All my life I’ve noticed a difference between men and women that goes beyond biology. Not in roles, but in inner structure. I always imagined two internal forces - call them A and B. Most men seem to be built primarily on A, with B as a lesser component. (Men = 75% A + 25% B)
Women are the inverse. (Women = 75% B + 25% A)
The split isn’t exact, but the tension it creates feels real. What matters more is how each sex relates to this inner tension.

Men, in general, know they carry both forces, even if they can’t name them. There’s an awareness that something “other” lives in them. Women, in contrast, often reject the idea of two internal forces altogether. Many identify only with one, and dismiss the presence of the other - especially the structured, rational one. In effect, the masculine within them goes unrecognized.

This leads to an imbalance. In recency, society rejected logos (order, structure, discipline) as oppressive. And because men are built from logos, this rejection cut into the male psyche directly. Men didn’t fight back. They withdrew. And now, ironically, women ask why men have become passive, checked-out, or unmotivated. They call men lazy or useless. But that’s not accurate. The truth is: logos was asked to leave. And it did.

Here’s what I find interesting: when women blame men, men accept the blame. When men blame men, men still accept it. But when blame is placed on women - no one takes it seriously. Not men, not women. It’s as if the feminine is outside the field of accountability. Psychologically, I think this ties back to the asymmetry: men live as carriers of law, women as expressions of nature. When law fails, the lawbearer is punished. When nature fails, we call it tragedy.

So now the culture has no functioning logos. The feminine rejected it, and the masculine, shamed by both sexes, refuses to rebuild. But logos won’t return out of guilt. It will return only when it is invited back - not as a tool, but as something necessary.

Have sex incel

tl;dr women are evil and need to be stopped

>>22939302
>Have sex
sure, if the only strings attached will be bodily fluids

>>22939301 (OP)
See:
>>22939302 unironically
Fpbp

>>22939301 (OP)
>masculine:
retaining, conserving, ordered, political structures, hierarchical, exerting, forcing, leading from the top, logic, ideology, disciplined
>feminine:
wandering, nurturing, creative, immoral, undisciplined, revolutionary, subterfugal, loving, infiltrating, corresponding, passionate, leading from bottom

>>22939306
and alluring feminine is alluring, many languages have something like this built into their gender system

>>22939306
women can't love. maybe the can love their kids but this isn't even always the case

>>22939306
yes, but I think if we go into details about the archetypal feminine, then some of keywords you mentioned only work in tandem with the masculine (for example, creative - needs structure to build; leading from bottom - needs direction; revolutionary - needs direction yet again)

>>22939308
This is more the aesthetic part of psychology if its a clear distinction
>>22939309
>then some of keywords you mentioned only work in tandem with the masculine
yes they usually do, this is used to classify concepts, as the genders arent 100% alien to each other as well, and its not entirely comprehensive its a general guide but its as unique as the concept it pertains to

>>22939301 (OP)
I used to care about this non sense, and genuinely believe men and women were complementary in some divine union that transcends flesh.

Then, I spent time with women and realized it's all a pantomime, rationalizations and copes to keep the rat chasing after the carrot and give meaning to the endless suffering.

Women are vile creatures, they will seek to move you out of purpose 24/7 out of fear of abandonment, but we're you to allow such a thing to happen, they'll hate you, and cheat on you without remorse. They'll string you along for years, and will never show mercy. They will never take responsibility for anything, yet demand everything.

Frankly, I've come to hate women and the deluded men that defend them.

If I could go back 10 years, I'd have absolutely ignored all women in my life, I never needed them to be happy.

>>22939301 (OP)
hey your flag lost its star

>>22939311
All men after realizing women are BPDemons

>>22939311
>Women are vile creatures, they will seek to move you out of purpose 24/7
yes and this is how the feminine works, it provokes ruin to see if you rebuild or fail

the feminine's alchemical function is to provoke reactions

>>22939314
>yes and this is how the feminine works, it provokes ruin to see if you rebuild or fail
>the feminine's alchemical function is to provoke reactions
and the moment you realise this as fact of nature, it doesn't really terrify you anymore. There's no point fearing chemistry if you know how its components, just don't drink sulfuric acid and you'll be fine

>>22939301 (OP)
>But logos won’t return out of guilt. It will return only when it is invited back - not as a tool, but as something necessary.

It will return when mohammed decides that your homo and feminism stuff is bullshit and if you don't shut up about it he will rape you.

>yes and this is how the feminine works, it provokes ruin to see if you rebuild or fail

I wonder if this is what unfortunately makes us human. Apparently chimps are not hypergamous, but fact-check me on that.

The eternal prevalence of the shit-test might have gotten us out of the Savannah.

>>22939301 (OP)
Kinda funny how female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.

>>22939317
Female behavior becomes a problem when you try to build anything more complicated than a mud-hut.

>>22939301 (OP)
that is a fuckton of projection there

>>22939315
>and the moment you realise this as fact of nature
There's also no reason to interact with it.

>Men have to accept women's nature as animalistic, thoughtless behavior akin to chemical reactions, and adapt to it
>Women get free reign to do as they please with zero responsibility, but all rights

Spiritual cuckoldry. Truly.

>>22939318
Reminding you again that it's mostly a failed civilization, derived from the obsessions of ancient Greek pederasts and their love of logos, that suffers from the plague of the modern female. Others are effected mostly as a result of Western cultural export.

>>22939320
Ancient Greek ideals are perfect for this.

Women are 24/7 at home, men are outside being intimate (not homosexually, just bros).

This is only possible if women are kept on a leash, only then can men be intimate with each other without being called a homosexual.

>>22939313
There is a few rare ones that aren’t

>>22939317
I would rather say the problem started when women started over-writing the logos.

The logos is fundamentally a masculine root, while eros is fundamentally feminine.
While it is hard to say what exactly happened (be it industrialisation, or sexual revolution, or something else) - but the one who holds clean-logos allowed the eros-holder to rewrite the rules of what logos is supposed to be.
And logos, being logos (lawful to its core) naturally fell into obeying the new rules, albeit the rules are now a parody of logos than a clean representation.

There is a case to be made, that the corruption of logos by a counterfeit logos imposed through eros - happened because it was eros that was corrupted first, and logos simply became patient #2

>>22939306
and feminine is receiving as well obviously, I should add, and submissive

>>22939303
Things can be assigned into two categories, at the most basic level, this becomes positive/negative which can be restated in many ways, additive/subtractive, in/out, light/dark, hot/cold, expansion/contraction or most complexly good/evil especially as creative/destructive.

Spirituality focuses on separating creative and destructive forces with the ultimate metaphor annotated in the bible in the form of God and Satan, but Yin and Yang is another common metaphor used. If you view these not as objective reality, but metaphors for the human condition, each can be used to describe functions of the human condition. Is there any kind of mathematical or scientific proof that can back up which half of the human condition is creative and which is destructive or is it all just a matter of personal opinion?

The positivity of the atom is attributed to the subatomic particle, the proton, while negative attributed to the electron. In a simplified way, at the quantum level, electron holes drive negative electron motion while magnetic poles balance the positive extremes. The human condition also contains two different complementary units, the female and the male, where one is defined by a hole and the other is defined by a pole. This leads to the natural conclusion that females must be the destructive half, while males are the creative half of the human condition. Sure, women "create life", but that requires a male to fill their hole with seeds of creation where the sperm/egg and a great deal of destruction of the female form is destroyed. The rise of feminism ironically correlates with the rise of electronics which often act as a passive destructive feminizing force upon humanity.

The bible associates Eve with Satan and original sin while great allegorical epics like Greek mythology credit Pandora as the source of evil or blame Helen of Troy for the war of The Odyssey and even the Yin/Yang dichotomy associates the dark force with feminine.

>>22939313
All women are the same as BPD cunts, but with more emotional regulation to save their woman moments more strategically.

>>22939324
>I would rather say the problem started when women started over-writing the logos.
Of course, but that's because your feminized brain couldn't properly process the objective, empirical observations presented in my post.

>>22939321
English liberalism is what lead to all of this. Things were fine for 1500 years before that.

>>22939317
Kinda funny how the civilizations only seem to start to crumble once women take the seats of power.

>>22939301 (OP)
Why do you have to explain something so simple using made up mumbo jumbo that you think makes you sound intelligent?

Women are beasts multiple levels below even the worst of men. Nothing more than sex objects who shit out worthless children to pollute our planet even more.

End of story.

>>22939313
They will falsely accuse men of the most horrific crimes but only if they have not committed them. The solution is simple: beat them and they will orgasm with the most selfish delight and will behave in a civilized manner. I keep my wife in line with a good beating in bed, pulling at her hair and sometimes slicing her inner thighs. The girl I did not do this to tried to ruin me, but the woman i do do this to remains by my side. I do not understand this mindset, but it is what it is. Every accusation is a desire with these creatures.

>>22939329
>the chain of cause and effect stops wherever i choose
A paragon of rationality you are. Those anglo thinkers you're complaining about in fact stood out in their adherence to rational and principled thinking compared to the background of backward irrationality that dominated Europe at the time.

>>22939330
Kinda funny how every golem who believes in the shit you do throws rationality under the bus and denies causality as soon as his delusions are challenged. You operate like an NPC hivemind. I wonder how many more times I'm going to receive essentially the same impotent reply from different IDs.

The crisis is lack of adaptation.

If logos is counterfeit now, it's because it was corrupted in some form. And if it was corrupted, then corruption came from eros. (there's no other possible force of nature that can corrupt logos, other than eros)
The question isn't moral, but functional and twofold - (1) what triggered the corruption - and (2) why isn't the new reaction between logos and eros isn't reaching a new equilibrium but is permanently unstable? Or maybe it already is moving towards equilibrium, but we're looking at it from the wrong angle

>>22939333
I am not talking about "those anglo thinkers", I am specifically referring to liberalism.

>>22939331
well if you read my post carefully, you'll realise that the story I'm telling is very different from the one you summarize.

>>22939301 (OP)
You guys are virgins so you only see one kind of woman and thats the low IQ NPC whore online that you wank to. I don't think you guys can actually handle a smart career driven woman or a girl who is good at physical work and fixing shit because she'll outpace you and make you look lazy and retarded.

Everyone here basically wants an autistic man with a vagina, that's probably why many of you guys are faggets or troons, you can't deal with females, that's why you get no pussy.

Eventually you're gonna get older and if you haven't necked yourself your only gonna have a single mother with a kid, a fat land whale or some ugly asian ex prostitute. Stop listening to ugly spergs on /pol/ and go out there and touch grass.

https://youtu.be/wYrNjPGgAAA?si=H--FD6VnAVqIq8uH
/pol/ IRL

>>22939321

Correction here: failure point has not been reached entirely yet. :)

>>22939336
> I am specifically referring to liberalism.
Name specific thinkers responsible for this vague "liberalism".

>>22939338
>I don't think you guys can actually handle a smart career driven woman
most of those women can't handle themselves though, the feminine remains feminine even if it is placed in a masculine environment and told to do masculine tasks. It's very perverted

>>22939334
You would have to actually factually challenge the fact that the crumbling of civilization generally follows feminist uprisings instead of ranting about how everyone who has a different opinion than you is [insert popular derogatory term of the day].

>>22939301 (OP)
It's simple. Fathers should fuck their daughters senseless on their 16th birthday.

>>22939342
>You would have to actually factually challenge the fact that the crumbling of civilization generally follows feminist uprisings
I don't need to challenge that at all. You only think this way because, again, your feminized brain denies causality and clings to so-called logos only as an empty symbol.

>>22939344
causality is part of logos in a way, but a very tiny part

>>22939341
My wife is a doctor but she has a terminal case of dogbrain and I have to clean up after her like a child.

>>22939344
>I don't need to challenge that at all.
No, you can't.

>You only think this way because
those are the facts and you can't even try to deny them, you can just seethe about facts and call me really mean names that totally hurt my feelings for acknowledging them.

>>22939340
You fucking retard. I will not give you any thinkers because we are talking about a concept, not a person. If I give you a person you will go off about how this person was actually le based and that's why my argument is retarded. Liberalism has a fairly straight-forward definition.

>liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.

Now, you can either agree that this is what ultimately lead to the shitshow we are currently experiencing, or you can disagree, in which case we can have a conversation.

>>22939345
>causality is part of logos in a way, but a very tiny part
Yeah, it figures the most fundamental natural law traditionally taken to underpin the order in the universe would be a "very tiny part" to fembois in denial.

>>22939347
Explain why I need to "challenge" it. Protip: your next post will again bear the marks of a confused, estogen-soaked biological LLM.

>>22939348
liberalism enhances the freedom of logos to create, but it also enhances the freedom of eros to destroy

if liberalism is truly the cause, then it somehow caused eros to expand, but logos collapsed under its own expansion (for unknown reasons), thus giving eros primacy instead of keeping it in balance

mayhaps that could be related to the nature of eros being intrinsically expansive, and logos being intrinsically containing - meaning that while liberalism granted logos freedom to expand, it just refused to do so as self-expansion contradicts its nature

>>22939348
>I will not give you any thinkers
Kek. I knew you wouldn't. ID goes to the filter now. Irrational little femboi.

>>22939302
stop hiding behind a memeflag, nigger
>>22939305
paying svetlana 15 rubles to fuck her in the ass won't make you any more of an alpha male or any less angry at women, sorry kryjsiewski, keep calling people incel and go back to where you belong, faggot

>>22939301 (OP)
Jung identified that men are unconsciously possessed by a feminine anima, while women are in turn possessed by an inner male animus. Supposedly we also project these inner "spirits" (if you will) outwards onto the opposite sex. This can have positive effects if we are "in touch" with our
It's also very telling that other scholars throughout history from differing cultures also noted similiar patterns between the masculine/feminine. Chinese daoism from your OP post is a good example of this.
I'm not sure I fully agree with calling the masculine soul "logos". But thats because I read logos in the context of the aristotelian soul, aka encompassing full expression of all "human" faculties, feminine and masculine, as opposed to the subordinate "plant" (growth ->physis) and "animal" (action/reaction/emotion->pathos) instincts that form our base.

>>22939349
>it figures the most fundamental natural law traditionally taken to underpin the order in the universe would be a "very tiny part"
the whole point is that logos is a collection of things, and causality is one of those many things.

You are not comparing apples to oranges when you are pitting logos against causality. You are comparing apples (causality) to a grocery store (logos)

>>22939301 (OP)
this is incorrect
women have 2 internal forces
the desire to destroy (men and their lives)
and their desire to create (trouble for men, in their lives)

that is female yin yang, but men percieve it as a singular force, because they cannot comprehend it being a duality

>>22939301 (OP)

I have your answers friend

Modern life mirrors Mouse Utopia: TikTok, Instagram, Tinder, and Pornhub flood us with dopamine, replacing purpose with passive consumption. As roles dissolve, NEETs multiply, fertility crashes, and meaning vanishes. Like the mice, we aren't dying from lack—but from overstimulation, isolation, and a collapse of identity in a synthetic paradise.

Mouse Utopia as a Parallel

Calhoun's "Behavioral Sink": Once basic needs were met, rodents exhibited:

Collapse in social roles

Decline in reproduction

Male passivity and violence

Female aggressiveness or withdrawal

Disintegration of parental roles


Parallels in modern humans:

Urban alienation, incel culture, declining birth rates

Gender role confusion, rising mental health issues

Collapse in communal bonding (churches, family, tribe)

Hyper-individualism and virtual escape (gaming, social media)

>>22939356
>the desire to destroy (men and their lives)
>and their desire to create (trouble for men, in their lives)
that's essentially the same thing kek

>>22939350
To prove there is any reason I shouldn't believe facts just because they trigger your dull lady brain.

>>22939355
>the whole point is that logos is a collection of things, and causality is one of those many things.
Pretty funny how you keep prattling on about muh logos yet don't understand the concept of hierarchies, either. :^)

>>22939357
Falling birth rates across developed nations — despite technological advancement.

Elite overproduction vs under-reproduction (e.g., highly educated women having fewer children).

Fertility as a social signaling tool (e.g., pronatalism in some religious or ideological groups).

The collapse of stable mate selection frameworks (dating apps, porn, hypergamy, etc.)

>>22939311
You do need women to be happy tho because you need them to observe you ignoring them

>>22939359
>To prove there is any reason I shouldn't believe facts
You can "believe the facts". Your "facts" do nothing whatsoever to undermine my point. Try again.

>>22939311
>genuinely believe men and women were complementary in some divine union that transcends flesh.
Here's your actual "other half", bro.
1/2

>>22939358
not at all, creating trouble for men is how women get attention and shit test potential mates
destroying men is reserved for when a man rejects or discards them, or uses them in a way they consider unfair

much like yin and yang, within each of those creation/destroyer desires, the opposite exists in smaller amounts

a woman destroying a man also wants to shit test him and see if he will be better and come under her control

a woman creating a man also relishes the idea of the trouble destroying him

>>22939311
2/2

>>22939364
>posts LLM slop
Idiocracy is here.

>>22939365
Mouse Phase Human Parallel Human Years Description

Phase A: Establishment Industrialization Begins 1800–1900 Basic needs are secured for the first time on a mass scale. Human population explodes. Urbanization begins.
Phase B: Explosive Growth Modernity & Global Expansion 1900–1950 Rapid economic, technological, and population growth. Colonialism, early mass communication, and nationalism.
Phase C: Social Stratification Begins Post-War Boom & Suburban Culture 1950–1980 Society fragments into social classes and roles. Gender norms, division of labor, nuclear family ideal. U.S. baby boom = near-literal "utopia conditions".
Phase D: Behavioral Sink Onset Late Capitalism Begins 1980–2005 Material comfort rises, but meaningful social roles begin to break down. Birth rates start falling in rich countries. Rise in consumerism, distraction, and loneliness.
Phase E: Role Collapse Social Disintegration Phase 2005–2025 Masculinity and femininity destabilize. Family formation drops. Dating app culture, gender role confusion, and mass passivity. Youth reject parenthood. Incels, gender wars, high suicide/self-harm.
Phase F: The "Beautiful Ones" Aesthetic Digital Culture 2025–2040 Young people retreat into artificial aesthetics, entertainment, and self-image. Disengaged from society and reproduction. Hyper-clean, non-violent, non-sexual. Sterile in every sense.
Phase G: Total Collapse of Reproduction Fertility Cliff 2040–2060 Reproduction drops below 0.8 TFR in many countries. Entire regions depopulate. AI and robotics replace work. Culture loops on itself. Civilizational memory fades.
Phase H: Terminal Decline / Die-Off Post-Civilization Fragmentation 2060–2100 Only remnants of human communities survive in fractured, regional forms. Small, spiritual, or tribal enclaves. Urban cores empty out. Planet rewilds or is repurposed by surviving intelligent fragments.

>>22939351
logos is self critical and self limiting while eros just wants to "find herself and travel the world".

>>22939354
>Jung identified that men are unconsciously possessed by a feminine anima, while women are in turn possessed by an inner male animus
yes but it's not Jung's full story, and the full story is written in my OP post

It starts with men being possessed by anima, and women being "posessed" by animus. (notice the quotation marks)
Because the fully story is that the way possession by the opposite works in men and women is not symmetrical - it's asymmetrical (and THIS is the main issue which most people fail to understand simply because it feels counter-intuitive to an average thinker, but begins to make sense once observed enough in nature).

The relationship a woman has with her animus is NOT THE SAME as the relationship a man has with his anima. They are radically different relationships, where the man genuinely feels the anima as part of his own being, while the woman sees the animus as an external law-dictating force. (hence she rejects him as part of her, and only sees him as outside of her or above her)
^ and while you think the above is just semantics, no they are not, they are the core reason human today still continues to trip over old rakes

>>22939367
>you can't use LLMs to politely summarize your walls of text, you have to shit up threads and make character capped posts no one will read

>>22939351
Reason will by definition be reasonable. It will recognize its limits and obey them.

I will quote the greatest philosopher of the 21st century here:

"Giving the woman right to vote is like let a monkey fly a plane." - Borat

>>22939371
Schizo take grasping at straws but at least it's somewhat creative. Works much better as greentext than as AI slop.

>>22939363
Your "point" >>22939334 was that you have some unstated facts that prove I am an unthinking, irrational, delusional and out of touch with causality, so yes, the facts matter, retard, your whole arguments was about them.

>>22939370

> Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia vs Modern Humanity
> Timeline Comparison (1800–2100) | Collapse is Real

PHASE A — "Establishment Phase"
1800–1900
- Industrial age begins
- Basic needs secured at scale
- Population boom, urban birth
(Mouse equivalent: utopia built, initial growth)

PHASE B — "Explosive Growth"
1900–1950
- Tech advances, empire expands
- WW1/WW2 then global recovery
- Population surges
(Mouse: breeding frenzy, doubling fast)

PHASE C — "Role Stratification"
1950–1980
- Nuclear family, suburbs, gender roles
- Civic life, specialization, stability
(Mouse: social roles emerge — alphas, mothers, enforcers)

PHASE D — "Behavioral Sink Begins"
1980–2005
- Consumerism, social atomization
- Divorce spikes, birth rates dip
- Early net + mass nihilism
(Mouse: antisocial behavior begins, territory breaks down)

PHASE E — "Collapse of Roles"
2005–2025
- Incel rise, gender war, birth crash
- Passive males, disconnected females
- Children avoided, identity chaos
(Mouse: breeding stops, roles disintegrate)

PHASE F — "The Beautiful Ones"
2025–2040
- Youth obsessed with self-image
- No sex, no kids, no purpose
- Social isolation disguised as freedom
(Mouse: grooming, complete social withdrawal)

PHASE G — "Reproduction Dies"
2040–2060
- TFR < 1.0 in rich nations
- AI eats work, culture collapses
- Cities shrink, no legacy left
(Mouse: zero litters, irreversible collapse)

PHASE H — "Civilizational End Phase"
2060–2100
- Ghost cities, tribal enclaves
- Rewilding, retreat, data ruins
- Fragments survive, not society
(Mouse: final mice die alone in silence)

> Mice died in comfort. Humans might do it with WiFi and avocado toast.

>>22939373
have some more then, I have bookmarked several of these ramblings to compile them, but it's going to take some time to make it all presentable and sorted into chapters with relevant sources and illustrations

>>22939374
Screeching "feminists did it" or "liberals did it" or whatever other mindless reflex passes for a retort among the likes of you, does nothing to refute this:

>Kinda funny how female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.

Or this:
>Reminding you again that it's mostly a failed civilization, derived from the obsessions of ancient Greek pederasts and their love of logos, that suffers from the plague of the modern female. Others are effected mostly as a result of Western cultural export.

Even allowing for your extremely dumbed down account of the situation, my point still stands unless you deny causality.

>>22939373
>Schizo take grasping at straws but at least it's somewhat creative. Works much better as greentext than as AI slop.
it does seem that your brain is effeminate, because you are driven more by image and relationship than you are by concepts, constructs or architecture

the anima lives in images and relations, so if you're a man, I suppose you're one that is either possessed by anima to an unhealthy degree, or are too complicit under it

>>22939301 (OP)
>order, structure, discipline
Isn't that NPC bot shit?

>>22939311
I think that most people whiplash too hard in the other direction.
They start off treating women as their equals or, even worse, worshiping them. But eventually they realize their true nature and swing straight to hating them.

You just need to remember that women are like dogs. Dogs are better than us at some things, but you don't hate dogs for being incapable of doing complex math or inventing medicine. You just expect them to do the thing they're good at and to be shit at everything else.

Women are the same. They're good at following a man's lead and being and nurturing something a man has crated, but you shouldn't expect them to rule something fairly or to bring revolutionary ideas that aren't just them following their feelings.

So yeah, the trick is to just treat women like dogs or toddlers, but the most important part is that you don't tell them that. If you ask a kid what he wants to be as a grownup and he says "Astronaut", you don't tell him how small his chance of becoming an astronaut is, do you? You just nod and say "How cool!" And move on with your life. Women are the same.
They will tell you all about how they don't need no man and how the universe should be ruled by women and that they will turn Earth into heaven if only they were given the chance. And you just nod and move along with your life.

>wife talks about how if an apocalypse ever happened she would be hunting wolves for the tribe of survivors while all the men will be picking berries
>nod and praise her for her courage
>watch her have a mental breakdown the next day because she forgot the stove on and burnt our lunch

It's that simple.

>>22939376
VERY!!! interesting... Could this be the underlying source of the behavior sink

>>22939381
It's not that interesting actually, what's actually interesting to me is that people genuinely believed that they are above mammalian nature.

>>22939378
>causality-denying feminine brain loses the actual argument
>starts irrelevant personal drama instead

>>22939377
Neither of those phrases appeared in any of my posts, retard.

You are the one denying that the feminist uprising generally precede the crumbling civilization rather than the other way around like you want to imply.

>>22939378
Also kek'd at how your bants precisely mirror Becky's horoscope-based analysis of people she dislikes.

>>22939385
you have a "i like this" and "i dislike that" approach to arguments, and this is anti-logos by definition, it's eros dynamic (which BEGINS assessment through feeling, instead through passive observation). This is the anima speaking through you, and not you speaking.

>>22939384
Ok, it's obvious that you're 80 IQ and mentally ill. ID goes to the filter now. Be sure to shit out another reply no one will ever read, though. :^)

>>22939377
You're just saying "This is a failed civilization and females are a part of it."

>Kinda funny how female...
>Reminding you again that it's mostly a failed civilization...

You're not making any points here. I literally cannot form truth asserting statements out of these.

>>22939387
Ok, keep talking to yourself and projecting your own faults, lady brained emotional retard who completely denies causality and facts.

>>22939301 (OP)
Women are just fucked in the head because of an insane degree of solipsism.
Men acknowledge that other people around them have their own preferences and desire and that to get their cooperation, you need to give them something in return.
Women don't give a shit, it's only me me me, whatever they want takes priority above all else and the suggestion that maybe they should give something in return repulses them.
It's how you end up with shit like her trying to force you to watch a series she knows you'll hate with her, but on the other hand is completely incapable of tolerating you having fun with something she doesn't give a shit about, even if she could just do her own thing while you're busy.

Makes them intolerable, and life is genuinely better without them. As soon as we have artificial wombs, they are fucked because then they lost their last selling point and can no longer hold humanity hostage.

>>22939386
>loses the actual argument he was having with me
>starts grasping at straws about my distaste for AI slop

>>22939382
True. We got a little carried away. What's frightening to me though is that the destruction coming is almost preprogrammed...like cancer.

Facts no one ITT can refute:

>Female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.

>It's mostly a failed civilization, derived from the obsessions of ancient Greek pederasts and their love of logos, that suffers from the plague of the modern female. Others are effected mostly as a result of Western cultural export.

>>22939391
it's always weird how everything is a projection

>>22939380
>It's that simple

>The solution is to be utterly stoic as female nature, and adapt to it
>You vill subject yourself to this
>Voluntarily

No, I don't fear women. I don't lack understanding. I've seen what they are, and I've deemed them unnecessary baggage in my life

>Do I hate them?
Yes, yes I do.
>Is it stupid to hate something that cannot help be the way it is?
Possibly, but why wouldn't that also apply to me?

I will not pass through the hoops of life. Out of spite. You guys have fun with it.

>>22939393
Except that was denied >>22939342 and you started ranting about how you don't need facts because they don't matter >>22939350 >>22939363.

>>22939394
Call me back when you can explain why you're denying causality.

>>22939370
Tbh I'm only cursorily acquainted with Jungs' work, so forgive me if I get something wrong or am asking something obvious.
If its as you say, and the anima/animus possession in men/women is asymmetrical, a few questions:
>Is this asymmetry "natural" aka have women always rejected the animus, or have we caused it via our environment? If so, what in the environment caused it?
>If it is natural, are there periods where women integrate the animus and men reject their anima? I.E. is there evidence of any sort of cyclical pattern?

So I've been reading about the Kurghan hypothesis/Yamnaya culture and their conquests of Europe, Iran and India. And one of the theories for why their culture was so successful is that they were essentially the first human culture in the agrarian period (that we know of) that developed a patriarchal culture, and thus hierarchy, land piratism, capital acquisition via organised mass violence, etc.
Supposedly most other cultures at the time were matriarchal, agrarian "mother goddess" worshippers with more egalitarian systems of rule, aka females as the political class, as "life givers". Using feminine social strategies like gossip, shame, very much like today in order to maintain the egalitarian structures and control reproductive access.
Basically, what do you think of the idea that patriarchal/masculine thinking was actually a revolutionary social technology our ancestors developed, and effectively used to conquer the known world with (thanks to its incentive on open competition producing rapid innovation, outpacing the adaptive ability of matriarchal cultures)?

>>22939375
>>22939368
The Taliban will inheret the earth.

>>22939301 (OP)
tldr: women are niggers.

>>22939397
Disagreeing with you is not equal to violating a natural law.

>>22939301 (OP)

>>22939301 (OP)
Brother please get a job or something to do. What the fuck are you talking about

>>22939397
>t. the retard who insists facts don't matter >>22939363 and people should try again with something besides facts

>>22939401
I guess that a mathematical proof beats everything else, well done.

>>22939400
You sound like you're having a psychotic episode. The only thing your hivemind is "disagreeing" with me about is that the present is linked to the past via cause and effect.

>>22939405
No, he clearly doesn't agree with you that facts don't mater when you are involved.

>>22939397
First of all, nobody is denying causality. Causality is a component of logos, but not logos in its entirety.

Second of all, causality is a relationship-concept (relationship between cause and effect), therefore it is entangled and temporal. While logos doesn't JUST deal with time, he also deals with timeless. (and in a timeless space, causality cannot fulfil any function)

Third of all, being over-fixated on a feminine (relational) concept as a sole source of reason raises suspicion about your potential inflation of feminine perception of reality.

Thus, your presence in this thread is natural, because the way eros works is that it always invades every space that is governed by logos, and plays the trickster or seducer game of sort.
You're performing that role and that's how it should be, so we thank you for doing your part.

But it would be less gay if you'd been a real woman, and not a man posing as one.

By the way, the women who consign your entire belief system to the dump heap of history (which in and of itself is the ultimate refutation of any idea) are in fact taking an approach that represents the West at its peak. :^)

>>22939407
>First of all, nobody is denying causality.
No, the lady you are arguing with is clearly denying causality because it would be inconvenient for her argument to admit that the civilizations only tend to crumble after women are allowed seats in power and start eroding the rule of law.

>>22939407
>nobody is denying causality
Then you should be able to appreciate the necessarily connection between Western civilization being deeply rooted in an overshoot towards what your retarded horoscope lingo calls the masculine principle, and the inevitable backlash that came to correct it, and predictably afflicts this specific civilization far more than any other.

>>22939398
I'll speak in a very liberal way now (not politically but in terms of playing with concepts freely)

The idea that patriarchy even exists (in my opinion) might be mistaken. Because when you name something as X, then you automatically imply there is an opposite (Y). And to me it doesn't seem like an opposite to patriarchy even exists, or ever could. Because matriarchies cannot act as an "alternative" social structure, they implode, and are alchemically unstable by their very nature.

So it "patriarchy" cannot be invented, and it cannot be replaced. It can only be either "more expressed" or "less expressed" during different periods of human history. So let's say if we talk about anarchy - that's just patriarchy in a suppressed/dysfunctional form. And if we talk about totalitarianism - then it's patriarchy in an inflated or possessive form. But there is no alternative. It's a perpetual instict that is always present in various forms, and instincts are not invented.

>>22939410
So because men make the civilization rise, you are upset that women usually make the civilization crumble when they try to take the reigns from the men that enabled the civilization?

>>22939405
I thought you filtered me out.

>>22939393
I think a lot of the confusion/disagreement with other anons may stem from your arguments/statements being very hard to make sense of linguistically.
>Female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.
>It's mostly a failed civilization, derived from the obsessions of ancient Greek pederasts and their love of logos, that suffers from the plague of the modern female. Others are effected mostly as a result of Western cultural export.
What you're actually saying is:
Modern female behavior is a problem.
We live in a crumbling civilization.
Our civilization overvalues order/logos.
Our civilization derives its values from Greek pederasts.
We affect others by exporting our culture.

The problem is that four of these five are just totally disconnected a posteriori statements, there's no causal element. It's like saying "water is wet". You're not providing any "why" or "how", just "is". The only one that contains a causal argument is
>We affect others by exporting our culture.

>>22939410
Ok this makes more sense as an argument. Thank you for clarifying.

>>22939410
>your retarded horoscope lingo
it's a philosophical and ontological language, not horoscope language, but how would a woman-possessed brain tell the difference

>>22939415
>it's a philosophical and ontological language
It's horoscope lingo that 90 IQ pseudointellectual kids throw around to make their completely vacuous points sound more substantial. Also noting your perfectly predictable latching onto that part of the post while ignoring the argument. Femboi in denial. Every criticism you shit out is literal projection.

>>22939411
>Because matriarchies cannot act as an "alternative" social structure, they implode, and are alchemically unstable by their very nature.
Now you're just being historically illiterate. Europe was polygamous and matriarchal before mong invasions.
That was a long time ago though.

>>22939416
>It's horoscope lingo that 90 IQ pseudointellectual kids
you can't operate with this language because you don't know it, and yet everyone who studied Jung or political theory understands what is written.

>>22939414
>80 IQs can't make the most basic inferences without my spelling them out

>>22939418
Once again noting your perfectly predictable latching onto that part of the post while ignoring the argument. Femboi in denial. Every criticism you shit out is literal projection. The only thing you demonstrate here is the wisdom of gatekeeping literacy from low IQ cattle like you.

>>22939411
>Because matriarchies cannot act as an "alternative" social structure, they implode
No, they just look more like terror cells than nations, but there is still social structure.

>>22939417
>Now you're just being historically illiterate. Europe was polygamous and matriarchal before mong invasions.
are you implying that core civilizational concepts like warfare, economics, law-making, judiciary systems function (in spirit) differently under matriarchic state than they do under a patriarchic one?

I would say no, not really. Even if difference is there, it is in flavour, but not in core concept.

>>22939419
Being unable to make a clear and concise argument is a prerequisite for being able to have a discussion. It's not my job to have to sift through your bullshit to pull out an assertion.

>27posts by this id
whatever your opinion is, you are wrong

>>22939420
>while ignoring the argument.
your argument started with horoscopes, what kind of university allowed you to graduate with that kind of reasoning skills?

>>22939419
>70 IQs ADHD ladies can't have structured articulated thoughts and jump all over the place wherever their emotion leads them.

>>22939425
>denies causality
>denies denying causality
>the denial is spelled out for him
>pretends he can't see the argument because I made fun of his horoscope lingo in the same post
Femboi in denial.

>>22939411

This checks out.

We are entering a future where they may usurp power. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Imagine for example several EU countries become very close to matriarchy... What if they underperform globally? What if they draft women and make warrior of them? Would they be a joke and die on the battlefield? Would a true matriarchy run off and beg patriarchy for protection...hmmmmm

And what would a super dominant patriarchy like China do if the west became a soft matriarchy...

>>22939413
I used to do that but then I realized I actually like it better watching the retards trying over and over to reply to my posts without getting any reaction.

>>22939427
Causality is a relational construct. It links events across time by positing chains of cause and effect. By its very nature, it is temporal, entangled, and dependent on sequence. But logos, properly understood, is not confined to temporality. He functions across both the temporal and the atemporal. He operates in structures that are not merely sequential, but eternal.

In a timeless domain, causality has no foothold. It cannot bind, it cannot explain. It becomes inert - because sequence dissolves, and relationship as we know it ceases to exist.

So when you cling to causality as the only ground of reason, you are not defending logos - you are distorting him. You are mistaking a feminine relational mode for the masculine sovereign axis of clarity. One begins to suspect you're not arguing from logic, but from an inflation of the feminine mode of perception - elevating it beyond its proper place, and calling it reason.

>>22939427
>t. the only anon ITT who says facts don't matter when making a point >>22939363

>>22939417
Excuse me?
Name one then...

>There are no known fully matriarchal societies in recorded human history.
Partial matriarchal traits exist in a small number of societies, but true female-dominated civilizations have not emerged or endured at scale.

>>22939306
Masculine also implies musculature and general success and military and primal effectiveness, violence and indeed persuasiveness, because transformation is more a feminine characteristic, this is a stark list here, I dont have a complete list, but you could probaby guess, creativity and intelligence is also very masculine as well, invention, "genius", industry, military, corporations. All considered structured and organisational in a way, and also relates on their own merits

>>22939430
Holy kek. Ok, this is obviously a bot. Moving on.

>>22939323
>NAWALT

retard

>>22939434

>>22939301 (OP)
youre ghey, which is not okay. you also must be brown because any white man worth his salt knows how self awareness and a superior well bred white woman has over 95% of all brown men arouNd the worl.d KYS.

Threadly reminder:

>you should be able to appreciate the necessary connection between Western civilization being deeply rooted in an overshoot towards what your retarded horoscope lingo calls the masculine principle, and the inevitable backlash that came to correct it, which predictably afflicts this specific civilization far more than any other.

OP's only reply to this is that cause and effect don't really matter in the grand scheme of the Logos, so one can ignore this connection and shit out retarded theories about how it's the nature of women, rather than Western thinking, that's imbalanced. :^)

>>22939438
>tl;dr the only way to "correct" a rising civilization run by men is to convince the men to give women seats of power so the civilization crumbles

>>22939439
>mentally ill and hallucinating
Feminine brains can't deal with losing an argument.

>>22939438
>>22939440
feminine cannot "correct", it can only:
- test
- ruin
- rouse
- question

correction by itself is a masculine principle

>>22939440
>t. the anon who lost the argument long ago by declaring facts unimportant then pretended to block everyone who disagreed despite clearly not actually blocking them

>>22939419
The problem with making inferences using your previous "arguments" doesnt work, because they are linguistically imprecise.
>Female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.
This can be interpreted as "Female behaviour is a problem because it causes decline in masculine civilizations", or "Decline is caused when masculine civilizations turn a blind eye towards female behavior. Or "Masculine civilization causes female behaviour to overcorrect, initiating decline". Etc.

I'm not insulting you, I just want to clarify your position.
So I'm not sure what your kneejerk reaction is supposed to indicate, other than that I've potentially called you out for playing a language game in bad faith, aka "If I keep my argument vague enough I can twist it to mean anything".
Maybe english isn't your first language, that's fine too. Acting like a nigger when somebody asks you for clarity is not.

>>22939441
>feminine cannot "correct", it can only:
>- test
>- ruin
>- rouse
>- question
I like how in your effort to deflect the argument again, you only end up making a blatantly false and irrational statement, even if your characterization is taken at face value and accepted.

>>22939438

Jesus your a dumb cunt.

Women's behavior is clear in this thread...

All nations are below replacement so badly that entire culture will be replaced simply to maintain the freedom women are abusing to keep said fertility rate below replacement...

Furthermore, women are leveraging their biological sexual appeal to greatly distort mating and relationships and profiting if it while not using the profits to build the no nation they live in...

It's insanity and it will collapse very quickly

>>22939440
>Feminine brains can't deal with losing an argument.
Must be why you attacked the concept of facts when >>22939363 you realized your argument was the losing one.

>>22939438
Its most accurate as an aesthetic science, its very intuitive and its a great layer of thought to a get a fine view of things, just as a first glance, you have to be intelligent enough how to use it though

>>22939430
niggerbabble

>>22939444
to correct - is to restructure a structure (and "structure" is the root of both words here)
structure is masculine in principle

the feminine (if we translate it as eros) exists for the purpose of testing a structure (kicking it off balance, not reenforcing or modifying it)
if the structure crumbles as result of feminine trial, then it is up to the masculine to modify the structure into greater resilience (the feminine will never do that because it is not ruled by logos)

so to say that an overshoot masculine was "corrected" by feminine is a syntax error in the code, this would never compile into a build, because compilation by itself is masculine

>>22939443
>The problem with making inferences using your previous "arguments" doesnt work, because they are linguistically imprecise.
Or maybe it's just that you're a dull-witted retard who can't see the connection between directly observations made outlined in a logical succession.

>>22939450
directly related*

>>22939450
>in a logical succession.
His whole point is that it wasn't a logical succession and your cope was that a smart person should be able to turn your word salad into a logical succession on their own.

>>22939445
Basically western women

> I'm powerful and independent I don't need men or kids me me me me

>Hey why did I get fired from my teacher job(no kids), my HR job(no worker s)...well at least I still got my Onlyfans!!!

> We need more men to maintain things! Quick import 9999999999 people who hate my Onlyfans and would treat me like the selfish dog I am and likely cannot maintain my society or matriarchy

Desperately hold on to power placating everyone and banning political opposition to my policies (((sound familiar)))???

>>22939449
>definitional slop
Niggerbabble. Nature doesn't conform to your horoscope ideals. Its main correction mechanism is to destroy the non-viable and deformed accidents that arise within it.

>>22939454
you're again rooting your entire logic in causality, which only suggests you're incapable of seeing things for what they are outside of motion, which is doubled-down by your inability to define categories for forces of nature

>>22939301 (OP)
I wrote some thoughts about this a month back while taking a shit. It’s not refined, just train of thought.

Man creates technology to do his bidding. Woman creates man to be her machine. Thus if the male hero journey is the voyage from his nest to the unknown, the facing of his fears and overcoming of the dragon to get the princess. The female equivalent is to position herself behind the fire of which her suitor must forge body and soul to get to her. Her story thus should be one of orchestrator of fate. The Morai. The human male swarm with abundant seed and the female scrutinizes, calculating who is worth her efforts of gestation and allegiance. This is also why single women fail as mothers, as she never personally instills the heroic traits, as the human female role is one of waiting for the male to overcome the obstacles to her. As a consequence the female body lacks the relative energy and know-how to consistently work on building a male’s appropriate foundation. The mother feeds the beast, so that it may grow big and strong, but does not wrestle with the beast. That, if the male is fortunate, will have to be found in the external environment to balance his domestic situation. Otherwise a beast of insecurities is born. Unsure of its strength and capability. An animal that takes on female traits while not being female is confused, unstable and prone to outbursts in its disorientation of right and wrong, wrangling with different biological imperatives and recognition to the female preference going to males of higher classically heroic standards, and not his own feminine derivative. This is why there is the idea that women wish to be dominated, which is true, and should be subservient to men, which is true, but misunderstood. Women are subservient to men as far as the man is dominant. Meaning that her subservience is conditional, it is reverence, and so when a society loses its masculine ethos it loses woman and nation to chaos.

>>22939455
As I predicted way back at the beginning, your whole ideology revolves around denying causality. You don't dispute how your own retarded ideals lead straight to the current situation you abhor, only insist that this doesn't matter and double down on analyzing some fantasy "imbalances" in women, as if insisting on it hard enough will, by some non-causal magic, stop the decline of your failed civilization.

>>22939454
Good for you that you are a somewhat viable deformed accident that might make if through a few decades.

>>22939456
>Man creates technology to do his bidding.
Man enslaves man to do his bidding.

What a pathetic thread of unhinged incel rantings

Some of you should try interacting with a woman IRL so you’ll learn that they’re human beings too and not some other species

>>22939460
Have you trooned out yet?

>>22939459
As an obvious jewish women that probably is your lived experience, but that doesn't mean it is the only way man accomplishes his bidding.

>>22939460
Did you even read the thread?
Having the unfortunate experience of having to interact with women is what led most of the people to their conclusions.

This is a chuds science, it lets you instantly classify something as feminine at first glance and understand it like that, you wouldnt believe how much it correlates to, its like terry davis he looks at a bad piece of code and he calls it "niggerlicious"

@510435404

>>22939450
>more deflection and insults
Ok I'll keep it simple for your niggerbrain: Your word salad is empty nonsense. Kikes have a good word for this, they call it pilpul.
There are three parts to your argument.
>A: Western civilization is in decline
>B: Western civilization is masculine
>C: Female behavior is a problem
These are all true. But the order in which you arrange them changes the entire argument, which you have been unwilling or unable to answer.
You keep bringing up "causality" so much, so please set the record straight. What EXACTLY is the causal order/relation between A, B and C?
I swear to god, most humans should be required to pass a test on prepositional logic when they turn 18, or else be executed for stupidity.

>>22939466
Do you realize it's impossible for you to make any progress with your "point" by repeatedly screeching, in different variations, that you couldn't understand my post? Your failing to understand something always reflects primarily on you. There's no way around it.

>>22939465
Exactly, your emotional arguments are just as viable arguments as your past abortions are viable children.

>>22939303
I don't think they're evil.
They're easy to shape, and thus corrupt.

Once again, blame the kikes.

>>22939457
>As I predicted way back at the beginning, your whole ideology revolves around denying causality.
there's probably 3+ posts in this thread where I say that nobody is denying causality, and that your obsession with it is pathological

>>22939469
>Don't blame women, blame the largest matrilineal society oh earth

>>22939470
jewish ladies always accuse you of doing the terrible thing they are doing themselves

>>22939470
>nobody is denying causality
Then you acknowledge it's no coincidence the civilization most historically obsessed with "logos" that ends up suffering the hardest backlash from the return of irrationality... right? No? Another lecture about how the traceable chain of cause and effect explaining this backlash is irrelevant in the grand scheme of your dumb horoscope ideology?

>>22939392
>preprogrammed
Almost all behavior is "pre-programmed". If you can accept that niggers gonna nig, then you will eventually also have to accept that females gonna fem. We are all animals.

>>22939473
Yea kind of like the societies with buildings and infrastructures suffer more loss during natural disasters.

>>22939473
>right? No?
no, it's a global phenomenon
you're transfixed on western society, but it's happening in every affluent society, whether it is christian, confucian, buddhist, or shinto.

This is why your position is very low-effort.

>>22939467
So then which of these is it:
>Femininity->Decline->Masculinity
>Femininity->Masculinity->Decline
>Masculinity->Decline->Femininity
>Masculinity->Femininity->Decline
>Decline->Masculinity->Femininity
>Decline->Femininity->Masculinity

The further ramifications, and more importantly, potential solutions to our crisis differ significantly depending on which of these is true.
If you don't understand this, I can only surmise you are either arguing in bad faith, or don't even understand your own logic properly and are operating only on "vibes" and "feels".

>>22939469
>blame the kikes.
Kikes accepted a ready-made "ideology" from white women, they didn't invent anything, they simply exploited was already there, which is what they always do.

>>22939476
>it's a global phenomenon
Only insofar as modern Western culture is polluting the rest of the world. Anyway, every post of yours ITT is an indirect concession of all my points, starting from my noting the way your OP inverts reality to the observation that your estrogen and microplastic drenched brain can't contend with cause and effect and prefers simplistic horoscope principles.

>>22939304
Why he worn g string undergarment? Homo?

>>22939477
Your post is incoherent and you sound legit mentally ill. But here, let me help you out. Here's the statement you couldn't process properly:

>Kinda funny how female behavior only became a massive problem in the context of a crumbling civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed the role of muh order, muh structure, muh discipline and muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced.

Without changing the structure of that statement, but only removing a bunch of verbiage that's mostly there for dramatic effect, you end up with this:

>female behavior only became a massive problem in a civilization built by men who massively overstated and overplayed muh logos and there you are complaining that women are imbalanced

You don't understand the implication here because you're 90 IQ.

>>22939479
>Only insofar as modern Western culture is polluting the rest of the world.
Experiment: "Universe 25", by John B. Calhoun

has little to do with culture overall, I don't dable in constructivist nonsense, since it comes from feminist atropology

>>22939482
See >>22939479
>every post of yours ITT is an indirect concession of all my points, starting from my noting the way your OP inverts reality to the observation that your estrogen and microplastic drenched brain can't contend with cause and effect and prefers simplistic horoscope principles.

And I think I'm actually going to add your retarded spam to the filter, because you're actually even more botlike than that purple ID American. kek

>>22939483
>I'm cool and you're dumb
cool story

>>22939312
rare

>nu-/pol/ actually believes Rockefeller-funded mouse experiments explain what went wrong with Westeroon culture

>>22939301 (OP)
Wow an actual thread of substance on pol instead of the usual shill and bot slop?

Yes, women are immature and barely self-aware, and that's by design. They evolved to be that way because their job was to stay at home and raise children. Women are more relatable to children and easier to get along with if they are mentally the same as children. They didn't need anything beyond that. In fact, anything more would lead to conflict and power struggle with the man of the house.

>>22939459
Technology comes in many forms. Creating a system to enslave men is also a technology. My point was just to encapsulate overall male innovation and creativity.

>>22939469
>Jews
Corporatism has destroyed not the women, but the men of the west with capitalism. The male’s fall into a weak and unimposing corporate lackey is what destroyed the female. This is why they feel bold enough to challenge “men” (many who can barely be called that, with all the feminization and estrogen they have adopted in mind and body).

Ancient societies didn’t invent machines like us because they were stupid but because most of their focus was on the arts, universe and human condition. As a consequence they grew a much greater understanding of psychology than us today. We have advanced as we have in technology due to the capitalist zeitgeist which strives to find ways to monetize “good”. To give to people, in return for money, rewards you with a demonstrable object of your good will, and with this good will you gain many social boons. Though cognisance on this is pretty much lost, and so money has become God, and now he is worshipped and strived for, for his own sake.

>>22939481
Except female behavior is also a problem for all the female lead groups that didn't even get off the ground to reach as ascended civilization status because female behavior is so regressive. It only causes men to fall from higher heights because the are the only ones that can reach those heights in the first place.

>>22939486
>Chad Hominem
fukn.kek

>>22939488
>Technology comes in many forms. Creating a system to enslave men is also a technology. My point was just to encapsulate overall male innovation and creativity.
You were babbling something about how men create technology to do their bidding while women use men instead. In reality, the concept of using and abusing other people to do your bidding is intrinsically tied to OP's retarded concept of masculinity and also the the emergence of technology. Your version of "man" enslaves other men to do his bidding, to free himself some time to invent finer means of enslavement and enlarge the slave enterprise. OP, you and all your likes basically just idolize slavery. Nothing to do with "logos".

>>22939380
If dogs had the same rights as you, you'd hate them so much you'd make them extinct on your continent.
The kid doesn't have the rights, that's why it's not a problem when it doesn't understand that being an astronaut isn't realistic.
It's because of morons like you that we can't make women behave.
>muh wife
>muh stoicism
REEEEEEE
TOTAL NORMIE DEATH TO THE LAST DROP OF NORMIE BLOOD GOD DAMN IT

>>22939393
>female behavior only became a massive problem (in a society that let's them have opinions)
Therefore we remove their rights, and they are guilty.
>muh societal decay
>muh pederasts
Irrelevant, you're only mentioning other aspects of society to try and excuse the women.
Were women not as bad as they are, the weakness of society allowing them rights would then be a good thing. But it's not, it's a total catastrophe and even today retards like you try and defend them.
Fuck off back to the kitchen.

>>22939493
Your fantasies are irrelevant. Your system of values will continue along its natural trajectory towards the fiery crash it was always destined for. Meanwhile you can seethe, cope and fail to have children.

>>22939491
>>510437426
Women just want a man they can respect. They always say this, and this is one thing you can believe them in. Until society empowers men again, we will keep descending deeper into disarray (more atomization, more isolation and the guys with large families/networks on-top will have a field day oppressing and abusing the masses). As of right now (since feminism) society has been kicking the shit out of men calling him, bald, fat and stupid. How can women worship such things? Some women now even genuinely believe women can be as strong as men, and in a disturbing number of cases they are right, and that is how far man has fallen thanks in part to the jewish slop.

The fix is obvious. Empower men societally. Make them strong, imposing, intelligent, beautiful, caring and fair executors of justice. Society shouldn’t be one where it’s accepted for women to disparage men en masse.

>>510437780
Total brainrot of a post. Tell me you’re a female without telling me.

>>22939494
My fantasies? No fantasies in that post. Not even a statement about me in that post in fact, only the explanation that women are intrinsically bad actors.
My values?
Do you mean the values of the people that give women equal rights?
Because that is indeed going to end, and women will go back in the kitchen. Forever.
Your body my choice. Eternally.
And the best part is, this will happen whether or not the current order collapses.
Your malformed idea of a flaw in "western" thinking, whatever the fuck you even suppose that to mean, is irrelevant.
Because material reality dictates women's inferiority, not philosophical outlooks.
Whether the "west" collapses or not, the only valid and therefore permanent ideas of a society are those that include the total subordination of women.
>muh children
Hahaha don't make me laugh.
Your body my choice. Forever.

>>22939456
>her allegiance
Women are simp whores and incapable of detecting good mates and don’t have enough loyalty to consider what she gives as allegiance

>>22939510
Don’t know who the first paragraph was for, but the second (brainrot) was meant for >>22939491

>>>/pol/510431664
>>22939351
Logos, structure and order, is at its home in the plurality. To have a court you need enforcers, jurors, judges, bailiffs.
Eros, passion and chaos, is at its home in the individual.
Liberalization, i.e. the atomization of society where the individual is prized above the collective, would necessarily advantage the eros. Which is why past civilizations thrived, as they were not liberal. Senate, monarchy, republic; but never democracies. And the vaunted greek democracy was one of educated men only as well.
Logos unintentionally engineered its own downfall, through which eros rose through the cracks.

>>22939302
>Weininger
who invited my man blud :sob: :joy: