On Men and Love

As expected, the previous post on women got the 100% predictable, and predicted, reaction, naturally, mostly from women.

Quelle surprise.

Of course, precisely as confirmation of what I wrote, the general response was to refer to singular counter examples of women that did not fit every single one of my statements to 100% accuracy. Proving the veracity of the point I made that most women are incapable of taking in information that is not already in line with what they already expect to be the topic and how it specifically applies to them. And almost entirely incapable of even considering a point that might possibly reflect negatively on them specifically, no matter how generic it is or even if it actually does apply or not to them individually.

Remember that what I specifically stated was (emphasis added):

Perhaps the best way to let you perceive the complexity is to simply juxtapose some of my beliefs (which are generic, and statistically very highly correlative with reality but never absolute), and let you try and understand in your own way, how I can hold seemingly opposite beliefs, with equal strength. Because I do. None of this is some “trick” to appear smarter or more mysterious or to confuse etc.

So what do you think pretty much the entirety of the criticism was?

“But Jane from accounting I knew five years ago was very good at projecting company expectations five years down the line!”

In one fell swoop, ignoring that:

A) the traits I described I specifically stated are statistically very significant of modelling reality but NEVER absolute, and,

B) miss the point that Jane being able to envision where the company was headed five years from now is NOT what having visionary projects is about. The guy who created the company because he has a dream to build enough airships to return to a better mode of travel, has a visionary project. See also: every technological invention ever made. The examples involving women are statistically negligible. Which is precisely the reason people like Florence Nightingale are famous; they are exceptions to the rule.

C) that the whole post was prompted by comments one of the most relevant women in history made about women.

But yeah. All as expected.

And now, as planned, here is an equivalent post made in the same style and with the same constraints as the previous one, on men.

+ men are supposed to control their emotions. We have about 40% more muscle fibre, thicker bones and different hormones running in our bodies, namely testosterone, which drives murderous aggression/adrenaline fuelled fighting mechanisms. If we reacted emotionally to things on the level women do, the body count would be staggering.

– modern “men” have been feminised (intentionally and maliciously) for decades. Mostly by weak men wanting to usurp some of the natural power that actual men enjoyed more in classical times. So their ability to control their emotions have been greatly reduced, but the body count remains low because they have also been neutered at actual physiological levels, oestrogen in the water, plastics having a similar testosterone reducing effect and so on. The pollutants and GMO infected foods have made modern men essentially become more like women, less physical, less efficient, lazy, less driven, lacking inspiration and unable to inspire themselves or much of anyone else. The pushing of the gay/tranny agenda has also “normalised” such biological and historical species ending style behaviour (see mouse utopia or universe 25).

– the criticisms, or negative aspects of female behaviour, are mostly dictated by biological imperatives that served humanity well in terms of species survival strategies. Those that are socially engineered (feminism in all its forms, divorce-rape of men, gold-diggers, transgenderism, hypergamy, riding the cock-carousel as “empowering”, putting “career” before family, and so on) are certainly negative things, but guess who’s at fault for women having those behaviours? By and large: almost entirely, men. Yes, yes, I can hear the teeth gnashing of the cowardly MGTOW (men going their own way) incels, the desperate, the woke millennials, crying in outrage that men can’t be responsible for women’s shitty behaviours. And too joined by the feminists, firstly for pointing out negative things as negative, since in their satanic perspective they are really “empowering positives” instead of civilisationally destructive things, and secondly for essentially stating that females have low levels of agency. Admittedly this second point will only be picked up by the more “evolved” feminists, but nevertheless, it is an apparent paradox. Except it isn’t. If you believe the Biblical injunction that men are to care for, love and lead women, and women are to care for, love and respect men, well, buddy guess what: you can’t have the “privileges” of leading without any of the responsibilities of it. So yeah. Feminism as a whole, and its civilisation-destroying nonsensical “view” of “reality” is mostly men’s fault. “Buh…buh… but what am *I* supposed to do about it?!?” This is not the place for solutions, those will be provided in a subsequent post. This is the place for pointing out the flaws (and positives, if there are any). Accept the facts.

– violence as a dispute resolution mechanism between men has been almost entirely co-opted by the state, and it generally bears little or no resemblance to justice, merely the protecting of the interests, methods and assets of the parasite class of men that has instigated pretty much all the civilisation destroying effects we see all around us today. The Klaus Schwabs, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epsteins of the world would not exist if they had been properly bullied in school and kept in the social pecking order they naturally belong to. Instead, when these miserable parasites are confused with functional human beings and protected, then financed endlessly, to rise to positions that permit them to enforce their “vision” onto the world, the results are ALWAYS AND INEVITABLY, the literal mass-murders of millions of innocents. The destruction of natural rights and justice, the perversion of sexuality, and the pollution of nature. The much needed social correction of violence towards those deserving of it at the drop of a hat, and the paradoxical non-punishment of the irrational, feral, violence without purpose beyond entertainment, results in the current epidemic of senseless crime, baby gangs, teenage stabbings, unruly youths, rape and murder sprees. If every hyperactive, oversexualised, maleducated teenager roaming the streets in packs was made physically aware that literally any male adult might just bitchslap them into properly respectful behaviour, appropriate language and fashion, and that such adult would receive either little or no consequences, or even praise, even by the very father of the teen for it, well… we would no longer have baby gangs, random feral packs of youths stabbing each other in the streets or any of that nonsense. But right now we do, and it will only get worse, because the chaos and randomness of it plays into the hands of the parasites creating these environments and keeps the average man distracted by these personal considerations instead of focussed in exactly who should be torn out of their ivory castles, and hung from the nearest lamppost in order to restore actual law, and actual order, and actual safety, for innocents.

– what violence remains is mostly uncontrolled, emotionally driven, social media “status” posing, and flat out criminality, resulting also in higher levels of a general sense of desperation, inevitability, doom, depression and high suicide rates among men.

– all of the above generally leads what men are left to be atomised (they no longer team up with other men to fix things as men used to do), individualistic and mostly focused on trying to keep their own microcosm alive and functioning, which is hard enough. Worrying about the rest of the world, or how to improve things overall requires manpower and groups. If you can get as many as five men, co-ordinated, resolute, willing and able, they can certainly run a political campaign, get elected in local government, shift things around or simply build a community and do it from scratch. The number of men willing and able to do this has always been low, but now it is almost extinct. Worse than that, the number of men willing to follow such men are much, much, much, fewer. Which means there is not much of a resistance to the Klaus Schwabs, Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epsteins of the world. I mean in the UK thousands of children were sexually abused by literal rape gangs and none of those predators met their end at the hands of even one outraged father. In fact, what fathers there were, were essentially threatened by the police forces in question to drop any complaints or face charges of “racism”. A hundred years ago, the rapists would have all been hung by their necks to lampposts and the police stations in question burnt to the ground and the earth beneath them salted. And the other police stations nearby would have joined in as the stain of such cowardly behaviour on the part of the cops would have reflected badly on all of them. See also, more recently, seven police arresting a 16 year old autistic girl for simply pointing out that one of the policewomen involved looked like her “lesbian nana”. Apparently making a factual observation is now a “homophobic hate crime”. I confess I am utterly confused by the logic of it. Aren’t we supposed to celebrate the lesbians and gays now? Is calling someone a lesbian or saying they look like one a hate crime? Is lesbianism now a criminal offence? I digress, but the point is that men organising themselves and changing things for the better is simply not happening on the scale it used to or that it should be happening on for a civilisation to thrive.

+ civilisation was always improved almost exclusively by men. Sure there was a lot of stumbling and bloodshed, but it was not a matriarchal society that created indoor plumbing, electricity, and aeroplanes, jet engines and rockets. Not to mention the phone you are reading this on.

+ not exclusively, but certainly much of the time, men improved civilisation in order to impress, help, protect, or otherwise improve the life of the women in their life.

– they are no longer doing that very much because they bought into the feminist and cultural marxist-pushed lie that women are basically men with tits.

– men are prone to “falling in love” (actually falling in lust) with a woman based on how she looks and how she performs in the bedroom. More attention needs to be given to her character and ability (however fleeting or small) to do objective logic, and be able to live in that ideal Biblical state of relationship with the man in question.

+ men don’t care (for the most part) if a woman has a career, money or wealth. She can be a homeless waitress living out of her car and they’d love her just as much.

+ men are more forgiving of personal flaws of character in women than women are in men, which is as it should be.

– they should be less tolerant of disrespectful and/or traitorous behaviour from women towards them.

– men have almost lost the ability to stay by themselves and be comfortable in their own skin and with solitude. No “social media”, no phone, just you and a week in the mountains, or driving across a few thousand miles of open country. Or just you, alone, no contacts with the world, for three days, to read a book you wanted to read. The natural inclination to do this, has been almost entirely destroyed, and is yet another blow to civilisation, because solitude fosters contemplation, and contemplation helps reason over emotions, and that in turn helps vision and planning. All necessary aspects of increasing civilisation and creating a better environment for all.

– men give too much importance to what women say instead of what they do. If you want to foster better behaviour in women, ignore their rationalisations. Praise what you want more of and ignore or silently distance yourself from what you want less of. This is not even “manipulative” behaviour, it is merely reminding you of the natural order of things if you are male. And yes, the net effect, if men do this, is that feminism dies out in a single generation, since no man will breed with a feminist of any sort.

+ those few men that have understood the generics of this and the previous post, are becoming adept at selecting women for eventual marriage and family creation in a far more selective and conscious fashion. This is an excellent development. By sorting women so as to discard those that do NOT embrace their natural femininity and also consciously make an effort to be in alignment with the female way as laid out in Ephasians, these young men are setting the stage for the creation of a numerous, successful and possibly stronger family unit than even in classical times. A man and woman together who both consciously choose and do their utmost to treat each other in the Biblical model, are a force of nature, and if they also understand that contraception is evil and designed to harm them, they will outbreed the wokeism, lies and satanism of the enemies of life and love.

+ men are generally simple creatures, their brains work in essentially straight lines. A deceitful, underhand, slippery man is seen with disgust and repulsion by healthy men.

+ the concepts of honour, courage, honesty, duty and self-sacrifice for a man are clear, simple and direct. Women’s versions of those concepts are such that to a man they are almost the opposite of them. The perspective of honour for a woman is of an entirely different nature to that of a man’s. The very reason a woman can be enthralled with, and even fall in love with a man that embodies those concepts is partly precisely because they are so unattainable to her and look like some superpower, and who doesn’t want to be with a superhero! Explaining this point, and female concepts of honour, duty, etc is not simple and perhaps a random (extreme) example may help clarify it a little. Assume a man (Jim) has a friend (John) he survived a war with and they have a strong bond of friendship, and a wife (Jane) that is aware that John is a good friend to her husband Jim. Assume also that John is also married, to Jane’s best friend (Sarah) and yet… when an opportunity presents itself, and Jim is not around, John, tries to get into Jane’s knickers. Say, using alcohol as an excuse, kisses her, tries to take it further, and yet Jane scurries away and avoids the whole thing.

From a man’a perspective, Jane should rush to Jim and tell him John tried that, kissed her out of the blue and was trying to pin her against a wall to get her skirt up and panties down. Also from a man’s perspective, if Jim puts John in hospital, and also tell Sarah what a piece of shit John is, that’s about par for the course. Jim would be proud of his wife Jane and feel perfectly at ease having put John in traction and never speaking to, or seeing him again. But that is likely NOT how Jane would handle it from a female honour perspective. Keep in mind I am making an obviously “extreme” example to highlight the difference, you binary thinking Calvinists.

Jane might decide that doing it the way above would hurt too many people and keep quiet. She (erroneously) thinks Jim’s friendship with John is too important to ruin over a drunken (was it?) kiss and a half-fumbled grope. Besides, Sarah too would be crushed. And Jane loves Sarah…

Or… option 2 Jane is quite the scorpion and decides this will not stand. She enrols Barbara, her slutty, good looking friend, to seduce John and get him to send dick picks to Barbara. Then she finds a way to have Barbara and Sarah meet for brunch (Barbara will play the long-time friend of Jane who has never met Sarah) and Sarah will “accidentally” become aware John is a lying bastard when Barbara shows off her new man’s dick pics to Sarah. With John’s face attached to said dick pics.

John gets his comuppance, Jane is justified in telling Jim she is not comfortable with John, as he betrayed and lied to her best friend Sarah, and she can now even drop a hint that she doesn’t like how John “looks” at her, to Jim. Jim will keep John away but not necessarily feel he was betrayed by his best friend and still hangs out with him from time to time.

Of course, the second option is NOT the best option for Jim, but you can see how it’s socially a lot more “safe” for Jane. This is simply one example of the difference in ideas of honour. Jane’s perspective is “I didn’t give it up and never will! Job done!” Jim’s perspective is “such a snake must be excised from my life forever, my wife not giving it up should be a simple given that doesn’t require stating!”

Similar differences apply to say self-sacrifice. A man is more likely to die in a fire to protect his family than a woman, and work himself to the bone to provide for them. A woman is more likely to make daily tiny sacrifices that go mostly unnoticed and unappreciated. She gets up to get her husband another drink. She wakes up more at night to feed the baby. She ignores her own need for mental stimulation to take care of the children, and so on. So… when the ship is sinking, she gets the lifeboat and the children. You die in the cold ocean. It’s not wrong. It’s as it should be.

– the increasing inability of men to either: control their anger, or, alternatively, not be able to express it at all (appropriately), is a net negative for humanity. Justified anger, well-directed, controlled, and used as fuel for corrective action, is actually a virtue, not a sin at all. The modern preoccupation with males to always be seen as “socially acceptable” is a disgrace of the very concept of being a man. An actual man, only cares about the following, and in this order:

• His devotion to truth, essentially this is his devotion to God, once he understands that God is the truth, love, justice, in short, the light from which all that is good derives from and that His rules are there to help us create the best life possible in His image of perfect Love.
• His own estimation of how in line with the above rules that he understands and agrees with he is.
• His devotion to his family and doing right in the ages by them.
• His position in the hierarchy of men whom he values for their own devotion to truth, God, family, etc.

Anything beyond that, is really just noise, made by irrelevant people (which is not to say they can’t ruin your life, but they are irrelevant from a spiritual perspective, if not a worldly one), erroneous criticism made by those who have no idea at all about the truth, perspective, or reality of what they are judging, or misplaced concerns.

The opinions of his loved ones obviously counts, but even those are really more useful as signals of whether he is performing well at his primary task of being devoted to truth (God). Because if he is, then the response, will, over time, hopefully become increasingly positive as his wife and children also begin to realise the truths of being a man, a husband, a woman, a wife, and so on.

What a bunch of strangers on the internet thinks of me, or even acquaintances in real life, or blood relatives that aren’t part of my day to day existence, is something entirely irrelevant to me. It is spiritually non-existent, as far as I am concerned, and since I have always tried to be very consistent with regard to how my internal state is expressed in the external world, such opinions, have the impact of sparrow farts in a tornado.

Unfortunately very few men today understand this. I forget the guy’s name, he is a quite large black American comedian, who was on UK television several times, and he was asked (years ago, before current era insanity) what was a man, and his answer was spectacularly simple and true, it made people laugh because it was so discordant with commonly experienced reality. His answer was something like this:

“A man is someone that goes and does a thing, that he wants to do, as long as he wants to do it, and then stops doing it, when he wants to stop. He may also go where he wants, or interact with people he wants to interact with, until he doesn’t and then he stops doing so. And he doesn’t care what anyone thinks about what he wants to do or stop doing. That’s it.”

And it really pretty much is just that. And yes, for the autists, that generally means also not infringing on other people’s rights and liberties. More importantly, it also means not letting anyone infringe on yours with their nonsensical, woke bullshit.

Overall, if a woman finds herself a man that is not a feminised couch potato with hormonal imbalance, keeping us happy and working hard for you and our children until we drop dead is fairly easy.

Act as per Biblical concepts, (respect us, give us plenty of sex, preferably without us having to specifically ask for it, feed us, and help us raise our children). Men will fight off armies of gold-digging whores, zombies and government goons intent on ruining your life with bureaucracy to keep a wife like that.

Oh and final point:

Are most modern men weak, whining, cheap, and inefficient assholes?

Yes. Sure.

But by and large they are still streaks ahead, numerically speaking, of most women, who are unreliable, whorish (in the bad way), gold-digging, selfish and lazy.

In broad terms, men have not just evolved a more sensitive side, they have gone so far in it they have practically become mani-pedi girlfriends to the females of the species. It’s high time the women now evolved some introspection, logic, reason and objectivity.

Those women who manage it, pairing off with those men who have not become “metrosexuals”, will usher in a new breed of human that will not be so easy to fool by the parasites trying to reduce us all to rats in universe 25. And those future space-viking-Catholic men and women will be a force to be reckoned with.

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.