Feminism as a Consuming Force
Feminism is a collective force of the all-consuming material void. It is not just a movement or choice but a compounding dysfunction. The higher our capacity, the more our vantage of simple matters can become skewed. We live in an inverted world that focuses on maximizing outer superficiality while masking inner depth and understanding.
Feminism Is a Detachment from Primal Forces – Transition into Transhumanism
We house a synergism between our primal nature and higher consciousness – an imbalance in one is a negation of the full potential with unforeseen consequences, while an imbalance in the other’s detached heights casts large festering shadows. Most antifeminist rhetoric is simplistic in demonizing women based on the animal/primal drive to dominate but is ignorant of our complexity compared to animals lacking our consciousness. This is really a misplaced protective function of the primal wanting to stop the detachment, when revaluing the feminine synergy to the masculine is what is needed.
We women cannot see if we are well-matched to a man since it is easier for us to see down than up. We can only infer upwards, which is part of the female qualitative capability. In modern times, we get to know many men to figure out if they are actually well-suited for us, but it is easier to see someone who lines up less with you than more. Thus, it leads to women rejecting men but really it is us figuring out they are not the right pair. This paradox of choice creates a compounding issue with women and men because men do not understand they are being rejected to prevent the wrong coupling. The wrong coupling has harsh consequences in our current zeitgeist that feed right back into feminism.
Having to sift through men in this manner is also extremely stressful to women, compounding the hostility of the sexes to further spiral into an archetypical simulation. We women are more spiritually connected to the transmundane and able to infer things we cannot fully figure out while staying grounded to our values. The male vantage is hard for us to see and understand, so their reactions to rejection make us double down into aspects of our nature that are inherently feminist.
Feminism as a Natural Element of Female Nature and a Historical Force Is Separate from Historical Marxism
There is an aspect of our feminine nature that leads to women no longer needing men in material reductionist paradigms. Our physical needs can be met by overly complex and dysfunctional systems of excess, but it leaves an emotional and spiritual void between the sexes. Women can place their love for their children as primary and then no longer see the bond with the man as important – the problem with this is not the love for their children but that the mothering strategy becomes all-consuming and will not foster their growth to full potential. The men can then become interchangeable like all commoditization in the mechanical era devoid of deeper meaning and love.
A quote attributed to Socrates depicts this best: “Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.” This is because for a woman to be quantitatively equal to a man, she must be qualitatively more advanced. This qualitative aspect relates to emotional and social intelligence being inverted into materialistic manipulation. It is not our manipulative nature itself that is the problem, it is the direction. Without strong pair bonds in marriage, the direction goes all over the place. We empathize increasingly with so many people, it spritals into a dysfunctional mess. Like Kipling’s poem “The Female of the Species,” women are seen as more dangerous than men in a different way and that without a spouse or child will fight for the consuming mother just the same.
Female evolutionary strategy is to protect identity and life through these mechanisms and helps with the process of understanding the framing of qualitative datasets to bring the unknown unknowns into the known unknowns. This is part of the dynamism between man and woman – men can empathize with their women’s concerns and root out problems before they compound, helping to prevent confounding variables in the scientific method. It is our qualitative advancements while being quantitatively equal that allow us to outdo men – thus leading to the devouring mother archetype that can apply to both sexes. Inherent aspects in our feminine nature become confused with the simplistic concept of “romantic love” because women are using their wiles in a material reductionist paradigm and not within their evolutionary framework to complement men.
There needs to be emotional connection for the dynamism of female and male to create synergism. The man and the woman must be qualitatively equal reflections for this to happen, and the man must be quantitatively her superior for her to respect him and feel secure in his judgment. When women say they do not want to follow the lead of a male, it is because they have encountered less qualitative sophistication and want to double down into not needing what they have not found.
In more recent traditions, we see material exchange in place of bonds. There is a reason this did not work and that is because there was no creative force from male and female dynamism inside of marriage. What needs top-down force to sustain will always hit resistance and eventually lose momentum with compounding dysfunction. More recent traditions had the wrong relationship of identity and protective energies formed from bonding. Top-down is to protect and deference is a form of appreciation, foundation-up is to create meaning, inspiration, and identity.
The demonization of romantic love is a misunderstanding of what we are missing from times prior to the agricultural revolution when we were fully apex predators. Before monetary exchange corrupted bonding, barbarians had methods that understood spirit, soul, and mind in discerning marriage. Even if it was not “romantic” love, those processes paired people better spiritually than the modern method of material trading of people like cattle – even for those blind to the fact, that is what they are doing and calling it romance. Yes, everyone should contribute like every part of the whole body serves various functions but that does not mean people need to be monetized into these roles like interchangeable parts in a machine. Gifts are not an exchange for a person’s loyalty but bestowed to bring joy within marriage or family units. The direction matters most for effort, care (including constructive criticism), and even build-up of resources to create inner strength and harmony for the whole. It is when these things in themselves become the goal that it reduces people to material exchange – this can be done just as easily with more recent tradition as with consumeristic romance.
When people are evenly matched, they are far more likely to grow to love each other in arranged marriages compared to marriages of material convenience. The wisdom of the entire network of organic male and female contributions to society helps to foster the right couplings in infinitely more complex ways than we can now imagine. The love they had was the best of what people could hope to find romantically because most “romantic” love is now just manipulation to try to gain from the other as if they are a commodity or haphazard attraction with no real foundation of connection in principles, values, or spirituality. Arranged pairings, even if not perfectly so, have far more grounding and are capable of some growth compared to mechanized marriage that falls apart into a hedonistic void.
The jump then to transhumanism is apparent because the void between the sexes is greater than the physical, and when you no longer have the bonds of love creating the fabric of a people’s identity, what difference does it make if it is a show, robot or video game that takes the place of your wife, your children, or your imagination? What difference does it make if an expensive purse, a nice car, or designer clothes replace your husband, children, your community, creativity, and meaning? The void is illusory but self-fulfilling because we are co-creators in the image of creation itself – not some random manifestation of material parts from lifeless matter.
What led the push for romantic marriage was many of the strong finding their reflection in the other sex outside of material exchange. The complex connection of the right pairing has a stronger pull than even that of duty in agricultural society, leading to increasing atavistic revolt of the heart for coupling followed by those that desired more base or superficial “romanticism.” Thus, the wrong matching-up of pairings, and the strongest of us on some subconscious level realizing this, breaks down the semblance of order in a mechanized model. The push to be our true selves created another reaction and the wave of material reductionism always follows, consuming the truth that unfolded ahead of it.
Romantic love vs material exchange is a false dichotomy. The real axis is spiritual fulfillment from the coupling helping to better shape both in unity vs the hollowness of the void since nothing can replace it. The longing for the dynamism in a true pairing is then consumed by what has always been destroying it. The following wave of consuming mother has been pushed but the actors of it are lost to the material void as much as snow is in an avalanche – you cannot distinguish one part from the whole… Likewise, fighting it head-on is also futile. Only reestablishing a real male hierarchy can save us.
We enjoyed reading that she had two children and was against globalism. As for gals and the topic, here, as in most areas of Amdom, gals are into their career(s). A large percentage don’t marry and/or have no kids, or maybe one.
Moreover, an interesting sign of the times shows that during BLM riots, demonstrations and crazy behavior, often most of the BLM supporters are W females. Marriage is going the way of the Whooping Crane. Over, or about 50% of males find it too risky to get a legal tie.
Everywhere men are denied visits to their children after divorce. Not only do about 50% of marriages end in divorce, much can be learned by watching high school female behavior paradigms. It’s where recreational sex is the norm. In other words, there’s copulation like dogs. Is it a sad state of affairs, or evolution of Western Civilization? Lets hope rose contributes more to cyber space.
Thank you for taking the time to read and give an in depth response. I find the current state heartbreaking from both perspectives and understand the frustration. Though I touch on some of the valuation of the worker sex in the other two parts of this article, I will say that prioritizing a career as an end in itself is a sad state even for men. The mechanization of human processes devalued everything so women are misguided in their chasing of validation of identity as worker.
I fully believe in Spengler’s law of gender parity that basically states that the spectrum will range equally for men and women of the same culture. So as frustrating as the statistics are, there are many women equally frustrated and women being able to stay home is less and less accessible for those that want to. Plus the loss of communities and extended support systems is also a new challenge. However, if actually look at what can be done to regain some of this, it’s life giving instead of compounding the problems with idealizations as reactions to past perceptions. The positive aspect of this law is that they can be shifted in tandem towards healing.
Furthermore, fulfillment is more than the material needs to do so. Statistics also tell us very little about the driving forces behind this. Many of those women want the validation or valuation that social justice readily gives with minimal effort. It’s a misguided mothering instinct that places no expectations on them and is encouraged in our “educational” systems and media conglomerates. Likewise, many men do not realize how much effort it takes to uphold a growing family and the wrong parings cause a lot of reactiveness for both sexes.
I believe that by focusing on the negative or generalizations, many men miss the individual or drive them off based on general problems from a male vantage since women think so differently. I used to want 9 or 10 children and telling potential suitors that in my 20s took me further from that than closer to it.
Recreational sex is the norm because of cultural decay and anyone healthy should actually have a sex drive. The demonization of coupling itself causes so many compounding relationship issues even in marriage. This is a perfect example of healthy instincts inside of the wrong paradigm causing an oscillation between puritanical idealism and complete hedonism. Men amassing money to then pay for a wife seems to also leave a void of real bonding. With mass migration the cost of living is driven up and these social issues arise that prevent healthy young coupling of men and women that can grow together. We might not have that but it is a goal we should still have for our children.
Women also tend to put their mothering instincts on hold or into horrible relationships from lack of valuation of motherhood itself – it’s a compounding generational issue. Believe it or not there is a lot of societal pressure on women to focus on a career, but I will touch on that in the following articles.
I most definitely think that we are seeing a devolution on the larger scale, not an evolution. Culture exerts it’s own selective forces and with top down mechanized society there is now anti-culture with similar selective capabilities. Not all selection is adaptive, some is destructive or too rapid on an epigenetic level. Every jump in human organization is usually followed by expansion and then die offs. To just hope it is an evolution is also going to feed into its fall. People have to be willing to heal and try to help others heal because actual will power comes from bonds.
Forming a future will require seeing the totality of the issue to not create more compounding dynamics with every solution ie reactions to compounding perceptions. We need a combination of both perseverance, the desire to create what we want to see in the world (with the risk of it not going right), in the case of us women a lessening of the ego, and actual compassion and understanding over holding onto grievances.
“I fully believe in Spengler’s law of gender parity that basically states that the spectrum will range equally for men and women of the same culture.” <— explosive insight here!
Thank you. This is why a statistical model of women is useful for the norm, but can be harmful for higher complexity. Women and men range greatly and seeing either sex as the same with the same “rules” is egalitarian. This is why I love the more Barbarian or Spartan model of women deferring to their father and husband, not to all men in their culture.
I agree. This is much more healthy.
It can likely be used in various forms of Europid male hierarchy since a man’s place in that hierarchy would also affect his family’s position and how they relate to the whole. Sparta was by no means perfect and likely a breakaway of something far older than any of those city states, but none of the past of was perfect so looking to them for inspiration is key. They did eventually fall to a female oligarchy so that part is definitely something to learn from too.
Some parts of the essay were a little difficult for me to follow, but other parts really stand out. I’ll cite just one that shows wisdom:
“The man and the woman must be qualitatively equal reflections for this to happen, and the man must be quantitatively her superior for her to respect him and feel secure in his judgment.”
This is so true on a primal level. When a man “defers” to his wife in certain areas (not all, of course) – even out of kindness or a desire to “keep the peace” – she may start to lose respect for him. And this comes as a shock to the modern mind, and especially to the man who thought he was “giving in” in order to please his wife, because it suggests that even a well-intentioned move can result in a lack of respect. Needless to say, when this is done long term, divorce becomes very common.
Thank you.
If it takes constant vigilance to have respect, it is the wrong coupling. This might be a case of a purely material exchange type of marriage that I will go into in the next articles or a major incongruence between the man and woman. I will have to sit on this awhile since I have seen beautiful marriages where the man leads and the women helps to build him up over their entire lifetime – the goal should be dynamic, not constantly worrying about the perception of the other. I do agree with your analysis that it’s common and might point to a need for more authentic connection and spiritual development of the couple together.
Men can be so endearingly logical that it’s hard grasp something outside of general rules of interaction which very much might work with low functioning women but that sounds horribly stressful. I will share some insight that I’ve noticed. If you act like a gentleman with a woman and she finds it offensive, something is already wrong and there is nothing you can do that will gain her respect. Her also being receptive to being treated well doesn’t mean you two will be a fitting pair. People are so eager to find a bond that we look for rules instead of trying to understand the person.
Part of the qualitative pairing is the desire to grow and a spiritual connection. If that is missing there will be no dynamism between the couple. There are so many wrong pairings and compounding reactions that to maintain a wrong coupling does lead to eventual need of top down vigilance similarly to states and unions that are so top heavy they don’t foster local growth. There is no understanding of the local spirit of the people to foster organic growth so it creates a struggle inside of the union instead of a dynamism that leads to the ability to weather struggles.
I hope to address some of this in the following articles.
This will have real-life value to many Arktos readers, I’m certain.
The smarter of the seduction-types (let’s avoid the cringe term PUA) figured this out and deliver it as useful advice to their male students. And not just with wives, this also applies to girlfriends.
Although, ethically, I think men need to show some balance here. SOME is the keyword.
It is hard for me to understand this since I see men as establishing framework that women then more fluidly fill in, support, and nurture. There might be a semantical issue on my end because I don’t see how a woman being capable of some level of autonomy within her husbands framework or even inspiring it to expand or change is a form of deference. Expecting respect and calmly reinforcing it when not given seems effective but to have little to do with expecting deference in all things.
Yes women do not do well with choice because it is stressful to have too many – but that has far more to do with not being grounded in the same framework to give a common direction, not with incapability. Constant micromanagement is a lower ordering or capability but might reflect the times of mass information. Guidance is something that should be sought from a man but feedback from a woman is also just as crucial. Dialogue between the sexes helps to prevent coldness and fosters creative energy between the two. If you want higher functioning women to desire to be mothers and support their husbands (which will make a huge difference in outcomes from dragging someone along in a regretful manner or them changing their ideals when challenges arise) then fostering the relationship with consideration, finding things to connect over, learning together, and not seeing it as a game to just dominate but also to develop endearment and playfulness between the two is healthy. A good leader fosters development, bonding, is respectable, considerate of the individuation of those under his command, and can ask for input or delegate without seeing it as a deference.
Seeing seduction as a battle – women for material gain and men for the desire to get a woman that might not even be right for them – seems it causes a lot of reactivity on both ends. I totally understand the desire to want to settle down and have children, but part of that is actually getting to know the other person as more than a statistic or interchangeable part. Whites have higher ordering of complexity and getting to know the other genuinely helps to prevent coldness and incompatibility in the relationship. A woman will not defer well or respect a man if they are not lined up well, so you can “win” the game but create a forever battle where there could be connection, tenderness, inspiration, and excitement that gets both through hard times together.
After some reflection on it I will say when a man doesn’t provide framework or constantly asks questions about minute things they should do or how they should do it… that is stressful. With larger decisions, some level of consideration and input or discussion is something I find endearing even if not making the final decision. I don’t see that as deference but as consideration and a mutual care for the bond. Deference should be a general state of care and respect, not dependent on circumstances nor a need for micromanagement.
Continuous commands with the expectation of an act of deference can be as stressful and reductive as too many options or choices within a hierarchical system. Deference seems more like a general state than a continuous action in response to over stimuli of command. In more primitive cultures or superficial anti-culture this might be why they have so much inner hostility for the perception of authority positions because it is about the status and not the ability to work together in a non zero sum manner. Leadership in its best state is setting a framework with some level of flexibility and consideration of those you lead including taking their capabilities, limitations, and concerns into account. Too much rigidity is as harmful as too much laxity and the two seem to go hand in hand in a self fulfilling negative feedback loop. There does need to be the absolute command or emergent type but that is only possible on a solid foundation and if given constantly in a state of stress and lack of consideration or input will cause bonds to be broken just as much as the chaos we now see with globalist anti culture. Constant commands makes command meaningless and there are ways to produce compliance with consistency and some level of fluidity in framework that is necessary in living systems.
On our end, misplacing mothering instincts and not being aware of why we react to things to step back and not do so is very important. I’m going to sit on that a bit too. I hope these insights into what I’ve noticed with the concerns of many women are insightful.
This was thought-provoking.
I was prepared to debate a bit, until the last sentence:
“Only reestablishing a real male hierarchy can save us.”
No need to nitpick, when the conclusion is perfect.
I am truly looking forward to the rest of the series.
Debate can be healthy and help our community. But we need to establish trust and even online friendships first.
Not many women are producing this kind of quality work right now. Let’s encourage more!
I agree, plus seeing it as a productive dialogue is something I prefer because then it is not placing our respective sexes in an antithetical position.
I was inspired by this interview of the late Dugina on dialogue. I never heard of her before her senseless murder, and this interview really affected me. It’s not that I agree with all the concepts but she is actually fulfilling the role of a higher ordering of the feminine for her culture. The word feminism is a semantical issue because what she is describing isn’t the consuming mother… the fear of not having an exact metric for all women is far more the male reaction in the consuming mother paradigm than her dialogue.
Though I do not agree with some of the underlying concepts, she is discussing the need for the realm of women to have a dialogue. You can see him asking for empirical evidence from something that is part of a corrective and preventative process to maintain bonds of men and women. The exchange of ideas is creative not linear or quantifiable. He also doesn’t seem to understand the word dialogue but wants to equate it to a battle. He is then shocked that what annoys her in men is when they are not masculine. He’s expecting a grievance group as the only response but really this is very spartan that women would look down on a lack of masculinity.
She is engaging in a dialogue as a high functioning individuated woman of her living culture that is being affected by globalizing anti culture. She is giving descriptions and not prescriptions.
The targeting of her in response to the purposeful martyring and encouraging of women to even martyr for NATO is another example of how the current zeitgeist destroys women and men. There is no dialogue between people, just like between the sexes. No hierarchy between people, no deference, no concessions. The mechanization of NATO and other world governing organizations is against our own interests but pulls us into the machine of their distractions while at the same time pushing Russia into deeper alliances with China. All this is doing is harming whites while strengthening to top down mechanized powers – china and globalism. It is also increasing the likelihood that our biosphere will no longer be able to house the layering of life we need to exist. The reactions all have some validity in them but they are compounding in a manner that creates more problems with every solution. Ukraine has long been harmed to then be pushed into martyring when Russia originally wanted dialogue and compromise in their manner of engagement. Globalism creates the compounding scenarios that then leads to its own justification for escalation and dialogue is lost. Any corrective and non-zero sum measures require dialogue even among unequal parties (notice our governments prevented dialogue between Ukraine and Russia to escalate since the begining). It becomes self fulfilling.
Everyone that didn’t want more brother wars in theory encouraged the antagonistic position of Ukraine to Russia in a manner that only helped the zeitgeist itself and the eastern part of Europe is now in further crisis because of it. It’s Ukraine’s own government that is harming it and had their people been more hostile in that direction instead of externalizing towards Russians, they wouldn’t have much to worry about in regards to Russians. Sometimes it is the rigidity of rules or seeing groups in a stasis (Russia now is not at all Marxist) that becomes self fulfilling.
https://youtu.be/qN3Q9PSjY2M
Dari was my friend and I think she would have loved and appreciated your deep thought on her message!
Thank you. This interview really affected me as did the way people responded to her death. I learned many things by trying to understand what she said, including that the recollected lived experience of Russians under Marxism was not that of theoretical Marxism.
The current dynamic is so heartbreaking in the west and Europe that I don’t want to debate with our men. Dialogue and understanding are insightful and creative processes while debate seems to be more about being right.
This belief and approach is so refreshing and inspiring. Please consider me a committed supporter. I hope you can get other women onboard with your message.
Thank you.
Thank you. We need our men to be dangerous, connected, and capable. For that to continue generationally, we need to find ways for this to work for higher functioning women in the right bonds because the capabilities of offspring come from both parents. Women have a lot to contribute to society in manners lost to modern understandings and reactions which needs a healthy framework to foster.
This makes me think of the Spartan women who encouraged their husbands and sons to develop all of these positive qualities.
Strong male leadership in a marriage plus the option of polygamy can solve many of our social problems, internally and externally. This is the reason why the liberal west embraces every lunacy when it comes to relationships and marriage but militantly opposes the idea of a man with multiple wives and/or concubines -things which are firmly rooted in Tradition.
The original Mormons had the right idea. Their book is arguably quite strange, but their practices were powerful, ethical, and effective.
Rose, if you should read this, will you consider touching on the subject of polygamy in the future? Even if we disagree, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Polygamy can be a double edged sword socially, but done in small numbers or as something earned is likely not an issue compared to the current day social dynamic. We know a lot about recessive diseases from pockets of polygamous towns but that was also done in extreme excess while creating lost boys. It seems to work for some in smaller numbers and many like it for the idea of helping replacement rates but I don’t think it’s a good long term strategy at all.
I have seen cases of men caring for their wives who lose their desire to be a wife in a physical way and then have a mistress. This seems very similar, but I rather see bonds between men and women reach their full potential. A lot of people I see that support polygamy don’t even have one wife and child or can’t support the full potential of what they have. If the man is highly capable it can allow for a new form of female support networks, but dynamism between man and woman is zero sum even if them being able to meet the physical needs of all is not.
I will write on it at some point.
I believe it would increase the material void and still have to sit with the subject longer to flesh it out. European and Vedic traditionalism never had mass polygamy. Nobility had exceptions or mistresses and courtesans, there was prostitution until 500 years ago whereas it was never stigmatized in Hindu society nor were the children created from it. Let us also not forget the lessons learned by Roman nobility when they forgot their wives so focused on their slaves, their wives turned to gladiators. Negating higher ordering pair bonds for just physical attraction or even replacement rates will have spiritual and archetypical consequences.
I definitely think that Antifeminism must go beyond just restoring traditional gender roles and must be a spiritual realignment and reassertion of true masculine and feminine archetypal forces. One thing I notice is that both the modern left and as well as many on the new traditionalist right have a problem with male sexuality . Obviously the left thinks all women are oppressed by men and wants to shame men out of existence. While the right is obsessed with forced monogamy for the good of the civilization etc. Would not the reestablishment of male hierarchy allow for both spiritual pair bonding as well as more polygamous arrangements? Could a man not choose to be Ward Cleaver or a Ghengis Khan?
There’s likely not one way that will work for all Europids and it seems some Mormons are able to make this work. There are also a lot of people who try and end up in very bad dynamics. It’s an idea I found extremely insulting when younger but considered and think it just won’t work for some women… it would take rare management skills for a man to make that work but there might be some capable of it.
Ghengis was a conqueror and one man. Very few men would be capable of that even if conditions of historical events allowed for it, but it is possible. It seems like many talk about these things like it could be a norm or expectation. Funny I actually call my son little Ghengis when he starts going on an on about having thousands of babies lol.
In all seriousness though this is a crucial time and what we need are our men self actualizing to inspire self actualization in our women. Strength, self actualization, and self sacrifice are all inspiring and creative forces. We are up against titanic and archetypical forces that want to destroy us, our future, and render the planet uninhabitable for life and consciousness. Being right wing is not a superficial position but a spiritual one of self overcoming, finding the authentic self, and a level of selflessness for the future because future generations are literally us. We need a living chain of connection and life force. We need bonds and to build, not for what should be or some entitlement of what our lives should be like. That is escapism.
What I admire about the men here at Arktos and many other right wing men I know is their dedication in face of hardship, the amount of effort they put into facing the current zeitgeist and balance it with families, their strength in the face of pressure and it is inspiring. I know many women having children in spite of many obstacles and in other ways self actualizing to create a future. That is more important than the superficial stance. I’ve seen people talk of polygamy as an entitlement and escapism, I’ve seen some try for it and instead destroy their lives with the wrong women, and I’ve known a few self actualizing men working tirelessly to try for that to help demographics so I would say these are all very different things even if superficially similar.
I was starting to lose momentum myself and fold into misanthropy and the devouring mother myself compared to when I was younger and it is the self sacrifice, self actualization, and dedication of right wing men that inspired me to pull through, get back to my more authentic self, improve and contribute. We are all constantly affecting each other, women might inspire men but it is the resolve of men that also inspires us.
All good points! Yes I think self-actualization should be the main goal. The weakening of men has honestly been a major root cause of much spiritual degradation we see now. My whole point though is the sacrifice of self-expression whether sexually or otherwise to suit strictly political or social ideals can still be detrimental no matter what side may come from. And likewise basing an entire self-expression strictly for the same thing. Fighting destructive forces, building a better world, and thriving spiritually, mentally, and physically seems the right balance whatever form it takes .
“Little Genghis’ I love it!
Thank you. The sexual issue I think stems from over demonization of sex or the placement of shame around it instead of understanding it in terms of bonding and/or procreation as a healthy thing. I do agree men can be more detached from it as a bonding aspect without as much consequence… the flip side to all the shame around sexuality is then extreme depravity or it detached into addictive simulations like porn. Women too should have healthy sex drives and if they don’t it’s a psychological issue or maybe all the poison in food like products and our environment.
Agreed and people vary a lot. Maybe some do not care as much about a soul mate or dynamic fit while others it is more important and without that they rather be alone. Europids have a very wide range of traits, motivations, and forms.
Lol thanks it suits him.
An example of a man actually making this work and having lots of children is Elon Musk. He isn’t polygamous necessarily but he does seem to do it in the old European manner of nobility having children with various mistresses. He is also extremely self actualizing so it makes sense.
He’s done a lot for Europid replacement rates as one person but don’t believe he has found a spiritual pair bond. I hope he does one day.
My view is more historical.
Feminism started with Aboltionism in America and Marx promoted both.
Marx isn’t well understood in America, as a 19th Century Prussian Jew stranded between Frederick and Napoleon, but his view of slavery as an economic issue rather than a racial issue is probably the better one had either Radical Republicans or White Line Planters seen the New South-Whig-Fusionists as a way forward.
However, the Depression of 1873 killed that anyway.
The result was a post- Reconstruction Feminist “War of Female Liberation” as the Civil War had been a war of racial liberation.
No coincidence that the war against Whites turned into a war against men.
No surprise, then, that sex liberated from from the confines of race became a path to transhumanism.
Rather than preserve a race and its traditions, Feminsim became a way to destroy it and all its past to create some Marxian Utopia that Marx, in fact, had never thought up.
Marx did think that woman’s sufferage would end wars because they’d want their men home rather dead on battlefields, but then came Joni Ernst! Ha!
Paradoxically, the only reason women can compete with men on battlefields is because of all the weapons men engineered to make killing easier hence, more transhuman experiments to create some ultimate soldier.
I agree that the demonization of Whites and masculinity go hand in hand. It’s a form of forced egalitarianism or seeing all people as interchangeable.
As a child, my father worked a blue collar factory job while my mother stayed at home. They could pay a mortgage on my father’s modest income.
Most women now work, so by rights families should be twice as well off. Remind the ‘economists’ of that fact.