nature, the nature of the world and morality are in a way forced to mastery of their biology and mind and towards virtue (most are lost along the way it seems) Does this make them more virtuous than someone that has been brought up in a safe, secure and loving family? I think so, because of how they have arrived at it and the struggle they have gone through to achieve it. It's no great achievement to speak english if that was the language in the household. A woman has value reproductively from 16/17/18 to perhaps 40 in the West. A much shorter time period than for men. Women must master both their biological urges and mind more quickly than men to achieve virtue while having constant access to the spigot of biological validation and meaning and value so to speak via sex. Men have a different challenge to deal with, especially with the welfare state (WS) currently in place. This is one reason why the WS insidious as it guarantees safety and security with no effort on the part of women, whereas back in maybe the 50's, social controls forced women to virtue (or the appearance of it). As I think Stef has said, knowledge of virtue can be used to manipulate by those with evil intentions like politicians or war-mongerers etc. Knowledge of virtue by a women or more precisely, what it looks like, can be extremely dangerous relative to a woman that is still a slave to biology. The latter is a known quantity while the former is a predator. This is a bit of a random ramble, but one final point. I think it is an incredible time to be a man. The world is now open and transparent to us if we want it to be. Virtue is now advantageous to a man but more complex and difficult to achieve in these conditions. An easier choice to make but more difficult to achieve. For women, I think it is the other way to an extent. The choice is more difficult to arrive at. The appearance of virtue is rare and the achievement of it rarer still. And I suspect a high level of intelligence is a requirement aswell.

It's tragic. With Cenk and the non-adhering to evidence or objective standards, they cannot back down, as to do so would destroy their credibility with the trendies and face a trendy-revolt of seething impotent hashtag rage. It is a real pity because I'm sure he would be capable of alot of good with his intelligence and skills in communication. He has been sold a pup and now he has to flip it to survive.