Misogyny

The reason why misogyny exists is simple: women do not respect themselves. The self is a truth-structure in so far as it is anything, by that of course is also meant self-valuing; without respect for truth, structurally speaking, then there can be no self-respect.

Self-valuing without self-respect becomes environment-imaging: a person simply hoards norms and heuristics from social expectation in the environment around them, collecting these as a substitute for authentic personality. Millennials today are shit (80% of them or so; the rest are actually pretty fucking cool) because they have no real personalities, because they have no self-valuing structural coherence, because they have no self-respect.

Without self-respect a persona atrophies into goo, to use Fixed term. Pop consumer trans-ist 'culture' has robbed these children of the ability to correctly locate a vortex of self-respect within the overall conditions to which they are subject for the better part of their lives, and MTV and Disney and The View and Michael Bay have taken over the valuing functions; a self is precisely what is not needed when that happens, which is why a self in these people is absent as they grow from childhood into late adolescence.

They will remain in late adolescence for the rest of their lives, because of course 'a self' would be required to actually go beyond that.

...oh yeah I was talking about women. Let's see. Women more naturally wear millennial-ness than do men, which is also part of from where misogyny comes. Millennial men aren't capable of misogyny because they aren't capable of loving a woman qua woman.

Women respect themselves through the male they love, by loving him. I pride myself on what I've done; women pride themselves on what they've made a male do, especially for them. My self-respect is crossing the ocean, their self-respect is in being the thing I crossed the ocean for. For I cut my life into parts, being daemonic and split between being and becoming, and weigh them against each other, and value the other pieces in the terms of the one I choose as my ego; I take one part of myself and interpret all the other parts through it- that's what philosophy itself is. Women don't do that, they are not daemonically charged and do not philosophize- for they do not need to figure out a way to cross from becoming to being, so when they accept a male's love they are accepting his daemon and take upon themselves the weight of his destiny, to share in his fate. They could have any fate they want but they choose to follow one specific daemon to its tragic conclusion, and in so doing, appraise themselves as a whole being rather than an ego.

I believe that's accurate for straight women (obviously lesbians will not have this dynamic, nor will gay men, neither of which I understand), in this vein a woman has two options: either she finds a man worthy of having her as a goal in a quest of action that she is proud, satisfied, happy, fulfilled, to identify with, or she uses her power as goal to lead men on, to have them believe what they will just as long as she is the trigger and object of the phantasmagoria. She can choose to have sex with that man or not, to experience his pathos or not, that does not seem to make a fundamental difference. Sex or no sex, there can be no romance involved - because the passion is one sided, and on the other side is cold knowledge, there can be no commonly upheld narrative, no exaltation, no momentum. Thus also irony can not be made palatable, and what we are left is a crude directness, an acknowledgement of both parties as in the last count carnal of value. For a woman it is possible to interpret such farcical eros in terms of a style that she cultivates as an umbrella to all conquests she is object of, for a man, such an event must separate him from whatever powerful goals rule his life - and this is precisely why men seek it. Such empty-ended sex is, when it is not morose, cleansing of accumulated neurological will, that substanceless drive we call stress, or nausea, or depression.

It is hard to say how much of our energy is entangled in stress,  but it is clear that gloss- and mass-media are responses to stress/depression/nausea, templates for the stress to suspend itself on guided by aesthetic laws, so as to appear like joy, with as the ultimate aim to evoke the idea of a cool, a calm, an resting point for the human eye, which to the modern man is his soul.

Cool made out of stress - we've seen that ultra tense shiny surface burst with the elections - and what is released now is all that substanceless will, the stress, that had been repressed from consciousness by means of this cool surface, the supra-stress, the media. As an experiment look at newsanchors and tv starts as planes of compressed stress to repress the lesser compressed stress of still semi healthy people into an idea of 'cool', where it festers.

I believe this is what the troubadours did, when they shifted Europes gaze from the holy virgin to the chaste maiden.

Addition: a lesbian may simply be a woman who has discovered respect.
A gay man might be a man who has lost respect.

I know a number of lesbians very intimately, very different constitutions - one has heterosexual cravings when she is ovulating, the others certainly do not admit to that if they do - but all of them are preoccupied entirely with respect, how to get it, who has tried to take it from them, and they are ferocious as only women can be in their attempts to gain or retrieve that respect.

A straight woman admires, the heterosexual feminine is made out of admiration, preferably for herself first, but even more preferably, for a man who in turns desires her even more than she admires herself. For a man to admire a woman often means for him to have need of an enemy.

Woman values in terms of her capacity to inspire (governing as muse) whereas men values in terms of his capacity to be inspired (potency). Man is magnetized, woman is electricity. The most powerful gesture for a man is thus to stand still, in a purpose unfathomable to the always moving woman.

Proper love is about worshipping the other person. Not in any weird cult-like way, but in the way of deep admiration and respect, attraction and will-entanglement. I think women and men tend to worship differently, but a true love is when they both come to terms and worship each other in the same way, each partaking a little of both methods.

Interestingly, the cure for misogyny is also the cure for feminism:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Addition: a lesbian may simply be a woman who has discovered respect.
A gay man might be a man who has lost respect.

I know a number of lesbians very intimately, very different constitutions - one has heterosexual cravings when she is ovulating, the others certainly do not admit to that if they do - but all of them are preoccupied entirely with respect, how to get it, who has tried to take it from them, and they are ferocious as only women can be in their attempts to gain or retrieve that respect.

A straight woman admires, the heterosexual feminine is made out of admiration, preferably for herself first, but even more preferably, for a man who in turns desires her even more than she admires herself. For a man to admire a woman often means for him to have need of an enemy.

Woman values in terms of her capacity to inspire (governing as muse) whereas men values in terms of his capacity to be inspired (potency). Man is magnetized, woman is electricity. The most powerful gesture for a man is thus to stand still, in a purpose unfathomable to the always moving woman.

What you say may be true about lesbians, but just keep in mind real lesbians are rare. Women are naturally bisexual, and most lesbians are just specifically choosing to invest in other females due to a pathological or psychological aversion to males. Actual lesbians may exist, but they would be a small percentage of apparently lesbianic women. Males are not naturally bisexual, so homosexual behavior is mostly a genuine representation of specifically male-male attraction, rather than "choice."

" for they do not need to figure out a way to cross from becoming to being, so when they accept a male's love they are accepting his daemon and take upon themselves the weight of his destiny, to share in his fate. They could have any fate they want but they choose to follow one specific daemon to its tragic conclusion, and in so doing, appraise themselves as a whole being rather than an ego."


Also wanted to emphasize that this is a very difficult thing for them to do. Thus while men love easily, and fall in love even more easily, for women it is very hard to love- one of the reasons I respect them. Thus as Proust said, "When we are older, the thought that a woman loves us is often enough to make us fall in love with her." When we're older: when you can appreciate the psychic integrity and strength demanded on their part, in order to love. Love for us is not strength, it is an expression of strength, of the potency we've built up in long struggle over a private universe, in the oscillations of the daemon, in our negotiation with destiny, which we then discharge on creating a work of art or a book at first, then on constructing a philosophy, on a life-task, and perhaps eventually on another person. But for females, love is not an expression of strength: it is a demand of strength. Love is an expression of their wholeness and psychic integrity; when they can love themselves they can allow you to love them; only when they can offer their whole self to you, can they offer part of themselves.

Parodites wrote:

" for they do not need to figure out a way to cross from becoming to being, so when they accept a male's love they are accepting his daemon and take upon themselves the weight of his destiny, to share in his fate. They could have any fate they want but they choose to follow one specific daemon to its tragic conclusion, and in so doing, appraise themselves as a whole being rather than an ego."


Also wanted to emphasize that this is a very difficult thing for them to do. Thus while men love easily, and fall in love even more easily, for women it is very hard to love- one of the reasons I respect them. Thus as Proust said, "When we are older, the thought that a woman loves us is often enough to make us fall in love with her." When we're older: when you can appreciate the psychic integrity and strength demanded on their part, in order to love. Love for us is not strength, it is an expression of strength, of the potency we've built up in long struggle over a private universe, in the oscillations of the daemon, in our negotiation with destiny, which we then discharge on creating a work of art or a book at first, then on constructing a philosophy, on a life-task, and perhaps eventually on another person. But for females, love is not an expression of strength: it is a demand of strength. Love is an expression of their wholeness and psychic integrity; when they can love themselves they can allow you to love them; only when they can offer their whole self to you, can they offer part of themselves.

Well said!

The often desperate courage of their effort would be heartbreaking if it wasn't the opposite first - it fortifies the heart, I would say into being.

I hate women. But only some of them. And only because they are so fucking goddamn stupid.

Of course my hatred of people whose stupidity borders on insanity isn't limited to women. So I'm probably not a misogynist.

(From a PM I wrote to Parodites):

Parodites wrote:

I do not believe most SJWs seek comfort- some do, but most are doing this like the girl said, because a new culture has emerged that continually takes advantage of the dense interconnections of people in this hyper-social-media digital age thing. They all act like they're offended and pretend to have these opinions in order to gain praise and feel like part of the group. The Internet has allowed that basic human impulse to become magnified, so that now it is the most active force in many peoples' lives. They aren't the last man yet because they are still acting to gain something, namely social good boy points, they're not defeated and tired of existence.

The way women think is closer to how children think, they aren't rational and do not really desire objectivity in truth, rather they are driven by emotions and in-group-ness. Male friendships are like alliances, whereas female friendships are like sisterhood. Women make emotional demands on each other that men never make on each other.

Jordan Peterson had a good point in that longer interview video which I posted here, about how women have only recently received political rights and we are beginning to see what a female tyranny would look like; how they displace their maternal instincts into the political sphere and divide up the world into the protected victims on the inside and the predators on the outside. This is also touching on the real reason why I made the misogyny thread, because I am so fucking sick of seeing this everywhere I look. Same bullshit happened back in Prohibition too, that was also the influence of women in politics.

A woman can talk about the endless virtues and sacrifices of a mother for her child, and then in the same breath turn around and talk about how women have the right to do what they want with their "reproductive health", as if no one catches on that "reproductive health rights" means abortion. So, you are such a glowing fucking saint because you can give birth and sacrifice to raise your child, but you also have the right to abort that same child in the womb "if you want to"? The reason these abortion faggots never actually talk about in what circumstances a woman would verses would not abort is quite telling. They always stick to the most extreme cases such as rape or incest (not even that extreme really) or the life of the woman being threatened... but in reality most abortions have nothing to do with any of that, they occur because a woman is simply a lazy and entitled bitch who would rather terminate a life and not go through 9 months of pregnancy than simply give up the baby for adoption at the end of it.

Anyway I am sick of all this shit. I see women as children, essentially, and plenty of men have become lumped into that same category based on how men want to fuck women and therefore just go along with this whole feminine ethos bullshit. They are literally getting high on their own compassion. This has created political correctness and an overtly feminine society, approaching what Peterson called the tyranny of the female; the worst part is that women do not seem to possess an ability to think critically and rationally, they cannot divorce their emotions from their thoughts. So how the fuck are they ever going to overcome these severe limitations, and how the fuck is human civilization going to progress now that it has reached this state?

I think you're right that SJWs are just trying to fit in and get "cool points" with their friends, Facebook is entirely about this, and I have argued this point with people who like Facebook many times in the past. They never fucking get it, they always respond with "Well this is social connection, and Facebook can be used for good purposes too!" Yeah, that is sort of like saying that a gathering of neo-Nazis can also be used to share recipes.

So yeah, I suppose you're right that this isn't the last man we are seeing, but I am still seeing small aspects breaking through, tectonic eruptions of last-man-ness (abject nihilism and apathy of the will to nothingness approaching a nothingness of will) in this SJW/female/child type. The point you made elsewhere about how ancient Greek culture didn't have the conception of equality as we think of it today, because no one was "unequal" in so far as every person had a different role to play, "slaves weren't really slaves" etc., is a very good point and I think we should keep applying this point to present circumstances. What are the consequences of the breakdown of this sort of model, where it is implicitly known, at the level of social substance of meaning, that society consists of various roles that need to be played, and each role is critically important in so far as each role is necessary? This doesn't mean I want a return to a slave class, but it means the opposite kind of absolute emancipation and classless society of total equality is even more fucking stupid and impossible than the old societies based on clearly defined roles, including the role of slaves. Obviously we should seek the truth in the middle between those two extremes, which requires a daemonic philosophical exposition of both polarities of the argument, so we can actually see how the middle space unfolds and is trying to unfold. Yet the infantile anti-intellectual nature of women is preventing any sort of analysis of that type from occurring.

Some clarity through levity,

Parodites wrote:

I do not believe most SJWs seek comfort- some do, but most are doing this like the girl said, because a new culture has emerged that continually takes advantage of the dense interconnections of people in this hyper-social-media digital age thing. They all act like they're offended and pretend to have these opinions in order to gain praise and feel like part of the group. The Internet has allowed that basic human impulse to become magnified, so that now it is the most active force in many peoples' lives. They aren't the last man yet because they are still acting to gain something, namely social good boy points, they're not defeated and tired of existence.

This ties into what I said about Americans being outside of the scope of the Nietzschean purview. They simply aren't as docile and tired as Europeans. Not even close. Different laws apply, N's definitions don't come to fruition, except the ones about great and terrifying increases of power.

Thrasymachus wrote:

(From a PM I wrote to Parodites):

Parodites wrote:

I do not believe most SJWs seek comfort- some do, but most are doing this like the girl said, because a new culture has emerged that continually takes advantage of the dense interconnections of people in this hyper-social-media digital age thing. They all act like they're offended and pretend to have these opinions in order to gain praise and feel like part of the group. The Internet has allowed that basic human impulse to become magnified, so that now it is the most active force in many peoples' lives. They aren't the last man yet because they are still acting to gain something, namely social good boy points, they're not defeated and tired of existence.

The way women think is closer to how children think, they aren't rational and do not really desire objectivity in truth, rather they are driven by emotions and in-group-ness. Male friendships are like alliances, whereas female friendships are like sisterhood. Women make emotional demands on each other that men never make on each other.

Jordan Peterson had a good point in that longer interview video which I posted here, about how women have only recently received political rights and we are beginning to see what a female tyranny would look like; how they displace their maternal instincts into the political sphere and divide up the world into the protected victims on the inside and the predators on the outside. This is also touching on the real reason why I made the misogyny thread, because I am so fucking sick of seeing this everywhere I look. Same bullshit happened back in Prohibition too, that was also the influence of women in politics.

A woman can talk about the endless virtues and sacrifices of a mother for her child, and then in the same breath turn around and talk about how women have the right to do what they want with their "reproductive health", as if no one catches on that "reproductive health rights" means abortion. So, you are such a glowing fucking saint because you can give birth and sacrifice to raise your child, but you also have the right to abort that same child in the womb "if you want to"? The reason these abortion faggots never actually talk about in what circumstances a woman would verses would not abort is quite telling. They always stick to the most extreme cases such as rape or incest (not even that extreme really) or the life of the woman being threatened... but in reality most abortions have nothing to do with any of that, they occur because a woman is simply a lazy and entitled bitch who would rather terminate a life and not go through 9 months of pregnancy than simply give up the baby for adoption at the end of it.

Anyway I am sick of all this shit. I see women as children, essentially, and plenty of men have become lumped into that same category based on how men want to fuck women and therefore just go along with this whole feminine ethos bullshit. They are literally getting high on their own compassion. This has created political correctness and an overtly feminine society, approaching what Peterson called the tyranny of the female; the worst part is that women do not seem to possess an ability to think critically and rationally, they cannot divorce their emotions from their thoughts. So how the fuck are they ever going to overcome these severe limitations, and how the fuck is human civilization going to progress now that it has reached this state?

I think you're right that SJWs are just trying to fit in and get "cool points" with their friends, Facebook is entirely about this, and I have argued this point with people who like Facebook many times in the past. They never fucking get it, they always respond with "Well this is social connection, and Facebook can be used for good purposes too!" Yeah, that is sort of like saying that a gathering of neo-Nazis can also be used to share recipes.

So yeah, I suppose you're right that this isn't the last man we are seeing, but I am still seeing small aspects breaking through, tectonic eruptions of last-man-ness (abject nihilism and apathy of the will to nothingness approaching a nothingness of will) in this SJW/female/child type. The point you made elsewhere about how ancient Greek culture didn't have the conception of equality as we think of it today, because no one was "unequal" in so far as every person had a different role to play, "slaves weren't really slaves" etc., is a very good point and I think we should keep applying this point to present circumstances. What are the consequences of the breakdown of this sort of model, where it is implicitly known, at the level of social substance of meaning, that society consists of various roles that need to be played, and each role is critically important in so far as each role is necessary? This doesn't mean I want a return to a slave class, but it means the opposite kind of absolute emancipation and classless society of total equality is even more fucking stupid and impossible than the old societies based on clearly defined roles, including the role of slaves. Obviously we should seek the truth in the middle between those two extremes, which requires a daemonic philosophical exposition of both polarities of the argument, so we can actually see how the middle space unfolds and is trying to unfold. Yet the infantile anti-intellectual nature of women is preventing any sort of analysis of that type from occurring.

Yes, a true woman is a precious good. One who knows to value before attempting reason.
Some even turn to lesbians because men are too frighteningly weak.

Lately when I'm around stupid people I've actually started dissociating, it's hard to explain. I can't focus on anything, my body feels light, I have no will to say yes or no to anything, I just mindlessly stand there not responding. Usually a song will be running through my head, as if to distract me and take me away somewhat into an alternate mental reality, an escape from the present.

Also often accompanied by a sharp pain in the side of my head, near my temple.

Fuck it, I'm going to get cigarettes.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Lately when I'm around stupid people I've actually started dissociating, it's hard to explain. I can't focus on anything, my body feels light, I have no will to say yes or no to anything, I just mindlessly stand there not responding. Usually a song will be running through my head, as if to distract me and take me away somewhat into an alternate mental reality, an escape from the present.

Also often accompanied by a sharp pain in the side of my head, near my temple.

Fuck it, I'm going to get cigarettes.

I know that symptom. In my case I found its the jaw muscle and back of the tongue compressing, the will to speak repressed because of sheer abysmality of the context.
Maybe you could take another look at "Time and Rage" or however that Sloterdijk book is called.
It is about how rage is the monadic principle against reason as the dyadic. It doesnt go into the triadic naturally, it isnt high philosophy but it is still useful. It brings associations, removes some facades from language itself. It's Heideggerian in that sense, but mildly so. I just read a few chapters, it put me closer to this type of fire I need to cultivate to resist dissolving into what simply is entropy, loss of self valuing, mouths moving only to express physiology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

We've been taught that rage brings chaos. It actually does the opposite.

Ah, that's better. Nicotine is a trusted friend.

Look at the sun.

the rage itself might appear chaotic (even though really it's relentlessly consistent) but (and) it evokes around itself an order that brings about an order within which an order comes to exist which derives of the first order a third order, called astronomy, from which thence the physical sciences were derived, and the belief in the laws of thermodynamics and Big Bangism finally took over and man started disregarding the order of which his mind is derived.

We astrologers keep in touch with that order. We sense it is all we are- which is not to say that everyone is this thing. But for me, as oriented on the firmament by temperament, any kind of meaning that exists in my psyche, a cat, a dog, a god, an arrow, elements and sexes and modalities of will, all these are thus derived, in the tree of concepts, from the perception of the movements of the heavenly bodies.

Hume, when his friend Newton published his findings, simply refused to believe in the consistency. In the end he was vindicated by I guess Bohr in some way, but Newton still stands. My point being that the consistency of interrelation of this world is near absolute, and that means far more than we dare to imagine. It is far closer to what we think we are than we think.

We think based on things we dont think have any influence at all. Our a priori intuitions are magnetic configurations of unfathomably qualities. Qualities too beautiful for a human of whatever dogma to receive in the splendor that is no more than their coherence.

In the breast of splendor all of mercy is hidden.

I prefer it when people smoke.

Only excess of strength is proof of strength, to quote an old friend.

Bohr and all the quantum dudes were missing philosophy. It is quite easy to understand that absolute consistency holds yet for any being in question it could theoretically approach the limit of its own ability to continuously derive/drive consistency up and down from its one position on the continuum of being. Namely: randomness and disorder are necessary by-products of order and meaning, not the other way around as the moronic QM-worshippers think.

Randomness is derived from logically consistency, meaninglessness is derived from meaning, and disorder/chaos is derived from order. Logic is first, and Newton wasn't wrong. It just turns out that if you want a stellar body to negotiate with minute particles you're going to need to sacrifice a degree of self-valuing consistency within that total system, due to the sheer magnitude of the differences at play between those respective beings/bodies.

If you could get inside a quark or sit in the quantum foam and look around, you would see the same kind of orderly predictability that we observe in the stars and galaxies. Empiricism never fucking gets that.

Disorder, chaos, randomness-- those things would mean absolutely nothing on their own, they are secondary constructs. They are adjectives. The 'noun' is logic: order, consistency, 'will', clarity, meaning; self-valuing; predictability, pattern, structure, and form over unit time.