Donnadogsoth

In another thread I talked about the masculine qua masculine, and the feminine qua feminine. The four characteristically masculine traits, identified by Jack Donovan, are Strength Courage Mastery Honour Which define the characteristics needed for the hunt. Added together these things form mechanical advantage which is precisely what you want on a hunt or a fight. The four characteristically feminine traits, which I identified, are Intuition Nurturing Beauty Guile Which define the characteristics needed for the hearth as defined in relation to the children, the hunters, and the other women. The hunters want beautiful wives, the women need intuition and guile to deal with the hearth and the hunters' mechanical advantage, and to compete with other women, and nurturing to deal with children. Added together these things form flowiness which appeal to the hunters and allow for flexible advancement of reproductive goals. These two essences, mechanical advantage and flowiness, are at war, in terms of psychology and sexual selection. This does not mean men and women as humans are at war; far from it, in principle. But the male ultimate machine-mind is in contest with the fluidity and flexibility of the female mind. I'm bringing this up not to debate this as such, but to ask after the human qua human. I have an idea that it also has four traits, and I'm presenting them here to get feedback on that. The four traits are, Reason Love Curiosity Praxis Reason as in the capacity to discover universal principles of art and science. Not much meaning to the word “human” without that. Love as in a love of reason, specifically love of any individual who is reasoning or has reason as a capacity. This is why we help people, including especially why we help and raise our children to be human. Curiosity is needed to pursue reason. We might call this the “holy spirit of childhood” for there is little more dispiriting than meeting an incurious child who takes no zest in life. Praxis is the desire to wreak concrete change in the world. Without it love is merely emotional and reason theoretical. These four traits are necessary for humanity to reach the heavens, by discovering principle, implementing it in the universe, and reproducing and raising a new generation that will do likewise, for the sake of increasing humanity's happiness and power to survive. EDIT: Added together these four things form creativity.

Really this is part of ISIS's master plan. They know the Muslim states nearby are uncompassionate and unpleasant, and by uprooting millions they can pump the West full of Muslims. It doesn't matter if they're good Muslims or bad Muslims, the point is simply demographics. Turkey: Are the millions who have reached Turkey planning to stay, or queuing to get to Europe proper?

"Does the real climate validate the virtual climate models?" asked Professor Gervais at the onset of his presentation. This question is key, not the least, because the World Bank has estimated that it would cost a total of $89 trillion, between now and 2030, to limit the warming of the planet due to greenhouse emissions to 2 degrees Celsius!" Rebuilding the World in the BRICS Era http://schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2015/0614-paris/pr3.html Notice the boldfaced text. $89 trillion is the potential "cost" of the climatist threat? And what does that "cost" mean? Does it mean that the climate will rain down and destroy $89 trillion in dollar bills? Or, perhaps, the climate will change the atomic structure of the metals and destroy $89 trillion in gold bullion? Or, is it that if we "limit the warming of the planet due to greenhouse emissions..." someone will pocket $89 trillion whether corporately or individually? Can we imagine the vacuum forces pulling in opportunistic bureaucrats and corporate "allies"? This will make the Y2K swindle look like nothing in comparison.

Any topic that's delicious to bite into, I call fruit. It's a way of keeping optimistic in the face of the steady trickle of awful news that comes my way.

Thanks for posting this fruit, fractional slacker. It's bright red and looks juicy. Let's bite into it with a little analysis/commentary. First, a few tidbits: “While society is generally pretty comfortable condemning racism, there has been a surprising reluctance among people—gay or otherwise—to challenge racialized sex and dating practices,” Callander told The Daily Beast. [surprising?! You don't say! You mean people like what they like?] ““While it may feel like our desires are our own, in reality they are influenced heavily by social norms,” explained Callander... [and, of course, social norms can change, meaning sexual preferences are, to use the vernacular, "fluid," which means, in feminist/queer/identity theory, that it should change.] “...“For me, the findings of this study are a reminder that even though society and individuals may actively reject racism, racial prejudices are increasingly subtle and they can find their way into even the most private and personal corners of our lives.”” [or, feminational socialism is increasingly subtle and can find its way into even the most private and personal corners of our lives—and the personal is the political, mind you.] “Other factors like being white and using online dating services more frequently were linked to lower QDI [i.e. higher racism] scores and a more favorable attitude toward sexual racism.” [in other words whites are the most problematic if the problem is ending racism] For gay men like Eric, 30, who lives in Atlanta, navigating the thorny issues surrounding race in the gay community is a disheartening “day-to-day experience.” [isn't that awful? He feels disheartened because all he wants to do is fuck white men and they're not willing to have him.] For his part, Callander would like to see his team’s findings used in “implementation research” that could identify “strategies for reducing sexual racism and changing the way that people think about race and romance.” After all, if racism and sexual racism are indeed linked, then strategies to reduce the former should affect the latter as well. [Again, and as noted by others: Why not “reducing sexual homophobia”” Should't there be “implementation research” to identify “strategies” for turning the population queer? All in the name of equality and ending prejudice!] “I am not interested in condemning or criticizing people’s desires, but if we recognize prejudice within ourselves, we must be willing to challenge and confront it,” Callander told The Daily Beast. [Yet your research is dedicated to finding strategies for reducing sexual racism, so that's exactly what you're doing. You're admitting that you don't have the power to end sexual racism, but you would like to, as you wring your hands about “implementation strategies”.] The first thing to realise about all this line of thinking is that it is coming from somewhere. It should not be “surprising” to us when it arrives. We should be expecting it. These ideas aren't coming from the “fringe” they are coming from the “core” as in “hard-core” as in most serious, most radical, most dedicated, and most crazy. The elements comprising this hard core are collectively, effectively, if not always openly, which suits them fine, working for the erasure of WHCCM or White Heterosexual Cisgender Christian Males, pronounced “wikkum.” That's their goal, not just to equalise with wikkum, or subjugate wikkum or even just to terminate it, but to erase it from history, like Akhenaten—or Ozymandias. The elements themselves, I tend to call the feminational socialists--feminazis--or the entire thing simply The Blob. “Feminazi” focuses attention on feminists but can bleed over into the other identity political elements. “The Blob” takes a broader view of the whole global process of criticising, infiltrating, subverting, and toppling Western civilisation itself. Together then, they would form the feminazi blob or femiblob. One of the ways their fungal-like networks are working towards this goal is what's seen in this article, something that goes further than just telling whites who they should sleep with, according to the mandarins of femiblob politics. No, it goes wa-a-ay further than that. What this thin-edge-of-the-wedge is, can be summed up by a phrase: sexual diversiphobia. That is, we face a society in which any kind of discrimination—which originally meant “to tell the difference”--with regards to sexual partners is culturally outlawed. I remember reading a science fiction novel years ago in which the main character, who was black, fell in love with a woman, also black, and sought to marry her (how quaint). He was blocked from doing so by the government which had made it illegal to marry someone of the same race, as an effort to combat racism. The woman committed suicide and the black man became a spaceship captain. We're not far from this scenario. If you think it's unreal, remember IWPIPE, “I Wouldn't Put It Past Em”. Would you put it past the femiblob, if it attained ultimate power, to pass such a law? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised in the least. If we're going to fight the femiblob, we need to be able to see into the future like reading runes cast from the withered hands of the femiblob witches themselves. Everything they want to do is contained in their literature. But going on: sexual diversiphobia isn't just when you sexually discriminate against people of another race. It, as noted by others, when you discriminate against people of the same gender. And what about people who are ugly? Surely ugliness is a more shallow thing to judge some one than race or gender? What about bad breath? Tattoos? What again ageism—discriminating against someone because they're older, or younger? Will you be allowed to discriminate against your neighbour's six-year-old who's taken a fancy to you? And what about IQ-ism? Say a retarded girl, which a little help from her friends and family, is smitten with you. If you're already a thought-criminal for not wanting to sleep with the same sex or a different race, what's a little IQ difference? And what about bestiality? Incest? Polyamoury should be a walk in the part, sado-masochism might need a little more cultural lube to make it fit, transgender—why not Everyone-wear-a-dress-to-work Day? This can't happen? Really? IWPIPE. And what's also coming? The media products we consume are up on the chopping block, for revision and ultimately confiscation. All those old movies, are racist movies and you know it. So why not vandalise them by using fancy computer systems to “update” the racial character of the films? There needs to be more blacks in this movie, so press a button and presto, it's now a multiracial film. Maybe the hero is too white, or too male, or too straight, so presto, we can fix that. And what if you want to watch the original films? Oh, no, that won't do, the original films and books and comic books and music that make the List of Concern will become like that man-dog in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), created to “out” humans who still retained normal emotions. Well, with advanced eye-pupil-monitoring equipment, ideological-cultural framework, and ubiquitous cameras, we've got the Blade Runner-style Voight-Kampff test, capable of detecting racists, homophobes, and transphobes in our midst. This is a huge, horrible disaster in the making and it revolves not around making the blacks or the Jews or anyone outside wikkum more open-minded, it's about the subjugation and erasure of wikkum. The net result, of course, will be that white women will be drowned in the sea of colour and lesbianism and then the hated wikkum's last physical extant traces will be gone. It's the squeaky activist wheel that gets the political grease, and the femiblob is very squeaky indeed. The question is whether wikkum can start squeaking as well in a manner as to salt the slug or blowdry the blob, to find the meaty metaphors and critical theory that will organise and optimise wikkum and its defenders East and West. "Every species can smell its own extinction. The last ones left won't have a pretty time with it. In ten years, maybe less, the human race will just be a bedtime story for their children. A myth, nothing more." --John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

The communications officer piped up, "Logic doesn't matter when the issue is the primacy of love, Admiral." "What do you mean?" "Love is what this leader died for. Logic is just a tool to use to get what we want, it's not worthy of worship. But love of mankind, which is what he was talking about, mankind meaning them and us, without distinction, is the highest law, even in our own civilisation. Why would our civilisation have even been started, if not for love of man? It took love to escape the bonds of coercion, a love willing to sacrifice itself, to die, even on an ignoble torture device, naked in public, if need be. That's the essence of this leader, not his theurgy, and it's his spirit that lives on affecting the life of the entire planet." "How do you know about this, officer?" "Because I've researched the relevant files. I follow him, now, because of it." "And you would sacrifice yourself for your fellow man?" "...Yes." "Then will you be our envoy? Get fitted for an appropriate costume and pick a place to be beamed down to. Live among them for ten solar years and see if they are amenable to love sufficient to make them reasonable. We will monitor your progress but will not interfere with their affairs." "I will."

I was in a mood walking up the street in downtown ________ when a woman approached me and asked for money. "What for?" I asked. "Coffee," she replied. "Buy your own drugs," I said. "What drugs?" she asked. "Caffeine!" said I as I walked on. Half a minute later I heard a kafuffle from down the street and turn to see her pointing me out to her somewhat large boyfriend, who then advanced on me with intent to harm. Probably thought he was going to "teach me a lesson". We had words, I stood my ground, and he decided it wasn't worth the effort fighting me in broad daylight, and so he insulted me and left. Later on I realised this was proxy violence. Have YOU ever experienced proxy female violence?

What do you mean "character character character character"? If a man and a woman have exactly the same character, will they be equal parts masculine and feminine? Is there not a distinctive set of traits that comprise a feminine woman, and another set of traits that comprise a masculine man?

In other words, none of the animals shown above are good to eat.

Before you tar, simply ask the feminist in question if she/he denounces misandry and supports open dialogue and free speech regarding men's issues. If the answer is no, or is evasive, or is anything other than a flat "yes" then tar away.

The thing to realise, when feminists present and behave like that, is that they aren't being ironic. They may look like they're being ironic, in an "Oh-aren't-I-so-bad-I-look-sound-and-smell-like-a-witch" sort of way, but they're wa-a-ay too into the role to the point that they can't be getting any humour value or other value out of merely "being ironic." Which means they are serious. These women are the wicked witches of our time, fairy story villains come to life. Many of them probably fancy themselves Wiccans but their membership in that club isn't essential, but not surprising. Their threats and "ironic" desires (which I won't repeat here) are representative of true qualities of sentiment, that manifests in the political sphere as institutional and cultural misandry. Thank God for real women, a good reason to go nationalist (which, I'll add, one can do without being a statist).

Except I haven't had any significant negative experiences with women. My experiences have been neutral-good. But there is an absence there, that tells me those experiences could have been very good, if only I knew what masculinity, femininity, and the heterosexual dynamic entailed, instead of fumbling in the dark grappling with phantoms and instincts.

Thoughts on the ultimate masculine vs the ultimate feminine in terms of genre films. Take a few from the oeuvre of James Cameron. The Terminator is just about the manliest man there is, embodying strength, courage, mastery, and honour--literally he is exclusively motivated by his code. Detached from humanity, he is a monster, as pure men qua men are monsters. He's even largely defined by the long, hard, penetrating weapons he carries around. Now contrast that with the alien queen from Aliens. She's strong and courageous, yes, but she really embodies intuition (figuring out the use of the elevator), guile (commanding her soldiers to retreat in the face of a detente), nurturing (egglaying and raising a brood), and beauty (she is a marvellous organism--look at those teeth and claws, and wonderful big hair shield). Incarnate feminine, she is a monster, as pure women qua women are monsters. Notice how both are pitted against like-sexed opponents. The Terminator faces Kyle Reese, who is just as much a man as the terminator is, but who is also a good man. That is, the terminator is good at being a man, but Reese is a good man, or perhaps better said, he is a human man, a good human being. Consider now Ellen Ripley. She is a character originally written for a woman, and so embodies masculine attributes of strength, courage, mastery (learned that rifle some quick) and honour. She is beautiful, but not portrayed as particularly intuitive or beguiling, but she does have a quality of grace-under-fire (To the soldiers: "Where you want it?"), and she is nurturing towards her adoptive daughter. She is not bad at being a woman, but she is less a good woman than a good human being. Thus, these two filims, for example, show ultimate confrontations between ultimate incarnations of masculinity and femininity, with the exception that Ripley is portrayed as out-manning the men, so in a sense it's a double role. The Terminator and the Alien Queen have only their raw sexual power to use, and thus the moral of the story is that meritorious, humanised sexuality, should win out over raw, dehumanised sexuality.

"There is one who could unite them," said the science officer. "Two thousand years ago a man who embodied the rational, compassionate soul of the species was tortured and murdered on trumped up charges in an effort to halt his revolution." "And?" said the admiral. "He taught that immortality, rather than temporal gain, should be the goal of the individual. Within a few hundred years his followers had taken control of the largest empire on the planet at that time. From there science and art flowered, an age of exploration and technological discovery was launched, and the concept of human rights was developed and enshrined in law. Yet opposing forces have fought back, seeking to dismantle this belief and scatter its followers. Each time, the believers have rallied and expanded the scope of the desire for immorality cum justice." "What is your prognosis of the current strife?" "I predict that the believers will rally once more, under circumstantial duress, and will design and win a new peace among the warring nation-states, cultures, and religions, that will launch them into becoming a nascent space-faring civilisation on the road to accomplishments equivalent or higher than our own." "Draft a report and send it the supreme command. They will decide whether interference is warranted. In the meantime, Engineering, design and plant an observation problem on their moon. We shall be watching their career with great interest."

As indeed men are encouraged to reject same (mascuilne) traits, boys being drugged for acting like boys etc.--what drugs would Tom Sawyer have been on?, even as society continues to demand male productive labour. Hypergirls though are not retreating into healthy femininity. Their princesses don't revolve around princes, they revolve around...other princesses. And when under stress the female becomes hypersexual as a reproduction strategy--even though in this hedonic culture reproduction is uncelebrated and the products of conception considered disposable. Feminism may frown at hypergirliness and promiscuity, but it tolerates it, even as it promotes sexual liberation (slutwalks), autonomy, androgyny, rigged laws, and misandry. In drug culture mixing uppers and downers is called a goofball. Feminism offers a pink goofball for boys and a blue goofball for girls, and then wonders why boys and girls seem disorientated. Or, rather, it doesn't wonder, because disorientating the heterosexual majority is an intended achievement.

In the meantime I'll answer it myself. I think the essence of masculinity is mechanical advantage, which can be subdivided into four categories as per Jack Donovan: strength, courage, skill or mastery, and honour. The first three should be obvious; the forth must be understood when viewing (male) society as a machine that needs its parts in working (honourable) order in order to function properly. So we have the basis for a male gang or hunting party, the traits that each (sane) member wants to see in the other members, for the individual's sake and the party's sake. To let this sink in, ask whether masculinity is defined by weakness, cowardice, ineptitude, and lying. Not much to recommend masculinity then, huh? In this light, consider femininity again as flowiness. It should be subdivided too, and I recommend doing so into intuition, beauty, signals/tokens, and flexibility. These are the four characteristics that women need to deal with a world created (literally) by men, by male hunting and war parties. They need intuition to deal with reticent male psyches and to outwit other females, they need beauty to please them and find a mate and compete with other females, they need signals/tokens to make psychological advances without commitment, and they need flexibility to create plausible deniability and to turn situations to advantage even if reason and honour say otherwise. Now, ask whether femininity is defined by reason, ugliness, obvious signals of involvement, and rigidity of honour and conduct. I argue that the masculine is defined by the traits needed for the hunt. I argue that the feminine is defined by the traits needed for the hearth. EDITED TO ADD: On further thought, I think "flexibility" and "signals/tokens" are misleading. The four core traits of femininity, of flowiness, are intuition, beauty, nurturing, and guile/grace. Thus I would situate reason under the male subcategory of mastery. Women can, of course, attain to reason, but it is not a characteristically female trait, it is a male trait and a human trait.

There used to be an order to things that would refine and collect these traits, feminine and masculine, so that they worked together. We shouldn't bear in mind how the heterosexual dynamic operates today because it's broken. When I describe femininity I'm describing it in all its aspects, including the hysterical, cunning bitch aspect. But I do think that the description I gave of the feminine is accurate, and that today it is unregulated and thus metastasises more easily into either feminism or into apolitical airheads. I don't want you to think feminine is all a woman is, as I enthusiastically encourage people to be human, and cultivate the virtues of compassion, reason, politeness, and the like. But what I don't want to do is to encourage us all to gel together as humans at the cost of destroying femininity and masculinity, of destroying the heterosexual dynamic entire, which is what the feminist/LGBT&c revolution is doing. I want a girl who is in substantial part girlish, not just nurturing and sexually selective, but embodying the flowiness or glamour I mentioned. Otherwise I would be marrying an intelligent bag lady. To marry right, though, means I have to embody a higher level of masculinity than our contemporary culture encourages or explains to young men. A counterquestion to you is, what is masculinity? If we answer that we might see femininity clearer. The most succinct answer that comes to mind is "mechanical advantage".

Whimsical, mercurial disengagement from the boundaries or restrictions of reality, through fashion, beauty, influence, nuance, status, grace, intuition, prayer. Glamour would be another term. Men strive towards something similar in working toward the archetype of unlimited, unstoppable violence or force or control, but that is grounded in physics, in principles of art and science, and women wish to transcend even that.* To the degree that their glamour allows them to influence the world without even needing to understand it in any principled way, they are exerting feminine control. * Though consider the archetype of the Emperor, who tends toward being more effeminate. Not much need to come across as a hulking warrior with an unstoppable cudgel when a flick of your manicured, long pinky fingernail can roll a head.

And the kicking of the hornets' nest was orchestrated by the oligarchal elites who want the influx of immigrants to demoralise and destabilise and economically drain the West...and the Islamic hornets' nest itself is gladly participating in this influx of immigrants to demoralise and destabilise and economically drain the West. ISIS loves seeing millions flee to the West, that bolsters the fifth column.

Would you agree the master threat today is feminism, if only because it is attempting to mobilise 51% of the population against what I might term the sexual-dimorphic-psychological order? Or is the master threat the ongoing operation to eliminate white culture/religion/traditions/language/race? What exactly is under threat is the WHCCM (wikkum) the white heterosexual cisgender Christian males and the free society we have made. Everyone else will slide into hell on our coattails. I knew a marxist once. He was wearing a teeshirt with skulls on it and I told him I thought it was a picture of those piles of skulls in Cambodia.

Flowiness. I think the shortest possible answer to your question is flowiness. Having it both ways. Sucking oneself and one's admirers into a carefree wonderland of smirky smiles and perky noses (and other things). Using reason as a tool but not an identity, and discarding it for the fashionable, the flippant, and the mind-fucking as needed. A reliance on the intuitive A->Z thinking rather than the logical A->B->C->...->Z thinking. A dismissal of politics or other big issues; she might vote but debating her reasons are off-limits. Men don't find women doing manly things sexy. Men find sexy women doing manly things sexy. See how many men like watching dykes work. Not too many real butchy, ugly dykes in the media, at least not the media I notice. There was a girl on the tv news last week dressed in a suit and tie with a butchy haircut. Pretty enough girl; strange outfit but still appealing, listenable. Give her more masculine features and demeanour and the charm is lost. A woman such as yourself is walking a tightrope between being so masculine she's sexually unattractive to almost everybody, and being so feminine she's useless in a debate or a political action. The traditional solution is to associate with a manly man who outshines you in masculine virtue but is amenable to being substantially helped (ie, you're not just arm candy) by your own cultivation of masculine and feminine virtue, including intuition. This also gives a man the permit to cultivate his own feminine tendencies in a nonthreatening way. I'm thinking of the God and the Goddess in Wicca, here. Both archetypes of well-developed people, humans, but still maintaining sex roles. (No, I'm not a Wiccan.) I tend to think people without flowiness in their lives are either rare cookies capable of handling the pressure to be 100% logical and competent, or else are unhappy people smushed by the weight of the world.

It used to be a Southern compliment to, in response to something creditable someone just said or did, to say, "That's white of ya'."

Europa seduced! Cadmus awakes, furious-- Wisdom is needed One question to ask yourself is how much this really matters to you. Are you going to get up everyday and feel terrible, or can you just squint your eyes at the truth and get on with your day? If you're good at squinting, then maybe worrying about this stuff is counterproductive to you living a healthy life. If you're not, and you feel terrible, or repeatedly terrible and unable to ignore the DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN CIVILISATION, then the question turns to one of knowledge. So, read, communicate with people as immediately as possible, hash out what you've read, get a sense for exactly what the West is dealing with, what sides there are, what alliances there are or could be, and what possible solutions there are. With immigration, the problem can be addressed "demand" side or "supply" side. "Demand" side is the liberal elite want to stock the vote with people who will vote left in order to cash in on Western wealth. Suppressing that is difficult since most of the native population benefits from the welfare state as well. "Supply" side is the dysfunctional countries (economies, cultures/religions) the migrants come from, and fixing that would be the ideal long-term solution. These people come here because they don't like where they were living and hope for a better (and more lucrative) life. If their countries were more functional, the fewer emigrants would emerge from them.

Goodness always refers to purpose. Is this apple good for my purpose of eating it? Is this automobile good for the purpose of me driving across town? What is your purpose? Once you know that you might well find out whether your frustration and indignation are good. The catholic Church has stated via the last few popes that Western countries have a moral obligation to absorb unlimited refugees. Yet Dante situated traitors to country in the Ninth Circle of Hell. How is importing unlimited immigrants not tantamount to treason? It would be one thing if we were in a position of strength, with an unassailable, proud culture, traditions, religion, and economy, but we don't. We're in a position of weakness asked to become even weaker for the sake of people who, for the most part, can't and don't want to "fit in."

I appreciate this as a gesture, but in reality it's not punchy enough. It's not point-by-point accurate enough. Nazism wasn't about equal rights, it was about exterminating and enslaving the non-Aryan world. Feminism isn't about equal rights, it's about exterminating and enslaving the non-female world. So I encourage these sorts of efforts until the nail is firmly struck on the head. Someone who gets it too? I am pleased to make your cyberacquaintance.