The Feminization of Mankind

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:49 am

Why neglect an oldie but goodie?

Fits right into the focus of this sub-forum.

Far too long, though, so here's a link to whomever has the time and the interest.

My two and a half cents.

The Feminization of Mankind

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:53 pm

I am not here to assuage, manipulate or comfort you. My only oath is that to clarity and my only obligation is that towards reality.
I care not about your reactions to what I have to say or to your characterizations and methods you employ to dismiss them as irrelevant.
My only challenge is in reference to a shared world and how I interpret it.

“The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgments and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgments spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself.”
– Arthur, Schopenhauer

Prefix:

The very existence of sex is due to a biological function which mortality makes necessary.
It’s primary role is to replicate, in part, the individual’s participating in it and through this amalgamation of genetic materials into new combinations ensure an ongoing adaptation, by nurturing or inhibiting mutations, to constantly altering conditions.

It’s success as a replicating and adaptive mechanism eventually results in its own alteration, as sex then takes on the additional functions of establishing individual cooperative relationships and as self-conscious identification marker.
This change forces a dependence as the organisms, in question, evolve to fully take advantage of sexual interactions and the social sacrifices and benefits it provides.

The original biological imperative evolves along with the organism using it, but the primary traits it forced as necessary upon the biological types, so as to facilitate their function as sexually reproducing entities, remains and is passed on from parent to offspring.
These particular traits manifest themselves in physiological and psychological tendencies which imbue the particular individual, belonging to a sexual type, with varying intensities of predispositions. These variations result in the individual’s potency as a representation of that particular sexual type and it determines, in unison to environmental factors, its success and its failure.

This thesis will deal with how these sexual types become integrated and are translated into a social functions, and how human interventions, upon natural processes, affect these sexual types and cause them to mutate, by socially selecting certain traits and allowing them to flourish, while repressing others and causing them to atrophy.


Definitions:

Male/Female – The terms refer to a biologically determined sexual type that has evolved for specific biological functions. Each type will exhibit the characteristics essential for carrying out this biological function, to varying degrees, and so will also display the thinking and demeanour that will help in carrying out its primary reason for evolving as a identification marker.
Masculine and feminine attitudes are definitely not limited to any sex, as there are many biological males that exhibit very feminine dispositions and biological females that display masculine ones, but the original intent for the evolution of sex, as a reproductive method, predisposes each sexual type towards the attitudes indicative of their biological type.

Natural/Artificial - The designation is a precarious one as the delineation between natural and artificial effects can never be precisely defined.
For the purposes of this thesis the difference between natural and artificial phenomena and environments will be that of establishing a point where human interventions dominate by usurping or replacing previous conditions. It is the differentiation between pre-existing environments where man’s will had no, or little, affect, as opposed to environments which are predominately the product of human wilful interference.
This distinction is important so as to determine how human meddling affects the subsequent conditions that determine future evolution and to establish the collateral effects of this process.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:58 pm

Prologue

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell

The levelling of mankind continues.

Centuries of social engineering and civilization have resulted in a type of human being unlike our distant ancestors and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all culturally and socially “unwanted” human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature, restructuring it in accordance with human ideals, and often degenerating the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.
The result has been growing uniformity, producing a desirable, to the system, conformity and behavioural predictability. A consistency that is then marketed as a virtue or taught as an enlightened state or called civility.
Mediocrity is the outcome.

This annihilating tendency flattens mankind, making any distinction an undesirable manifestation of prejudice. Whereas multiplicity and diversity benefited natural selection, it proves to be disadvantageous to cultural cohesion and social harmony. It is therefore inhibited when it confronts systemic stability, while it is hypocritically marketed as the very essence of the system’s intent.
Social and cultural selection.

That state authority has now replaced religious authority should not distract us from its common practice of repressing and slandering anything destabilizing to its ostentatious calmness.
The façade is meant to make its product more attractive to those whom are meant to consume it and adorn themselves with it, as part of their social identity and as a symbol of their merit, in reference to it.

The very idea of individuality has been depreciated, the ego, that belongs to, it ripped to shreds as a shameful artifice and then replaced by an external one…a God or, as an evolution of the previous through liberal secular upheaval, humanitarianism.

In the eastern traditions the defamation of self and ego has been replaced with nothing at all…an emptiness. The individual has been peeled of all its identity and left bare and void – vulnerable to exploitation.
This annihilation has then been called “enlightenment”, just as it has been called “progress” in the west.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity or secret group directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is natural, given the circumstances, and the consequence of a normal social progression which started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of huge socioeconomic military machines, with their own logic and interests - assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in their path.
A superorganism.

We might also say that this natural process has its roots in human physical disadvantage as it confronts an unknown and threatening world, causing psychological insecurities which then makes the cooperation of individual beings a matter of time.
The need for cooperation compels this requisite self-repression, eventually resulting in state and/or religious dominance. When the sense of self is totally taken over by external wills and identity is rerouted through institutional wellsprings, the individual senses his dilution as a relief and his identity is completely taken over by organizations.
The sensation of release from the responsibilities and burdens of individuality takes on a spiritual nature and the mind feels his association with a larger whole as a broadening of his consciousness – a metaphysical orgasm.

The distinct advantages of synergy come into play. The sum being superior to its parts when the more efficient utilization of energies results in a combined advantage. In the process the parts are degraded so as to better integrate them and organize them.

But this degradation of mankind, besides being a typical consequence of interdependence, has been exacerbated by the infiltration of slavish moral systems into the human psyche. A human psyche that has already been demoralized and undermined by extreme scepticism and mental fatigue – particularly amongst the intellectual elites.

Interbreeding between a growing intellectual subclass and a continuously watered down intellectual upper-class, that finds itself incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic prerequisites, becomes an unnatural compromise when sexual activities are directed and the cultural dogma teaches obedience to the idea of man being holy and human life being sacred.

Life lost value when it was sanctified, just as love lost all significance when it was deified.

*****

Unchecked copulation, brought on by the requirements of a growing State, brings about increased genetic mutations requiring the mitigating effects of enforced moderation.
Population pressures, resource deficiencies and the increased replication of unfit genetic mutations make doctrines and socioeconomic ideals that advocate docility, equality, tolerance, unquestioning surrender to authority and the self-deprecating denial of self, a systemic tool of governance.
The collateral effects of this increased procreation, combined with the modern trend of postponing reproduction, because of changing female social roles, thusly increasing the possibility for infertility and for birth defects, must then be dealt with using further human interventions.

It is clear that where conservatism and many popular religious dogmas posit no restriction to having offspring, but only a check on sexual choice and expression, liberalism merely abolishes this last restriction and makes of reproduction a universal human “right”. Even when nature places an obstacle, by making the unfit incapable of replicating themselves on their own, liberal humanism steps in to “correct” this natural rejection, basing it on the chimera of justice.

“Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory. Reform has no gratitude, no prudence, no husbandry.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

In both cases, all must be helped to have children because only then is the individual fully invested in the community, and so only then can (s)he be counted upon to “do the right thing” and be a “good citizen”.
Investments create concern and ensure loyalties.
The true free radical is not only disruptive but dangerous to the illusion of idealized conformity, every systems depends on.
Best way to deal with them is to slander them or integrate their radicalism into the system itself and then sell it as a commodity.

Growing populations existing within increasingly smaller spaces, in turn, necessitate organizing them and severely repressing them, through coercion or instruction, to endure each other. Like all other resources this human one must be made malleable and disciplined to wilful management.
Husbandry turns into social engineering and herein lies the basic distinction between conservative and liberal.
The human herd must not only be educated to follow instruction but must also be moulded into being productive and impressionable enough to be dependable in both its output and consumption of goods.

No surprise then that moral systems and religious dogmas, which accomplish and promote just that, suddenly appear, as if by chance or divine intervention, and then spread amongst the masses like wildfire.
Messiahs were abundant during those times when men lived in, presumably, “uncivilized savagery”, but that the same messages, that had failed so many times before, then became popular, was more a result of finding the right socioeconomic conditions, just as a seed finds the desirable soils to take root in and grow.
The message was precious because it was useful within those particular circumstances.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and then Christianity did not inspire the world with their “profound truths”, but with their necessary interpretations of reality.
Social organizations, having reached a certain level, required a dogma that would override, or sublimate, human impulses and so ensure a continuing growth.
Where ego became detrimental to peaceful cohabitation and human instinctual drives, such as greed, lust, dominance, became disruptive. The dogmas that preached self-denial and the denouncement of reality and of self as illusions or as innately sinful, became inevitable. They were an essential ingredient that would make it possible for millions upon millions of egotistical, self-conscious, wilful human beings to coexist and to cooperate as passive followers.

There was nothing more profound in them than that. It was the circumstances that made their scriptures “wise”, and their metaphysical positions, simply, found shrewd ways to justify themselves to a populace that so desperately sought relief.

The later emergence of secular humanitarianism, that birthed the liberal ideals, was the continuation of this essential ingredient, adapting itself to growing human scientific knowledge and the added need to integrate individuals from diverse, and often confrontational, cultural and religious backgrounds.
Globalization, due to technological innovations, and population sizes unimagined in earlier times, brought about the need to find new, more sophisticated methods of mass control.

The least common denominator had to be promoted as the core ingredient that bound all human beings to one another like brothers and sisters. All other identification markers had to be belittled, and all other sources of personality had to be forsaken.

“Conservative: a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” - Ambrose Bierce

Only in this were the conservative and liberal viewpoints antagonistic: the traditionalists, with their desire to preserve the doctrine they had adopted and, subsequently, invested in with time and money – now paying dividends - and the progressives with their idealistic doctrine to change the social dynamics so as to, then, invest in what they hoped had more promise of a return… for them.

What it all boils down to is a battle between preserving past homogeneous societies and the need to adapt social canons to the newly emerging heterogeneous ones – the old world resisting the new world order of post-modern global monotony.

Kacszynski, Theodore, one of the “insane ones”, describes the liberal psychology this way, in his Unabomber Manifesto:
“…9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values. “


Then he alludes to the conservative type:

“34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization. “


He then goes on to make this statement, which pertains to the subject of this essay:

“4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values. The main reasons why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society are that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talent of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the moral of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.)”

Was this man “ill” because of what he said or because of what he did despite the inevitable costs?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
*****
Natural selection implies the elimination of any substandard organisms so that the few can then pass on their more fit traits to the coming generations. Superior genetic attributes, for a given environment, are selected and then passed on.
Once the process of evolution is diverted, or when nature is “corrected” by human intervention guided by some idealistic principle or other, and when man intrudes upon natural processes producing many more unforeseen side-effects, then the very weakness that was supposed to be eliminated is allowed to thrive.
It thrives on misdirected principle alone.
Quantity over quality.

The consequence of this interference is what this thesis is all about. It is the line where the difference between natural and artificial environments and phenomena, is drawn.

Human meddling increases exponentially as the collateral effects of previous activities must then be dealt with in turn. An endless cycle whose consequences snowball into an avalanche that buries mankind in its own artifices and distances the species from its own nature, and from reality, in general.

Many such collateral effects are the result of protecting inadequacy, based on some flawed human ideal, and man’s blatant intrusion into the normal processes of culling, based on purely emotional reactions to a reality that isn’t always pleasant.
That it is then justified using some sanctimonious pretence or by invoking the pragmatism of reciprocity, does not deny the fact that it also, conveniently, satisfies social and cultural interests.
Neither does it negate the fact that it intercedes in practices that have existed since the dawn of time.

As a consequence weakness is propagated and many enfeebling mutations, which would have been weeded out of the gene pool under normal circumstances, are passed on – infecting future generations with their symptoms.
The herd is made weak and human ingenuity is burdened with having to find solutions to problems it brought about.
The Butterfly Effect causes this ballooning of issues that forces the dedication of more and more technologies towards their solution.

Mankind’s sense of disconnection and disillusionment can be traced back to this incongruity between evolutionary speeds of adaptation and human social speeds of change, brought on by human meddling.
Much of what is called “progress” today is nothing more than a perpetual self-correcting mechanism.

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” - Albert Einstein

It escalates into a game of catch-up until it all leads to a peak of decadence…before the slide down the long slope begins.
The process repeats as part of the normal course of civilizations.
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:01 pm

A rudimentary feature of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude. Its non-confrontational incorporation within more powerful entities, its expendability, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to compromise and conform and so, adapt, is what makes it so desirable to the social system…to the otherness.

Weakness is then absorbed by what is more powerful than it, either by consumption or by assimilation.

In the first case the organism is destroyed, its parts fragmented and absorbed.
In the second case the organism is dominated, repressed, assimilated and reshaped.

The excess is defecated or left to atrophy.

What cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds-up as a part of something bigger and stronger.
It is this principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and we measure with time, and it is this which characterizes our state of becoming and so our human condition.

Man, as an isolated organism, is certainly weak, when compared with other animals, making the cooperation with others, of his own kind, a matter of grave importance.

Despite man’s inadequacies he possesses the gift of intelligence which, ironically, is nurtured into fruition through this cooperative assimilation.
A gift that enables him to collect sensual stimulations, interpret them, form these interpretations into mental models and then use them to perceive patterns, projecting them, using the imagination, as possibilities.
This basic mental ability can lead to an alteration of environmental conditions by the activities of a single organism, unprecedented in history.

The powerful effect of intelligence upon the environment is what, then, creates the premises of its own obsolescence.

Human interventions upon natural processes pushes nature back to the peripheries of human awareness and man constructs artificial environments, sanitized and sterilized against any natural phenomena that blemish the preferred human ideals or that confront self-interests.
Our supermarkets are full of produce that exhibits an unblemished idealistic perfection that does not correspond to anything in the natural world.
Our meats come parceled and packaged with no blood in sight.
It gives off the wrong impression that we exist in some pristine, sterile world and we but innocent, childlike organisms whose existence does not rely on the exploitation and death of other organisms.
In such an environment it is easy to remain an adolescent mind, forever surprised by the sudden cruelty that slips through the spotless façade of civilization, forever disappointed by its inability to have reality meet its expectations eye-to-eye.

In time nature is forgotten or only accessible through protective mediums, and man’s reality becomes a self-referential simulation with little left of the real.

“Welcome to the desert of the Real.”
- Zizek

In addition to this, human psychological insecurity and physical frailty has imposed the need to armour man’s fragility with technologies. Development – particularly certain kinds of it - places an additional wall between man and the world; distancing mankind further away from his inheritance and from nature entirely.

This artificial wall is the source of man’s current sense of uneasiness – his disillusionment.
It is currently expressed through the arts and through ludite politics as the demonization of technology and the machines we’ve created but that now we’ve come to serve – a metaphor for the system itself that has taken on a life of its own (superorganism).

Through this expression of intuited anxiety the pressure of resistance is defused, in the same way as repressed sexuality is offered a release through porn and repressed aggression is released through action films, computer games, and sports allowing controlled violence.

Man is enslaved by the very inventions that were supposed to liberate him and the awareness, that made him dominate, is now damaging to the structures he’s constructed and is now accustomed to - dependence.
The dominator submits to the consequences of his dominion and to the tools that make it possible.
Expressions of resistance are dealt with through redirection and imaginative mollification.

This self-referential construct slowly eliminates all contact with the actual and forms a protective perimeter around human consciousness. Art, itself, becomes self-referential – a sampling of previous creations to support current ones.
Recycled thinking for recycled minds.
Art, no longer imitating reality, but art imitating art imitating art imitating reality.
A slow distancing where all sense of realism is lost in a haze of warping mirrors.

The apparatus of modern social existence, in fact, function as our surrogate targets of hate, anxiety and fear in place of the real culprit of human enslavement: fear and stupidity.
We are engulfed in this protective cocoon; in this invisible matrix of mendaciousness and superficiality.
We are now mere gears in the machines we’ve invented.
We are owned by what we, supposedly, own.
We accept this because it alleviates our existential angst and offers us an escape out of determinism – the unavoidable effects of the past upon our presence.

Just like adolescent minds, we both despise our parents and we cling onto them – resenting the fact that without them we feel lost.
When we finally free ourselves from our biological parents we then attach ourselves to new protective, authoritarian, entities, and in our juvenile fantasies we call ourselves adults.
God being the biggest parent of all.

By undermining our individuality, our essence and our uniqueness, we are made more vulnerable to alternative sources of distinctiveness and we submit to the judgments of others to find our self-worth and our purpose where no alternative is available.

All the while, in true Orwellian newspeak, the system claims to do the exact opposite. As this engine of civilization grows, its parts lose value by becoming expendable and disposable components{numbers and statistics} and man becomes an insignificant cog in a huge apparatus {alienation}.

“Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.” - Jean Baudrillard

A distinctly anti-individualistic course that, ironically, sells itself as the epitome of individuality; increasing dependence calling itself “freedom”.

Social engineering has reached an apex.
The individual’s consciousness becomes so reliant on otherness that it cannot even conceive itself outside it, and if it can, it is seized by a deep anxiety at the prospect.

“…“hell is other people” has always been misunderstood. It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell. Why? Because…when we think about ourselves, when we try to know ourselves, … we use the knowledge of us which other people already have. We judge ourselves with the means other people have and have given us for judging ourselves. Into whatever I say about myself someone else’s judgment always enters. Into whatever I feel within myself someone else’s judgment enters. … But that does not at all mean that one cannot have relations with other people. It simply brings out the capital importance of all other people for each one of us." - Jean-Paul Sartre

Like with all systems, a social system has its own methods by which it meets its needs and creates the suitable participants that will ensure its continuance and its health.
A system creates its own logic by ordering its own parts.
In doing so each organization replaces or mutates past structures and refocuses and redefines their premises, integrating them into its own or dismissing them as undesirable.
This, too, mirrors the natural process of consumption and assimilation - creation/destruction - dominance/submission.

In human cultures and civilizations the struggles between the present and the past environmental demands, manifest themselves in great psychological strain producing, sometimes, contradictory behaviours.

"t is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct, how much it presupposes precisely the non-satisfaction of powerful instincts. This 'cultural frustration' dominates the large field of social relationships between human beings."- Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Civilization and Its Discontents

Human environments change at a fast pace. Faster than any organism can adapt to them through natural processes.
The discrepancy between social change and evolutionary adaptation is another source of stress and confusion.

*****

These, aforementioned, behaviours are trained into the human animal’s consciousness and are reinforced by using intimidation tactics and the main antidote to fear, hope, nurtured through religious and political dogmas and supported by the rule of law.

The “civilized” man is born out of this…”rehabilitation”.

Socially and culturally sustained inclinations, and the human ideals and ideologies they are founded upon, eventually become problematic when they directly confront pre-existing instinctive behaviours. This conflict between genetic dispositions and mimetic ideals may reach such a level of frustration and repression that neurosis may ensue, releasing itself through fantasies and dreams and sexual fetishism.
Sexual fixation and sexual practices, in particular, become indications of instinctive drives that seek a way to discharge their contained energies.
At the very least they result in the complete failure of the institutions that depend on consistent and predictable human deference and discipline.
The human animal has not been completely domesticated, yet.

By trying to replace or restrict the influence of past natural environmental affects upon man - through the promotion of human qualities that are desirable and restricting those that are damaging to the social or cultural group’s premises - each system reshapes its parts into particular types; expert types, surrogate authorities, ideal for the given group’s fitness.
Cellular man is born.

This is what can be called specialization. It is the end product of indoctrination, institutionalization and compartmentalization.
The individual is taught to contain and deny certain impulses while enhancing selective knowledge and awareness.
The mind is completely dedicated to carrying out a specific task and it is interested in little else.
It only cares about whatever promotes it in the eyes of others and what offers it the opportunity to advance in importance and usefulness to the group.

The individual’s existence becomes totally dedicated to carrying our its particular duties and the mind totally taken over with carrying out its functions.

This devoted occupation is then rewarded according to market demand, and the individual finds its sense of identity through it.
The job becomes a replacement for the self.
The association between the individual’s productivity or service to the whole and his sense of self is completed.
The personality of the individual is now linked to its utility, and access to resources is its ultimate compensation.

This is where control over resources turns vital.
By controlling resources the system makes of itself a monopoly the individual must bow down to before it can be rewarded for his/her submissiveness.

Resources and access to them is strictly controlled.
Ownership is turned into a method of rule by proxy.
The ten commandments are, basically, a reinforcement of the rules concerning ownership and of the rules concerning respect towards the authority that defends these rules.

“ 1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8 ) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's. “


No resource is allowed to be freely accessible.
Nature is blocked off and parceled.

Using this technique, of allotting privileges and accessibility to resources, integrates the individual further within the dominance of the system itself. The organism is now unable to eat or drink without the permission of the state, which offers rights of ownership only to those that submit to its dominion and its monopolizing premises.
The resources can be available and the individual may need them, but (s)he is prohibited, by a moral and state law or by a principle, to partake of them, unless the proper conduct and procedures are followed.
All procedures being rituals of compliance and loyalty.

The innate desire to survive makes every mind easily swayed by anything that promises its own continuance, either in the short term or, as in religious promises for eternal life, in the long term.
Thusly, the training of the mind, which is already of questionable value, due to rampant reproduction, becomes an easy affair.

*****

Using different standards within different contexts satisfies a psychology that is driven by fear and wishes to believe in what offers it the greatest relief from anxiety.

Compartmentalization is the self-serving mechanism by which a mind refuses to incorporate abstractions into one single logical whole; conveniently choosing to use one set of rules in some instances while retaining the possibility of using an entirely different set of rules in another - in accordance with its changing self-interests.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” - George Orwell

This psychological phenomenon is obvious in the Christian ability to exhibit reasoning and scepticism in all areas but the one where it would prove disastrous to mental health.
The faith in a God, no matter how absurd, that promises eternity and offers the feeling of empowerment through association, remains intact.
The arrogance underlying the belief that one deserves eternal life or is worthy of special consideration, is only partially masked by the deception of humility. Even a seemingly selfless act hides a selfish motive.

We can witness this affect on human behaviour by studying the specific systemic types created by different cultures throughout history. How each directs sexuality, human nature and psychology defines the particular characteristics of each culture’s ideal man.

The usage of direct threats and force, a staple in the days of old, has given way, in modern times, to more subtle methods of population control. The maintenance of a subtle, yet constant, state of unease and the method of indoctrinating the mind, from an early age, are part of this scheme.
A nervous mind is an unthinking mind.

The Christian tradition goes as far as to baptize a child shortly after birth – well before it has any choice in the matter – imbuing it with the ideas of shame and sin that will burden it for the rest of its life, and modern day education consists in infecting young minds with common prejudices and cultural mythologies that are meant to keep it in step with communal interests.
Thinking is discouraged, unless it is dedicated towards a better assimilation or towards something innocuous.

How can science then claim to be completely objective and void of any social and cultural considerations, when even how one posts a question or that one posits a particular question, influences the answers one receives?
How can science claim to be completely objective when science has become so dependent on funding and research is controlled by external motives, and when the personal repercussions to anyone that dares ignore convention often result in self-censorship?

Where the theoretical separation of Church from State, those old allies in power, is considered a modern day value, the separation of Science from State is not yet considered necessary.

Utilizing insights into primal human desires and how they are affected by cultural conditions, modern methods of mass control have made the usage of overt force a thing of the past, and a last resort.
Making the slave believe he is the master, or that he can be the master, is just the current way authority imposes itself on the feebleminded.
Social mobility is but a compromise to human nature and it often demands a higher cost than what it promises as a return.
Many, in due course, find the goals they were told were the highest to be less fulfilling than they had imagined, and their aspirations but fabrications meant to drive them into action, as a mule is driven by a whip, a carrot and a whistle.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:08 pm

All cultures may use familiar methods for parallel reasons but each has a noticeably different motivation leading to diverging human ideals, guided by each culture’s value systems, as they were inherited, in time, from biological ancestry, historical experiences and philosophical/ideological pasts.

This is what I refer to as essence.
The essence of each man, for example, is the sum of each and every previous environmental effect and of how his accentors, as well as he himself, reacted to them.
All this culminating in an appearance.
Each organism represents this apex of temporality. Biology, behaviour, needs, character, aesthetics are the end result of an unavoidable precedent.

*****

Social circumstance are caused, paradoxically, by the very natural tendencies that eventually become dangerous and unwanted.
They represent the relentless drive towards self-completion, coming forth as competitive ruthlessness.
The paradox is caused by the fact that the attributes that resulted in dominance then make themselves obsolete by altering the environment they dominate and by eradicating all challenges that made it relevant.
It is also caused by the fact that the endless cycles of ascent and decent from power creates far too great instability, and so the tendency towards arresting this sequence or towards prolonging the length of its phases, is part of this natural inclination towards finding the most stable form within given environmental conditions.

The desire to maintain power, for instance, pushes minds to innovate methods of control and dominance. As a result the mind, unintentionally, invents its own obsolescence.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Unleashed upon the world, by the unburdening of mental energies from matters of immediate survival, through affluence, and from craven religious myths and superstitions, through knowledge, the human spirit created its dominion.
It is, exactly, this ascendancy which eventually resulted in exponentially increased populations, and the accompanying need for resources, that then made it necessary to suppress these very same instinctive drives in order to maintain stability and social harmony.
When no more accessible frontiers exist - this dominion turned to ennui – the mind turns upon itself and finds nothing there but the desire to be.
As challenges abate the mind loses purpose and seeks it elsewhere.

“The war between being and nothingness is the underlying illness of the twentieth century. Boredom slays more of existence than war.” - Norman Mailer

The onion is peeled and no core is found – the Buddhist resolves to call this emptiness his truth – because the essence of all existence is activity, not static substance.

The trend towards larger, heterogeneous and more malleable populations has made equalitarian, servile moralities vital. Christianity, Islam, Judaism like Buddhism, and such political movements as democracy and communism, were the direct product of environmental circumstances that made selflessness and the slander of ego a matter of group health.
As populations grew, resources became more precious and personal space a luxury few could afford, human behaviour had to be adapted, through human intervention, by injecting it with specific ideas concerning ethics and propriety.
The normal instinctive tendencies of exclusion and discrimination had to be redefined as an anathema and as remnants of a primitive past that had to be overcome – the idea of progress was born.

It’s modern day manifestation is what is referred to as Globalization. A secular movement towards uniformity, void not only of natural identifications but also of all previous cultural ones – the culture of no culture.
The slow discrediting of all previous authorities was not meant to free the mind, as it is claimed, but to prepare it for impregnation with more current sources of authority and “truth”.
A deconstruction as a preparatory step to reconstruction.

When all the “onion peels” of identity are stripped away and discarded as “primitive” or as having been “overcome”, new one are manufactured to take their place. Man as an abstraction is born; man as producer and consumer, in the west, or man as void of all identity, finding identity in the negated, in the east.
This deconstruction of self is tantamount to stripping a man bare, telling him that even his skin is a garment, letting him feel the cold harshness of this, and then offering him new clothes as a gift.

The man is now reborn into whatever you offer him to replace what you’ve torn away from him using pretext, misrepresentation and psychological manipulation.
Truth be told, few are able to resist this assault, because few have a strong enough sense of themselves, a strong enough character, to do so.
Those that are, are either broken, using multiple methods, incarcerated, or forced into insincere capitulation and/or isolation.

“The savior who wants to turn men into angels is as much a hater of human nature as the totalitarian despot who wants to turn them into puppets.” - Hoffer, Eric

The basic modus operandi armies, throughout history, have used are employed. The recruit is stressed and fatigued until his resistance wanes. He is now prepared to be injected with this new structure’s authority and a common identity is proposed to replace the one that has been overthrown or forced into hiding.

At this point the recruit is able to give his life for his unit, and following orders is his main interest – an automaton is born.
Amongst these ranks no masculine resistance to external limitations or holy authorities is tolerated, but only the semblance of hyper-masculine ceremonial displays of machismo that are supposed to hide emasculation.

The only true masculine power here is the institution, on whose behalf the feminized soldiers act as representations of its force.
Only it can use violence and kill and rape and pillage. The soldiers only represent its will – its arms and legs.
They only act on orders, and if they act on their own, they are reprimanded and punished for having a will of their own.

Social structures depend on such feminine dispositions. Ants, termites, bees as well as many mammalian social groups, depend on the controlled elimination of masculinity, and/or partial emasculation, of its members.

Evidently, the more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. Many leaders throughout history understood this basic political truism.

“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler.

It is, therefore, understandable why unsettling ideas have to be quarantined and/or eradicated, why free thought must be restricted, why information has to be strictly monitored and why defiance and discrimination must be quelled or punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.
Being politically-correct and only challenging the status quo within permissible boundaries becomes ingrained within each mind, as a de facto approach. An approach where the illusion of rebelliousness is ensured as a “healthy” expression of “free-thinking”, even though no core ideas are ever questioned.
The entire act is superficial. Just as superficial as the adolescent “rebel” displaying his uncompromising differentiation with the counter-cultural garments and musical symbolisms he has purchase from the system itself.

All information is monitored by promoting certain sources as more reliable and by reinforcing a dependence on regurgitated beliefs and surrogate thinking.

Difference is turned into a symbol with no actual relevance and dissenting ideas are defused through harmless methods of figurative rejection.

“All leaders strive to turn their followers into children.” - Hoffer, Eric

Philosophy, itself, has been institutionalized, in our modern times. The very discipline of thinking and engaging the world directly, is now defined as “stringent” or more respectable only when it acts as a constant analysis of another mind’s ideas. The reliability and respectability of this external authority, decided by career academics, and then taught to children accordingly, by mouthpieces.

Modern institutions of education are really factories that manufacture minds of blind deference - their own consciousness of the world taking a secondary place to the consciousness of another or others.
Reality engaged through proxy and philosophy institutionalized and practiced via surrogate sources.

Bertrand Russell says this:
“In these days under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of an infant that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children. The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been “co-operative” children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that the boy should be odd.”

In our modern western world this dummying-down of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence and access to information, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of children.
None of it matters unless it directly and immediately affects their well-being, which is held within a comfortable state of inebriated hedonism and unsettling controlled angst.
The most important goal is to be just like everyone else, to never speak contrary to public opinion and to never confront common beliefs. No honesty is allowed, unless it pretends or mirrors commonly held standards.
Social graciousness prohibits anything beyond formalities and pretentious boastfulness, meant to compensate for hidden inadequacies and unacknowledged compromises.

To be mediocre, in the end, entails a great degree of exaggeration.
Hyper-affectations for a hyper-reality world.

Core beliefs, ingrained within the average human being from birth, remain self-evident and unquestionable absolutes. Intellectual exploration consists in mental masturbation where ideas are sterilized, packaged and sold just like vegetables and meats.

Philosophy turns into a game of imagination with no consequence and so void of passion and purpose.

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” - Oscar Wilde.

The emergence of the aloof sophist, that presents his anaesthetized disassociation as evidence of his cool reasoning, comes to usher in the degradation of thinking.
The thought is made infertile and no mind is impregnated with its pragmatism.
The idea becomes just that: an idea not applicable in a world that has already decided its philosophical stance - it has inherited it - and defiance is only for show. A momentary display of adolescent bravado before the cold hard practical needs burry the man under mature concessions.
Realpolitik for the already empty of all principles, including dignity, except that of instant gratification.

Social selection has taken over from where natural selection ends.

In the west socialization/institutionalization/domestication has taken a more insidious approach, to maintain the illusion of free-will and individuality.

Edward Bernays put it this way:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

Unlike the more direct and obvious controlling practices in other cultures, it is more difficult to always perceive where and how we have been manipulated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. For many the current state of affairs, in the western world, is taken to be the epitome of human achievement, the height of human development and the worthy successor of a cultural revolution that began on the rocky Aegean shores of ancient Greece and has reached for the distant Martian plateaus.
They neglect to consider the true spirit of this ancient stance towards life and only judge it from its crumbling monuments and our modern perspectives on it.

“The governing idea of Hellenism is spontaneity of consciousness; that of Hebraism, strictness of conscience.” - Matthew Arnold

This Hellenic legacy is a western one – a distinctly masculine approach – which is now all but gone, except for this dying, diseased, caricature, infected by grovelling Judeo-Christian nihilistic sentimentalities, and eastern ego and world-denouncing, sacrifices, promising relief from suffering.

Evidence of how western ideals have been subverted can be found in how we, at present, perceive the world around us and from where we accept our own self-worth and meaning.
Jewish servility has brought eastern nihilism, as a cancerous tumour, to the western heart and we, like them, consider this world a farce; hiding a self-deprecating core or a promised paradise, we expect our salvation, after offering our very soul to the unknown, and we plead beneath absurdity, asking only to retain our hopes.

Suffering, the very consciousness of existence, has been made into a disease nihilism can cure; better worlds are imagined as hiding behind the façade of appearances; death being made into life’s glorification.
What can be more damaging than to despise existence so much as to seek to never be born again, or to preach that death is a doorway into a “better” existence because this one disappoints us?

“The craving to change the world is perhaps a reflection of the craving to change ourselves.”
- Hoffer, Eric

When this occurs the individual is made vulnerable to anything that promises denial. Determinism is dismissed and the products of sheltering human environments are protected from the awareness that they are allowed to exist because they are useful and not because they have earned their existence or possess some intrinsic value.

In the absence of self-esteem the mind finds it through substitutes; symbolic trinkets of social viability.

Many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from childhood, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated with particular ideals. The acquisition of certain products and the image constructed to go along with them, or the mere consumption of products and services, is of the utmost importance. Their relevance is found in the means by which we express our own self-worth and quality to the world.

They become symbols of our usefulness and so our loyalty to the system.

Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex, for example, is how we exhibit our social status, as accomplished consumers, and it is how we try to attract others, especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural symbolism but by a socioeconomic and cultural one.

“Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.” - George Orwell

Guided by an ideal, we have accepted as our highest, we buy into the scheme and we accept whatever identity it offers us as recompense for our surrender to it. It is our offering of faith.
The quality of the products we own and consume must, supposedly, signify our personal quality, whether it is actually present or not. Objects become our standards and we bury our appearances behind facades, masks and purchased regalia.
How can we not when our very existence is owed to the system that defends us from our own stupidity and decrepitude, and then offers us “rights” to replace our lost independence?
Would we even be alive without its dominion over man’s actions?

But why these particular products of human ingenuity, no different than many others, are associated with a specific image, is for most of us unrecognizable and just a matter of “common sense”.
We lose our ability to follow back the strands of our references.
The system denies us access to anything outside its simulations and we find ourselves sampling older cultural creations in an endless game of smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile nature sits on the periphery unaffected by our contrivances, exacting its price, no matter how much we try to avoid it.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” - Edward Bernays

We have been manipulated – and not without our own participation - into believing that mercantile quality is equal or a fair substitute for substantive quality and that external objects can fill in for an inner void or, at least, hide it behind the glitter.

The current popularity of mysticism and the rediscovery of past spiritualism, particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and nature is the greatest and where the fruits of man’s labours are mostly of an impersonal nature, the symptoms of spiritual decay are more evident. One indication of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition through abstraction of value and self-worth is this intuited feeling that something is missing; that something is wrong.

This, in-turn, drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to boredom, meaninglessness and increasing misery, and keeps the masses working and dreaming and hoping.
Despite the odds being stacked against them, by the overall mechanisms of the system itself which seeks to preserve the power structure status quo, the masses have been sold expectations by raising desperation.
Increase fear and you make hope a desirable product to be consumed and worshiped.

The system steps in as the harbinger of hope and mankind clings onto it for its life.

Most of us do not question the ideals of our chosen value system but only discipline ourselves to its premises and, in true female fashion, we become simple mirrors of the world around us, analyzing only as a way of integrating ourselves within it mellifluously; rarely questioning it, rarely denying it, never challenging it.

Material wealth, that was meant to symbolize the quality of an individual by his access to resources, has now come to symbolize, not only the physical or mental excellence that leads to abundance but the total obedience and compliance of said individual to a dominating authority – an institutionalized masculine power.
An individual is rewarded, with material riches, for his/her submission – for his absence of individuality; this becoming the new definition for independence and identity.

An “independence” to choose the cost of rejection or to choose between the different methods of surrender that will offer you the most payback – selling yourself to the highest bidder, like any prostitute would.
The “individual” is offered a value when he has eliminated or suppressed all vestiges of resistance.
This is his proof of loyalty and total dependence – his sacrifice.

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” - George Orwell

In a system where materialism prevails, consumerism reigns and where the preservation of already acquired status is desired, wealth and privilege is most often inherited than earned.
The State abhors change and only allows it as a means of ensuring further stability. It is human kind’s consciousness that makes this systemic compromise necessary, when it is not when dealing with less conscious organisms, such as insects.

In the rare occasions when wealth and privileged is earned {self-made} it is frequently at the price of an entire lifetime’s toil, making the enjoyment of the consequent privileges, once again, a matter of heritage for later generations; generations that can never fully appreciate what they themselves have not earned and therefore do not deserve – the irony of unwarranted expectation.
Capitalism fails in this regard.

Sometimes affluence comes at the price of great risk to the individual, who must surrender all future possibilities to this one mandatory path. Either play by the rules and roll the dice or suffer the consequences.

“A gambler is nothing but a man who makes his living out of hope.” - William Bolitho

Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation. Youths that are raised in such sheltered conditions that it eliminates the need for vigilance and the value of caution, and breeds, instead, an exaggerated sense of entitlement and foolhardy confidence.

When fear is absent respect loses hold and self-discipline has no purpose.
The control of fear turns out to be an effective instrument, particularly amongst those that have little experience with it.

The modern youth is contaminated by a sense of untested arrogance and unwarranted indestructibility. It is what inevitably results in their disillusionment and sudden confrontation with a world that cares not for their delusions and sheltered presumptions.

Deconstruction and/or destruction often precede construction and so the individual must first be cleansed of his heritage and sense of self, before he is fertile ground for a new “awareness” and a more “enlightened”, broader, sense of self.

“Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility.” - George Orwell

Nihilism is more than a product of this process of re-education, but it is also a result of unjustifiable safety, leisure and the ensuing ennui this leads to.
Life loses value when all have a “right” to it, just as love loses value when all “deserve” it, as a birthright.
Existence is devalued when it is sanctified.

“The modern mind is in complete disarray. Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism.”
- Albert Camus

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:10 pm

Self-examination is not flattering to all, and very few can fully appreciate or accept what this examination uncovers…or is unable to uncover.
The phenomenon of nihilism is not a rarity, as many would like to think, but it underlies most of today’s major spiritual and political dogmas.
The preaching of self-hatred is often masked behind love, just as the eradication of individuality is often purported by those pretending to be defenders of it.
The duplicity of civilization is the underlying current of conformity; the promise far exceeding the real.

This obsession with materialism, particularly in the west, has come at the expense of all other human endeavours and, serving the demands of a particular system, has resulted in a loss of human identity, spirituality and natural interconnectedness. We no longer relate to each other as honest, thinking, feeling human beings, connected with all of creation intimately. We relate to each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own and covet and duplicitous misers that take the things that they buy to be what defines them as individual human beings and their choices in the market place as proof of their liberties.
We relate to each other as numbers, graphs, statistics. We love our neighbour or we respects him, not because we know him or care to, but because we are told this is the “right” thing to do and that this will guarantee his reciprocity.
Nature and our direct engagement of it falls further back.

“Land: A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure.” - Ambrose Bierce

The very concept of possession, that results in affluence and privilege and through which all modern civilization is made possible, is based upon a myth - the myth of ownership.
Monogamy is part of this mythology of “exclusive rights”. All “rights” being ensured by the system itself and having no relevance outside it.
This guarantee of exclusive rights over a property or a another human being is provided by the system that uses it to bind individuals to its power.

In nature there is no such thing as possession. Not even life is truly owned by an individual but is only “leased”, metaphorically speaking, and temporarily enjoyed.
Life is an aggressive act of will that reacts and maintains itself tenuously and consistently over a brief period before it fragments into parts and is reabsorbed back into the endless flow.

In the end all must be returned to the primordial soup from which new creations will spring forth and new unions will take place. Reality is a work in progress with no final destination, making the very idea of tenure a ridiculous farce only the very simple and needy would buy into.
The reward to the faithful.

Like all manmade concepts it, ownership, suffers from the desire to usurp natural rules, for practical and psychological reasons, and so requires a redefinition of reality.
Mankind is forced to reinterpret its place in the universe in order to overcome its limitations.

*****

Modern man has lost his pride in himself and in his true nature. Now, he substitutes the cavernous emptiness in his soul with ideals of dubious certainty.

Even the personal names man associates himself with become a generic stamp shared by many; a label of belonging with no other, more intimate, significance.

Modern man is more likely to find self-worth and self-importance in external (material) sources than internal (spiritual) ones as he desperately seeks for a connection with his real nature and searches for evidence of his real identity. This, in my view, is due to the steady decline of man as an individual personality. A decline that makes it obligatory to substitute personal quality with an adopted external façade of quality that can be shared by multiple individuals who inevitably begin thinking and behaving in imitation of each other.
We call this pop-culture in the west. We also, ironically, call it “individuality”.
The only choice being what permitted persona will be adopted or forced upon you.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.” - Karl Marx

The methods by which man is shaped and sculpted within social environments contain natural instinctive drives and manmade imaginative institutional inventions that either take advantage of aforesaid drives or totally subvert and suppress them.
One of these human inclinations is the sexual instinct.

The evolution of sex has one and only one purpose: the replication of genes, based on their fitness, and their recombination into a new form so as to enable a more efficient genetic adaptation to changing environmental conditions.
It is, from a metaphysical standpoint, a reaction to entropy and fragmentation.

That sexual activity takes on additional roles, within social organisms, is a subsequent evolution of its function.

The fundamental human compulsion is to mate. This biological standard of personal success is still in man, despite his self-asserted progress beyond primitiveness, the major source of acquiring his self-esteem and his purpose.
It is also the means by which nature has shaped our behaviours in the past and still maintains a dominant grip on our psyche in the present, no matter how much social manipulations strive to subvert it, suppress it and dismiss it.

That a man exists and a woman exists, constitutes evidence that they carry the necessity of their biological past, as a sexual designation. This biological imperative may have manifested itself to varying degrees within each individual or may have been warped along its progression, but this does not negate the sexual identity it is in reference to.

Sexuality is a method of reproduction and the types it makes necessary are indispensable elements of its original function. Any further adaptations of this function evolve because they are nurtured by the conditions and become collateral effects of a primary drive.

Because of this, sexuality is the major motivating factor behind all human actions and creations. We may say that mankind is obsessed with sex because mankind is constantly preoccupied with mortality, making life merely a constant struggle against death - a resistance to it.

Sexuality is the central focus of all individual thought, whether we know it or not, and it plays an important part in how man is guided and moulded, not only by nature, but by culture and civilization that now uses and mutates it to its advantage.

Because this method of reproduction evolves as a more sophisticated way of making it possible for more complicated organisms to arise, its need is not a matter of the individual’s survival, such as the need for food or for water, but is a secondary need. A secondary need that relies on hormonal effects which force a behaviour and inhibit primordial restraints that pre-exist it, such as a fight/flight response to any alien entity.

Overcoming the primal reactions is accomplished through a self-induced chemical inebriation which facilitates the taking of risks, inherit in copulation. This intoxication is described, most often, as love or lust, the obstinate sexual drive that answers mortality with its power.

In this game of sexuality, played by mortal beings, the basic participants of male and female archetypes are rudimentary and worth analysing further, for it is through this interrelation and “dance” of seduction that man comes to be and his quality and nature is determined.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:11 pm

Sex

It would be useful, at this point, to analyze the sexual act itself, because it is this very act that necessitates all of these mental and physical qualities and it is these qualities that then are expressed as social and cultural phenomena.

The significant position sex holds in the human psyche can only be attributed to its role as a reaction to mortality and the limitations to cellular replication and to the adaptive superiority genetic diversity offers. Its significance is also due to its consequent development as a social lubricant and as a source of self-identification.

The two sexual types exist only in reference to the need for reproduction and any further functions they serve must be considered as a later manifestations of this basic need.

The act of heterosexual copulation can be thought of as a later improvement to simple cellular division. The latter being the original reproductive method.
As a later evolutionary development it had to overcome many pre-existing and already established survival mechanisms, and it had to override their effect on the more primitive parts of the organism’s nervous system.

For instance, the response of fight/flight, imposed a hindrance on copulation. The fundamental instincts of the organism, as entrenched modes of efficient reactivity, had to be subdued so as to make possible the proximity necessary for intercourse and so as to then make it possible for the organism, the female in this case, to endure the invasion of an alien organism within its physical space.

This intrusion is not a trivial one, but it demands the overcoming of the deep-seated instinctive drive for self-preservation and the fear of the unknown other. Fertilization, itself, consists in the acceptance of an alien particle within a unity’s domain and its protection from the natural defensive mechanisms all organisms possess against external invasions.
The genetically foreign sperm and the subsequent semi-alien foetus it produces, had to be protected against the body’s immune system.

As an evolutionary progression this represents a considerable adaptation without which heterosexual reproduction would be unlikely and larger brained organisms would be improbable.

The mechanism employed to facilitate this tolerance and this resistance to the intuitive drive to flee or defend, was a chemical one.
Lust, as a driving force, not only provided the intoxicating effect necessary to repress primal reactions, but eventually developed into what we call love, as the essential ingredient that made social interactions, amongst more developed organisms, possible.

“Of all the worldly passions, lust is the most intense. All other worldly passions seem to follow in its train.”
– Buddha

Lust can be linked to the intrinsic act of feeding or assimilating the other within one’s own wilful control – a power drive that resembles, a hunger. The one lusting feels like devouring the object of his desires; wanting to absorb it within its very being.
This is where the sensation of oneness, the sexual act often produces, comes from.

Lusting and consuming stem from a common need to assimilate, through the act of feeding, and so they often imply a destructive, violent component that may manifest itself in various ways when the sexual drive is thwarted and repressed for too long.
Lovers are involved in a push/pull struggle, a desire and repulsion, consummated in a moment of furious aggression; a desire to unite with the other, to lose one’s self within this unity, but also a rejection of this unity, as a desire to preserve one’s self.

The madness of instinct overriding reason, or another instinct, becomes palatable and passion reaches an apex of revulsion coupled with attraction. The organisms imitate the cellular amalgamation as two alien beings are combined into something new.

“Lust is to the other passions what the nervous fluid is to life; it supports them all, lends strength to them all ambition, cruelty, avarice, revenge, are all founded on lust.” - Marquis De Sade

Love, then, becomes a modality of lust, as it has already consumed the other, or has been consumed by the other; by associating the other with self and so integrating, assimilating, this otherness within the conception of self – a broadening of the sensation of self, felt as a relief from the burden of self-responsibility and the solitude its discrimination enforces.
The mother-child relationship is based on this.

The metaphysical vantage point of it is that of an emerging unity, resisting an rejecting the flow, desiring to return back to its original state of unconsciousness and its reunification with the endless flow of time; a paroxysm of self-denial wishing to disintegrate into mindlessness.

Love can take on two forms: one by finding in the other what one most lacks – a method of self-completion – commonly produced in a mind that feels insecure with its own conception of self; the second by finding in the other what is most alike with one’s own conceptions of self - a recognition of self in the other – commonly produced in those who feel more secure and possess more self-esteem and so love themselves, even more, through this otherness.
Both, of course, determined by the level of self-awareness each mind has reached.

"To be in love is merely to be in a state of perceptual anesthesia." - H.L. Mencken

For this reason a confusion between lust and love still remains, and the sexual undertones of even a parent/child relationship, are neglected as being too disturbing to consider. Disturbing in a world where love has acquired a position of reverence and of mystical, sacred importance.
The aversion to incest can only be traced back to a natural disinclination towards reproducing genetic copies that can prove to be maladjusted for a continuously changing environment; a rejection of uniformity.
It contains a high risk and a superfluous one, considering that heterosexual reproduction was meant to facilitate the production of variety, where cellular division simply reproduced clones of the same attributes that only evolved through accidental mutations, produced in the copying.

The description of love, and lust, as a kind of madness is not far from the truth. The loss of reason and self-control is part of its technique, as no thinking mind would willingly subjugate itself to the risks and the penalties it entails, if it were not driven by a sort of irrational frenzy.

Moreover penetration has a distinctly domineering significance that cannot be denied. The one penetrating is literally invading the other’s private boundaries and imposing its will in another’s private domain.
The one being penetrated is left in a vulnerable position and is literally accepting, either wilfully or not, the intrusion.
Just this factor alone explains a lot about the psychological types that consequently evolve out of this basic dynamic.

Homosexuality becomes much more understandable when one takes the previous into consideration. The social utility of this symbolic action can be witnessed amongst such social species as the Bonobo ape.
Even though penetration may not occur, as it does not amongst any species expect for man, the symbolic mounting of another establishes a power relationship where one states his position over another and the one being mounted either accepts this statement of intent or resists it.

The stress relieving benefits of these mock acts of intercourse are produced as an effect of this reassertion of power balances and power alliances within a troop or a tribe, thusly avoiding the more dangerous actions of physical violence and moderating the anxiety generating uncertainty which all interactions bring about.

*****

In a feminized world, it is normal to find love as holding such a place of veneration. It has turned from a description of God as one defining the inevitable ingredient to humanism.
The progression from religious nihilism to political and ideological nihilism is inevitable.

Without it the patience and deference required to tolerate otherness would be problematic.
As populations swell the domesticating requirement becomes more and more pressing, forcing a more and more docile demeanour and making the inebriation of love a divine entity only Dionysus would ascribe as a remedy to consciousness…other than death itself.

Humanitarianism was but a slight adjustment to earlier spiritual dogmas, because globalization made it unavoidable that heterogeneous populations would find themselves mingling and coexisting.
Previous religious dogmas and political ideologies, preaching a more discerning sense of identification with a more homogenous grouping, quickly became ineffective and then obsolete. Environmental conditions had to adapt ideals and ideas to include diversity and harmonize it within a whole. Conformity and uniformity were relabelled and sold as religious and humanitarian values, making surrender more palatable.
The concepts of liberty and individuality were then redefined so as to accommodate these newly emerging social requirements; evolution on a socioeconomic scale, as environmental conditions were now directly affected by human activities and human intrusions that sought to “correct” what was undesirable.

This meant a more basic identification had to be found that would be more inclusive and less resistant to the alien.
Humanitarianism has turned out to be such a value system in our modern world. It’s ease of inclusion is made possible by teaching a counter-intuitive identification with the term “human”, and then reaching for the more basic identification with life or thought.

“I am alive and then I am human; ergo I am one with all that is alive and/or human.”
All designations that challenged this basic identity with a whole are now considered detrimental to cohesion and so “evil” or consequences of dysfunction.
Multiplicity, as a universal phenomenon, is conveniently denied reality and the road towards uniformity is made all the more flat.

The discriminating function of consciousness was turned into an insult, redefined as prejudice, and unconsciousness and less refined tastes are, now, marketed as states of illumination.

In Buddhism the state of meditative thoughtlessness, producing a relief from the awareness of existence, was sold as a way…a way out of mind and out of body. The epitome of the death wish where a person is obliterated and the escape from suffering is considered a good enough return for sacrificing the world, as illusionary, and the “I” as non-existent.

Resistance is futile or, at least evidence of illness. The masculine rejection called a disease, to which femininity stood as a healthy alternative.
What else would a mind be that rejected the idea that life was not worth living and suffering, as a natural part of the awareness of existence, could be avoided through self-induced hypnosis?
Better to sleep than to be awake in this world; better to die, before one dies, rather than endure this sensation of life; better to get drunk on the nectar of the gods than remain lucid; better to deny reality than live in accordance with its vicious, uncaring ways.
No, a new way had to be found…The Way.

Nihilism became a salve to heal the wound of existence.
What else, but unwell, would a mind be that does not willingly surrender to this comforting idealization of humanity and life, itself, even if nature contradicts its premises as delusional?
What else but driven by an ulterior motive would a mind be that rejects the helping hand of self-denial?

Nature suggests a world where life feeds upon life and multiplicity rejects otherness as an aspect of its essence.
Once again the commonality between love and feeding comes to light as one loves humanity, as an abstraction, and is consumed by it, torn to pieces, selectively assimilated and the remnants defecated, expelled, as unwanted.
The system farms you, feeds on your energies, sucks you dry and then discards you as done with. What compromises were made to old age and more dignified living conditions came as a modern sophistication in husbandry.
Happy cattle are more productive cattle, as was noted earlier in this essay.

*****

When resources are abstracted into symbolic monetary promissory notes and mere credit data then the abstraction of the human being into a symbolic form, a God, and an ideal Man, is not that difficult to accept.

Whether this “ideal Man” is given the conservative characteristics of productive, consuming automaton, his offspring being just another one of those useful, to the system, products, or whether this ideal man is given new characteristics, more liberal, secular, and so more inclusive, traits, that adapt him to newer conditions, is of minimal importance. What remains constant is the idealization of the concept of man – the worship of man as a replacement for the worship of an absent God – the worldly veneration of the concept of man.
Individual man does not matter, all are but imperfect representations of the ideal man and expendable. The good citizen, the pious one, the useful, productive one is the only thing that matters. Service to the sacred is all that matters. Service to the ideal.

Paradise is knocked off its heavenly pedestal and placed squarely within the empirical world, as a desirable possibility.
It is brought back down to Earth.

The one is obliterated into a ghost; a spook, as Stirner called it.

More precisely he says:

“Look out near and far, a ghostly world surrounds you everywhere; you are always having “apparitions” or visions. Everything that appears to you is only a phantasm of an indwelling spirit, is a ghostly “apparition”; the world is to you only a ‘world of appearances’ behind which the spirit walks. You “see spirits.”

“But to you the whole world is spiritualized, and has become an enigmatical ghost; therefore don to wonder if you likewise find in yourself nothing but a spook. Is not your body haunted by your spirit, and is not the latter alone the true and real, the former only the ‘transitory, naught” or a “semblance”? Are we not all ghosts, uncanny beings that wait for “deliverance’ – to wit, ‘spirits’? “

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:12 pm

Sexual Attraction

The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation that hides a deeper practical motivation.

Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter:
“Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction.”

For women the “game” of sexual attraction has additional complications and considerations. For her the implications and consequences of a sexual relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny. This makes her decision a more complicated affair.

All this is relevant, of course, if she wishes to have children at all, because in this day and age this is not always the case. In an era of pseudo-individuality this ambition is secondary to the primary one of serving the system and through that service find purpose, a sense of self and the wealth this servitude is rewarded with.

A heterosexual female’s instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the primordial male.
The physical and mental strength that will be inherited, through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and irresistible. But a further consideration of being impregnated by a male with access to material resources, is also at play. A consideration that will increase the probabilities that her long gestation will be safe and comfortable and the following years of infant rearing will turn out to be successful.

The balancing act between finding a male that possesses the desirable genetic markers of fitness, and that of finding one that possesses the appropriate cultural markers of social robustness, results in a female torn amid conflicting ideals, because one does not necessarily presuppose the other.
In fact we might say that social fitness can be the result of compensating for genetic inferiority, and masculinity can inhibit social success.

In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials, whereas in our modern world this is not always the case.
In our modern environments it is the masculine abstraction of the state, or the system, that controls all resources and access to them is disseminated amongst those that show the proper amounts of deference to it.

Now, resources represent this loyalty and submission to systemic power which, often, contradicts masculine character traits.
Access to resources and material wealth is mostly given to males of a conforming predisposition, that have been assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values of their environment, even if hypocritically.
This challenges the masculine disposition as conforming to an external power and being restricted, by this power, to only using feminine tactics for social ascension, goes against his very nature as a man.

This, often faked, female demeanour has enabled many males to pay the precious price [time and effort] of social success, so as to reach goals given to them by external sources without question or hesitation. It has facilitated their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society or the State].

“After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion.”
- Albert Camus

This is more evident in crucial positions of social status, such as political posts or positions through which information and therefore indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media and the entertainment industry.

Here we can see the promotion of individuals that more closely reflect the ideology of the governing elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers, as being part of this uniformity that weeds out any “bad apples” or resistance from the mix.

The chosen individuals acquire quick access to symbolic positions of power and influence and are rewarded with affluence and privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or exhibiting any free-thought and opposition, or merely a resistance to external authority, are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or ignored.
Censorship and discrimination take on a subtle form.

The boss, the institutional leader, having himself or herself proven his loyalties and his complete compliance to systemic power, now takes on the role of selector. Just as he was promoted to his position due to his acquiescence, so too he now chooses those that demonstrate his own willingness, display his own traits and reflect his own principles.
Social selection at work.

“O good old man, how well in thee appears The constant service of the antique world, When service sweat for duty, not for meed! Thou art not for the fashion of these times, When none will sweat but for promotion”
- William Shakespeare

Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the individual - the male in particular - as to make any dedication to physical and mental development, impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily concerns of economic survival, consumerism and social ascension that the self, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.
Man begins associating himself with the group, and in so doing finds comfort in the loss of responsibility and the absence of free-will.
His life has become a dedication to service, with momentary breaks to replenish his energies, before he returns to his job rejuvenated and more productive.
His production is his value; his consumption is his reward; his identity is his work.

In modern social environments, where physicality and intellectual power is not as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology that enables success, the sexual choices, demanded from women, is made even more perplexing.
Her femininity is still fascinated by masculinity and all the attributes that go along with it, but from a practical point of view she must take into consideration her mate’s social status, wealth and conventionality, so as to ensure the well-being of her future offspring.
Her “maturation” or awakening, as was noted, is simply her growing acceptance of all the concessions she must make to the powers that bind her.

A further aspect of the sexual attraction game, that sheds some light on how female choice is made and what romantic love is, many times, based on, is what I call, the “bad-boy” factor.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:25 pm

The Bad-Boy Factor

“I want a bad boy in public, and a pussy cat at home!” - Christina Aguilera

It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially in males, but few really comprehend why this is so.
The foundation of confidence is indifference to particulars and a poise derived through the relative certainty that eventual success is attainable.

For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the sense of self-assurance that a job, if not this particular job, will be found eventually, despite any failures.
The lack of confidence, on the other hand, is based on the desperation of being dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes exaggerated in significance, due to this factor.

Confidence, in turn, gets translated to physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement, which desperation, because of anxiety, lacks.
This confidence can be called grace, poise or elegance.
In fact it is power exhibiting itself through indifference and control.

This confidence is, in fact, a degree of self-assurance with an absence of apprehension, based on experiential data or a self-conscious evaluation of one’s own value. It may be, and often is, warped by an overestimation or underestimation of personal potential which may not correspond to actual potential but, nevertheless, produces the same air of self-reliant, fearlessness.

This distinction between false or correct estimation of possibilities, that breeds certainty or uncertainty, is no different than the distinction between bravery based on ignorance as opposed to bravery based on gnosis – the former being a similitude dependent on the observer’s ignorance concerning the actor’s awareness of the dangers involved, and the latter being actual courage based on a deeper awareness of the dangers, whether this is recognized, by an observer, or not.

For instance, reservations may be a product of a cognition while unreserved gregariousness may be a product of crassness and an absence of self-consciousness, coming forth as gallant extroversion.
Within a social context shyness is, most often, a result of self-consciousness - the propensity to perceive one’s self as if through the eyes of another, and be affected by it as an unknown factor in one’s well-being.
An unknown factor that fills the mind with anxiety.

In this case confidence can either be a result of being indifferent to this perspective or, as is most often the case, a result of being totally oblivious to it; lacking the imagination to project one’s self to this extent or totally oblivious to all the possible repercussions of the other’s judgment upon one’s own well-being.
If reticence can be interpreted as a kind of fear of the other’s judgment then the unabashed can be explained as being too uninformed to even consider another judgment or, in the best case scenario, as a result of having overcome caring about it – being independent from it.

The two should not be mistaken as being alike, even if their outward manifestations may appear similar.

*****

That confidence relies on indifference may be a difficult concept to accept, for some, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where love, compassion, trust, respect and interdependence are considered to be the romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity.

The “bad-boy” factor is a case in point.

It is evident, to all that understand the sexual and social connotations of the “bad-boy” and his seductive appeal, that the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes these males irresistible to females, is rooted in a general apathy caused by an overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of women, the specific woman becomes irrelevant, making them confident and arrogant enough to display their uninhibited character and individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.

For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic health, this aspect of maleness becomes seductive, because it also reveals a male’s marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options then he must be an asset worth considering; whereas when he has limited choices then his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes unattractive and even repulsive.

His need repels as anything that reaches displays a need that contradicts its power – the master/slave relationship.
True power is detached from those that are drawn to it.

This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males, that are married or attached somehow, become more attractive to females just because they are taken.

The attraction of weakness to strength is, often, incomprehensible when one studies it from the objective distance of a non-involved bystander.

It is ironic that women find men attractive who are, relatively, uninterested in them, and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them - the “nice” guy they want to remain friends with but have no sexual interest in.
The “nice guy” makes himself available as an alterative, a second choice, a settling, or as a device.
His utility stems from his reliability.
He is a woman’s last option; her compromise.

It is no different than the role subordinate males play within other mammalian social groups.

The primary strategy of these inferior males is to offer themselves up as useful allies or supporting elements in exchange for sexual favours.
The function of intercourse is given an addition dimension within this social context.
This confuses the difference between intercourse as a result of sexual attraction, based on genetic predispositions, and that of intercourse that is necessitated by social dynamics and represents a necessary compromise.

“Say good-bye to Pat, say good-bye to Jack and say good-bye to yourself, because you're a nice guy.” - Marilyn Monroe

It is also noteworthy to mention that in a more general application of the indifference rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need, desire or obsess over.
The absence of anxiety, concerning the outcome, offers the benefit of increasing one’s focus on the action itself.
It is also called, in reference to performances, the zone. A state of heightened concentration.

Life itself, when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding. When we frantically deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we display the desperation and uneasy strain that restricts life and limits our existence.

“Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient.” - Aristotle

To “not care” does not mean to “not value” but it does mean to be “independent from” all evaluations but your own. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it, will be drawn to.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:27 pm

Female

“Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female - whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male” - Simone de Beauvoir

To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire essence and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups.
In fact a woman’s place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see further on, and it has been man’s intervention and imposition of authoritarian, paternalistic socio-political systems that has stripped women of the full extent of their power. A power fully expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms. By subjugating them to cultural and religious dogmas males sought to control this power and direct it towards socially useful goals, just s males sought to control all aspects of nature.

In many ways females became representations of unbridled instincts and unreasoned activities. A personification of nature – because nature was symbolized as a feminine concept – that male reason and masculine will had to dominate and direct.
This male/female dichotomy became a metaphorical way of expressing the often contradictory forces that pulled mankind in, sometimes, opposite directions: instinct/intellect, rationality/irrationality, emotion/reason, order/disorder.

Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic “gatekeeper” and social {memetic} filter that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious and/or psychological traits.
In natural environments a woman’s sexual choices are guided by natural motivations whereas in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman’s sexual choice is further complicated by diverging considerations that battle with the pre-existing natural ones for domination.

It is the ease with which a female is integrated within any social and cultural unity and the ease with which she accepts and adopts ideas and ideals, that make her such a precious natural resource and such a perfect symbolic representation of unconscious natural processes.
Through a woman’s choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of selectivity that dictates the destiny of mankind.

For this reason, alone, a woman’s choice had to be curbed and directed.
She had to be tamed and domesticated.

Control this female sexual power and you control the future of mankind.


Social Dependence

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” - Thomas Jefferson

A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her status within a group; her entire self-worth is determined by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the other and, as a consequence, by how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural instrument.

She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an implement and a means to an end.
She willingly offers herself to this task and enthusiastically performs her duties in its name.
She evolves to be this way by her role as the crucial reproductive entity of a species with demanding requirements.

As such, her power is achieved by how well she understands, manipulates, conforms and reflects the morals, values and beliefs of the group she participates in, and in how close to the popular physical aesthetic ideal she reaches.
An ideal that exposes her fertility and genetic history but also her adherence to social authority.

A woman, in fact, has little sense of individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.
It is for this reason that women are often at the forefront of social trends and tend to look-down upon males who often resist or exhibit a more timeless sensitivity that challenges contemporary convictions.
Any male that possesses a character out of sync with existing trends will be considered undesirable or too great a risk to even consider as a potential mate.
A male’s appeal, for a woman, is in the immediate.

The natural propensity of females to grab upon new leadership is based, primarily, on their biology and, subsequent, sexual roles.
Resistance would be detrimental to their biological function; therefore they accept new things more easily as their main interest is to belong to the one’s promising the most potential for dominance.
This makes females natural followers but not very dependable ones. They quickly change allegiance when new powers inspire her confidence, and her loyalty and love is about as deep and dependable as her understanding.

Their intelligence is dedicated, primarily, in determining who or what is more promising, and to how she can integrate herself within a group, and increase the communal esteem directed her way.
This does not need to be conscious but can be intuited as an innate reaction to specific sensual stimulations, she need not be entirely aware of.

Feminine power is one of association and so they seek out to associate with the most powerful.
Her Will-to-Power is indirect and so her tactics are, often, insidious and cunning.
Her greatest tool is her ability to read others, perceive their needs, their strengths and, primarily, their weaknesses, and use this insight to her advantage.
You cannot successfully integrate into a group without the ability to read others and adapt to their character.

“How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being.” - Oscar Wilde

*****

It is noteworthy to mention that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it; it is, mostly, the woman who is expected to change her religious and cultural designation.
In the past females were regularly seized and integrated within the structures of the males that captured them. At times they were also exchanged as goods, between tribes and/or families.

Alliances were forged by offering a prized daughter to another family, establishing blood-ties.

In times of war, men and boys were killed, whereas women and girls were spared and carried away as plunder.
No doubt, some resistance was offered, but most surrendered to their new masters, gave him children and were slowly integrated into their new tribe.
If the practice were not so successful it would not have been so common.

The only analogous practice is that of abducting male children, as was done by the Turks during their Ottoman reign, and then assimilating them into a new culture, often turning them into ferocious warriors on behalf of their new home. But this is only possible when the child is still young enough to not have been sufficiently inculcated with its own cultural identity, and so offering little or no resistance to a new one.

Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but this tag can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures, like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, sometimes, willingly or with little contention due to her temperament.
A man, conversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed, since he can only function as a reproducer of his own kind.

This, in itself, makes the integration of males that come from alien cultures, problematic.
It is why globalization, that has to integrate many individuals from different cultural backgrounds, makes of the institution of family a remnant of a primitive past that has to be redefined or completely obliterated.

The only battle against this trend is offered by the conservative mindset, that desires to maintain the pre-existing social morays and social dynamics. The liberal, mindset, on the other hand, welcomes the rearrangements of cultural balances, as a way of enhancing harmony. By integrating as many individuals into the fold and offering them the semblance of equality and equal rights, the masses, no matter their background, are assimilated into a new conception of a whole.
For this reason, alone, the concept of the family had to be redefined to accept diverse sexual relationships and behaviours, as they were produced and then nurtured by the system itself.

The family, now, ceases to be a heterosexual reproductive union and becomes a social unity, approved by the state by providing rights to it.
Reproduction ceases to be its primary function in an overpopulated world.
The only requirement is that it fulfills the system’s demands and is productive and disciplined to it.

*****

The foundation of the family is, unavoidably, the woman, who’s loyalty to the man and the offspring this union will bring about, determines the power of the relationship and the male’s investment in the health and prosperity of the institutions that ensure it.

“The house does not rest upon the ground, but upon a woman.” - Mexican Proverb

Her role, in the past, was to be impregnated and to pass on the male’s ideals, as he was a agent of communal ideals. In modern times this secondary function has been replaced by being, herself, a version of communal ideals, without having to rely on a male as the intermediary.

In fact, her success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the culturally ideal female role, and by how successfully she reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.
Her intelligence is focused on how well she can predict which power will dominate and how well she can integrate herself within it.
In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant power, finding in her “belonging” to it her highest achievement, women become the tools of indoctrination and social engineering.

A female’s current equality is one in relation to the emasculated male.
She is no longer subservient to the more useful, to the system, male but has come to her own, by being just as useful, if not more so, than the more uncontrollable male – even if he may be ineffectual.

She is now the ideal member of the social system that is benefited more by total submission to its authority, and no longer requires the muscle and less controllable male’s sexual drives to survive.

Technology, the very tools that men used to compensate for weakness, has now made them obsolete.
Females profit from this loss.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:28 pm

Sexual Selection

“It is with our passions, as it is with fire and water, they are good servants but bad masters.” - Aesop

A female possesses the most valuable part of an ephemeral human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures and directs the propagation of the species.

Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.
This forces women to be more selective with whom they have intercourse with. In species where there is a specific season females go in heat, this is not so much an issue, but in the human species, where a female’s fertility ebbs and flows along a monthly cycle, sexual selectivity becomes central.

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits and characteristics while she condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice, based on well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate.
In fact, she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and her culture’s prejudiced beliefs.

She only becomes disconcerted when previous, evolved, sexual preferences, contradict current socially established man-made ones. Then she finds herself thinking one way while behaving in a manner contradicting it.

Herein lies the source of male confusion when dealing with modern-day females. The average male is perplexed by the fact that women can say one thing, in accordance with a civilization’s norms, and then act in antithesis to them, in accordance with natural norms.
The meme/gene conflict, produced by the fact that human environmental conditions change faster than humans can adapt to them. Instinctive inclinations linger well after they have been labelled obsolete or undesirable and this causes social problems.

In most cases it isn’t that women are purposefully trying to be duplicitous but that they, themselves, cannot combine their instincts with their ideals. The former is a result of millions of yeas of natural selection whereas the latter is the result of a few thousand years of social selection.

“There's a little bit of hooker in every woman. A little bit of hooker and a little bit of God.” - Sarah Miles

It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through this control to ensure their own legacy.
This is one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary mechanics.

It is, therefore, a woman’s aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and, often extravagant sacrifices towards women, possible. It is also through this physical appeal and the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy, fertile ovum that women achieve their highest power and the means by which they manage to control men of often higher mental and physical strength than themselves.

The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she finds herself in, and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by, makes her a “custodian” of social conformity and a tool of genetic manipulation.
In the exceptions to this rule one must seek out sexual dysfunction or her surrender to alternative ideals.

"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." - Bertrand Russell

But a woman’s choice isn’t as easy as it first may appear. If she isn’t a part of a culture where her choice is taken away, taken for granted or restricted by male dominance, she is further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:

1} Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework, she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious norm and, by doing this, has ensured his social success and his access to resources.
These resources are essential for women that are forced to endure a long gestation and weaning period, making them more helpless than they would normally be.

2} Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal. An ideal which, through his natural inclinations, may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud, confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our modern standards, and when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially indoctrinated, tolerant and passive “modern” male.

In this mix we must include the distinctive differences in sexual selection between older and younger females. This is often attributed to an increase in awareness; the older female that now “knows what she wants”.

In actuality the younger female is not inhibited, as much, by social and economic considerations and so her behaviour is all the more authentic, whereas an older female must balance her instinctive natural desires with more practical considerations.
This compromise is romanticized so as to make it more virtuous and less of a concession – a settling down.
What is often meant by maturity is a gradual acceptance of limitations that cannot be avoided and a settling for what is probable, given the circumstances and one’s growing awareness of one’s self, in relation to it.

“We are finally driven to monogamy not by morality but by exhaustion” - Erica Jong

By all means the cultural ideal of the monogamous relationship must be sheltered against reality, even when it inevitably turns into tolerance based on dwindling personal potentials and comfortable habituation.
It must be sheltered against it not only because of the, aforementioned, forced compromised brought about by maturity, but also because of the unavoidable disparity between expectation and reality.

As is often the case, the imagination exceeds the world’s premises, influenced by ignorance, as well, and the mind is surprised and, often, disappointed by a universe that remains indifferent to its hopes and ideals.
This is increasingly the case when a mind is never allowed to grow up and remains protected behind parental, or institutional, authority.
This form of naiveté can be useful to the system when it promotes a constant, irrational, struggle to find an ideal, as it has been marketed by the system itself. An ideal which is nowhere to be found, simply because it has no reference to reality, and only exists as an icon. An icon one, sometimes, finds and is quickly disillusioned with.
This discontentment enhances the already present state of dissatisfaction, which is inherit in existence, and maintains a steady level of anxious frustration which makes the individual even more vulnerable to psychological manipulation.

*****

The previously mentioned female sexual considerations are what play a part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do in contradiction to what they have said.
It is this that is the cause of this supposed female “mystique”.

A woman’s mental superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.
She is a master at this.
For this reason the constant analysis of males is a matter of greater importance to females than the constant analysis of females is to males.

It isn’t, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females develop faster, in general, and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness by which a female reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant, and her skill in linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying social currents and the methods of adapting to them which establishes her position.

But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal messages. They call this “woman’s intuition”.

She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae of physical information, freely given off by all of us. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts.

Her world is immediate and simple. Her event horizon broad, but shallow.
Her awareness contained within the particular geographical and temporal spheres she is born within.
Her thinking rarely timeless; she exists more in the moment, than a man does.

In order for men to fully comprehend females they must have the propensity to think as they do.

This discrepancy between man’s longer but more narrowly focused, conscious horizon, and a woman’s more broader, thinly spread, but shallower one, can explain the many differences between male and female perceptions. It may also serve as an explanation for divergent male/female performances in the arts and in science and philosophy and in all other human mental and physical disciplines.
A myriad of excuses have been offered to account for the fact that women perform so poorly in certain areas of human interest, such as philosophy and science… and in art, for that matter.

The idea that females have been held back by paternalism or were thwarted from their full intellectual potentials by childrearing does not explain why men, under similar circumstances of slavery, totalitarian regimes and also burdened with the responsibilities of providing for the very children women, supposedly, reared on their own, often excelled in all these areas.

It is remarkable to note that after millennia of human history and after billions upon billions of births and deaths, not a single female mind has emerged to revolutionize human thinking and open up unique frontiers in understanding our place in the universe.
At best, women have proven to be respectable supportive elements and capable enhancers and promoters of established methodologies and ideas, but not one of them can be compared to some of the greatest and most influential minds in human history, who just happen to be all male.

If there are one or two exceptions to the rule then this only serves to prove a pattern does exist. A pattern which should not be dismissed by invoking some flattering justification that is rooted in the mythology of equal potentials and humanitarian ideals.

Nature herself, shows us that her methods are based on unequal potentials competing their way into gene pools, and that nature is frugal and does not create diversity, as a superficial aesthetic marker with no actual importance.
That which appears is not other than what is, unless one wishes to fall back on duality to support failed reasoning. Our awareness and interpretations of what appears may be partial and/or flawed but the appearance itself is not hiding from us a deeper immutable core.
The notion that the senses evolves to fool us, rather than aid us, is ludicrous, and based on a self-serving presupposition. It is man trying to integrate reality into his utopian ideals.

That there are differentiations, not only between men and women, but between men and men and, most obviously, between species, is not only an aesthetic phenomenon. The differentiation signifies a divergence in general potentials.
Granted the differences between a male and a female of the same species are slight and, many times, a female may display a superiority in what is considered a male attribute, but this does not negate the fact that divergence exists, and it exists for a reason.

A chimpanzees genetic makeup may be slightly different than a human beings, but this slight difference creates an undisputed great effect.

Furthermore the idea that there are discrepancies in potentials, determined not by heritage and sexual roles, does not mean that the environmental conditions will always nurture these potentials to their fullest fruition.

The interplay between nurture and nature is a subtle one, best clarified when one considers that nature is really the sum of all past nurturing.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:30 pm

Male

“I have a hammer! I can put things together! I can knock things apart! I can alter my environment at will and make an incredible din all the while! Ah, it's great to be male!” - Bill Watterson

A man’s role within a social group is a more precarious one.

He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it; he can be the epitome of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role or excluded altogether; he can be the goal or the error.

The demands upon the male intellect, because of the aforementioned, are greater than in females. He must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected member and/or leader of, and dictated by the environment he is forced to exist within.
He must prove himself.

A man’s mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible, through the abstract.
A socially successful male must, in fact, possess a perfect amalgamation of masculine and feminine traits.
If the balance tips either way then he either becomes effeminate or too disturbing to be acceptable.

If intelligence is the projection of abstractions, using the imagination, based on information gathered, using the senses, and through the recognition of patterns in the flow, then a male is defined by this ability, as is a human being.
His ability to project, accurately, into the future, is what makes his thinking, potentially, timeless and so resourcefully effective.

If intelligence is the defining characteristic of a homo sapient and the one attribute that sets mankind apart from all other animals, then the male is the highest representation of it.
His potential, in this regard, being the epitome of what it means to be a human being, or what it means to be a failed human being.

If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the vendor and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, and mental flexibility of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole, and/or retain his control over it, in order to ensure his relevance and importance.

These necessary characteristics of a successful male, of masculinity as a psychological type, are also the source of mankind’s natural domination.

*****

The male must be an outsider so as to hope to be a dominator.
You cannot expect to control what you are controlled by, and you cannot expect to govern what you have submitted to.

Just as consciousness is a part of a whole looking back upon itself, from the distancing rejection of it, so too is man a denial of what is, so as to know it and then, hopefully, rule over it.

The tautology of power with indifference is here most clear, and the true nature of consciousness, as a discriminating tool of selection, is here most obvious.

*****

A man’s natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can and then guide them, and his offspring, with his strength and wisdom.
Modern day practices, redefining man as a caretaker and homemaker, are the direct result of man’s feminization where he has submitted to authorities more powerful than himself and accepted a certain, current, mode of behaviour that is expected of him, while being at odds with his normal inclinations.

Males, in our modern era, have been forced to become mere pretenders and a variation of the feminine type.
He must nurture his feminine attributes so as to become acceptable.

The earlier role as head of the family or as leader of the tribe has been made obsolete as the force of brute strength is replaced with technologies and the system does not need to use them as representatives of its power.

“MALE, n. A member of the unconsidered, or negligible sex. The male of the human race is commonly known (to the female) as Mere Man. The genus has two varieties: good providers and bad providers.” - Ambrose Bierce

The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding, bold male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to mankind’s unquestionable successes throughout history.

It is this spirit that has opened up frontiers for human exploitation and has resulted in philosophical and scientific insight. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.
The absence of accessible frontiers has exacerbated the process.

Where there are uncharted, unconquered worlds, men become vital, but where there is an absence of inquisitiveness and a presence of limitations, imposed upon human action and thought, men become dangerous and garish; primitive remnants of a bygone era.

Unlike females, males are not just born into value and importance, by just being a member of their sex.
They must earn any respect and privilege they enjoy or perish in the effort. Sperm is so abundant that the male is more expendable.

It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and physical perfection and it is this drive that has stretched human existence to such a breadth that it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this proliferation has thinned out his spirit.

Man, alone, is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men. Because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.

Nihilism is his problem. Extinction is his challenge.

Is the male type a primitive expression of the human condition destined to be lost or marginalized?
That remains to be seen.
One thing is for certain, where masculinity is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed curiosity.

In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group and only plays a provisional role of seasonal inseminator.
Afterwards the males are destroyed and/or expelled, from the hive or the colony, to preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.].
Interesting also that where female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence of individuality and an instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing characteristic.

In all social species the males are either eradicated, emasculated or expelled from the group.
Only one dominant masculine entity monopolizes the group’s tolerance.
In this respect masculinity is solitary.


Marriage

“Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.” - Oscar Wilde

The institution of marriage was a fundamental necessity in the emergence of cultures.
The integration of males within a group makes it crucial that the natural feminine sexual practices be curtailed and controlled so as to prevent male strife and stop the marginalization of masses of unfit males, and females, who would then become disruptive to social cohesion.
The promotion of monogamy, using tradition and morality, has been a fundamental facet of social unity.
Polygamy is but a variation of the basic principle by which a male and a female are prohibited from unleashing their natural sexual promiscuity, placing a cap, so to speak, upon the amounts of sexual relationship one can indulge in.

Lust must be curbed no less than greed, and regulations have to be put in place to force self-discipline where none exists.

"Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed." - Albert Einstein

The man, with his traditional leadership over a family unit, also becomes an integral part in spreading his culture’s ideals and is held accountable for his family’s welfare and conduct.
He is forcefully harnessed, through responsibility, to the products of his deeds.
Along with a woman’s, a man’s libido is blocked and then guided, like one dams a river and then releases it along select paths, utilizing its subdued force.

In homogeneous societies a male becomes a representative of the monopolizing male authority, which the institution symbolizes. He is the hand of the King/Queen or of God or of government and state, and he passes on to his offspring his own heritage as it reflects the common one.

But this function becomes damaging to social unity within heterogeneous societies.
As societies grow into global systems they must integrate populations with diverse backgrounds and with often incompatible ideals and beliefs.
Because of this, all heritage must be degraded in importance and the authority of the male over his family becomes a threat to the system’s control.
The need for a common denominator results in the slow deterioration of distinction in search for a common thread all can relate to and feel comfortable within.
Mediocrity is the natural product of this requirement.

The child must be influenced and trained only by one authority, teaching particular morals and ideals, and so all competing sources of knowledge and identity have to be made secondary or eliminated altogether if they pose a threat to this procedure.
We see here why the current deterioration of the family unity as well as an increase in feminism goes hand in hand.
The State becomes guardian to all children and mate to all women.
It, as an abstraction of masculinity, risks no rivals and tolerates no challengers.

The female and the effeminate male, being a more docile and easily indoctrinated member of a social group, is more apt to pass on the teachings, ethics and beliefs of the system itself.
The male must follow suit or be excluded from the possibility of reproducing his genes.

The masculine institution, being but a symbol of the male archetype, just as money is an abstraction of value and/or resources, makes it possible for anyone to purchase the position of institutional representative, figurehead, since the sex of the individual only matters due to primal psychological factors. Factors, quickly being programmed out of human psychology.

That males have been traditionally the symbols of this masculine institutional power is due to this:
It is normal that any progression would be rooted in the past and that, early on, it would reflect its origins more prominently.
The abstraction of male authority through the institution, being a continuance of natural phenomena, would obviously exhibit this connection.

Males are therefore the sole acceptable representations, in more primitive social groups where the abstraction has not reached a certain level of sophistication and man has not altogether detached himself from nature, to the extent that later social unities have.

The psychological, biological bonds with our origins make it, even today, difficult to accept a woman in these symbolic posts although habituation, coupled with effective training/educating, is quickly making this resistance to human intervention less forceful - the relative primitive state of technologies would still maintain more primal balances and relationships intact, whereas with the progression of technology the obsolescence of these primal balances eliminates even this necessity.

For instance, the need for warriors with brute muscle power to defend and expand the influence of a group made the maintenance of males as dominant over females essential to the health of the group. With the later progression of technologies this need diminishes, making it pointless for males to hold even symbolic authority over females or over the family.

This essentially makes the family an obsolete human invention and it eventually results in the emancipation of women not from masculine authority, since the institution still remains the sole masculine entity allowed, but from the secondary symbolic roles males have played as representatives of this singular masculine authority.

Max Stirner again:
“What has the individual now become? A political Protestant, for he has come into immediate connection with his God, the State. He was no longer, as an aristocrat, in the monarchy of the nobility; as a mechanic, in the monarchy of the guild; but he, like all, recognized and acknowledged only – one lord, the State, as whose servants they all received the equal title of honor, ‘citizen’. “

Feminism is basically the female political drive to eliminate males, emasculated males, as an intermediate symbol. Their Will to Power manifesting itself as a social movement seeking the attainment of a direct contact with the, unchallenged, institutional master, allowing them to gain the possibility of becoming a symbolic representation of its unchallenged authority themselves.

It is the taking away of even the pretence of masculinity from biological males, who are now relegated to equal status with women, as feminine/effeminate subjects of the system. With equal rights come equal roles, and the differentiation fades and is lost in civil etiquette.

As a consequence the social phenomenon of hyper-masculinity emerges as a reaction to this collective trend. Emasculated males, trying to save the pretence of maleness, exhibit exaggerated displays of manly prowess, often using the very abstractions the system provides them with and the values and ideals the system has indoctrinated them with.

In their haste to prove themselves worthy of procreation, the modern male uses the symbolisms of his own submission and displays himself by using the very evidence of his obvious capitulation.

The entire sexual game then becomes an act of female compromises and male duplicity.

A by-product of these trends is the gradual modification of the definition and function of marriage.
It’s heterosexual purpose, which was meant to guarantee sexual exclusivity to both females and males, is under social pressure to be renewed.
This is where the battle lines between the socially conservative and liberal political forces are drawn, but neither of them dares to attack the institution itself, as outdated, and expose it as just another method of population control.
Here these, supposed rivals remain allied in their silence, as they do on many other issues.

The political arena is basically a venue of competing positions over the speed of social change and systemic adaptations.
One side rejects the complete overhauling of socioeconomic and cultural dynamics, preferring to maintain the establishment where they have, or hope to have, many successes, and so more privileged positions.
The other side wishes a radical change in the socioeconomic and cultural dynamics so as to eliminate this need for intervening power brokers, allowing the individual to make of himself/herself a direct representation of State power.

The struggle is not substantive but only over symbolisms and rates of allowable change.

The power itself is never challenged. Here both sides are in agreement and their submission to it is total.
There is no question over the freedom of the individuality; the only questions allowed is in how the illusion of independence be maintained and what form dependence will take – individuality redefined in relation to its, presumed, submission to an external will.

This becomes more evident when the, hypothetical, free-press, in the west, never really challenges the establishment but only questions its superficial displays and official accounts. The mass media is, in fact, part of the establishment and so it has an invested interest in protecting it from anything that threatens its premises.

“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.” – Noam, Chomsky

It’s only function, now, is to serve as a deceitful pretence of democratic regulation over institutional power.
It provides a comforting illusion that the citizen matters and is supervising governmental activities, through the mass media, in a system where no individuality is, really, accepted and mass media is owned by the very power brokers that participate in government.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:32 pm

Homosexuality

“It's about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family.”
- Alan Keyes

As a social phenomenon, homosexuality is a natural occurrence – a genetic mutation that finds a place within human groups as a supportive ingredient to heterosexual reproduction.
Hormonal imbalances may account for a tendency that is then nurtured into fruition by the right conditions.

Some have taken the existence of homosexual displays in other species as an indication of its respectability.
They neglect to consider the fact that in these displays no penetration occurs, as it does in human homosexual encounters, and that they are mostly stress relieving activities meant to diffuse conflicts within the group by reasserting power balances through harmless exhibitions.

“The homosexual subculture based on brief, barren assignations is, in part, a dark mirror of the sex-obsessed majority culture.”
- George F. Will

There is no “alternative life style” here and the act itself is not an expression of affection, but an expression of dominance or submission, and a reassuring display that continuously reappraises group dynamics.

*****

It is scientifically verified that males dominated by another male suffer a decrease in testosterone levels and that otherwise monogamous species are made to abandon their mates if injected with it.
We can only imagine what this means within male populations that are pressured to submit to the dominion of institutional authorities, often projecting their power through representatives with uniforms, the appropriate credentials and mountains of bureaucratic paperwork.

“History shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence.” - Camille Paglia

Emasculation begins at an early age when boys, as well as girls, are taught that certain types of behaviours are undesirable and punishable.
These behaviours, unable to be repressed totally, are redirected into athletics where some forms of it are allowed, within strictly enforced guidelines.
The child learns that his will is not free and that some of his tendencies will result in a reprimand or, if allowed some expression, will be watched over by referees that will make sure a certain “line” of acceptability is never crossed – no taste of blood is offered to a domesticated dog used to protect the herd.

In later years a man is forced to whine and complain, like a woman, when he is insulted or challenged by even a mere child.
His only option is to go through the correct procedures through the right authorities to find justice - a devitalizing affair to say the least.
His status within the group is one of equality with all others, the most base included, and so his particular traits and strengths and talents do not matter – unless they can be put into use for the benefit of the whole and so garner acknowledgments and the, subsequent, benefits this entails.
His distinction is only possible in reference to and in deference to the system he belongs to as citizen.

“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The civilized man is man with no distinction. His greatest attribute is that he remains tolerable to his fellow human beings and he remains within his community’s customary comfort zones.

*****

“What's the point of being a lesbian if a woman is going to look and act like an imitation man?” - Rita Mae Brown

The phenomenon of female homosexuality is no different than that of male homosexuality, only here any display of increased masculinity is never consummated or allowed to exceed, again, a certain limit.
The imitation is superficial and only allowed a sexually ineffective role.

A female homosexual may dress, walk, talk, and behave as a male, but she will not, necessarily, think like one. The same restrictions apply to her, as they do for heterosexual males.
Her surrender to the dominant male entity is never in doubt.
Her “masculinity” is trivial, even if she may be attracted and may engage in sexual activities with members of her own sex.

The sex act, as was noted, has lost its severity and original purpose, and so how it is used is of little consequence to the system.

As such, a homosexual female will be similar to an emasculated heterosexual male in many ways.
They are both superficially male.
Their masculinity will be pretentious, a play using symbolism and carefully maintained masks, while the actor remains unseen, oppressed, covered up and lost in the role (s)he has been taught to play; directed and given lines to mouth as his own; a superficial manliness based on the simple assumption that a male is only in reference to whom he is attracted to sexually, just as a negro is assumed to be a simple reference to skin coloration.

Masculinity is reduced to imagery. Engorged muscles and swollen penises used as allegorical references to what is no longer there or not allowed to express itself fully.

This simplification of a concept, besides serving as a way of demeaning it, is meant to reduce it to its most superficial elements so as to make it easily reproducible.
Thusly the idea of race is reduced to its most obvious marker, that of skin color, which is easily reproducible by exposure to sunlight.
It is then demeaned, as unimportant, even if it does constitute a component exposing a heritage where genetic isolation had occurred, and is indicative of a period where one’s ancestors experienced a variance in environmental conditioning.

Similarly the concept of masculinity is reduced down to its external markers which can be replicated and imitated by just about anyone. The hereditary, biological elements are discarded as social constructs and so the entire process of avoidance depends on dualistic thinking, selective reasoning and the overemphasis of nurturing effects.

Nevertheless feminization does not only affect male behaviours.
The modern day female has been similarly feminized, in that pampering and over-protective environments, coupled with social preference for the feminine type, have produced in her an exaggerated prissiness and inflated expectation; her helplessness becomes her mating call and her delicate constitution a product of sheltering.
Her obsessions with her looks are cultivated as her only avenue towards empowerment. Sex, for her, becomes a tool for social ascension, because it has lost all other significance.

“Romance is the glamour which turns the dust of everyday life into a golden haze.” - Eleanor Glyn

The finicky genteelness of hyper-femininity is a symptom of this social process, an exaggerated remnant of a Romantic Age, just as Metrosexuality and/or hyper-masculinity is in men.

Metrosexuality confuses things further. Males living in urban settings lose all contact with nature, particularly their own nature, and pressured by changing female preferences – themselves the product of social conditioning – adopt the adolescent, self-indulgent personas of urbanites.
Beauty becomes important when all you have left of your masculinity is the look; the outer manifestations with none of the mental qualities.
Here, too, a gradual shift is occurring.
The ideal male appearance is one of adolescence, almost girlish, form. An ideal worshiped by fashionable trends and marketed as the perfect hermaphroditic figure.

All symbols of a primitive past are deemed passé and uncouth.
Chest hair gives way to the clean boyish look of a smooth, immature boy…just as produce is cleansed and shined to take on this pristine look of unblemished, by reality, perfection.

In this increasingly feminized culture the differences between male/female diminish, as all are pressured to play within prescribed limitations of etiquette. The acting takes the place of earnestness, especially when it threatens the well-being of the other and of the system at large.

The semblance of uniformity is established through these social rules of decorum and civility and all begin to believe that they are equal because all act equally so.

“Myths which are believed in tend to become true.” - George Orwell

Mediocrity increases when certain thoughts are forbidden or never allowed to intrude upon the peaceful duplicity of social graces.
This is levelling at its best.
When behaviours and thoughts are rebuked, if they exceed a social limit, the individual walks a tight-rope between social conventions and personal drives.

The contrived behaviour is often mistaken as genuine, even by the individual who has played the part for so long, has been thoroughly indoctrinated within the culture, has forgotten or repressed himself to such a degree, that the act itself, his social persona, becomes his “authentic” identity – the only identity (s)he knows.
The environment has shaped the mind, by nurturing certain attributes and allowing others to atrophy from neglect. But these withering traits are not, yet, gone; they come forth in many subtle, and not so subtle ways.

In dreams, twitches, gestures, tones, the inner turmoil bubbles to the surface and many a man begin to wonder what it’s all about.

The male having been turned into a surrogate female, in all ways but one, must now also play the part convincingly.
Biologically male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, what does it matter to the system?

“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” - Max Stirner

What matters is that the traits essential to its stability be nurtured and those detrimental to its stability be oppressed and be made impotent.
What matters is that all the members of a society be homogenized, absolved of all their pasts, saturated with information overload and rules of conduct, deflated by nihilism, and then reinvented, reintegrated and made useful.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:35 pm

Sexual Revolution

“We must not allow ourselves to be deflected by the feminists who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth” - Sigmund Freud

The emancipation of women from the need for a male intermediary has had, when one adds to it all the technological advances in reproductive controls, some interesting social effects.

Males are now forced to compete, as they once did, for sexual satisfaction and reproductive access, whereas they were guaranteed it, to an extent, with the establishment of exclusive sexual partnerships.
The institution has gradually withdrawn its support until men find themselves in a vacuum of uncertainty.

If we take into account the aforementioned then we are lead to the realization that when the position of alpha-male is taken over by the institution, whether this is the King or Government or Church, then all males become subordinate males. Subordinate males that vie for female attention by making themselves as useful, to them, as possible or as close to the cultural ideal as possible.

Competition between loyal subjects is what produces progress within the system, and so competition over the female’s ovum becomes one more human inclination to be exploited.
Modern methods of population control have made the old techniques of integrating males into the fold and disrupting their natural sexual competitions, a thing of the past. No such unrefined methods of forceful domination are required when the same results can be produced with more subtle manipulations of the human psyche.

The “old ways” are surpassed, not as a regression, but as less shrewd.
What is overcome is the methodology of crowd control, not the necessity of it.

Edward Bernays, the father of modern day marketing and propaganda puts it this way:

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."

"Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses. Is this government by propaganda? Call it, if you prefer, government by education. But education, in the academic sense of the word, is not sufficient. It must be enlightened expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances, through the high-spotting of significant events, and the dramatization of important issues. The statesman of the future will thus be enabled to focus the public mind on crucial points of policy and regiment a vast, heterogeneous mass of voters to clear understanding and intelligent action."


"Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons - a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million [USA 1920s] - who understand the mental processes and mental patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."


*****

Taking it all for granted is now at an end as females, released from their previous sexual bonds, like any domesticated creature is released from its harness, unleash the full force of their subdued instincts, necessitating an equal adaptation in males who wish to win their favors.
The cruelty of genetic and social selection ensues and the female becomes the instrument that best represents nature’s ways.
The Dionysian madness is reborn.

Once more the few, gifted ones, will be chosen, as the many will wait their turn, trying to make themselves patiently useful or valuable allies within any social dynamic, and so procure some sexual access in this manner; compensation is the logical alternative for those that fail to immediately succeed, and sacrifices are part of the price.

This return to past sexual dynamics will be referred to as “progress” amongst the socially libertarian sects. “Progress” being a liberal expression describing anything that confronts the conservative status quo but never really destroys it.

“There are two kinds of fools: one says, "This is old, therefore it is good"; the other says, "This is new, therefore it is better." - William Ralph Inge

The fundamental ideals of the system remain unaffected by this conflict between preservation and innovation. All challenges are made under the auspices of self-evident “truths” that cannot be questioned.
Holy “truths” that should never be questioned.

The distinction between liberal and conservative is that of champion and contender.
The process itself is never denied, and anyone that dares to do so is labeled a dysfunctional, sycophant, an infidel that cannot compete and so excuses himself from the arena.
It is a taunt that is meant to dismiss or to entice participation by using shame and peer pressure.

Max Stirner comments on it thusly:

“To this day the revolutionary principle has gone no further than to assail only one or another particular establishment, to be reformatory. Much as may be improved, strongly as ‘discreet progress’ may be adhered to, always there is only a new master set in the old one’s place, and the overturning is a – building up. We are still at the distinction of the young Philistine from the old one. The Revolution began in bourgeois fashion with the uprising of the third estate, the middle class; in bourgeois fashion it dries away. It was not individual man – and he alone man, who for that very reason is not Man but a specimen of the species of human species, and more particularly a specimen of the species Citizen, a free citizen.”

“Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery. That in this they necessarily follow principle, ‘the end hallows the means,’ is self-evident. If the welfare of the State is the end, war is a hallowed means; if justice is the sacred name, ‘execution’; the sacred State hallows everything that is serviceable to it.”

“But, if the deserving count as the free (for what does the comfortable commoner, the faithful office-holder, lack of that freedom that his heart desires?), then the ‘servants’ are the – free. The obedient servant is the free man!!! What glaring nonsense!”


*****

Most will fail in this sexual game where women stand as judge and jurors.

The compensation for failure may take on an exaggerated gaudiness that will clarify the original inadequacies and come across as desperation. The needy man will make of himself a fool or a servile imbecile, dancing about to draw attention and prostrating himself before her to be stepped upon.
His composure may not be attractive to a female but she will adjust her preferences to meet her newfound needs.

Some few will succeed, using this overcompensation, as the caricature will reflect a hyper-masculine cultural ideal, with all the requisite symbolic paraphernalia of social resourcefulness and privileged accessibility.
The effeminate male becomes a useful alternative when no other is permitted.
A practical concession.

In the absence of actual male role models, young males will imitate the cartoon idols of pop-art and marketing schemes.
Muscles and penises will be exaggerated, chests and wallets puffed out, as the effeminate nurture the symbols of their lost manhood with parodies.

The female regains her relevance, as her compliance is no longer guaranteed, and so the male is forced to devote much more time and effort to seducing her. He does so by meeting her culturally determined expectations and her muted genetically determined desires.
The househusband is born. A miasma of incongruent components, wearing different guises, and threading a fine line of deceitful absurdity.

Buying her consent is the best way, when resources are the best indication of fitness within any environment and, in particular, in a capitalistic system where wealth becomes an indicator of loyalty to the State and so a reward that proffers access to the best resource of all: female sexuality.

*****

Culture has now become more and more sexually obsessed, and all aspects of human interest are taken over by seduction and copulation.
The act, itself, is partially made irrelevant, as its consummation does not, necessarily, result in a product.
It is now, mostly, a psychological pacifier; a method of stress relief and reaffirming self-worth and social status.

The masculine ideal is preserved by simplifying it into the act of penetration.
The masculine character is abolished as controversial and disturbing and men become uniform actors following a social script, directed by female sexual promise.

Social usefulness takes it over; more symbolic that practical.
Its fruitfulness is emotional, more than it is actual.
It is a promise that may or may not be kept.

One must work to maintain the hope it offers.
Work being the main concept.

“Work spares us from three evils: boredom, vice, and need.” - Voltaire

The chains are forged, and the work ethic turns into a desirable quality.
If nothing else the male must be productive and so must be ambitious, within the parameters of the cultural milieu.

His sexual desirability is defined by it.

Masculinity has, now, become entirely devoted to the feminine. Intercourse having lost all consequences for the female - for even social stigma is diminishing under new progressive ethical rules - sex now turns into another device to be used and abused.

All males are judged by her standards, and his measurements and performances become her playthings; tidbits gossiped over coffee – manhood is now a numerical value; a score given by the social tastes of submissiveness, from females who have become State property and, in this way, systemic mouthpieces.
She intuits her power and relishes it.
The consequence is an increasing pugnacious feminine sexual attitude.
Males cower under its crudity.

Having no significant repercussions, even her promiscuity slowly turning into a display of her newfound power, she wields her sexuality relentlessly and every man, who is dependent upon her ruling, is exonerated or condemned by her decree.
His “fitness”, in this case both his genetic and, most importantly, his social fitness, is decided by her.
She is the bearer of social judgment, as a willing instrument of power.

She is nature unleashed from all rational controls; pure, cruel, natural selection.

The progeny is the symbol of his reputation.

*****

Feminization is reaching its apex when men’s minds are no longer free to explore reality, but must be increasingly devoted to satisfying their primal needs, by competing, with each other, for prized resources.

Technology and civilization was supposed to free mankind from the constant preoccupation with basic survival – this was heralded as the coming of a rational age.
It, partially, has.
The increased leisure time birthed science and philosophy, but it also eventually resulted in ennui and nihilistic despair, as all those freed did not necessarily possess the intellectual interests to focus this excess energy upon higher tasks and more noble creations.

Instead they turned back into primal concerns and distracted themselves from life using hedonism.

These many emancipated beasts had to be restrained from unleashing all that contained, unfocused, energy, upon the group.
They required guidance and a moral fiber because they lacked all substance and all backbone, and would crumble at the slightest weight without it.
They needed a productive distraction: work.

“Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do.” - Oscar Wilde

Entertainment was devised, no less, for this reason, and labor was made into an asset so as to keep these idle minds preoccupied, weary, stressed, and, thusly, harmless.

The concept of labor, like marriage, was another one of those technological innovations that controlled, repressed, and carefully managed, these growing masses of humanity, so as to turn them from destructive into constructive forces and from free into servile entities.
Both depended upon the promotion of their importance as unavoidable – the unavoidable cost of civilization.
Adultery and laziness, became synonymous with indecency and idleness another profanity.

Man’s aspirations could now be turned into a social advantage. The average mind was inculcated with goals and manufactured volitions that directed his natural instincts, when they could not be silenced.

The human was made upwardly mobile and ambition was made into a sacred value, most prized amongst the group who found identity through its direction.
Appetite had to be industrious; productivity was its measurement and consumption was its justice.
Like all domesticated animals, humankind had to be managed and this brought about innovations in herd management.
Husbandry turned into a political science; propaganda became its apparatus.

“By avarice and selfishness, and a groveling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property, or the means of acquiring property chiefly, the landscape is deformed, husbandry is degraded with us, and the farmer leads the meanest of lives. He knows Nature but as a robber.” - Henry David Thoreau

*****

Fertilization is not as crucial or dependent on copulation, as it used to be.
The number of technical fertilizations are on the rise, as environmental conditions are making infertility another consequence of human degradation. Female hormones are not only in the water and in our food but in our thinking, as well.
We are inundated with femininity.

Mankind’s activities are now becoming decisive. He is beginning to affect his own destiny through his own actions and the collateral effects this is provoking.
This is artificiality.
The self referencing simulation turns into a fantastic construct of human imagination, with a life of its own.

“The very definition of the real becomes: that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction. The real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced. The hyper real.” - Jean Baudrillard

What better way to reduce resistance into compliance than by social selection, guided by an ideal, and the slow deterioration of guaranteed fecundity?
Here is where a female becomes vital, not only as an instrument of culling but as an example of the ideal to be emulated.
She is now the sole role model.
A man must now use her as a proxy towards institutional power.
Adapt or perish.

“The liberated man is not the one who is freed in his ideal reality, his inner truth, or his transparency; he is the man who changes spaces, who circulates, who changes sex, clothes, and habits according to fashion, rather than morality, and who changes opinions not as his conscience dictates but in response to opinion polls.” - Jean Baudrillard

This observable increase in promiscuity, in our time, as well as the deterioration of the traditional family as a social institution, is to account for the amplification of sexual imagery in our daily western lives.
Every aspect of our surroundings is dominated by some form of sexual innuendo, as unleashed libidos and frustrated sexual appetites are manipulated to buy and to sell, to work, as a means of attainment, to continuously be preoccupied with fucking.
Sex as a consumer product.

“At the heart of pornography is sexuality haunted by its own disappearance.” - Jean Baudrillard

This world is a female’s playground, where even a plain Jane is raised to the height Aphrodite’s desirability – a woman’s world.
Only the childish find their meaning here.

It all becomes about copulation and about the currently avoidable products of copulation.
Children, so increasingly rare as to be considered sacred, precious commodities that must be given “rights”.

Art, no less, is taken over by these themes and the entire social structure is kept running on the fevered pitches of hormones seeking satiation.
Mankind is abstracted along with resources and loses significance as an individual manifestation; man as an ideal defined by the appropriate sources and given substance by the culture’s demands.

Max Stirner says:

“Dropping out of personal concern, one gets into philanthropism, friendliness to man, which is usually misunderstood as if it was a love to men, to each individual, while it is nothing but a love of Man, the unreal concept, the spook. It is not τους ανθρωπους, man, but τον ανθρωπον, Man, that the philanthropist carries in his heart. To be sure, he cares for each individual, but only because he wants to see his beloved ideal realized everywhere.
So there is nothing said here of care for me, you, us; that would be personal interest, and belongs under the head of ‘worldly love.’ Philanthropism is heavenly, spiritual, a – priestly love. Man must be restored in us, even if thereby we poor devils should come to grief. It is the same priestly principle as that famous fiat justitia, pereat mundus; man and justice are ideas, ghosts, for love of which everything is sacrificed; therefore, the priestly spirits are the ‘self-sacrificing’ ones.
He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as the infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, a spook.”

“Because revolutionary priests or schoolmasters served Man, they cut off the heads of men. The revolutionary laymen, those outside the sacred circle, did not feel any greater horror of cutting off heads, but were less anxious about the rights of Man than their own.”


The self-annihilating alliance of the progressive liberal and the Christian conservative is exposed.
On the altar of controlling the individual man and all his distinguishing attributes are destroyed or forced into hiding.

*****

To what depths will men not stoop to worship this holiest of holly grails?
To what self-abasing, depravity will not males lower themselves to taste that restricted fruit?
Still a forbidden fruit, but not by law or by moral judgment, anymore, but by the woman herself.
The “right” is returned to her and her sexual power is restored.
She is now the voice of God…or State; she the priestess of Dionysus – hysterics follow.

Females bask in all the attention, taking it all as evidence of their unappreciated value and as proof of their never openly admitted sexual dominance over males.
Insecurity compensates in that way.

When humble they take it as evidence of their equality; an equality under the auspices of state dominion. They are no longer second rate citizens but fully integrated productive members of society.
Their submissions and total acceptance of authorities is, now, rewarded directly. She has achieved parity with the emasculated male…and is disappointed by it.

She refuses to admit it, openly.

And for good reason.
When a man hungers he may lose all sense of dignity and self-control in pursuit of fulfillment. He may even feed on excrement or on the flesh of his loved ones. So too, the basic average male will slither in the dirt if there is the slightest hope of satisfying his sexual appetites…especially when all others are taken care of.
Who wouldn’t take advantage of such decrepit, needy, creatures when they offer themselves up as willing victims to be exploited?

When, in the not to distant cultural past, most males did not have to exhibit their vulgar nature to gratify their wanton primitive desires, having a guaranteed mate available to them, now they come forth as byproducts of unregulated reproduction and show themselves as what they truly are.

Generations of human filth replicating itself and passing on their inferiorities, finally crashes upon a denial of entrance.
The shock is devastating.
A reality check. The dream is over.

“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who Is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.” - Henry Louis Mencken

Where men once placed females on a pedestal, to keep them away from the groping hands of swine and to ensure that their favors were far more costly to be given away for trivial gains and momentary pleasures, now sex has returned to being, candidly, a tool of feminine manipulation.
She gives herself openly to the highest bidder, and calls this her liberation from paternalism.
It’s all about pay equity, after all.

The secret liaison of the deprived instinct finding release away from the prying eyes of cultural control, is now unmasked as another human farce.
The lovers are uncovered and their shocking activities revealed.
Romanticism is dead, along with God. Along with both the notion of vulgarity and shame follows the end of sin and guilt.
So much for the mystique.
Mankind is given back his shamelessness.

*****

The emancipation of females, became more advantageous than disruptive to social harmony.
Another untapped resource – fifty percent of the population, in fact - to be put into production and used.

Female emancipation was, of course, not actual but only symbolic.

What was freed was female sexual choice from surrogate authority figures.
She was freed from having to settle for sub-standard males and from the constraints of monogamous concessions, that had produced the notion of sexual shame, and the distinction between slut, whore and lady.
Finally a woman is unveiled as no lady at all.

She no longer had to play the virgin or submit to the controls of lesser males she found beneath her and not worthy of her surrender. Her pretence was made proudly obvious and her choice was her pitiless verdict.

In this New Age, the full power of feminine utility is untied from its male proxy and it is made the direct apparatus of the structure – the State.
Her value is precisely her femininity and so, even in her quest to abolish gender roles, she holds onto the identity they sprang from, tooth and nail.
She reinvents the social adaptation of her sexual role and calls it “authentic”.

Who needs a man in such times, when even his physicality is impotent and he is but a sketch of ancient history?
A living joke representing a dead age of archaic ideals.
He is laughed at on T.V. sit-coms. The dumbfounded, misguided, garish, dolt, with a heart of gold, still clinging onto outdated artifacts of a dead age, and playing with his toys.
He is rehabilitated weekly in half-hour installments while suiting in his favorite sofa.
He is given his “purity” back; his boyish charm; his harmlessness.

Cue in the laugh-track.
His denigration is finalized.

By the outcome of this charade even a woman is left with an nagging feeling of dissatisfaction.
Her attraction is diminished by the adolescent product which she ascribes to mysterious “chemistry” or “falling out of love” – meaning “falling out of lust.”

In juxtaposition to this lovable dolt stands the liberated modern woman. Clever, capable, stern and forever patient with her mate’s childishness. She is the image of a coming age…a better age; modern, current and adult in her pragmatic reasoning.
Her sexual aggression springs out of this, trying to fill in a gap.
The role reversal is complete.
When “real men” are absent she takes on the role herself, reinforcing the illusion of masculinization.

A female’s sexual promise, and her socially determined judgment, has now become the instrument by which men are assimilated and kept in line.
No force required, just gentle chastising, frequent treats and serene breaking-in.
A pet.

Submit or be excluded, ostracized and humiliated as not being adequate enough to be appreciated by the whole; a loser, a failure, a lost cause…ill as in “ill at ease”…diseased.

If he is adaptive enough, he, through the females he has managed to convince {seduce} is appreciated as a worthy male.
He is a “good man”.

Welcome to servility.

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: The Feminization of Mankind

Post by Satyr » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:37 pm

Feminism

"Feminism is a recognition of the domination of men over women and attempts by women to end male privilege.... It is a theory, a method, and a practice which seeks to transform human relations."
- Cynthia Orozco

The very idea of feminism isn’t new.
It is a direct consequence of male innovation that produced the Democratic and Humanitarian ideals - an evolution to religious and previous political ideals - as a reaction to altering environmental conditions.

Heterogeneous social unities, as has been already mentioned, make the more discriminating past methods less effective in retaining social stability.
When populations come from diverse backgrounds, worshiping different gods and following dissimilar traditions, the least common denominator for all is their humanity – their identification as a species.
All other designations are swept under the proverbial carpet and taught to be ignored.

The underlying methodology is to selectively degrade the apparent, by limiting the natural discriminating function of consciousness, and by suggesting that immediate nurturing conditions override all previous ones.
Consciousness, denied its full breadth, the mind cleansed of all previous determinations, is taught to believe that it too can find its “authenticity” by denying all its past and repressing all aspects of itself that are a product of it.

And so all natural manifestations, such as sex, race, beauty, height, weight, form, are taught to be considered superficial, where the implied core remains equal and unaffected by historical and genetic effects. Whereas the body comes in different types, the mind remains unaffected and equally gifted, in all individuals.
The dualistic positioning is obvious. The human embryo must be taken as a tabula rasa, possessing no preexisting limitations or dispositions. A clean slate awaiting cultural programming.
What can be more leveling than the idea of emptiness?

*****

Contrary to popular opinion feminism was not invented by women but adopted by them, as they adopt any social trend, no matter how degrading or absurd, that offers them an advantage.

The idea that all men are created equal is now directing itself towards a uniformity that includes all life under its sanctimonious premises.
It is now reaching the extreme of speciesm as the natural continuance of the logic that defined racism and sexism as derogatory terms that had to be overcome.
Some men are now convinced that feeding on another organism’s flesh is wrong and that animals deserve, simply for having been born, equal rights and considerations as any human being does.
Animal rights is the continuance of this same progression towards conforming uniformity.

Life is made holy, and all who dare to step upon its sacred premises will be excluded from the idea of humanity.

The leveling process continues as all designations that are not directly in reference to cultural and social utility are eradicated and denigrated as remnants of primitive thinking, that is now being “overcome”.

Ego is the primary obstacle to total submission and so its denigration is a matter of faith in this coming age of enlightenment; this “better” age, where suffering is lessened by eliminating some of its sources.

When the “sanctity of life” is deemed self-evident, possessing the additional benefit of being self-serving, and all are offered “rights”, then there isn’t a long way to go from there towards its logical conclusion that all life is holy and that the reliance of life on other life – depicted by the serpent eating its own tail - is evidence of man’s sinfulness and his fall from grace.

We are all sinners and should feel ashamed, simply for being born.
Man must be returned to his purity, his authenticity, after he has repented for being born into such a state of moral and physical decrepitude.

Nihilism is planted as a seed of self-hatred.
The fundamental frameworks of nihilistic humanism and religious dogmatism are installed as “obvious” and the denigration of man is set in motion.

The congruence between conservative and liberal ideologies is most evident here, and their collusion uncovers the insincerity behind their, supposed, enmity.

No previous identification will be tolerated and man must show his worth by paying penance for his embarrassing past by showing homage to the cultural and religious ideal – the ideal Man.
Mankind’s past will be denied, as nurture will take precedence over nature and the individual will be asked to receive his identity, as a sacrament, directly from the system that protects him and offers him rights.

The State did not separate from Church…but the two merged into one.

Under these circumstances feminism isn’t so difficult to accept as one of the repercussions of environmental necessity.

Females, as an untapped social resource, are offered access, and the rewards that go along with it, for their total capitulation and usefulness to the system.
Their “justice” is their direct attainment of symbolic power; once reserved only for males, due to their superior usefulness in times of technological inadequacy.


The Renewable Resource

It is posted on billboards, transmitted through the airwaves, integrated within every artistic expression, in the most garish manner.
No talent required.
A primitive drum beat accompanied by simplistic lyrics containing no vagueness.
Raw sexuality, pulsating to rhythms that mirror physical ones, designed to cause a predictable reaction.

The decreasing flexibility of the average human mind makes any more complicated creativity lost in translation.
No, sex must be obvious and the promise must be made clear.
The mediocre mind cannot fathom anything beyond this level of primordial need.
Subtlety is lost on it.

When instincts are denied expression this provides an essential outlet of defusing repressed energies and the culture of no culture utilized any means necessary to satisfy its stabilizing uniformity.

The entire culture is now preoccupied with fucking, because it is no longer a given, for males…and some females.
It has become another luxury to be earned.

Our everyday senses are assaulted by sexual overtones.
Children witness it everyday through every information venue.
Tits and ass are not to be avoided; everything conspires to arouse you in every way possible and make you act - force you to be active.
Your libido agitated and then directed, as one directs cattle in a farm.

“Do you want this?” Then act…be active, be productive, buy.
The vagina at the service of socioeconomic forces. It is the gateway to the promised land.
A man lowered to the level of his basic desire.

Inactivity is laziness and laziness is unproductive.
All must be kindled into fiery tumescence and agitated into spasmodic reactions.
All must be made vulnerable to external stimulations.

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” - Sheila Jeffrys

Body parts are exposed everywhere; marketing ploys of productivity.

Females play the part of exploited victims when this is their preferred element; outside sex they become irrelevant and easily ignored – they do not matter.
If feminists try to distance themselves from sex, altogether, then they would be more respectable…as things stand they are nothing more than adolescent minds attempting to procure, through state sanctioned “rights”, what they cannot earn through deeds.
Their, preferred, excuse being that they have not been give, GIVEN, the opportunities to prove themselves as being more than what is determined by their biological function; every day that passes, a renunciation of this transparent subterfuge.

They can deny this using words but their actions speak louder. Quickly they revert to sexual allusions when they find themselves cornered by reason and wit – emasculated males are no different, in this, as all men are forced to use feminine tactics where all others are forbidden.

*****

The feminization of man has made sexual distinction more difficult just as globalization has made racial distinctions more ambiguous.
Distinction is muddled in commingling amalgamations and communal imitations.

A man’s world?
Increasingly not so.

A woman’s world isn’t devoid of violence and exploitation, it is devoid of reasoning for violence and exploitation; an emotional world of intuited vulgarity; a world retaining its plausible deniability; a world of innocent brutality and ignorant irresponsibility.
The notion that females can do better than men have, is laughable when one considers nature objectively and if one thinks about metaphysics void of human ideals and emotional desires.

What can be more vicious and obscene than an action pretending to be righteous and struggling to find reasons for its indecorousness?
Better at what?
Better at pretending, at hiding, at playing the blameless, never responsible for anything, victim?

A woman can walk into a room full of men wearing nothing but a pushup bra and a miniskirt up to her ass, and then act insulted by having these men ogle at her; she can cruelly discriminate and then pretend it’s all about chemistry and…Lord have mercy…love!!!
An emotional world!
Reason be damned!!
There is no longer any reason for reason.

In this feminized world, sex is turned into another commodity to be bought and sold – materialism at its best – love is for all and all deserve the same dignity.
Nothing escapes marketing and consumerism.

What do you lack? Buy it.

Young girls dreaming of being fashion models or, more sincerely, porn-stars.
Why not?
In a childish world, where nothing is determined, all is possible.

Like with Negroes their relevance begins and ends with their references to their own emancipation and the ideals these are constructed upon; ideals they had no hand in producing but were merely the “innocent” beneficiaries of, just as they were the “innocent” victims of earlier ones.
Pawns in a game they have no contribution to.
Merchandise, still.

The weak are always an exploitable resource for the powerful.
This is an uncomfortable fact. Their freedoms and enslavements mere products of forces they have no hand in.

Constitutions were never guarantees of individual rights. They were documents enacting a new age in human herd management.
Individual opinions were no more respected now, than they were in the past; they were manufactured and sold as commodities that offered the grand illusion that the individual himself had come to them on his own.

Are not political ideologies another product to be marketed and sold by convincing the consumer that they want it…that they need it?

“All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.” - Noam Chomsky

Every part of modern culture is penetrated by a feminine seduction. Products as banal as frozen dinners are advertised using sexual innuendo.

The average male is made helpless under these circumstances, as his primitive nature takes over where his reason fails, and he is made into a mindless erect penis, begging for entrance into the restricted and finding self-esteem in the permission.

In this feminized world the male is taken over by the desire to prove itself worthy of its masculine identity.
Here is where the female reigns supreme.

“The orgasm has replaced the cross as the focus of longing and fulfillment.” - Malcolm Muggeridge

Do you wish to entice this female, impregnated with social and cultural norms?
Then live up to her ideals, as they’ve been seeded there by the very system you wish to resists.

A compromise is made crucial.
Play the game or be excluded; lower yourself to lothario or be labeled a loser.


Nihilism
“- Noun
1. Total rejection of established laws and institutions
2. Anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. Total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.

Philosophy.
4. a. An extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter ) The principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.”


As an intellectual force, nihilism has a distinctly masculine attitude.
Without a feminine counterbalance it may result in total destruction of all and everything – the absolute end of extreme resistance, by the obliteration of all resistance.
A defiance of life itself.

The monopolizing masculine entity of the State, takes on the form if this destructive force, as all is laid bear before it.
Only it can yield this hammer.
Behind it is left a flat terrain of evenly distributed dust.

The promotion of self-deprecating ideologies and dogmas is part of this machinery of leveling.
Distinction is a hindrance to its uniformity and discrimination a resistance to its absolute control.
The system’s parts must be made to comply with its power and so diversity is allowed, unless it is associated with service to the whole.
Specialization and the rewards of accessibility and controlled privilege are the only acceptable modes of distinction, and this only because they provide an inspiration and an example to be emulated.

As a religious and political movement nihilism take many configurations.
Some are upfront and honest while others are deceitful and vague.

Most of the major religious and political canons of our time are profoundly, if not directly, nihilistic in their strategies.
The elimination of all sense of self, of ego, of identity; the shaming of selfishness and of specific socially unwanted ideas; the eradication and degradation of consciousness and its discriminating purpose; the denigration of reality and the world at large… are all indicative of this insidious drive to eradicate all forms of opposition to systemic control.

In this war, manhood becomes the first casualty.
In slow succession many of the human traits, we take for granted, are exterminated or forced to flee into the subconscious, as a final refuge, where all relics linger for a time.

The system’s nihilistic motive may or may not be resisted by the individual, as the rejection of his own obsolescence - the negation of negation, as a sign of resistance to this absolute.

The demise of intelligence is not far behind. Awareness is detrimental to blind acceptance and anything that distinguishes and by distinguishing, can choose, is redundant if peaceful coexistence is to be made possible.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Democracy, Equalitarianism, Humanitarianism, are all manifestations of this staged obliteration of individuality and the consciousness that maintains it as a distinct entity.

All preach some form of self-denial, forced respect, love for one and all, unbound tolerance, and the denunciation of distinction.
In this fight feminine psychologies, of both the male and female biological kind, fall into line behind one type of nihilistic despair or another – they surrender to it.
In its promise they find a relief from the responsibility of self and the price of existence – need/suffering.

If the eradication of self is part of their salvation and if unconsciousness is what it takes, then they are all for it.
In what they are told to give up they place the absurd hope of an incorporeal consciousness, a mind beyond the flesh, a universal consciousness, or they dream of their non-birth, like a slave dreams of his freedom in death.

Metaphysical arguments take effect and the parts are taught that they are not distinct at all, or that distinction is wrong and can only prolong suffering.
This is essential to uniformity, since it attempts to completely destroy the very sense of individuation or the very idea of multiplicity.

The world, we are told, is an illusion or a passageway, a step, towards a higher stage; a better world.
A staging area, testing faith.
Spiritual purgatory for those that lack all spirit.
Nothing is worth striving for, except total abandonment, and so nothing is striven for.

The individual is now readied for full assimilation. He no longer acknowledges the self and so becomes a malleable, mindless particle, capable of fitting in anywhere.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest