The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law (2)

I think the Chinese understand this coldness.

trump world.


amazing to be alive and see this first hand.

Someone made a fantastic post on ILP.

Thanathots wrote:

Feminism

Much could be, and has been, said about feminism, enough to fill volumes. I have already addressed the issue of feminine coercion above.

What has to be understood is that feminism originates primarily with inferior women, women who cannot obtain what they want from men in exchange because they have little of value to exchange (whether because they are fat, old, infertile, ugly, lazy, obnoxious, or what have you.)

Their aim is twofold:

First, to obtain what *they* want from men at a discount using the feminine means of coercion (nagging scolding, shaming, rallying, gossip, etc…)
Second, to sabotage their competition, women of value to men, by filling their heads with destructive nonsense, and induce them to throw away their value in exchange for nothing.

Seen in this light, much that is incomprehensible about feminism makes sense. Do they really think they can “redefine” men’s “standards of beauty”? Maybe, maybe not. One thing they DEFINITELY can do is persuade other women to take less care of their own, and that makes them look better in comparison.

A lot of people think that feminism started out alright but it has “gone too far.” Well it started out using feminine coercion to obtain the franchise. Feminine coercion is dishonest and parasitic. But it’s also trivially easy to show that women’s suffrage is a long term existential impossibility. That argument depends on only a few, fairly obvious, points.

1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men, and the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.

All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.

There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence. The more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, as they see them, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build, and it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.

But we don’t actually HAVE to do either. We can do the opposite.

Women obtained the vote on the back of the lie that their former exclusion had been arbitrary and baseless, and therefore unnecessary and unjust, and that is the lie it is now necessary to debunk. But that lie stems from an ignorance (perhaps deliberate) of context.

In fact, women had been excluded from politics because political institutions had been created by men, as a compromise and an alternative to warfare, which is a male domain.
Voting and politics can be an economical alternative to warfare, as long as the winners do not seek either to take, or to impose enough to make warfare preferable for the losers.

It can be a win-win, the winners win more, and the losers lose less, than they can by warfare, because they do not have to try the matter by a contest of arms, and politics, therefore, can be stable and productive, so long as it remains within those bounds.

Women do not participate in warfare (and it is best that they do not) so it was never necessary to cut them in on the spoils of politics, and doing so is to grant them a great and unearned boon; a benefit that they could not obtain by other means. It was a pure indulgence, and an expense with no countervailing benefits. Women’s violence did not need to be bought off because they don’t threaten violence.

Because they are ignorant of the context, and of the domain, having never, historically, participated, and because they do not understand that warfare is the alternative, and politics only a means of avoiding warfare, and can always return to warfare, women recognize no limits. They always demand more. They always seek to impose more.

Further, women bring no spoils to the table, they only make off with them. They contribute nothing, they risk nothing, and they threaten nothing. Therefore it is only right and proper that in this arena, they get nothing.

Past generations of men thought they could afford to indulge women in this way, but the expense has only ever grown, and only ever will. Now, we can no longer afford it, even if we wanted to. The price would be our civilization and our future, and that is too high a price to bear.

The further the results of elections continue to diverge from the likely results of war -and women make those results diverge -for they participate in elections but not in warfare -the greater the incentive for those with the means (men) to stop playing democracy and start playing war. That’s a game we can win, and if all we need to do to win is switch games, then sooner or later we will switch games. It is a foregone conclusion.

That is why, and that is how, women’s suffrage shall end. It is inherently unstable, and fleeting. But men must know why they must fight.

When men vote, we’re saving each other money, saving each other’s lives, by not fighting about shit. When women vote, they’re getting something for nothing. Soon we will have nothing left to give, but plenty to take, our own way.[/tab]

[tab]Feminine Coercion

Feminine rhetorical devices and feminine rhetorical strategies, such as nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms , and so on and so forth, have no special utility for discovering or propagating truth. But they have great utility for spreading and propagating self-serving lies, because they have no built-in error testing or correction. So when nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc, are used by women, and by other effeminate creatures; we classify them, not as good faith participants in debate, but as lying, totalitarian, parasites.

Their aim in employing nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc., is not the mutual discovery of truth, but simply to GET THEIR WAY. The manner in which they accomplish this is by imposing costs, social costs, psychic costs, energy costs, time costs, until you simply relent and give them what they want. The reason they employ these means is to avoid the high cost of offering VALUE in exchange for what they DESIRE. That is why we call nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc… The feminine means of COERCION, for they are analogous to the masculine means of coercion (namely violence.)

But the masculine (violent) means of coercion are not inherently duplicitous or parasitic. They require strength to employ, and the strong are always able, and often willing, to offer something of value in exchange instead. Violent means MAY be used for parasitic ends and MAY be directed by lies or aim at sustaining lies. BUT the greatest strength REQUIRES truth and cooperation. Lies and parasitism sap strength, while cooperation builds strength, and truth is a logical requirement of cooperation (it is not in the interests of others to cooperate with self-serving deceivers.) No individual or group who spurns truth and cooperation can ever be truly strong in comparison to ones who embrace them.

In contrast, the feminine means of coercion are the implements and the refuge of the weak. The weak are intrinsically less able, and less willing, to offer value in exchange, and weakness has no lower limit. Parasitic lies make people weaker, which only makes them likely and liable to employ even more parasitic lies.

The proliferation of the feminine means of coercion, and the concomitant proliferation of parasitism and lies, are attributable mainly to one factor; women and other effeminate creatures are less subject than they once were, to violent retaliation and suppression using the masculine means of coercion.

that is certainly accurate.

and of course a simplified view of things is useful in constructing such a hardened position of certainty. it’s bordering on the ideological in this regard.

politics is certainly in part a substitute for war, but politics is also much more than this. war is competition and animal violence, desire and fear and anger and retribution and pleasure and and and. there is no such thing as one “war” (is one thing), and the same goes for politics.

simplified conceptual absolutes like this, how the terms war and politics are used above in the ilp essay for example, are like a few strokes of pen on a page. they help contribute to something but that to which they contribute is so much larger than they are themselves, and the larger truth could never be reduced to the few scratch marks on the page despite that, in the ideological self-rapture of those scratch marks, truth is supposedly to be reduced to them.

this is precisely why even good philosophy is also pure shit. good philosophy also causes more detailed and larger problems, “better” problems. better but not always desirable or necesssry in so far as this good philosophy ought to have been more but wasn’t. the philosopher always comes up against his own internal nonideological limit and therebe starts to break down and become a zealot, in service to mere psychology, his own psychology.

still, it is useful to have one piece out of a dozen or so. we could bother constructing the other pieces and adding them into the equation, if we felt like it.

this is also why our three philosophies, vo, daemonics and whatever mine is, are the only absolutely pure philosophies in existence. in fact what we are doing isn’t even philosophy, there as yet is no name for what we do.

“philosophy” is a bubble of aspiration for truth pushing itself out against an external ideological substance. but this bubble has as yet never been strong and sustained and structured (real) enough to actually demolish the ideological bu pushing it out of existence entirely. well that is to say, until we came along. rather, philosophy ALWAYS hits the limit of its ability to push out like that, and t that limit collapses into itself by reinterpreting the entirely of its own space in terms of the limit which it cannot surpass.

although ironically enough this ilp post exemplifies quite well another function of politics which the poster himself fails to identify: the construction of an ideological temple for use giving easy direction to action for the otherwise theistically reverent.

i consider all such ideological temple construction nothing more than the work of religious theists, attempting to minimize the world to a manageable platform for them to be capable of worshipping something like a raison d’etre. obviously that implies that such people inherently lack any governing raison d’etre and ethos on their own, that such artificial temples are even necessary to them. and in the construction of temples of this kind, it’s always useful to employ a few bricks of truth in the foundations... but never more than a few.

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/29/syrian-muslim-uk-rejects-christians/

I guess this is what keeps creeping in qua strangeness, discomfort when I relax too much -- the monsters are still preparing the death of mankind. It is still the case that it could be war any moment.

And of course it is war.
Ive still been nearly mortally damaged by my insane family with my nazi cousins, and Ill still spend the rest of my life spitting out the filth Ive swallowed from them.

Feels better to recognize that.

Fucking horrible nazi scums, three brothers abusing and humiliating each other aided by their insane mother... I respected one of them a lot for a long time. But I gave him Zarathustra for his 19th birthday and he was puzzled "uhhh, is this so like, ugh, philosophy? oh cool dude" - he never opened it, even six years later or so I asked him about it, he hadn't opened it.

Fuck these people.

99% of ppl are 99% bullshit



1% of ppl are 1% bullshit




law of nature

And the devil is 50 50.

He profits from the difference.

He gives the strong to the weak and the weak to the strong and cries like a goat.

Or a crocodile.


I am a river to my crocs.

gator bites

a few thoughts on (most, not all) women.

as they age they tend to stop responding to value. women are mainly a responsiveness to value, but over time they seem to get worn down and lose this. or the values they can respond to become simpler and flattened. they begin more and more to go in for ideology, moralism and rote habit.

men on the other hand are primarily an engagement with value in its creation. men deal with reality, women deal with people. it’s not surprising that men tend to prefer women of the same age or younger than themselves, especially as men get older the women of their own age are fading out more and more. younger women are still sensitive to and excited about values, they seek it and respond to it which means they seek and respond to men, to what is true and real in a man.

reality doesn’t allow for the existence of ideologies and moralistic habituations. those things only exist in people. and apparently there is not enough reality in people to where women could remain interested and engaged sensitively in response to value in people, over time. so it’s a novelty thing, women are driven by and composed of novelty. if this is central to their nature and i think it is, then this is also in part what men respond to in women, what men find attractive about women. but there it’s a closed circle and not much progress can be made. feminism is a doubling down on the gradual loss of responsiveness to value that women face, is an attempt to avoid acknowledging this fact and to remake reality itself in the images of ideologies.

that’s never going to work. because as i said, reality is not ideological. and real men are never ideological either. and real women are never ideological either, by the way.

i’ve experienced a brief taste of what it is like to be with a truly real woman, and this smallest taste was enough to intoxicate my soul more than any drug i’ve ever done. only the high euphoric moments of philosophizing can compare, and even those pale in comparison now because i’ve already done most of the real work of philosophizing. it’s a shame there are not more real women in the world, a damn shame indeed. but men will still pursue value which means pursue the best women, and no feminism will ever stop that. every man who falls victim to feminism and who stops pursuing the value of real women, is only one person less in the world for the rest of us to compete with.

women do not want to deal directly with reality, they want to deal with it theough the medium of other people. this is why feminism is so absurd. feminism is the pretense that women are just like men and prefer to deal with reality directly. obviously that isn’t true, and this is also why feminism ends up trying to remake the world in the image of people, namely in an ideological moralistic and very small largely unreal image. the most true instincts in women for direct reality engagement come with the maternal instincts, hence why feminism joins forces eirh big daddy government and wants to “protect” everyone and everything without realizing how it is also simultaneously destroying it.

but the naïveté and innocence of women is beautiful, their lack of self-awareness is beautiful too. men shelter this lack by our very nature, we protect it without even thinking. that’s part of why women developed to deal with people and not with reality directly. but the best women deimit and shape their own naïveté around a hard personality core, they become daemonic in this way. a good woman is an infinitude of irreconcilable contradictions that do not need to be reconciled to each other to coexist beautifully as one personality. men reconcile and draw in more and more contradiction as excess due to this reconciling drive, the drive to engage reality directly; men are full of contradictions only because we are as yet not perfect at doing the reconcile thing when it comes to certain ideas and certain aspects of ourselves. so it is in the destiny of man to eventually overcome all such limits and reconcile all contradictions, namely to philosophize. and it is in the destiny of women to love this in a man and to help protect him from the hell of so much self-awareness, to re-enliven his spent soul over and over again thereby transferring excess back and forth between them in a beautiful dance of mutual valuation, respect joy and need.

women only need to achieve enough self awareness to know that they don’t need to achieve anymore self awareness because they have found a real man in whom to lay down the burden of life and of philosophizing. men only need to achieve enough self awarneness to know that they have found the best woman in whom he can continue engaging wi h reality head on and philosophizing unto the ends of the earth without this killing him in a spent excess lost to the abyss.

Girls are bored by men's stuff. Men are disgusted at girls who engage in men's stuff. Unless they be gay faggots. But the feminists keep them on the pussy, the trick to procreating gay men. Btw, obviously, not all gay men are faggots. Well ok they are, but many are worthy of respect. Certainly being out of the closet and leaving the gezzene pool alone is a precondition.

In a world of faggots, ironically, it is only a new type of girl, or rather very old one, the Matron, that can defeat the empire and bring balance back to the force.

The alternative would be making war with women, which is itself a pretty gay thing to do.

exactly.

and there are different kinds of truly great women. the ones i’ve known are each unique in their true greatness. four in total, each very different. but all share the same quality of accurate feminine responsiveness to value and love of men for their reality-engagement factor. and just all around these women are all badass, in their own way.

men do not make war on women. we attempt to save women who need saving, or at worst we ignore them.

Yeah, without such women, the weakness in other men would serve us up.

I will add that to deal with men is to deal with reality -
especially to deal with the different types of man, and to learn to discern good from bad in men -
that is some fucking job.

Hallowed is the woman who dares to judge weakness, to see strength as noble.

Indeed young women often do this instinctively, so hallowed are they. But the ones who do it consciously, and thus are able to face their own judgments, are truly royal.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

Meanwhile tommy Robinson banned from instagram and Alex Jones.of course, millions of other crimes against us -- we need, now, to begin securing our online materials.

We will need a lot of on-the-ground presence down the line.
The books wherein much on collected are good.
But we need to collect all our good work here in document to print.

Within a year or two we must have shifted to less obscurable domains, where our words take root instantly.

What did we ever do to Hegel?

everything is analytically impossible without self valuing.