Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Hiatussin
New member
Heres my stance on women. It´s not carved in stone. In it, I include the women that I love, my mother, my sister and my girlfriend of 2 years whom I love and may spend the rest of my life with. This is off the top of my head I may have spent 10 minutes writing this. It may have flaws and incompletions.
I recommend you read it entirely, I know it is long, but I think few will not find it thought-provoking.
Man is ugly and uninspiring compared to woman, but he has a purpose higher than of matter (which is for people to be found) The purpose of man being higher than man itself, rather an idea, an honour, a principle, is the great point that all leftist ideology misses bluntly. Woman is more beautiful and charming than man, but exists only to please and serve a man and allow him piece of mind in his struggles, which she can´t truely grasp, and will simply accept as his life.
Women can´t see the big picture. The only philosophy they have written straightly states this very point, rejecting all purpose higher than man itself and hugs and kisses, as hallucinative self-flattery. No woman could ever really grasp the feelings and ideas of Kant, Ibsen, Weininger or even Jung. All feminist and even female philosophy that gets written, is actually anti-philosophy, simply the denial of the existance of things more below the surface. Anscombes statement that Kantianism is "unfounded" is simply laughable in the light of her writings, which don´t surpass the tendencies of a purring kitten. The female takeover in the 20th century of philosophy and especially psychology has been an absurd revolution, whose teachings end their real sciences and inspiration. This is because women have no philosophical dimension. They are only to aid. They are like an immensely beautiful and precious box, whose only purpose is to store an in itself unattractive ring.
The philosophy of women, that basically preaches love and affection as the virtues and purposes in life, would if true, appoint moral and purpose superiority to women. The fact is however that it is false. Womens tendency to affection reflects not an ability to empathy they have, but rather a lack of it. Women are not so suitable for for instance nursing, since they are so loving and understanding, but rather since they are not. A man, when appointed to task of caring for dying terminal patients, would soon become frustrated by his inability to really cure them and solve the problem.
Since the man can envision himself in others´ positions, the task would wear on him too much. Women flatly give care and affection because it´s natural to them and makes them feel good, without further notion of what is to happen with who they give it to.
Regarding all this, it should be noted, (Like Weininger first postulated in 1903 and was later "discovered" by other scientists who haven´t been lynched by the PC mob) that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Somebody can be for instance 79% male and 21% female or vice versa. This is of course completely supported by visible anatomy.
The natural dominance of the male is also why you will see every single time, that when a man and woman get together, it is the woman that gets taken up in HIS social circle, not the other way around. He is the dominant force that (beit without force, since most women unconsciously know their place) determines the nature of their joined life. This is why relationships are more important to women than to men. Men change women, Women change lives. It´s "Cowboy/Knight/Prince/Tarzan "Take me away"", not the other way around.
Women do not know friendship like men do. No union of women ever holds out. A good small scale example of this is student fraternities. the oldest living ones for men are about 250 years old, whereas female and mixed ones come and go and don´t usually reach 10 years of age. All succesful unions that surpass the generations and by doing this confirm their sense of transcending purpose, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Catholic Church, Burschenschaften, Corps, Landsmanschaften, Rotary, Robber Barons, all of them are male-only. Of the mixed organisations the ones that last longest (although they are all one day flies compared to male organisations) are the ones that are lead by the males in their ranks.
This is because females don´t understand friendship and networking. Women like to get ahead in society, but they try to do it by hooking onto a succesful man, not by getting into the network, their network IS their mans. You can take 2 feminine women who have known each other all their life and wrench them right apart with one charming, hot, promising man who shows some interest in them both. Two male life-long friends in the same situation will consult one another, simply wait till she chooses like a good sport, or even the lesser sexually succesful of the two will give her up.
The fact that women do not really understand friendship also explains their great naivity in dealing with male attention. Most males understand very well that they have no female "friends". Yet females will often genuinely believe the kind man trying to get in her pants gives a damn what she has to say for any other reason than pursuit-strategy.
Since women can´t see the big picture and don´t have a purpose in themselves, they also can´t remember their lives in a continuous stream of events. Such a recollection confirms/helps point out direction, and man is far more capable of constructing it, even moreso as we move to the more intelligent men amongst them, the true genius even seeming to recollect his life in its entirety.
Women are almost like input/output boxes. They have an infallible memory for those limited things that they react to- Insults, compliments and affection.
A woman, when asked the story of her life, will soon presume to tell a chronology of her affections. Upon inspection, she will recall with eery precision every bit of flattery and insult that she endured. Much unlike man, who typically describes a quest for purpose (at whatever level of intellect) or experience.
This is also clearly demonstrated, by the example of the all-hated woman and the all-hated man. It is possible for a man, being sufficiently manly in nature and well developed, to have pride and happiness although noone in the world thinks him worthy. Women have no philosophical dimension and so have no self image that transcends other peoples reactions to her, what she thinks of herself is simply the balanced out, cumulated effect of all response she has had to her person in her life.
When a man reaches puberty, sexuality and infatuation, attraction and attractiveness, become an addition to his life. The person he was before it is still there but it has grown some bigger with this addition. Women are reborn. Nothing they cared about before or did really matters anymore and they clearly demonstrate how much "man" is their very purpose.
Feminism has been a confusing force that attacked the carefully balanced nature of things. It first concerned itself with juridical equality, which is no problem really, since nature takes care of the balance without laws just fine, but some have adopted such a strong mentality to this, that after attacking sexist laws they have presumed to attack sexist nature (and with it, themselves, leading to the wave of depression we have seen).
No woman is as happy, as a woman who is with a man who has set himself a lifes mission that he believes in, and needs her to fall back on and appreciates her for this.
I recommend you read it entirely, I know it is long, but I think few will not find it thought-provoking.
Man is ugly and uninspiring compared to woman, but he has a purpose higher than of matter (which is for people to be found) The purpose of man being higher than man itself, rather an idea, an honour, a principle, is the great point that all leftist ideology misses bluntly. Woman is more beautiful and charming than man, but exists only to please and serve a man and allow him piece of mind in his struggles, which she can´t truely grasp, and will simply accept as his life.
Women can´t see the big picture. The only philosophy they have written straightly states this very point, rejecting all purpose higher than man itself and hugs and kisses, as hallucinative self-flattery. No woman could ever really grasp the feelings and ideas of Kant, Ibsen, Weininger or even Jung. All feminist and even female philosophy that gets written, is actually anti-philosophy, simply the denial of the existance of things more below the surface. Anscombes statement that Kantianism is "unfounded" is simply laughable in the light of her writings, which don´t surpass the tendencies of a purring kitten. The female takeover in the 20th century of philosophy and especially psychology has been an absurd revolution, whose teachings end their real sciences and inspiration. This is because women have no philosophical dimension. They are only to aid. They are like an immensely beautiful and precious box, whose only purpose is to store an in itself unattractive ring.
The philosophy of women, that basically preaches love and affection as the virtues and purposes in life, would if true, appoint moral and purpose superiority to women. The fact is however that it is false. Womens tendency to affection reflects not an ability to empathy they have, but rather a lack of it. Women are not so suitable for for instance nursing, since they are so loving and understanding, but rather since they are not. A man, when appointed to task of caring for dying terminal patients, would soon become frustrated by his inability to really cure them and solve the problem.
Since the man can envision himself in others´ positions, the task would wear on him too much. Women flatly give care and affection because it´s natural to them and makes them feel good, without further notion of what is to happen with who they give it to.
Regarding all this, it should be noted, (Like Weininger first postulated in 1903 and was later "discovered" by other scientists who haven´t been lynched by the PC mob) that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Somebody can be for instance 79% male and 21% female or vice versa. This is of course completely supported by visible anatomy.
The natural dominance of the male is also why you will see every single time, that when a man and woman get together, it is the woman that gets taken up in HIS social circle, not the other way around. He is the dominant force that (beit without force, since most women unconsciously know their place) determines the nature of their joined life. This is why relationships are more important to women than to men. Men change women, Women change lives. It´s "Cowboy/Knight/Prince/Tarzan "Take me away"", not the other way around.
Women do not know friendship like men do. No union of women ever holds out. A good small scale example of this is student fraternities. the oldest living ones for men are about 250 years old, whereas female and mixed ones come and go and don´t usually reach 10 years of age. All succesful unions that surpass the generations and by doing this confirm their sense of transcending purpose, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Catholic Church, Burschenschaften, Corps, Landsmanschaften, Rotary, Robber Barons, all of them are male-only. Of the mixed organisations the ones that last longest (although they are all one day flies compared to male organisations) are the ones that are lead by the males in their ranks.
This is because females don´t understand friendship and networking. Women like to get ahead in society, but they try to do it by hooking onto a succesful man, not by getting into the network, their network IS their mans. You can take 2 feminine women who have known each other all their life and wrench them right apart with one charming, hot, promising man who shows some interest in them both. Two male life-long friends in the same situation will consult one another, simply wait till she chooses like a good sport, or even the lesser sexually succesful of the two will give her up.
The fact that women do not really understand friendship also explains their great naivity in dealing with male attention. Most males understand very well that they have no female "friends". Yet females will often genuinely believe the kind man trying to get in her pants gives a damn what she has to say for any other reason than pursuit-strategy.
Since women can´t see the big picture and don´t have a purpose in themselves, they also can´t remember their lives in a continuous stream of events. Such a recollection confirms/helps point out direction, and man is far more capable of constructing it, even moreso as we move to the more intelligent men amongst them, the true genius even seeming to recollect his life in its entirety.
Women are almost like input/output boxes. They have an infallible memory for those limited things that they react to- Insults, compliments and affection.
A woman, when asked the story of her life, will soon presume to tell a chronology of her affections. Upon inspection, she will recall with eery precision every bit of flattery and insult that she endured. Much unlike man, who typically describes a quest for purpose (at whatever level of intellect) or experience.
This is also clearly demonstrated, by the example of the all-hated woman and the all-hated man. It is possible for a man, being sufficiently manly in nature and well developed, to have pride and happiness although noone in the world thinks him worthy. Women have no philosophical dimension and so have no self image that transcends other peoples reactions to her, what she thinks of herself is simply the balanced out, cumulated effect of all response she has had to her person in her life.
When a man reaches puberty, sexuality and infatuation, attraction and attractiveness, become an addition to his life. The person he was before it is still there but it has grown some bigger with this addition. Women are reborn. Nothing they cared about before or did really matters anymore and they clearly demonstrate how much "man" is their very purpose.
Feminism has been a confusing force that attacked the carefully balanced nature of things. It first concerned itself with juridical equality, which is no problem really, since nature takes care of the balance without laws just fine, but some have adopted such a strong mentality to this, that after attacking sexist laws they have presumed to attack sexist nature (and with it, themselves, leading to the wave of depression we have seen).
No woman is as happy, as a woman who is with a man who has set himself a lifes mission that he believes in, and needs her to fall back on and appreciates her for this.
Last edited:
