Skip to main content

Rose Sybil examines the intricate connections between feminism, female nature, and modern romantic love, and their potential consequences on society’s shift towards transhumanism.

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.

The Arktos Restoration Initiative

We have handpicked a few distinguished titles, previously lost to censorship, befitting any refined bookshelf. These esteemed classics are now offered in limited leather-bound editions, with a mere 100 copies per title. Owning one not only grants you a collector’s item but also supports our mission to restore them in paperback for all.

Your contribution aids the metapolitical battle, ensuring that vital ideas and concepts remain accessible to an ever-expanding audience.

IArcheofuturism (Limited Edition)
$129.50
Racial Civil War (Limited Edition)
$79.50
Rose Sybil

Rose Sybil, born in California’s Bay Area in the late 1980s, was influenced by the contrasting cultures of Silicon Valley and the Midwest plains. With interests spanning various academic subjects, she believes in a dynamic spiritual growth process, drawing on diverse religious traditions such as Odinism, Taoism, and Vedicism. Passionate about preserving cultural uniqueness, Rose enjoys art, dancing, music, and outdoor activities. As a mother of two, she finds deep meaning in motherhood and is committed to celebrating the union of man and wife, the continuation of life through children, and the rich tapestry of world cultures while standing against the threat of globalism.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bronek (ben)
Bronek (ben)
1 year ago

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.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

“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!

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

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.

Jason Rogers
Member
Jason Rogers
1 year ago

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.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

I hope to address some of this in the following articles.

This will have real-life value to many Arktos readers, I’m certain.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Rogers

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.

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.

Atlantean
Member
1 year ago

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.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Atlantean

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!

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

Dari was my friend and I think she would have loved and appreciated your deep thought on her message!

Wagnerian
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

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.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

We need our men to be dangerous, connected, and capable.

This makes me think of the Spartan women who encouraged their husbands and sons to develop all of these positive qualities.

Wagnerian
Member
1 year ago

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.

Regent
Regent
11 months ago

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?

Regent
Regent
11 months ago
Reply to  Rose Sybil

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!

sakovkt
Member
11 months ago

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.

PR Reddall
PR Reddall
11 months ago

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.

36
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x