Monday, September 29, 2014

Do Women Understand The Nature of Human Existence?

Camille Paglia would suggest the majority of them don't.

I would add to this by pointing out the majority of modern men don't know anything remotely about themselves or the world around them either. If you wanted to do the reasonable thing you'd take suffrage away from women and men who do not own property.

This would have three beneficial effects almost right away :

1. People would want to become owners, not renters or mortgaged. Even if it meant a smaller piece of turf they'd want to own it outright. This would build a country a lot more stable than the one you see now.

2. Every person who voted would be quite clear on what they were voting for as part of the ancient biological rules that govern life itself : territory, progeny, security from invaders. These values in turn promote that most efficient of all family organizations, the nuclear household of husbands and wives defending their children.

3. You would be effectively neutering all R-Types in the population, consisting of whiners, felchers and hysterical drama queens creating never-ending storms in teacups. If they had no votes, politicians would laugh openly at them instead of being forced to nod their heads the way you do with spoiled rotten children and concede to their every crazy, lunatic demand. We'd go back to the 19th century and such people would lose the capacity to reproduce themselves without any means or the wherewithal to even get simple manual laboring jobs.

When I was born in 1963, in around 3/4 of the United States outside of the big cities, just speaking to a woman with a funny tone in your voice or giving her the wrong kind of look means you would be surrounded by her brothers, her father, her husband and maybe the town sheriff in about ten minutes. So much as making a suggestive comment to a woman might see you getting tied up and then tarred and feathered at midnight and thrown onto the back of a boxcar with instructions from local law enforcement to never show your face there again. One experience like this was usually enough to guarantee that even hobos would hold their hats in their hands and look at the ground when they spoke to a strange woman the first time in a new place. You never knew how many champions she might have close at hand.

The lives of women have never been so cheap as in the modern world under feminism. The belief that the State can protect females from males when women have lost all of their value to them as kin and family members is a Marxist fantasy. Feminism has fixed females so they are no longer considered qualified to be wives, sisters, mothers and daughters but flesh puppets in a three minute porno and nothing more. Feminism has seen to it that females are now regarded with less respect than at any time in recorded human history. If your male protector is the State, ladies, you picked a real wimp to guard your household. The State is an abusive husband who is never around when you need him and has nothing but apologies when he shows up after intruders have ravaged you and your loved ones. If the State loved you the way a man should love you, would they attempt to strip the female of the greatest equalizer of them all - arms against predators? Of course not. No heterosexual man anywhere has ever supported keeping arms out of the hands of women. Betting on the State to protect the dignity of women is betting on a losing horse. That's just another thing they claim to be able to do when experience shows they can't. That doesn't stop centuries of Marxists from promising that rainbow stew express will pull into town any day now bringing the earthly paradise with it. The really incredible thing is that so many idiots still believe it.


ray said...

'One experience like this was usually enough to guarantee that even hobos would hold their hats in their hands and look at the ground when they spoke to a strange woman the first time in a new place. You never knew how many champions she might have close at hand.'

Exactly the kind of blind chivalry and idolization of femaleness that led, a decade later, to the triumph of feminism.

styrac1 said...

Great link and great post.

John said...

"Exactly the kind of blind chivalry and idolization of femaleness that led, a decade later, to the triumph of feminism."

No. What Tex is talking about is one of the bedrock principles of every healthy, well-functioning society that has ever existed. From a strictly biological perspective there is an obvious need to protect the females of the household. Beyond that, there are things like honor, love, and the realization that the family you know is just the most recent generation or two of an ancient lineage.

Put that Man-O-Sphere Kool-Aid down for a second and think about how you got here. Do you know who your father is? Do you like knowing who your father is? Will you ever have a family of your own? Do you think it's possible to have a spine while at the same time feeling compassionate and protective toward the women in your family?

Jassi said...

"Betting on the State to protect the dignity of women is betting on a losing horse."

No, it's like betting on the horse used in a bestiality show.

ray said...

I'm sick to death of American 'men' and their enabling of the Feminist State. Both the lefty loonie and the Big Brave Whiteknight righties. That is reality not kool aid, and if you don't have the groceries for it, then at least don't pollute others with your cowardice.

Héctor said...

"No. What Tex is talking about is one of the bedrock principles of every healthy, well-functioning society that has ever existed. "

That's not true. functioning societies recognize that most males and almost no female are suited for high level thinking.

They have no business in a political system. Functioning societies recognized that while children and women are the priority, women on their own are incapable of unconditional love as many men understand it.

This is not something new, is implicit in the Bible (which requires women to respect men not love them) and in many civilizations including our own in saner times (Schopenhauer, the fathers of the Church, et al).

Whether you like it or not we arrived at this point from the Protestant female worship and displaced chivalry that valued women and sex over all things including God; this Weltanschauung paved the to feminist ideas promoted and sponsored by the elites. That's why for most of human history, women were protected but her impulses and desires restrained. And I wouldn't trust most modern females with weapons either, some of them would even kill their children in a fit of rage, since they have not been raised to be good mothers and love the only thing a woman can really love...her offspring. The responsibility to protect a woman falls on her man, either her husband or her kin.

Texas Arcane said...


All this sturm and drang manosphere calls for the subjugation of women to serf status is nearly as bad as feminism itself.

Why does it need (like feminism) to insist that it is the past that was flawed and only our new progressive radical system can succeed?

According to feminists, the healthy family unit with the male at the head of the household was the problem.

According to manosphere neck bearded women slayers, the healthy family unit with the male at the head of the household was the problem.

All of you guys are different shades of marxism claiming our ancestors got it all wrong but you know better.

What we had fifty years ago wasn't flawed. It was nearly perfect. It is not that women were not abused under that system, it is that I doubt women were any more abused than men under it. It was about one million times superior to what we have now. Modern people claim to be able to improve on a system they have failed to even maintain, much less improve on.

The manosphere women beaters gateway to happiness are nearly as crazy and as deranged as feminists. All of you represent unhealthy and unwholesome male perspectives on both sides of that good cop/bad cop dichotomy.

Men have been deferring to females and letting them think they run the house for a million years. As long as the female ultimately understands the male is the king and she is the queen, it is the mark of a strong male to say kind things to his wife and tolerate a great deal of childishness from her, including indulging her. If you masculine your wife knows who is in charge of the house.

There is a lot of pathology nowadays in both genders and it is weakness that either of them insists on a tyranny over the other.

I ultimately blame both extremes on bad genes, which can't be helped. Lacking the instincts to understand your proper sexual role, no system in the world is going to save you. That's why all these Ragnarok radicals are just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.

Chris James said...

Pedalistizing women at the expense of male dignity is what is responsible for the entitlement attitude of modern western women. If you keep treating people like their shit don't stink, they start to believe it. That's not the same as cherishing women, as was done 50 years ago. Men knew that most women were childish and vain yet played ball. As long as the woman was gracious in accepting appeasement and flattery, there was little problem. Now you have a cadre of ungrateful, tattooed warpigs who think they deserve a wealthy prince when they are less like Cinderella and more like her foul sisters. They don't respect your "king and queen" arrangement. What is the value there? What kind of mothers and caretakers can these beasts possibly be? Their attitudes and behavior ensure that "Women and children first" is coming to an end. For the women.

@Tex - most of the manosphere talk I've ever heard agrees with the wisdom of the ancients and the role of male as the head of a stable household. A problem with them is there are still too many bitter dudes among them who believe their self worth revolves around success with club sluts, when the point should be to stop giving women,their bodies, and a shallow society's views of what makes a man that kind of power. I believe that feelings of rejection lead to wanting to dominate those that rejected them. Fascism is a product of butthurt

Chris James said...

Oh, and let's not get crazy here. Respect is one thing, but any "champions" try to surround me because I don't act like a pauper in front of a princess, and it's going to be a memorable night for all involved. This is another thing today's tattooed warthogs like to encourage: violence between male white knights. Stop giving these creatures power to ruin male lives.

Texas Arcane said...

@Chris James

I don't accept that woman and men are at war or ever were. It's a marxist lie. They are not natural enemies and they do not represent opposing interests.

You manosphere guys are starting to sound like The Screwfly Solution, you know that, right? It is one shade to the left from homosexuality with its intense hatred of females as sexual competitors.

The she-monsters are suiciding as childless heifers now. They have already kevorkianed themselves.

John put the best comment up here. We Western people want to know our fathers names. So what if a gangbang harem can also continue the species - what is that species going to be like in their character and innermost spirit? Arabs have been running harems for millennia and I think their last innovation was the base-10 number system around 2000 years ago.

The best females are already figuring it out and the worst don't need to reproduce to begin with. The same can be said of men.

Héctor said...

@Tex I am not going to defend the Manosphere types but you cannot apply the same standard to all of them, specially since many of those sites take reference in the ancient wisdom that apparently has gone over your head: Women ARE not weaker and milder versions of men, they are different altogether so different that we complement each other...HOWEVER men must occupy the head of the household and society.

You seem unable to notice that women are the same throughout history and that men ARE not in a war against women but most women (North 70%) are in a continuous warfare against men in all regions where western influence is noticeable. Whether at work or at the household, many women have been brainwashed (by our elites and if you don't believe me do a little research and see who sponsors all feminist activities...) to believe that they have been oppressed and that payback time for males is now.

Women are to be cherished but restrained, since her basic impulses are contrary to civilization and despite what you believe men are not the main beneficiaries of harem building, only women and elite men (0.00001%)are. That's why God invented the institution of marriage and recommended it to be a one man one woman arrangement.That's why most men tried to uphold this institution through traditions and regulations of men and women base natures, an institution which is contrary to "honey's" innermost desires.

Now my generation (30s and below) is harvesting what our grandfathers (who most likely thought like you) did when they allowed women to vote and be the playthings of the magicians of the media. Thankfully we will learn something from all of this and our daughters can inherit a better world.

Chris James said...


I'm not part of the manosphere, unless any criticism of women whatsoever is enough to put me there. Everything I stated is simple truth that is known by anyone who observes the American people. It cannot be denied, it cannot be deconstructed.

I did not state anything about a war between the sexes, I don't know where you're pulling that from. Nor did I offer anything resembling a Screwfly Solution. Please stop strawmanning. I can roll out a few unpleasant observations about the modern American male as well, but that wasn't the topic at hand.

Herman said...

Can we all agree that most feminists are either naive high school and college tumblr addicts or batshit crazy self entitled cunts hellbent on destruction in a kali like rage. Furthermore, the nuclear family unit is the foundation of any society worth a damn.

Texas Arcane said...


No arguments here.

Texas Arcane said...

@Chris James

Would you admit the marxists won if they have turned men and women into armed camps of opposition? Whatever the reason, marxists won.

Sam said...

I agree with Ray. If Women are not doing their part then "... chivalry and idolization of femaleness..." just leads to disaster. Men let them do it so I'm not letting them off the hook either. There's going to be a huge Male/Female gap for about the next thirty years after the whole thing collapses and Women find out Men actually were good for something.

Believe it or not the EXACT same thing happened in ancient Rome. No fault divorce followed by Men refusing to marry. The gov. even put in place a bachelors tax. Of course Men would just work less if taxed more. See if the same thing doesn't happen here. Then when it comes time that someone needs to fight for the state the Men will just sit on their hands.

Men are not at war with Women. Women are at war with Men. Agreed

I agree also with Hector and Herman.

It will not end well.

There's an idea I have. Most Men want Women of breeding age. When the baby boom hit there was an enormous amount of these. Now the number has shrunk in comparison to the total amount of Men which includes older men. This allows Women much more power in society. Hence them being a bit spoiled compared to earlier times. If this is true it would also happen in societies with the same circumstances. This would mean a lot of the Asian, Middle East and other developing countries would follow the same path. With a time lag from the West. It might also explain the Roman condition. After Rome stabilized the Male deaths from war would fall. Making the amount of Women scarce compared to the earlier war periods. No-fault divorce follows, etc...

Texas Arcane said...


Again, focused on your personal grudge match.

If the purpose of marxist feminism was genocide and reducing birth rates to negative values, it has succeeded admirably.

You're still trying to establish who is at fault. At this point, does it really matter? Women are vulnerable to foolishness and it is men's job to suppress nation wreckers and saboteurs. Men didn't do their job when they neglected to fire Betty Friedan from a cannon at a brick wall. If they had spoken up then with greater conviction instead of retiring before the withering onslaught of self-righteous bolshevist hogwash we would not be having this conversation now.

The purpose of feminism was to split men against women and destroy all of them by lowering birth rates. It worked. Here we are.

KW Jackson said...

It is about lowering birth rates: cultural Marxism is a tool of the elites towards the global plantation of latte slaves (multiple entendre intended). So many of us are focused on the 1st order consequences instead of the third or fourth order. It's just a limitation of our pathetic Prussian education system which trains us that way. The trouble with many of us is that we think we are smart enough to compete with an elite who have thousands of years of breeding for high-IQ psychopathy. They control us with three main planks demonstrated by: Milgram experiment, Dunning-Kruger effect, and Stockholm Syndrome. It takes about 15 years to undo brainwashing so until you've been "awake" that long it's likely you still run some of their cultural software. How do you know you're clear of it? You can probably never consider yourself clear of it all unless you are a psychopath: in which case you always have been.

Texas Arcane said...


Ditto everything.

People think they can avoid being manipulated by melonheads. They are wrong. Melonheads manipulated them into overestimating their own intelligence so they'd be dumb enough to think they could avoid being manipulated.

If you think of it as a black box, the net result is lower birthrates. It hardly matters if inside that black box, men and women are arguing vehemently about who is to blame and where responsibility lies.

Melonheads could care less. Melonheads win. Birth rates drop to negative replacement values. Manboons lose when they try to outthink melonheads.

If people had respected their ancestors (1st Commandment) then they would not have so readily believed a stranger telling them their ancestors got it all wrong and women were slaves and abused and treated unjustly. For every woman in history you can find treated badly I can show you ten thousand men who were murdered simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Chris James said...


I would agree, absolutely. They are in the process of winning, at the very least. Lowering the birth rates, as well as isolating people from one another, making us easier to scare, suppress, marginalize, make dependent on the state.

Also agree with KW's and your point about the "1st order consequences." So I can see why you're annoyed with us focusing on what are basically schoolyard dynamics in comparison.

Wayne Earl said...

All of it is bullshit. It is all about click bait for cash in ad revenue on both sides of the table.

If you believe society must be changed, vote with a bullet and change it. The only right anyone ever has is the one that a stronger person is prevented from taking. All of the "Marxist" whining is nothing more then an impersonal label to avoid responsibility for ones own actions.

Take your life or shut the fuck up.

Texas Arcane said...

@Wayne Earl

I just wish you could come out of your shell and tell us what you really think.

We support Ukraine and condemn war. Push Russian government to act against war. Be brave, vocal and show your support to Ukraine. Follow the latest news HERE