/edu/ - Education

I can't breed

Men have been writing about their inability to get laid for centuries.
Marx has already described this in the Manifesto
<The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

<But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

<The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

<He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

<For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

<Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

<Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

This for example
>In the past a guy would take a girl on a date, and pay for her dinner. Now the girl posts a nude photo on onlyfans which the guy pays for and masturbates over, and the girl uses the money to buy her own dinner on uber eats. What was previously an authentic human relationship has now been intermediated by the market and commodified
Is incel trash and reveals far more about you than the phenomenon you're trying to diagnose.
>This is on top of the fact that high housing prices (also a a result of late capitalist society) prevents young people from engaging in sexual intercourse for the very simple fact that it's difficult to bring a date over when you live with your parents
You can try not being a loser.

>>13013
<is incel trash and reveals far more about you
<You can try not being a loser.
>individualizing collective phenomena

ngmi

>>23174
i think youre reading too deep into this.
Also once again , this prioritising of procreation is the problem of all human society.

War and peacw are dictated by resources and respective quanta of etnic groups

>>23174
Fueled by Pervitin™

>>23208
>all of these revisions then represent the movement toward a *qualitative* form of parenting, which invests in the child themselves, rather than the child's end product. a child must be treated as a subject, not an object; a person, not a product.

Big agree. Children are treated as alter egos of the parents. It's also disquieting that humans are the only species that infantilises their young.
Humans do everything in their power to limit juvenile autonomy.
When animal babies start walking, parents take them out hunting and foraging.
Humans out their babies in playpens.
Or dump them in daycares.
Or shoot them up with psych meds

>like how a man's power is rational, while a woman's is intuitive; fiery and watery
.
Meh, I think men are also intuitive and women are also rational.
Men can sense when something is off with their fellow mates. It's just that women patronise male sentimentality.
Women can also make strictly business decisions. But men feel uncomfortable with female stoicism.

>the first is that the wealthy or affluent are often sublimated homosexuals, like we see in the history of art.

Idk. A lot of proles also have subliminal homosexuality.
A lot of workmen have their first loves with their best friends. Men used to write letters to each other complimenting each other's looks and character.
Men would make pacts with each other.

>>13013
This sounds like bullshit

I've always been saying that relationships are business contracts, not vanity projects.
Romance and sex have been oversold as customer rewards of adulthood since the nineteenth century.
Most people are declining in home training and don't have a family business that they can support a partner with

>>23228
Naziposter, you're the most dialectically coherent poster on here

No joke, most other "leftists" on here are more reactionary than anything.

>yes but its about primary powers. reason is phallic since it begins as prideful posture. all occultists agree that lucifer is the power of reason, and so it is equally corruptive. what rises, also falls. reason is the brother of rhetoric, who is the father of bullshit. men are bullshitters, which is different from women. women can be liars, but never bullshitters like men.

So the Tree Of Knowledge is the symbol of reason, which is the modus operandi of Lucy Fair?
Also, yea, knowledge is often used for posturing and is used to patronize others.
Schools often act the same way as churches with its talk about "expanding your mind/opening the world" yet it condemns kids who don't confirm to non-liberal, non-idealistic thought
Many people get pissy at me for questioning the institutionalisation of public schooling.
Wrong on the last sentence.Women can and do out bullshit men. But, there's something women can never outdo men in.
Idealism.
Men are sentimental beings, more so than women.
Men are the ones who create philosophy and make arts and crafts and create romance. Women are often receivers.

>in ancient greece, soldiers used to take youths with them to be spectators of battles. vocational education has also been the norm since before the industrial revolution - marx ofc is against specialisation though, and instead promotes the mass of unskilled labour to serve as the basis of social relations, which is part of the problem. the slave is the unskilled worker. the exporting of physical labours onto machines also leads to machines doing the thinking for us.


Machines are not subtracting from the human element. They're only an extension. People don't remember that whenever we adapt a new mode of technology, we require a new field of study and maintenance for said technology

We never needed hardware or software engineers a century ago. But now we do.
Alot of medical imaging machines require supercritical fluids for coolant.
They also require maintenance on wiring.
Machines don't do the thinking for us, they do the hard to reach areas for us and we have to interpret their data.

Also, technical skills used to be taught in schools up until the 1940s thru 70s.

>all men are homoerotic. the difference between the homoerotic and homosexual however is the identity of the unconscious. this is why the division of male sexuality is between the gay and non-gay (A and non-A). you can be straight and have sex with men, and be a gay virgin.

Well, bros before hoes.
I the Old Testament, David was on the run from King Saul because God sent Prophet Samuel to annoying David as the new king after Saul disobeyed a task.
David had befriended Saul's son Jonathan

Jonathan would go out to visit David to give him food and warn him of Sauls plans

David said of Saul: My love for you is stronger than my love for women.
Bros before hoes
The story of Biggie and Tupac. They used to be best friends who met up and used to do freestyle raps together.
Tupac helped Biggie with his rapping style.
The night of Tupac being ambushed, Biggie happened to being the same studio where it happened.
Poor Biggie was blamed and Tupac verbally attacked him every since. It turned Tupac against NYC until his death

But also, in the old days, men used to be touchy feely with each other. Hold hands, give bro hugs and bro kisses.
Used to be each other's first times.
A lot of gay guys used to have crushes on their own friends.
They never fell in love with them just by virtue of gender but by their character.
A lot of BL/yaoi focus on homosexual/homoerotic relationships from the sense of childhood friends or classmates or coworkers who hung out with each other enough develop fondness.
Alot of fanfiction of ships are often canon male characters who were primary comrades who stood by each other through thick and thin.

See Naruto and Sasuke or Sanju and Zoro

>>23231
>pride is the uniquely intellectual sin. it is the faith we hold in ourselves, which never comes to fruition. as socrates says, "i am the wisest man in the world for i know nothing". i believe, but i do not know. when i think i know, i am become prideful and God casts me out of paradise.

Socrates was the one who complained about the youth being "lazy" due to having newfound writing media.
Academics have a strong pathological contempt for worldly elements in the classroom.
I see alot of posts by teachers decrying the youth as being dumb just because they dont do cursive or "critical thinking" (i.e writing pretentious papers about some dead poets thought), yet the same teachers seem to be ignorant about technical skills or ethnic affairs.
Teachers can only see the world from their self-sheltered academic lens.
They dont like dealing with students who dont conform to the institutional stereotype of chikdhood innocence.
Teachers dont like precociousness or cynicism at all.

>the difference is that its illegal not to send your kid to school. school is institutional in the formal sense, which is why teachers are supposed to be "heroes". the function of schooling is to primarily farm children while their parents are working. its a matter of managing time around the working day, not "education".

This. School functions like prison. Bullies and forced socialisation.
Adults will stop kids from sex, drugs, or bad fashion, but not from bullying. In fact, any sort of advocacy against bullying is mocked.
Whats worse is that adults will say schooldays are "the best years of your life" and say work sucks.
At least work has far greater freedom of choice.
You can choose another workplace if things get hectic.
You cannot do that with school.
Most adults think schooling will save their offspring from slavery. They beat ther kids for having difficulties in schoolwork.
Yet all the shit they make kids go through, when the kid graduates, all the acsdemic skills they learned in school mean nothing in the real world.

Adults nitclick/pathologise kids for misspelling or slang or not knowing random trovia.
Yet most adults when questioned about ther academic skill, theyre unable to recall what they learned in school.
All they recall is their dumb childhood shenanigans.

Adults think childhood is supposed to remain the same throughout every generation.
No new tech, no worldly/precocious instinct, no new slang, etc. Irony is, childhood as an anti-worldly hugbox is modern, not historical.
People say kids nowadays lose their innocence too early? Its the opposite. Theyre drowning in innocence.
Look at how its normalised to be awkward, weak, and unworldly throughout your youth.
Some adults even say "its important to have an awkward phase in your teens otherwise you become a terrible person". And the result? People waste their teens, twenties, and thirties with zero maturity/stability/life skills.

>yes. a boy's possessiveness over the mother is his lifelong psychic attachment. a man's phallic existence is also oriented around the ambition to outcompete other men, if only in the abstract.

People complain about "mommas boys" but they get upset if boys arent loyal to their moms.
These same people also cling hard to their own moms.

>a woman by comparison has no concept of perfection, for she is gleamed as possessing this quality in herself by her lover. a woman is signified, while a man signifies. a man loves much more deeply than a woman, for a woman expects to be loved. this also applies economically as i say; a woman's existence is valuable, while a man's isnt.

Women are only valued for their beauty, youth, and innocence. Once they lose that to aging and worldly exposure, men dont want to associate with them.

Also again, alot of the criticism against modern women for not respecting/appreciating mens efforts is due to men infantilising women for centuries
Chivalry is simping.

>yes, before neoliberalism and the international consensus of financial speculation. protectionism is called nationalism today. people would rather be serfs than upset the market.

People complain about "illegals taking over the local job market" when theyre doing the gruntwork that native born nationals dont wanna do.
People think themselves too good for manual labor jobs nowadays. They would rather go into student debt for white collar jobs they assume are cushy six-figure salaries

>indeed
I meant to say Jonathan, not Saul

>the apostles say that they should greet each other with holy kisses. some churches still do this.
Maybe the Catholic churches, Protestants are cold affect.

>this is another facet of male love. men have brotherly love (loyalty, honour), while women cannot have stable sisterhoods.

Disagree. Women can have sorority. Theyre just discouraged from doing so.

>well this is where male sexuality begins - with friends or with ourselves. to masturbate is to perform an act of autohomosexuality. the penis is an alienated object which we appeal to, like how we have to "try" to get our dick hard and so on. impotence with women is also common

Why is anything relating to mens bodies is always sexualused as homo?
I wouldnt count masturbation as "autohomosexuality".
Its autosexuality.

>the plastic penis today is the interpassive penis of cuckoldry which also reveals to us the truth of our own condition, in how we do not have sex for ourselves, but as a duty to the Other. our enjoyment is the Other's pleasure. this is clear from all the way back in the gift economies of antiquity, where we use all of our resources to appeal to this Other (which is the primary Other of our own penis - whose Will is mysterious, even as aquinas tells us; we can control our entire body, but we cannot control our penis).

This is why I say man is not above the animals.
We claim superiority over beasts but we go crazy from lack of sex/affection.
Yet we are not allowed to acknowledge this.
Human socialisation is all about potential mating.
People cannot see each other as a fellow person, only as a gender role.
Humans try to philosophise romance and love but theres nothing deep about it.

Humans are the only species to artificially extend childhood to deny this fact.

>all warfare is an attempt to grasp the phallic weapon and slay our enemies with it. it is said that roman soldiers used to rape surrendered enemies, like how rapes happen in prison. the penis is man's alienation; his glory, his pride, his violence and his love. he is what he can never fully be; the universal penis.

Perhaps so. Thats why violence often uses sexual lingo. "Fuck shit up" " Beat his ass"
Or listen to punk or gangster rap.

>>23232
>the nature of skilled and unskilled labour should be based on a natural order of experience, where the young perform unskilled jobs and the older manage production (people have noted how this is often inverted, where a young manager supervises older employees).

Unskilled labor is to done if one is lame or elderly or a child. Young adults should not waste their prime doing that. They should be in industrial training.


>the idea that a minimum wage job can or is supposed to raise a family is total nonsense also, and it is a sickening defeat (or complacency) that the left lobby for "higher pay" in fields which cannot sustain an "aristocracy of labour" in marxian terms, since unskilled labour is not a sublation of guild systems of master and apprentice.

This. Unfortunately, most leftists nowadays are liberals at best. The right too.

>raising wages for entry-level jobs means an idea that this labour is legitimate for a career, when it isnt. what has happened then is that labour has been specialised in some areas, but radically deskilled in most. this is a natural tendency of industry, which seeks to debase labour down to a level where it can be paid at a lower rate. this rate is natural unfortunately, since industrial society is the quantitative society, as we see with overpopulation. more people = more unskilled labour. this is the merchant consciousness of slavery too which has high speculation but low investment. one buys a slave in order to create more slaves. this is also the contemporary strategy of human farming, which begins in the bourgeois family unit.

This. Youve been saying the same thing Ive been saying but more words. Unfortunately, I get shut down as some reactionary/rightoid for suggesting that maybe people should do trades instead asking for minimum wage increase for shitty customer service work.
Alot of people feel entitled to have a spouse and kids without having any sort trade or business to support them. And since they have no technical skills, kids have to learn the hard way by themselves because mom and dad are just dumb breeders
Adulthood used to be earned, it meamt you spent your formative years learning survival skills ensuring you can get shit dome for yourself. Nowadays, adulthood is given. Its become an arbitrational consumer service give to those who are "of age".
Adults nowadays focus only on their rights and privileges as consumers. And they wanna childproof everything so they dont have to deal wifh watching over the kids.
You cam see how Boomers, Gen X, Y, and Z function as adults compared to the Lost, Greatest, and Silent Generations.

>the destiny of industrial society then is perpetual bankruptcy, mass unemployment, genocide, slavery, or even extinction. marx's faith is that the proletariat has become a subject capable of producing value - but this only matters as far as he is a consumer, not a producer. his productivity can be outsourced and replaced. his subjectivity is a quantitative, not qualitative relation. "human rights" are the rights of alienated humanity, in capital. all sides seek to control the machine, but never to dismantle the machine. this is the anti-heroic complacency of civil society, which is always defensive, but never offensive. peaceful and submissive. "pay the slaves better" says the left, so that they will never revolt. "this is the end of history" they say, so that there can be nothing new.


People are not peaceful but they are submissive.
People wanna talk about "freedom" and "rights" but nobody wants to work hard for it. People think themselves as transcendant of nature. Like I said, nobody wants to be free from "nature". They want favor from "nature".


>at least let me die, i say. throw me out into the cold, so that i may learn to hate my masters. when i see a workers strike, i see an army without a commander. the plight of labour must be paid in blood, not gold. luigi mangione is a martyr; a vision of the hero, which is the only symbol of legitimate revolution. we dont want health insurance, we want dead businessmen.

Dead businessmen dont fix the problem either. Believe it or not, the CEOs are the biggest slaves to the system. They make the most money but that money is never theirs to enjoy. They have to pay for job insurance, review contracts daily, make sure subordinates arent backstabbing them, they cannot take breaks.

If a submanager decides to swindle the company of a few million, CEOs have to answer for that.

Doesnt mean theyre good people though. In fact CEOs are elected by a director collective.
Just like presidents or prime ministers.
Or even kings.

They dont have the most power. Theyre the biggest slaves. They are bound to the whims of ther respecive congress or council

>>23236
>this is more of a deontological issue for me however. i think it is good, regardless of the consequences, to kill these people. same way it is a good in-itself to torture child molesters.
>i dont disagree. but they are just one facet of class enemy. politicians, bankers, landlords, journalists and so on also need beheading in a reign of terror. the "issue" is solved with every drop of blood spilt. but here again we run into the abstract/concrete paradigm. a leftist sees class as a "social/material relation", while i acknowledge personal class actors. the highest justice to me is only a sublime vengeance; it is those who live by the sword, dying by the sword. it is the pain they have inflicted returning back to them. this is good, regardless of consequence. the justice of God is not in his grace, but in his wrath. Hell is the purifying flame, where death itself dies. evil is purer than good then, for it completes the first and final task of creation, by abolishing itself.

Interesting enough, it was said God created hell originally for Satan.
The Bible also says that Jesus will come back not as a humble carpenter but as a prince of vengeance.
He will come back to separate the "lambs" from the "goats".

In the Old Testament, God is portrayed more as a vindicator. Notice that God often strikes down people with plagues every other day for disobedience?
Twice He opened up the earth to swallow dissenters.

>>23251
God created Lucifer originally as a court page.
He was the one who gathered all the hosts of Heaven whenever God had a discussion.

>how one is "bored" when he experiences the length of time as an actuality. the passing of time is itself an experience of timelessness; this is why "eternity" means both the timeless, and a long duration.

This. A lot of people say that time is slower when you're a kid. That's because your life is regulated to the point of where everything feels finalized without your consent.
Time speeds up when you get older because you have more freedom but more responsibilities.
But you know who also experiences slow time? Jailbirds.

>well immediately after Christ's ascension in the book of acts, the holy spirit starts smiting people, and as you say, Christ/Michael is the soldier who kills the devil.


Can you show me where it says that?

>the last judgement also is the great trial of existence. there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for the unrighteous. my larger point about evil however is that evil must be destroyed by evil, which is a negation of negation. this is the legal right the state holds against criminals for example, "an eye for an eye" and so on. evil must come into mutual recognition for its Concept to be completed. satan must be thrown into the lake of fire.

For the past several months, I come the theory that good and evil are fundamental forces not unlike electricity or gravity
The old scientific proverb: Matter and mass cannot be created nor destroyed, only concert forms.

Likewise, I think the same for good and evil.
Because if God created things be speaking them into existence, why did He not "poof" Satan out of existence?
Same for evil humans.
God could poof them out of existence.
Methinks God is more a mediator or "energy converter" rather than a personal being
He is bound by laws that even He cannot violate because it's impossible. Just like it's impossible for humans to jump up high into space.

Anything that's corrupted in the spirit cannot be destroyed. It remains permanently in existence like so but trapped in a special locale within the spirit realm far away from everything else.

>>23282
>time moves faster when our consciousness is absorbed by objects of our affection. this is why for example, if we fast, we experience the day much slower. pain is the experience of eternity; Hell. the object of consciousness is >typically to escape its singularity (I Am; YHWH), yet the common spiritual task is an attempt to return to this mystical reality. it is unbearable to most for them to sit >silently in a room, emptying their thoughts, and focusing only on their breath. if you experience this meditative state however, you will experience it much slower than it actually occurs, just like the time-dilation of a dream. here then, time is not a mechanical property of reality, but a relative property of experience. freud is correct then when he describes the unconscious as a "timeless" space.


Interestingly, it's said that in high stakes situations, our brains slows down time so we can better react.
Time is also affected by gravity.
Astrophysical objects with high gravity often have slower timeflow.

That's why communication satellites need constant calibration because their clocks are often off by milliseconds due to gravitational differences of Earth orbit and sea level.

>Goodness then is a form of evil (a negation of negation [such as azrael killing the angels, and then himself, in the quran - this is by far the most epic narrative in all of religion]; like how walter russell speaks on how light is an inverted darkness -

>the simple answer is that all evil serves a greater good, like how all war leads to a greater peace, or how all criminals kill each other. evil is a self-regulating good (since all temptation is self-inflicted and all consequences are karmic), which is why we call evil in many cases a "necessary evil".

God refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega. Also, notice how God created Lucifer but He allowed Lucifer into the Garden after kicking Him out of Heaven to tempt Adam and Eve.

Me thinks God wanted Lucifer to tempt Adam.and Eve as a test. People often say that God did this as a test of free will. He wants us to make the choice to pursue Good.


Also like you said, notice how evil often is attracted to evil and when they collides they do often go out in a big bang.
We see this in the sociogeographic hip hop war between NYC and Southern California back in the 1990s.
A lot of the victims were often people who weren't evil but were egotistical and careless.

Or how some serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer are killed in prison especially when they start to "convert"

mfs talking about lucifer and shit wtf. what happened to materiaist

>that is a common and valid opinion. i think God is a person though since i believe God must have a soul, and thus a personality (even dogs have personality). his works are just so mysterious and brilliant that we cannot conceive of his personal genius however. if God has no personal soul or authority, then what is the cause of his existence? why should we pray to him? he might as well not exist since matter is self-regulating anyway (which is why engels calls himself a "deist" if i recall, since it accounts for creation, yet it does not impose on creation); order out of chaos

Of course God has a Soul and Personality
But I mean that the anthropomorphic impression of God, especially as the Daddy-Husband figure that Christians sell, is obnoxiously inefficient.
Any basic study of history, science, or theology shows that this image doesn't stand up to reality.

God is bound by laws higher than the socio-physical laws we humans are bound to.

>can you elaborate on this please? i immediately think of Christ speaking of God's secret place.

The spirit world is vast. The laws there must be more profound than even the latest discoveries of general science.
Remember the disquietude of the late nineteenth amd early twentieth centuries when scientists were diving deep into the world of atoms?
Scientists found out that atoms are ninety nine with nines throughout the sub and super decimal realms percent empty space.
The remaining sliver of a fraction of a percent is vibrating fluff.
The distance between the electron cloud and the nucleus is actually hundreds of miles apart.

All the matter in the cosmos is phantom.
It's also said that smells, taste, colors, and sounds don't exist. They're merely neurophysical filters made up by the brain.

That means if we were to experience matter and energy without the neurophysical filters, things would be totally different.
Interestingly enough, the scientists of the time were also philosophy readers.
And a lot of the newfound phenomenon they witnesses eerily mirrored some of the philosophy and mysticism they were reading up about.

Discussions about quantum mechanics use alot of theological terms due to the complexity of it all.
Me thinks the physical world is merely "ash" or "shell material" of the metaphysical.

We have supercritical fluids, which are liquids that dont respond to friction like typical fluids.
We have lasers, which is light that is supercritical.
Scientists find that they can do elemental transformations via the nucleus.

I think atomic physics is the beginning of metaphysics.

>>13011
>In previous generations these men would have likely graduated (or even dropped out) of high school and gone into a unionized factory or other blue collar job, and made a high enough paycheck to pay for a house and support and spouse that likely didn't work.

This was the case for maybe two consecutive human generations in all of history. It was an extremely irregular and rare situation.

The idea that working class women simply didn't have to work is absurd. Do you think peasant women tended flower gardens while their husbands did work commutes to the grain fields?

>>23290
you cannot expect anything from people whose idea of history only goes back to nineteenth century

>this is the will coming into cataclysm. violence is the most obtuse form of organic communication, and the ends of man is his own inversion into death by this openness. the final act of all men is to die. this is justice, as i say. without death there is no mercy, for evil cannot perish by its own hand.

I thought you said that evil cancels out evil

>this is why today's medical culture is so disgusting, since it turns people into androids to extend their worthless lives. if you smoke and get cancer, dont feel sorry for yourself. if youre fat and have a heart attack, rot. youre either eugenic or dysgenic.

This. It goes back to what I said about adulthood being treated as a sovereign consumer program.
I tire of junkies and criminals being allowed to breed and given worship for "reforming".
I also tire of virgin-shaming being normalised but slut-shaming is pathologised.
Young people with no sexual history or drug abuse are discouraged from love, sex, and procreation just because theyre "inexperienced". Meanwhile older people with a high body count, drug usage, and emotional trauma due to life events are encouraged to do so.


>youre metaphysically confused here. if we experience the objectivity of an object, then it is "real". if i sense an object, then it exists in relation to me. what you mean by "existence" then is ambiguous; as clumsy as saying "reality isnt real" which is an unfortunately common turn of phrase. it is self-contradictory.

Fair point. I mean sensory input, like smell, taste, color, texture, sound.
Objects exist but the sensory phenonemom they emit isnt really.

>he is not bound by anything - here again you are thinking of God as a mechanism, and not a self-determined being. we might appeal to necessity; "God must [x]", but this is to assume that logic is above God, or causality, for that fact - but we get stuck when we think "who/what created God?" this is more difficult for the godless who have no actual answers to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" which is one of the most profound questions you can ponder.

If God isnt bound, then why does He have a Fivine Plan in the first place? If God is self-determined, He wouldnt need a Divine Plan. He wouldnt bother with humans in the first place.
As for your contempt towards the "godless" asking about "why is there something rather than nothing" or "who/what created God", these are valid questions.
Nobody else seems to want to ask.

>you'll notice that the religious tend to suffer very harshly in this life. look at all of the people in gaza who pray to God yet they still die. this is why faith is beyond reason. only the jews would dare to put "God on trial" after the holocaust though. says something of their character.

Doubt. Religious people bring upon suffering on their own ranks. Or they antagonise those with differing beliefs. Alot of people believe in God out of pure infantile instinct of FOMO. Very few people believe in God out empathy and intellect.
"Reformed" people are esoecially the most shallow. They often become the most annoying moralists while having empathetic deficit. Most Christians I meet are midlife crisis victims who are looking for some sort solace for their generational zeitgeist being dead and gone.
Their religious belief is viewing the youth as agents of the devil. They make up urban myths about kids being inhabited by daemons from video games or pop music.
Reiligious people suffer because the vast majority of thrm are willfully infantile: intellectually lazy, easy to anger and panic, low empathy.
Black women are especially the biggest suckers for Christianity. I cannot tell you the amount of times black church grannies fall in love with strangers who say "Jesus is Lord" only to end up swindled.

>i would suggest you read aristotle. a human soul/mind requires a human body. there is no "pure experience" of empiricist illusion. this is why we have the intellect for example, so we can apprehend the abstract, which exists beyond experience. a triangle for example is an abstract entity.

Fair point. Im well aware that numbers, letters, and shapes are abstractions, hence the famous argument: Is math invented or discovered?
But I do agree with psychology and biology going hand in hand. But its a spectrum . How much is it all in your head vs your body?

>if God is a person, then he is still "human" to an intelligible extent, especially if you believe in the many tales of his incarnation. the idea of the "alien" God is solomonic drivel.

clarify for me please

>no. i think this world is as "real" as any other.

I mean to say that the earthly plane is merely tip of the iceberg.
Interdimensional enitites (ghosts, UFOs, bogeymen, etc) leave physical residue behind.

>>23292
as a response to >>23288

>>23294
>i think it is purely out of death anxiety. here's a question. if religious texts never spoke of an afterlife, would people still have such faith? no.

Meh. People will have faith in anything regardless of an afterlife or not.
In fact, I bet most people interpret the existence of an afterlife as meaning prosperity and luxury in this life or reincarnation back into the earthy realm to be live like kings as entitlement for suffering.
Again, faith is mainly based on Fear Of Missing Out
Belief is only based on what one didn't have in this life.

>because that was his choice. in life we learn from strife as i say; we cannot be grateful without first suffering. all things operate for the greak work then, which is furnished by the grand architect.

This is such a bullshit cliche used by people to cope with loserdom. People who say this have never really suffered or they're secretly bitter about not getting what they wanted in life.
Also, if God is creating a Divine Plan purely out his own choice, not out of binding to Principality, it would mean that He sees humans as playthings.
All the suffering humans go through was for naught. It was merely a game to Him.

>i will tell you a secret. i have experienced de ja vu before to such an extreme level that i immediately understood that reality is predeterimed. our destiny is tied to our souls; whether you believe in reincarnation or the afterlife, or even nothing at all. we have a path which we are fated to follow. everything happens for a reason. why then does god create a plan? to bring us back to him. that is a succinct answer.

On the one hand, it sounds profound. But I also think this also another copiun used by humans when they find out "human will" is useless against mother nature.
I do believe in fatalism to an extent but only as far as natural selection.

>but notice how all of these disembodied creatures wish to interact with us and manifest on this plane. this is because "demons" are biblically the disembodied souls of the nephilim who wander the earth. they possess people to experience life again, since floating in the void is torturous. what is more "real" then? alice's wonderland or cold, hard matter?

The nephilim are manifesting into the earthly realm because they're doomed to hellfire in Judgement.
UFOs, ghosts, sirens, and other things that go bump in the night are the souls of the Nephilim wanting vengeance against God. The only way to achieve this is to corrupt or harm humans
Notice how ETs always kidnap humans to extract procreative cells from them?
Alot of UFO abductees talk about seeing hybrids or having sex with hybrids or pure blooded ETs.

It's so they can make an alternate anthropoid race to dominate the humans.
Extraterrestrials are not planetary beings from interstellar space. They're earthly beings from INTERDIMENSIONAL space.
The modern depictions of UFOs and their drivers are eerily similar to medieval depictions of goblins and ghouls.
They even stink like sulfur.

Unfortunately, the science community wants to think these beings are interplanetary beings wanting to impart "galactic wisdom". They dismiss interdimensional/metaphysical theory.

>if you can imagine talking with God, you can imagine his personage, which is inherently "human" since it is intelligible. an inhuman personality could not "talk" with us, therefore either God is "human" or "alien". the idea of the alien god is solomonic drivel because it attempts to ensnare the properties of God into particular aspects rather than his universal being. notice for example how an occultist will always speak of "angels", "demons", "the universe", but never God. this is its wicked faithlessness, which seeks to "know" God without wanting to really know him.

Again, this romantic personalisation of God that the Christians do helps no one. It doesn't stand up to scientific or historical reality
Anyone who studies history, science or even theology would find that the "personable" God is an anomaly.
Hell, even read the Old Testament.

>i dont deny these other spaces, but they are not "closer" to truth to me; they seem like nightmares from which you could never wake up. imagine floating through this surreal landscape til a visiter enquired upon you. in fact, many people take drugs to "escape" worldly duties since they are too difficult. the "dmt realm" is just like cyberspace then. it is the "backrooms" of reality; the cache of reality. thats my pithy perspective anyway.

Yea, alot of profundity from psychedelic drugs is just shallow escapism.
Boomers made everyone fall for DMT and similar shit as spiritual awakening while shitting on electronics as the enemy.

Also, alot of yogis back in the 1960s and 70s condemned the usage of psychedelic drugs as means of meditation.

>>23294
>you can read in pagan texts the belief of souls going to hades, cursed to live in gloomy shades of silent death. the most you could be was a ghost - the material world was the gift of the gods. this is a vitalist belief, which contradicts with the nihilistic (life-denying) drive of the priestcraft, who seek "immortality" in something beyond themselves (nietzsche obviously discusses this). i personally have no investment in an afterlife, so i believe in God for different reasons. i am simply grateful for the gift of existence.

I notice that it's always the agnostics who cling the most to the positivity message of Christianity.

For me personally, as an autist, I guess I'm grateful for existence, but I think God could've done better.
He could've made me an astral being free to roam the cosmos and earthly realm without needing to interact with humans.

>>23297
>this is just spiritual sickness, as autism typically is. if you dont appreciate having a physical body then you dont appreciate existence. that's self-evident. this is also why i call material reality hyperreal, since it breaks all illusions we cling to. its even hard to look into the eyes of a stranger, yet in our mind we want to think we possess some natural right to command reality. we are tyrants within and cowards without; here, God reveals what we really are.

The physical was made by the spiritual. And we use the spiritual as the indicator of overall character. Flesh is temporary.
What sense would it make to appreciate the physical existence as the means within itself?
Especially when youre limited to stay stuck in earth limited to only certain realms of the biogeosphere due to physical limitations?

>but thats just your human hubris. this is like a toddler asking for ice cream after midnight and no bedtimes. dont ask for anything from God, just be grateful for what he gives you. this is why prayer is important; not as a bribe, but a gratitude.

Methinks this allegory is often overused too much and is semi intentionally used to dismiss suffering.
Often used to spare one of empathetic labor towards the poor and sick.
I'm sure if God made you a plaything for the Nephilin to be satiate their bloodlust would you say "You should be grateful"?


>well that is the perspective of heraclitus, who saw children playing games as most wise since they were like the gods.this may be the case, but you are thinking of it wrong. a game is not one-sided; we play it too. all of society for example is role playing, revealed in rites like saturnalia. there is the typical mysticism that we are all "masks of God" also, and so pretend that we are particular persons, and not God, like how when we watch a film, we suspend disbelief. my opinion though is that God has designed this "game" as a quest for wisdom (an anaodos). God is not an idiot, and as i say, all things work for the greatest good, whether we know it or not.

That metaphor is also overused and frankly a bit disturbing.

>Well that's just life man. You got a play the cards you're dealt with. You were created for a purpose.

It sounds nice and tingly but do you really believe that? Or are you clinging to it out selfish relevancy?
Methinks most people who believe in fatalism or a divine plan don't sincerely follow it. They only believe it for themselves and see everyone else as mere NPCs to be tolerated.


>well, all apply to me in different proportions. i am a loser; balding, 5'11, homeless, irish, etc. i have never suffered like i have wanted to. i have suffered in my own way though, but that is true for everyone. i am not "bitter" but more regretful at my own folly. but in the midst of all this i still perceive the wisdom of my fate, which is clearly not in my control. i want things, but i cant have them. it might sound cliche, but first consider this. me and you are just 2 individuals in a world of trillions of organisms. not only humans have souls. even plants do. we must fit somewhere in this great saga. when you abstract things in this way with a humble heart, you begin to approach a mystical state of awareness. think even of the cells in your body, and the atoms which make up your cells. we are not a mere "creation", but are constantly being *created*. if you ever experience synchronicities then you will perfectly understand what i mean

Christians don't believe animals or plants have souls. They believe they have spirits but not souls.
You understand that Christianity under the Eurocentric rule is very impersonable.

>so youve never experienced divine intervention? the key is to see how all events are then "divine interventions"; this is the spindle of fate sewn by the morrigan, which is plato's "chain of necessity" which surrounds the planets.

Divine intervention is rare and even if not, often involves human effort. Also, your last sentence about "spindle of fate" and "chain of necessity" is what I'm talking about.

People want to believe in anything greater than themselves but they want to impose their selfish vicarious impressions onto this "greater thing".

This is why I believe fatalism is mostly natural selection.
And if I recall, you said that "the game of life is not one sided, humans are active as well".

>>23297
>i agree, and basically everyone is waking up to this fact.

I wish. Most people think of aliens as the gods that the religions prophesied about.
They think of them as flesh and blood beings with advanced technology and "extremely self-trained empathy".

The average person dismisses aliens as outright demons. Even though evidence points to it.

>>23299
>my point is that you must shift your perspective. if we are constantly in the process of creation, then everything is divinely intervened upon. my point is rhetorical, that we sometimes see God's work and call it a miracle, yet dont see how existence itself is a miracle. once more, this is ungratefulness and pride.

Fair point.
I'm just tired of the obnoxious preachiness of Christians with their willful lack of intellectual curiosity.
Their praise to God isn't really deep nor inquisitive.

>my point is that you must shift your perspective. if we are constantly in the process of creation, then everything is divinely intervened upon. my point is rhetorical, that we sometimes see God's work and call it a miracle, yet dont see how existence itself is a miracle. once more, this is ungratefulness and pride.
all in all, you exude a degree of faithlessness which i find repellent to be honest. you can be curious about God, but never question God. get

Fair point again. And once again, it's because of my disillusionment with Christianity with its overbearing idealism and lack of worldly tolerance.

>>23302
There is a bigger question than where did God come from.
Where did evil come from?

According to Christian tradition, evil was created by the devil. But here's the thing: God created Satan.
God is Good. He doesnt possess Good, He Is Good.
So, therefore, evil is a primal transcendence, just like dark is to light.

I think evil was always within the hearts of Adam and Eve.
I think that without the devil, man would still commit evil.

Christianity asks man to submit to God, but never do they ask man to take responsibility for evil.

>>23308
so you understand that Christianity, which has been bastardised by European colonialism, helped make the autocastrative dilemna we have today?
As mentioned in OP?

>>13011
>The fact is that inceldom is a natural result of late capitalism.
No such thing. Late capitalism doesn't exist.

>>23344
>well the priestcraft accords to the logic of castration, literally and figuratively. what is most corrupting of men today is not their priestly initiation however, but what the roman imperium called "idle pleasure" experienced as the fatigue between wars. a noble man is either a priest or a warrior (while the ignoble are either merchants or servants). what we have then in today's liberal order is either a reserve class of soldiers; untranshumanisted and leaderless, or a reserve of slave, who seek a master. what is castrating thus is one's repression from vocation, or purpose. this is today's spiritual castration.

Why do "intellectuals" always call/refer anything bad as caused by recreation?

also, historically, most people were workers with no noble purpose
they lived, worked, amd hedonised.
This obsession with "changing the world/being a hero" as the main spirit-frame of adulthood was a result of The Age Of Exploration/Enlightment.

>i speak specifically on the material history of sexual relations here: >>23174
when we get rid of arranged marriage (courting) we enter into the anarchy of (re)production, which is also the domain of prostitution, or sexual speculation. this has existed since the beginning of history, but it must revert to a positive concept of monogamy over time. lust must turn to love. this however marks the consciousness of property. as Christ communicates, marriage is the relation of mutual ownership. this is also why i think the ideal family form is one of mutual recognition with all members.

Romantic love is worse than lust.
Lust is appreciative of flaws.
Romantic love isnt.

Romantic love wants to trap people in an artframe.
Its about trying to recreate your favorite movies and books in the flesh.
It doesnt factor in others limitations. If it does, it sees them as "something to be fixed".

>the "evils" of capitalism you perceive are actually just confrontations with the woman in-herself, which is an interesting condition. i believe a survey was done in schools where most young women said when they grow up they either want to be entertainers or prostitutes (only fans et al). sexuality is the original sin, as paul and augustine communicate, and we see this in how civil society is the unsexual space. after the first labour of prostitution and childbirth was surely clothes-weaving (like how God gave adam and eve clothes after eating from the "forbidden fruit").

again this is all wrong. the original sin was knowing evil. Nothing to do with sex.
Why do philosophers always mystify sex?
Goddamn its like I feel Aristotle wouldve had a stash of Playboy while beating his students or kissing each other on the cheek.

Also, you mention a survey where school girlspicked to be Only Fans? Those kind of studies are faked or imbellised to warrant conservatuve reaction.
Most young women wanna be girlbosses. Either in STEM or business.

>>23344
>like how der fuhrer's sacrifice was a conceptual horizon that gives birth to the EU as a formal empire. europe lives in its death, like america
pure idealist wankery

>>23350
>hegelian stuff
OK.

"Der fuhrer" didn't sacrifice shit. he was a coward who got a bunch of people who supposedly cared about killed and then shot himself in the head when it was time to face the consequences.

>>23347
Here's a handsome bishonen boy for your troubles.
Maybe the only way to solve the inceldon crisis is to give them a yaoi bf.
Man, if God reincarnated me into a BL/yaoi universe, Id never have to worry about "the no gf"

>>23352
>off topic rambling
ok but der fuhrer didn't sacrifice shit. he just shot himself in the head after getting a bunch of precious aryans rekt with bad military decisions

>>23357
>i believe in heroic heterosexuality (think of the film zardoz), which includes a sublime homoeroticism naturally

Define

>at least the incel has the romance of a worldly struggle to find love in a loveless society

Inceldom is self righteousness. As I said before, romantic love is selfish. They complain about sex being the motive for intimacy yet they're just as shallow with their focus on grandiose mannerisms.

>the gay just fills his holes, but he doesnt even have to worry about AIDs anymore.

Most gays don't have sex as often you think. Most gay sex is just cishet males looking to blow steam because women are inconvenient.

>the woman today is equally a gay man; a spiritual whore - but like i say, there is no seller without buyers. if i was a woman i would also sell my body. as a man i have already given it away for free, in previous omegle sexcapades and whatnot; virtual circlejerking. for women, they at least possess a labour men cannot compete for. having a female body is having inherent value, as i have previously said. every woman has a price.

Women are only valued for their beauty and fertility.
Women are not automatically valued just because they have bob and vagene.
Value is only given never inherent.
Also, equating women to gay men in the way you did was very patronizing.

> not everyone can start a family, since not all forms of social reproduction are genetic - thats why we have queerdom as a natural excess, which then regulates the social order, like how priestcraft regulate the marriage ceremony. queerness is the openness of life's closed system; this is why the gay man embodies the death drive for example, as a cumulative libidinal economy (and why the wealthy are more likely to be queer; since it is the dark vivicitude of bataille's solar anus).

This sounds backhanded way to write off the existence of non-procreative sexuality.
Also the "incel to transhumanist pipeline" is an urban myth used to promote misandry or transphobia (depending if you're liberal or conservative)

>>23366
>heroic heterosexuality is the sexual subjectivity which liberates the feminine object from its recursivity. it is the imperative to marry rather than masturbate (gay sex is just a form of masturbation for example). today's heterosexuality however is masturbatory, making us sodomites, not the fathers of the race. this is why its even possible for gays to debase themselves to the level of "marrying" each other, since us hets are the homos.

Can you clarify?
You mean "be fruitful and multiply"?

>not at all. why do you think transhumanists have such high rates of autism which correlates with incels? most transsexuals are also sexless, but we only call cishet (white) men "incels". also, do you really think the average joe needs propaganda to be transphobic? let it be. the world is transphobic. be rebellious or be a square. up to you. the moment "punk" becomes mainstream, doesnt that indicate its death?

Punk is a farce. Any movement that obsessed over being "underground" is just insincere.
Also, not all MtFs are socially neglected cishet males.
Alot of of who transition do so because of personal identity, not because of "the no gf".
Also, not all MtFs are able to look like cishet females.
You also forget we have FtM trans
That's looked into less than the former

>its accurate
How? You assume honosexual makes are all girly acting submissive bottoms?

>yes, today's gays, since being gay is now normal and thus lacks its death drive. this dampens its spirit.

No. Even in the old days, very few gay men initiated sex. It was always the cishet males who did.

>you act as if selfishness is wrong in itself. of course love is selfish; its ultimate symbol is the mutual ownership of a marriage. monogamy is selfish, but thats what makes it authentic. if i cheated on my wife, would that make me better or worse as a partner? grow up.

Selfishness vs self-sacrifice.

Selfish love is when you as a guy assume that your GF is trying to hit on any other guy.
Selfish live is when you compare your current partner to past ones.
Selfish love is pressuring you partner to try out new clothes or dialect for roleplay to "spice up the bedroom".
Romantic love is selfish because it's all about wanting to trap people into an art frame without any consideration towards their personal history.

>>23367

>what he misses however is that the queerness of elites is not a mere contingency, but a constitituve aspect of elitism itself. the culture of the elite is drawing from this excessive subjectivity, primarily. this is why even gays in public schools will also naturally conduct fraternal orderliness and hierarchy, like women. what he also misses is political ontology in modernity. leftism is not merely enlightenment slop, but is the unconscious of capital's coming-to-be. the bourgeois revolution is always in progress. yarvin has a romantic view of aristocracy, without seeing how our tether is in the merchants. what largely determines culture is what is profitable.

Merchants were responsible for the transoceanic slave trade. Merchants were the ones who made profit during gold rushes.
Merchants are the ones who lobby ridiculous legal codes for industrial security.

Also, what do you mean by "cishomo males adapt fraternal rank-and-file like women"?
Men are the ones who do that
Women don't create value, men do.
Women are merely disciples of the status quo.

>yes they are. even if its a very low value. but only a man can be valueless

You're assuming that men aren't used as sex toys as well. Or that all women are beautiful or untainted enough to fuck. There's women who are rejected for being ugly and infertile.
Women can be seen as valueless.

>>23372
>>23373

>i disagree. adam smith says labour is the first price. i say it is woman, and her body is the first commodity. the order of nature begins by birth.

This sounds like you're philosophising cisheterosexuality too much
Women aren't the primary price.
And even if it was, it requires goods to motivate them to make their bodies commodities

>we live in a saturnian age.

Clarify. You mean the black cubes and whatnot?

>i dont believe in this dichotomy. altruism is also often just narcissism manifesting as surplus-enjoyment, like how one gives money to beggars to signal his virtue. here, one gains by his loss. if you read the gospels, these types are Christ's ultimate enemies; those who do good works yet have no faith in their heart.

Fair point. So you understand my frustration with chivalry?
Or how some parents force their kids to do extra on a homework assignment.
Or these bohemian-like drifters talking about how they gave up their material possessions.
If they're religious, they're extra preachy.

It's all obnoxious self-righteousness.
There was a study done where people think more lowly of humble bragging than classic bragging.

Remember the ads of the guy showing off his Lamborghini and his vast library?

>all life spawns from the feminine; masculinity then is a strange but necessary excess in-itself. the penis attests to this - it is the externalising of an internal genital relation; we also see this in how developmentally, all foetuses are female before some are made male by testosterone in the womb).

Actually this isn't true. Babies aren't female default in the womb. Also life springs from sperm, not the womb.
People treat men as the expendable sex just because they don't give birth. But eggs don't self-fertilise.

>no, but all homosexuals are "inverted sexual objects" as freud understands it, which has its naturally feminine affectivity, akin to nietzsche's materialism; "truth is a woman". this is why masculinity's determination is castration, and why only the castrated can be aligned to the death drive. all religions display this knowledge too.

Again, most gay men have masculine affectation.
Also, I thought truth was "masculine"?
Also this framing of masculinity as suicidal or "excess" is just chivalric bullshit.

>but as i say, maleness is corruptive, so its our own fault if we ultimately become abolished.

That's just more machismo bullshit.
Maleness or femaleness within itself isn't corruptive.


>in this then, heterosexuality is inherently romantic, chauvinistic and competitive, since it is a mutual contest for female attention (now, this is only constituted by a universal homoeroticism which begins in the autohomosexuality of masturbation; this then has its interpassive dimension, like in pornography, where one enjoys the orgasm of another man, which is also a natural cuckoldry, as the pleasuring of a woman for her own sake; lacan makes the proper point for example that one's desire is in the desire of the other - the drama of the sexual ritual is this mutual artiface to pleasing the other, not ourselves - its this psychic tension which can lead to impotence in the first place.

Why do you keep referring to male sexuality as homosexual? Or that seeing male orgasm in porn is "cuckolding"?

>even a rapist or pedophile for example must always imply that their victims "wanted it"; here, the extremes of sexual violence ultimately serve the other. this is the social contract). all this can also imply that all heterosexuals are neurotic (and why cishet human males are by far the most dangerous animal on the planet). homosexuals are masturbatory beings so lack this realm of codependent desire, which is also why they typically have many more partners, and thus find their love in abstracted objects, rather than concrete persons. ive never heard of a jealous gay boyfriend who murdered his partner for example, but it happens everyday for hets.

Homosexuals are rarely allowed the gift of romance without persecution. They can only get hookups and even then it's not as convenient.

>[concerning the first part]: what i want is a return to a concept of male beauty then but one internalised as a heterosexual standard, which redeems the original homosexual spirit. this is found in masculinity's homoerotic reserve, which must bend into love for it be self-recognised.

Boy's Love are the closest I can find.

> fascism is obviously a homoerotic ideology focused on male beauty, which is in this proportion, homophobic - this in caste terms reflects the usurpation of the priestcraft by the warriors, and thus a civic rebirth of solar order, like julian the apostare attempted to preserve before lunar catholicism (maryology) took hold.

>the reformation was a transition, but of merchant consciousness. this was solar, but a cthonic sun. we live in a saturnian age. mineral machines interface reality as an artificial skeleton of corpus mundi. one must then regenerate by blood and flesh, which begins in the heart, like in the resurrection of bacchus.

>>23381
>yes, but think about the process of reproduction. there are millions of sperm but one egg. the expendability of men is in the very act of sex. millions compete for one female, like in the battle of troy.

Eggs are lost through menstruation and miscarriage.
So women are expendable as well.

>truth (wisdom/being) is feminine. reason (alienation) is masculine. the body (objectivity) is feminine. the mind (subjectivity) is masculine. what we call femininity thus is often just a body-oriented consciousness (etymologically, the word "matter" comes from "mother"); which is why gay men focus so much on appearance, while hets can easily let themselves go, yet expect women to stay beautiful. this detachment from the body's immediacy is masculinity. this is why "being a man" often includes masochistic exercises which train this detachment. this element of detachment is phallic, since phallus is a substitutory object, like how a gun or cigar acts as an extended penis. the penis is external; masculinity is alienated. this is why the ends of man is in the dildo.

Can you provide proof of this?.that the etymology for the word "matter" is the same for "mother"?

Or about how masculinity is about self-denial of objectivity?

>it is self-limited since homosexuality's unconscious identity is in the mother. this is why gay men are not attracted to women and why they have a gay voice, a gay face; gay everything. a gay man is not just a guy who coincidentally likes men - i hope youre not so much of a rube to believe liberal bullshit like this. or worse, maybe you believe in the "gay gene". there are contemporary theorists of "traumatophilia" who claim that queerness is a sort of trauma-bonding. this might be true in some cases, but it misses the point of eroticism being tied to one's subjectivity.

It seems to me your under the typical assumption that homosexuality means "femininity".
Most actual gays I meet are more masculine.

>cumming to another man have sex is cuckolding, very clearly. this is implicit in the oedipus complex since we must endure the spectre of our fathers having sex with our mothers. thus, all men are cuckolds to their fathers. this unconscious fact is unlocked by boyish insults; "i fucked your mum last night", or "motherfucker". the typical male response is defensive over our mother's sexuality. we must fight boys because we cannot fight our father. this has its obvious social truth. boys are also homophobic to one another before they are even heterosexual; we see precedence then, that heterosexuality is simply a homophobic phallus. one is either gay, or non-gay (per hegel's A and non-A).

Methinks you're really reaching with this.
Not everything is motivated by psychosexuality.
Id rather bust a nut to a bishonen phat booty than simp for a woman.

Also, why do people like to differentiate "boys" and "men" but not "girls" and "women"?
Also, you're romanticising military service is a bit questionable. People who embrace militarism are often not familiar with war. They only experience it from movies and news stories.

>as i say, the playground fight is the memory of nobility in the blood of boys. it is a formal contest, unlike the uyghurs who sucker-punch unsuspecting innocents. civilisation is built on fairness, or mutual recognition, which is sublimed in war, with playground fights being the small battle, and afterwards is a greater peace (as kant affirms). we incur a negation of negation; such is the genius of youth.

That's not a genius of youth.
Genius of youth would be more putting on an awesome music show.
Kinda like the Jackson Five or the Bee Gees or the Beach Boys.

>this holy character of the beautiful boy (what we may loosely call the "patroclean") is explored in some of thomas mann's work; in particular, "death in venice" whereby a civilised man is slowly transfigured by the mere visage of a beautiful boy. he enters into pagan rapture and finally submits to this most intense eros. another short story by him (i forget the name) explores the alienation of a certain man, who is confronted by the union of his 2 childhood loves (a boy and girl). in his youth, he is attracted to a male friend of his, but outgrows this as he gets older - here we see a natural derivation of boy love in the life of a man, which terminates at the horizon of homosexual signification; boy love then is opposite from homosexuality (like how the tomboy's eros is constituted by her own heterosexuality)


>this breaks the minds of liberals who pathologise homosexuality, but just in reverse; "everything is gay.. but thats good". no, not everything is gay. everything is homoerotic. big difference!

This is fair. And I bet that a lot of yaoi fangirls would not like actual homosexual couples in their anime unless they were "straight" acting.
But then girls love is also homoerotic rather than homosexual. In fact. Me thinks boys love and girls love aren't really about sexual orientation as much as it's about platonic love.

>>23383
Also, you look down on homosexuality as defective love, yet you gush at the idea of doing homosexual things, wanting to be desired as an object of beauty, ready to live out your fantasy of hebeandrophilia.

While I understand that distinction of homoeroticism vs homosexuality I will not tolerate such contempt coming from you against gay dudes

I also don't like your glorification of youth suicide to save face from aging. Age numbers aren't personality traits within themselves
You're falling into the trap of idealising youth as innocence.

In fact, I bet that this pederastic drive was responsible for the infantilisation of young people for the past three centuries.

Also, why is sexual attraction to male youth referred to as pederasty but sexual attraction to female youth is called pedophilia (or rare cases, the correct term, hebephilia)?

Also, do you agree that there's a difference between sexual desire and romantic desire?
The two can be related but they're often wrongfully assumed to be the same thing.

You can find someone sexually attractive but be disgusted by them romantically.
You can also find someone romantically attractive and be disgustes by them sexually.

They don't even have to be ugly.

>>23385
>>23383
Speaking of "ugly"…

>to conclude, the concept of male beauty then is universal, but unconscious. it has its contemporary expression in the femboy, which is a homophobic character, and is equally a fascist archetype, of a timarchical (spartan) remembrance, or of a military ethic. a femboy must be adjoined to the beautiful man also, which must be the citizen. revolution must then mean an abolition of blights like obesity. obesity is the aesthetic of consumerist excess which stains the possibility of love (by making love a contingency of codependent uglinesses, rather than the sublime judgement of beauty). to me, fascism in its civic code is about an imperative to male beauty thus (and of beauty in general, which is why all fascisms are eco-fascisms; as per savitri devi. the current civil order is between priests and merchants, while fascism is between warriors and peasants), which is the homoerotic impulse that usurps the formal identity of the homosexual, who only beautifies abstractions (this is the typical leftist who denies worldly beauty and so exalts ugliness; a typical jewish subjectivity also - alain de benoist sees this in how the jewish god has no artistic form in his iconoclasm and thus his being is abstracted from aesthetic judgement. this links to protestantism's twin destiny with judaism in modernity, and especially where financial power is concerned. this priestly attitude extends into all leftism, which calls moral evil "disgusting" but sees physical ugliness as virtuous. Christ is aryan, not semitic, because he has a physical form. jews and muslims literally cannot conceive of this vital theology). there are many beautiful gay men i must admit, but it is a vanity without spiritual purpose. what warriors must do is put gays back into churches and shut them up into closets. gays have a place, but it isnt in the public space.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that the typical backlash against beauty standards which has lead to "fat acceptance" and "alternative beauty" is because people don't want the responsibility of beauty but want to be seen as beautiful nonetheless?

Also, why are you blaming leftists for this?

And why are you arguing to shut up the homosexual males? You cannot do that while advocating hebeandrophilia.

>>23390
>prepubescent boys and girls are androgynous, until puberty, when the girl becomes fertile, yet the boy is still intermediated in his development. girls also mentally develop earlier than men, showing nature's investment in the male sex (which in nature is typically more beautiful). the distinctions are unequal then, as we see historically and even today. young girls are taken as wives, yet boys are not taken as husbands - a period of development is socially arranged then, which ought to be his training. so the boy then has his particular stage of development, contrary to girls, who are already partial women.

Boys would be considered partial men then because they're expected to do physical tasks. We had preteen males be active warriors or black smiths.
You cannot dismiss their maturational status while fawning over female youth.
Hebegynophilia is a cishet male cognitive disorder.
Also girls don't mentally develop earlier than boys. Physically maybe but mentally?
Again that's because society fawns over female youth more. Boys are treated as dumb comic relief.
Also, boys start making seed by age eleven to fourteen.
Around the same age girls start to ovulate
This whole "girls mature earlier" is exaggerated.

Also, boys are taken as husbands around the same age girls are taken for wives. But they're both trained in their respective roles and given arranged dates.

>this only proves that women are murderers of children. we see this with abortion in history and so on. a witch is a feminine archetype for a reason.

Men often pressure women into abortion. Men will kill babies that he feels aren't his.
Also we had hermits and wizards.

>leftists only consider abstractions and never things in concreto; they will comprehend the concept of beauty, but will never assign anything in particular with this quality - this then leads to the abandonment of aesthetic judgement and so the unintelligibility of beauty. same thing happens with morality. the leftist in his heart cannot conceive of an objective (categorical) good and evil. he is not a moralist thus, but an anti-moralist. he is not an aesthetician, but an anti-aesthetician (this is why he calls ugliness beautiful and evil, good). this is the consequence of materialist brainworms, which is just a mirror of idealism, ironically enough. ultimately though, his problems begin by an unconscious denial - he knows well what is true, but cannot accept it. what is political correctness for example, besides denying what is self-evident? this is why all deception is self-deception

I could say the same about the right. But in reverse. Rightists pride themselves in "calling as they see it" but are ignorant of the fact that nature isn't static. Things change and customs aren't universal.

>yes, but romance is still erotic (meaning, it is the presexual). sex can be traumatic by being the negation of negation, of eros. for example, i am romantically compatible with women yet i am somewhat traumatised by their sexuality. i heard max stirner was similar, who became disgusted by his partner after she presented herself naked. i find women with their clothes on more attractive also, since in this i glea their objet petit a. zizek is most succinct here too, where he says that his perfect date is to put a dildo in a fleshlight and then to commence conversation with the woman as the dutiful act is performed interpassively (like how a laugh track laughs for us). i would rather talk to a woman and cuddle with her than to have sex with her.

You acting sussy baka
Methinks you are gay but not sexually.
You say homosexuality is a disease that needs to be shut up yet you romanticise about being an adolescent male-wife for a chiseled Aryan warrior.

Me thinks you're envious of women's status.
But you forgot that women are only valued for their youth. Once a woman leaves her mid-thirties, her time is running out.

>you have clearly not comprehended my posts. pederasty and homosexuality are opposite notions, like how femboys and trans women are opposites. and i already told you that gays have a place, just not in the public space. go back into the closet. and like i say, this will also be enjoyable to the gays themselves. in the end, we have the best of all possible worlds.

To quote Denholm Reynholm from The IT Crowd:
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??

Also, can we stop referring to sexual attraction to male youth as pederasty when we refer to female counterpart as hebephilia?

It's hebeandrophilia or hebegynophilia

>>23403
>its the same difference.

Well yes and no. The way they impress on it is different.
They make male youth love seem more comical while female youth love is given more glamor. It's maddening.

>you can be fabulous without being gay 💅🏻

This. In fact most of our fabulous snazzy fashion was made by heterosexual men.
It's just that homosexual men have adapted it.

>in the animal kingdom it is common for mothers to kill their children.

Usually the males kill non-cosanguine babies. Females do too.

>also, if abortion is equally a male issue, then why does it only politically represent women?

Because it's female bodies that bear the burnt of pregnancy.

> its only men who have the capacity to be truly pro-life (since it sustains a positive mode of re-production). this is also why abortion has its formal politics in capitalist society, since women make workers. the female body is made into a factory. this is different from antique societies for example, which treated infantile life differently. for example, it was the christians who created the first orphanages.

So you admit mens pro-choice stance is based purely from industrial potential. Not on value of human life
George Carlin was right about Republicans.
"They're pro life because they want more soldiers".


>what does that mean?

Whaddya think it means? 😏

>it is of a different order. girls as young as 6 are made brides, yet no 6 year old boy is made a husband. male adolescence is naturally extended then, which bears its genital relation as i say. for example, the female vagina never grows in her life, only her vulva does, while the boys' penis stays small until puberty. like i say, nature invests into the sexes differently.

Boys are trained to work at age five.
Also. boys are made into grooms via family clan arrangements.
Also, female fertility has a short window.
Women are ripe until thirty-five about.
And the reason girls are made brides at so young is because for training. If those societies decided to start wiving females in their mid-twenties. those girls wouldn't be as ladylike.
The same way they don't wait until males are mid-twenties to start work.

Again it goes back to what I said about adulthood being the end result of childhood conditioning.
Humans don't train their young for adulthood anymore.
So when they come of age, theyre like infants.

>not really. being a woman is terrible.

Only because men make it difficult
I always said God made a mistake making women have breasts. It difficult to have two lumps of flesh hanging off your chest. It hurts your back.

>i completely agree. the right are even more clueless than the left (since the right is just a negation of the left; "reactionary").

There's only thing they both have in common: they hate liberalism.
They do have serious fear of capitalism.
They also hate the Jews.

In fact, I bet that had things been a little different, Stalin and Hitler would've been golf buddies.
They would discuss about each other's dreams of establishing nation-states free from Anglo capitalist imperialism.

>read schopenhauer's "on women".

Wasn't he a misogynist?

Also when people talk about girls development, they tend to use more sanctimonious language while they use more vulgar comical language for boys development even if the opposite sexes are doing the same thing.

Boys are never allowed to be seen as beautiful or profound. Only as soldiers and jesters.
It sucks.