Why women like abuse

[Kelly Jones]

Nordicus,

I'll reply to your above post, before getting onto the Male and Female Consciousness discussion on the Weininger thread ("Asking myself what Weininger's saying here").

The purpose is to spend more time clarifying the general differences between males and females, empirically, before coming to an absolute principle in relation to consciousness and character.

I'll take my time, again, because I need to brew in the dark for a while.

[Faust]

A man with even the slightest degree of wisdom, knows that power is a delusion. He'll probably just feel sad for the female, and less sad the wiser he is.

how is power delusional?

You're saying the man is wrong to be feeling sorry for the female? 'less sad the wiser he is' what?

[Nordicvs]

Nordicus,

I'll reply to your above post, before getting onto the Male and Female Consciousness discussion on the Weininger thread ("Asking myself what Weininger's saying here").

The purpose is to spend more time clarifying the general differences between males and females, empirically, before coming to an absolute principle in relation to consciousness and character.

I'll take my time, again, because I need to brew in the dark for a while.

Okay, sounds good.

how is power delusional?

I'll butt in and say (and Kelly can correct me if she think's I'm wrong here), it corrupts, without fail, and it means to be a slave. The biggest husband, biggest house-bound tool 3 thousand years ago was a king---also the most "powerful" 'man' around...the biggest whore, the biggest female puppet, a fussy little dress-wearing servant to the most people up until that point in history/prehistory.

It is delusional to call that power. To rule is to serve. To dominate is to submit. (Like in BDSM subculture, who has real power: the Dominant or the Submissive?)

You're saying the man is wrong to be feeling sorry for the female? 'less sad the wiser he is' what?

Pity is not to be confused with compassion.

[The extreme masculine is hard, strict, even apparently cruel sometimes because its purpose (at least: original purpose) in a family unit is to resist, hold back, say No, not feed egos, and to install values in the children (like discipline and basic ethics)---men have always been conservative because this goes back to male culture; they were given the judgement by Nature to deem what/who is deserving of resources. Think of a woman with her baby---every time it cries, she knows it *wants* something and she gives it something (Yes), serves it (liberally); as it grows, the task of giving it what it needs (not wants) becomes part of male culture: with resources hard to come by and with a disaster and-or hardship always around the corner, the man must be conservative and only give it what he thinks it needs, deserves.

(This also prevents the creation of "brats," in particular the "spoiled" variety, like 80% of the population of all humans.) Those who are endlessly indulged and given everything they both need and want liberally, they never become adults and are incapable of taking care of anyone else, and scarsely even themselves, not without constant help. They're never self-sufficient, or strong, or tough when a crisis occurs. They have no patience. They're children clinging to Mommy's bosom for the rest of their lives. Without the masculine, there can never be adult humans. This was the underlying principle of male intiation eons ago---cruel to be kind---part of what "made" men that we've lost.]

[Shahrazad]

Nordicus,

I'll butt in and say (and Kelly can correct me if she think's I'm wrong here), it corrupts, without fail, and it means to be a slave. The biggest husband, biggest house-bound tool 3 thousand years ago was a king---also the most "powerful" 'man' around...the biggest whore, the biggest female puppet, a fussy little dress-wearing servant to the most people up until that point in history/prehistory.

Forgive me for butting in, but you are right. This reminds me of a man I knew who was the dictator of a country. He once said something like this (and I paraphrase and translate): "Before I had any power, I thought that whenever I reached a position of power, I would be free to do whatever I want. How completely wrong I was; so wrong!" When he said that last part, he had a look in his face that told me that he was not even slightly joking or trying to be cute.

Nordicus, how did you manage to figure that out? (That was supposed to be a compliment, btw.) I assume you are not a dictator or king.

.

[Nordicvs]

Forgive me for butting in, but you are right.

Oh, nothing to forgive.

This reminds me of a man I knew who was the dictator of a country. He once said something like this (and I paraphrase and translate): "Before I had any power, I thought that whenever I reached a position of power, I would be free to do whatever I want. How completely wrong I was; so wrong!" When he said that last part, he had a look in his face that told me that he was not even slightly joking or trying to be cute.

Nordicus, how did you manage to figure that out? (That was supposed to be a compliment, btw.) I assume you are not a dictator or king.

.

Huh. Who was this guy?

I've been anti-western-society, anti-money, anti-greed, anti-business, and anti-civilization since age 14 or so, when I began ignoring everything I was being told (in school) and started figuring out shit and gathering info in my own way, and so a quick and unbiased comparative study of cultures (Native North American vs its occupying culture) indicated a substantial difference in "power structures," and regarding those involved, and it became an interest of mine---why men seek this. An early formulation of mine was: real men do not seek power. They don't wish to control, manipulate, others very much or at all.

It occured to me that, back in the 1990s, as I read some of Plutarch's Lives...that a different kind of man other than the type I'd grown up around or was myself sought these things. Later still it dawned on me how effeminate rulers and conquerers like Napoleon, Hitler (despite his lack of personal profiteering and wealth-accumulation) were---later I added Caesar, Augustus, Gilgamesh, G.W.Bush, and Alexander the Great. And I asked myself: were they like this before or after they entered this structure? and dug around for answers. Anyway, all this was floating in my head, scattered about, until I watched a silly movie (Bruce Almighty), when the main character of course gets to be "God," and suddenly is overwhelmed by what everyone wants.

That's when I realized that power really means service---being a royal "nigger." I would go so far to say that a current nation's structure of power is suited best for the most feminine of men---those who most strongly desire to be a servant, a husband to all---which might explain why there's never been or ever will be an honest 'man' in politics.

[Shahrazad]

Nordicus,

Huh. Who was this guy?

Um, does it matter?

If you really must know, ask Katy.

Would you really like to live completely off of hunting and give up the comfortable cement boxes where we sleep? How long would you last?

.

[Nordicvs]

Um, does it matter?

If you really must know, ask Katy.

No, I guess it doesn't matter. I was simply curious for a moment.

Would you really like to live completely off of hunting

Without hesitation, absolutely.

(I don't just spew a bunch of theory and egghead notions around here---I live everything I believe. I put my "philosophy" into action. Well, I do my best---I'm still a smoker, which I'm still working on, so I recognize my hypocrisy when trouncing junkies and addicts, but I do try to keep my hypocrisy as nominal as possible. I wouldn't convey to anyone that I'm ideal or perfect or any absurd concepts as these, though I don't expect anyone to go through or do anything that I haven't already gone through or done.

I gather that you took me for some yuppy or a teenager living on mom and dad's estate or something...?

and give up the comfortable cement boxes where we sleep?

I'm quite accustomed to bare, miminalist, and harsh conditions. I avoid comfort like I do cute, squeaky voices. My reaction to comfort is similar to other people's reaction to discomfort.

How long would you last?

.

I chose poverty a long time ago and have wandered for years, homeless, alone, eating very little, sleeping wherever I felt, mainly in forests but many other civilized places too. I began survival weekends in the bush at age 15 and have done my time in the outdoors (not 'camping').

In short, a very long time.

Why would you think living "as one with Nature" is so difficult? Once you've given up material possessions, you've gotten past the first hard part; the next tough bit is the solitude, hence I'm no longer seeking a hermit existence. The rest is easy, a no-brainer. All it takes is knowledge, practice, and some guts.

[Faust]

Nordicvs, when I said 'power' you misinterpreted which kind I was talking about. When I say power, I don't mean being a husband, nor the biggest female puppet. If you read Nietzsche, you would know that he neither desired wealth or empire. He desired the animal kind of power, the masculine fearless, couragous one that desired to find the truth. He abhorred all submission, humility, weakness and cowardice. I also do the same, I abhor all these especially with women. Like you said hard, strict, etc...

I get where you're coming from with the BDSM thing, but even that isn't able to fool me. When I'm 'being masculine' and a woman submits just to try to control me, I realize that, and I make it known to them that it's not going to work, that it's futile and I'm only going to dismiss them. I say to them with my body "you're not getting what you want from me, you're going to have to get it yourself, and be a man"

so clearly, this 'power' is not really delusional now is it?

I walk around, and when I see a man who's being submissive, feminine and cowardly I make it known to them, encourage them to switch their values around, and to serve only themselves. Clearly this is genuine power.



I know the difference between pity and compassion. It's just the way she wrote it wasn't clear enough.

[Nordicvs]

Nordicvs, when I said 'power' you misinterpreted which kind I was talking about. When I say power, I don't mean being a husband, nor the biggest female puppet. If you read Nietzsche, you would know that he neither desired wealth or empire. He desired the animal kind of power, the masculine fearless, couragous one that desired to find the truth. He abhorred all submission, humility, weakness and cowardice. I also do the same, I abhor all these especially with women. Like you said hard, strict, etc...

Oh, okay. Yeah, well, to me that's resolve, fortitude, determination---and a masculine restlessness, as if mentally nomadic and driven to find that which ones requires in terms of phrenic resources. For some reason, I'd hesitiate calling that power...it just doesn't feel right to me---maybe self-control, 'spark,' and focus, as well as what I've already mentioned.

But it *might* be a species of real power. (Or is it really very different? Once you've been exercising this "power," are you also in service to someone or something? Seems so to me, now that I think about it a bit more...)

I agree with Nietzsche (on a great many things) except in regards to humility---I think he instinctively hated anything even vaguely religous, whether it made sense or no, once he ruthlessly turned on it, and this created a blindspot---because that, as far as I see it, is a crucial component, if only partially, of starving the ego; "following" everything else and yet remaining boastful of oneself will not work.

Humility, to me, involves not accepting compliments, denying the significance of accomplishments (one can strive to do better than one had done before regarding some area---like art for example; what I've done is work feverishly hard on something for weeks, get it exactly the way I want it, and once it's finished...immediately destroy it---one's memory will exagerrate how 'good' it was and thus one can strive to improve, without feeling any pride---killed by loss---and perhaps keep the next one, for a while; eventually, I give away or destroy them all), ignoring flattery and such, et cetera, or regarding yourself as "special" or superior in any way; denying the delusions of self.

I don't consider being meek or passive part of humility. Pride must be avoided at all costs, I'd say; it is utterly insidious. Stating one's ability, in a matter-o-fact kinda way, in something seems okay, but I try to either avoid or reduce, belittle even, that as much as possible, just in case, knowing well what pride can do and how it can be used by another to control you. Not taking yourself seriously some of the time really helps, too.

But to each his own; whatever works for you, do it.

I get where you're coming from with the BDSM thing, but even that isn't able to fool me. When I'm 'being masculine' and a woman submits just to try to control me, I realize that, and I make it known to them that it's not going to work, that it's futile and I'm only going to dismiss them. I say to them with my body "you're not getting what you want from me, you're going to have to get it yourself, and be a man"

That's a wise approach. Never yield a milimeter, especially to women. Once you get soft once or twice, it soon becomes a pattern, then a habit, then you are fucked. Women sniff out weakness in men like sharks can detect blood in the sea.

so clearly, this 'power' is not really delusional now is it?

Not in this sense, no, it doesn't appear so----yet...you are still in service---to yourself? Not 'self' but your masculine nature, or even part of it (the mental part), the steering wheel of your intellect? Your volition? If nothing else, one will serve Truth, no? Some here might cite "Reality" or Ultimate Reality" as what they serve. For me, it's Nature.

I doubt it's possible to serve nothing, unless one is a nihilist.

I walk around, and when I see a man who's being submissive, feminine and cowardly I make it known to them, encourage them to switch their values around, and to serve only themselves. Clearly this is genuine power.

Still unconvinced---it is certainly influence---although it might be the same type, only switching masters.

I know the difference between pity and compassion. It's just the way she wrote it wasn't clear enough.

Alrighty.