How come the left has power?

[Avolith]

The confounder of unreasonableness is in general always present unless we're dealing with fully enlightened people. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Therefore a measure of the amount of aid given in general does not need to or can even be controlled for unreasonableness.

I'm not sure what you mean. We don't need to identify unreason since we can't get rid of it entirely? Or do you mean that unreasonableness per se cannot indicate whether an act of giving aid is feminine? As far as I'm concerned though, masculine = reason; feminine = mental barriers to reason like emotions and desires.

I could reword it and say that almost all aid given, save that given by a buddha himself, ultimately stems from some sort of selfishness or unreasonableness. Therefore when speaking about aid being given *in general* it's safe to assume that this is the feminine kind of aid being given by men and women alike.

That doesn't follow at all. You're saying that if someone isn't *always* perfectly wise, they can *never* be perfectly wise. "Buddha" simply refers to all states of mind uncluttered by delusions, not a permanent state of existence.

You still haven't stated any reason for making the assertion that giving aid is *in itself* feminine. It can't be feminine just because it has some degree of unreasonableness, because that logic applies to everything, including *not* giving aid.

Alright, let me throw this at you if you will continue to humor me. If aid being given is explicitely labeled to be aid by people, as it is in say political policies, social rules, etc. it's very unlikely to have come as a result of a buddha mind state, because a buddha's aid is aimed at helping others realize the buddha mind state for themselves, and it's impossible to do this in an explicit way - in fact it depends on not being perceived as aid. The concept of aid implicitely assumes that someone is in need of something that should be given by another, rather than already having everything they need within. So therefore, the meaning of the concept of aid as used in daily language doesn't reflect the type of aid that came from a buddha mind state. And I was using the word aid in its mundane sense.

[Natural Order]

But it's impossible to escape the Atlantic mark, ranging from the language of Angels to shared cultural symbols and references. But this is a self-selecting thing, as for communication to actually work, there needs to be some shared vocal fabric. Even more so, any distinct large cultures tend not to co-habit the same cultural space: one will obtain dominance, tending to become universal & imperial and the others go in remission or become dormant, becoming more insulated. This is the cause of the perception of superiority, a simple but tempting reversal of cause & effect. Any members from Asian, Chinese, African or South-American descent are then indeed versed in and oriented on European and Western thought, style and partly the language or in other words a dominant mode of expression of internationalism and modernism all over the world.

If you're referring to racial superiority, it's very easy to argue that Europeans are just that. If you believe we aren't superior, then you are going to have a very hard time explaining why every other race on this planet is flooding into our countries in Europe, North America, and Australia. Not to mention our race is capable of producing what is objectively the most beautiful, intelligent, creative, athletic, and interesting individuals. Europeans set the tone for the rest of the world, and there wouldn't even such a thing as a global mindset without us. We are world history, we conquer entire continents, we are the Alpha and the Omega. If we mix ourselves away with the lower races, we will enter a dark age that could last tens of thousands of years.

So while the aim of the forum might be truly international, cross-cultural and non-religious, it remains also an artifact of language, mechanics of communication and thought. But not of blood as that contains little meaning and expression by itself.

Denying the prime role that genetics, and thus race, plays in shaping culture is the height of absurdity and delusion. It is only due to the Social Marxist programming that we are all subjected to from a young age that anyone is able to say such a thing with a straight face. Again, internationalism, multi-cultism, and secularism are all products of European genetic expression. Sure there are outliers from other races who can relate to these things in a superficial manner, but their soul is not in it.

[jupiviv]

If aid being given is explicitely labeled to be aid by people, as it is in say political policies, social rules, etc. it's very unlikely to have come as a result of a buddha mind state

Political policies and social rules never comprise more than a tiny amount of reason, regardless of what they are about. It's again unclear what you are trying to discuss though! Is it a) all/most instances of helping is deluded b) wanting to help is *inherently*, and not *contingently*, more deluded than refusing to help c) human activities, including helping, are generally deluded d) all of these? I would agree with a and c.

because a buddha's aid is aimed at helping others realize the buddha mind state for themselves, and it's impossible to do this in an explicit way - in fact it depends on not being perceived as aid. The concept of aid implicitely assumes that someone is in need of something that should be given by another, rather than already having everything they need within. So therefore, the meaning of the concept of aid as used in daily language doesn't reflect the type of aid that came from a buddha mind state. And I was using the word aid in its mundane sense.

A Buddha or undeluded state of mind can only be attained by trusting and valuing one's own reasoning above everything else, even if doing so causes enormous suffering. It is individual *reasoning*, not the *individual*, which is of primary importance. A Bodhisattva (i.e. a person who manages to attain Buddha/undeluded mind-states much more often than is usual) values aid insofar as it eradicates delusions. Such a goal does not inherently exclude material or even emotional aid, e.g. consoling someone in very deep pain of some sort can help them become less deluded. But yes, the ultimate objective is to remove people's delusions, and making them think for themselves is the only way that can be done.

Not to mention our race is capable of producing what is objectively the most beautiful, intelligent, creative, athletic, and interesting individuals.

And yet these people don't even realise how beautiful, intelligent etc. you are, or how much you care about them? Then stop posting here and start decapitating the Indians and hot chicks, you worthless prick!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you're referring to racial superiority, it's very easy to argue that Europeans are just that. If you believe we aren't superior, then you are going to have a very hard time explaining why every other race on this planet is flooding into our countries in Europe, North America, and Australia.

Why is it hard to explain? People and animals have always flooded into places with more future, more gain, more peace and prosperity than the places they left. For reasons of geography, climate, war, used up resources, diseases, insane leadership, religion and so on. Also from history we can learn various localities develop civilizations for a brief time while others don't. Many books, many theses were written on the causality: all what has to come together for the system to start booting up.

Then again, what you are proposing sounds to me like boiling everything down to one magical property. Or it seems magical to me since you cannot explain it but ask me to believe.

Not to mention our race is capable of producing what is objectively the most beautiful, intelligent, creative, athletic, and interesting individuals.

What do you mean with "objectively" here? And again, we could find these qualities around the world and in history while the best remains always rare.

Europeans set the tone for the rest of the world, and there wouldn't even such a thing as a global mindset without us. We are world history, we conquer entire continents, we are the Alpha and the Omega. If we mix ourselves away with the lower races, we will enter a dark age that could last tens of thousands of years.

It appears way too late for those wishes? Continents (colonies mainly) are lost, mixing has near completed and we have to wonder how bright and how dark the 20th century was with all the "glory" on European, Russian and Chinese continents. It seems that if we want unique, interesting individuals, some clever, original mixing is in order? But not blending, no centrifuge.

Denying the prime role that genetics, and thus race, plays in shaping culture is the height of absurdity and delusion... Again, internationalism, multi-cultism, and secularism are all products of European genetic expression. Sure there are outliers from other races who can relate to these things in a superficial manner, but their soul is not in it.

Genetics have a role to play with so many things. Race itself is already very complex and cannot be marked well by genetics and as such the term should be abandoned in my view. It looks like over-simplification where you are engaged in. That might work for you but it sounds like some decayed mindset. If that's European genetic expression, I'd welcome new overlords!

And even if there was something like you describe --hell, I couldn't absolutely disprove any theory-- there's the rise and the fall, the ascend and the descend. This has been the pattern of all ages, cultures and civilizations, including multi-cultural ones. For that reason, I do not expect any current situation to hold. Things get hollowed out, things exhaust themselves, the spirit leaves, youth departs and some changes follow. How can one argue or deny this? It seems so absurd to try and yet what's faith without some folly?

[Avolith]

If aid being given is explicitely labeled to be aid by people, as it is in say political policies, social rules, etc. it's very unlikely to have come as a result of a buddha mind state

Political policies and social rules never comprise more than a tiny amount of reason, regardless of what they are about. It's again unclear what you are trying to discuss though! Is it a) all/most instances of helping is deluded b) wanting to help is *inherently*, and not *contingently*, more deluded than refusing to help c) human activities, including helping, are generally deluded d) all of these? I would agree with a and c.

because a buddha's aid is aimed at helping others realize the buddha mind state for themselves, and it's impossible to do this in an explicit way - in fact it depends on not being perceived as aid. The concept of aid implicitely assumes that someone is in need of something that should be given by another, rather than already having everything they need within. So therefore, the meaning of the concept of aid as used in daily language doesn't reflect the type of aid that came from a buddha mind state. And I was using the word aid in its mundane sense.

A Buddha or undeluded state of mind can only be attained by trusting and valuing one's own reasoning above everything else, even if doing so causes enormous suffering. It is individual *reasoning*, not the *individual*, which is of primary importance. A Bodhisattva (i.e. a person who manages to attain Buddha/undeluded mind-states much more often than is usual) values aid insofar as it eradicates delusions. Such a goal does not inherently exclude material or even emotional aid, e.g. consoling someone in very deep pain of some sort can help them become less deluded. But yes, the ultimate objective is to remove people's delusions, and making them think for themselves is the only way that can be done.

Not to mention our race is capable of producing what is objectively the most beautiful, intelligent, creative, athletic, and interesting individuals.

And yet these people don't even realise how beautiful, intelligent etc. you are, or how much you care about them? Then stop posting here and start decapitating the Indians and hot chicks, you worthless prick!

I went into this subject because I'm in a difficult situation where someone I know is going through trouble, and it's hard for me to figure out how much the situation can be helped and how much I can help given my level of clarity. You helped push me out of my philosophical escapism and back into dealing with the shit as it comes :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I went into this subject because I'm in a difficult situation where someone I know is going through trouble, and it's hard for me to figure out how much the situation can be helped and how much I can help given my level of clarity

What has surprised me is how little can be done beyond the basics. People are on a trajectory which in nearly all situations can't be helped by deeper philosophy. Simply because suffering is caused by holding on to something and yet having to realize one cannot hold on to something: the other, themselves, health or joy. So what good does it do to help someone to realize even more, the very thing causing the suffering? In many cases it's about sticking around, enduring it and let the whole of life move on by itself.

Earlier you wrote:

You mention an outspoken rebellion would be masculine in origin. Continuing along this line of thought I wonder, assuming the ideal of some kind of enlightenment, if an organised rebellion would even be possible, since, it would involve some sort of group identity that is precluded by absolute truth. So then organized rebellion could be an intermediate step towards the ideal, but this rebellion would only exist in a context of adversity, and eventually dissolve into one-ness, out of the limelight, and we will all be floating blissfully through the air in a peaceful world of love and compassion

As you wrote "rebellion would only exist in a context of adversity". Perhaps it should be added that this is also its nature, to oppose, to confront, to challenge, being it frontiers, limits, humans, humanity, rules, impositions, with some disregard to safety or even common ideas, ordinary sanity. Hell, even opposing life itself can be part of a rebellion. It's the nature of a cutting blade to divide.

There's a lot of foolishness and idiocy possible with the above. That is because masculinity does not equal wisdom but nevertheless cannot be seen separate from all meaningful growth, development and gaining of wisdom. And the truth of this becomes all too clear when the nature of ignorance, getting stuck, the known twisted mess and all existential suffering is understood: as something that needs to be overcome by this fundamental, active drive. The alternative is the system, the "dead", to organize what remains.

As for the "oneness", if masculinity and the feminine are seen as opposites, they should not be seen as opposing parties in a struggle. They do not inhabit the same universe, they will never "meet" or "melt". It's important to understand the nature of opposition and the lack of hostility, as there's no actual competition beyond the struggle for what the individual orientation will be.

[jupiviv]

What has surprised me is how little can be done beyond the basics. People are on a trajectory which in nearly all situations can't be helped by deeper philosophy.

In that case there is something wrong with the "deeper philosophy" itself. Or perhaps the alleged deep philosopher isn't communicating properly, which is basically the same thing. Gnat, camel, etc.

Simply because suffering is caused by holding on to something and yet having to realize one cannot hold on to something: the other, themselves, health or joy.

I think that is the point where some (genuine) deeper philosophy has already been done, and resulted in deeper suffering. The deep philosopher's ego cannot go back to mere ignorance without brain damage/drugs/etc., being perhaps also too proud for such dissipation. In addition, its suffusion through daily life/habits with age makes the process of weakening it by charging through endless walls of ignorance more painful, palpable and slow. Solution: reconciliation of existing wisdom with the most valuable remnants of ignorance.

Suffering itself is nothing more than death. Who holds onto life holds onto death, and vice versa.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What has surprised me is how little can be done beyond the basics. People are on a trajectory which in nearly all situations can't be helped by deeper philosophy.

In that case there is something wrong with the "deeper philosophy" itself. Or perhaps the alleged deep philosopher isn't communicating properly, which is basically the same thing. Gnat, camel, etc.

Isn't that like seeing deep philosophy as something to cure people from the ailments they suffer from? Life is suffering, they suffer from life deeply. While common sense, practical advice or help might work, it does not need much wisdom to relay those. The inner work will stir up only more trouble and as such only recommendable (or "desirable") for those who are not anymore suffering from some life situation. Another way of saying this is that it takes a master to learn mastery or a free mind to seek out liberation.

Simply because suffering is caused by holding on to something and yet having to realize one cannot hold on to something: the other, themselves, health or joy.

I think that is the point where some (genuine) deeper philosophy has already been done, and resulted in deeper suffering.

There's nothing to say about "genuine deeper philosophy" which cannot be said as well about engaging life, experience and suffering. It's actually the same path, but it helps to understand first that life equals awareness of life, its experience, appropriation and the proportionality of it all.

[jupiviv]

In that case there is something wrong with the "deeper philosophy" itself. Or perhaps the alleged deep philosopher isn't communicating properly, which is basically the same thing. Gnat, camel, etc.

Isn't that like seeing deep philosophy as something to cure people from the ailments they suffer from? Life is suffering, they suffer from life deeply. While common sense, practical advice or help might work, it does not need much wisdom to relay those. The inner work will stir up only more trouble and as such only recommendable (or "desirable") for those who are not anymore suffering from some life situation. Another way of saying this is that it takes a master to learn mastery or a free mind to seek out liberation.

Deep philosophy would only contravene pragmatism & common sense to the extent they are deluded. Fundamentally it either helps us understand them or is itself the process of understanding them. This understanding can cause more suffering than otherwise would exist, but with time it may also eradicate the root of suffering. The problem for our egoes is that the eradication doesn't happen as we expect or want it to, and realising that can also cause a lot of suffering - this is the "punchline" to all the genuine Zen koans. And to answer your implied question i.e. how or whether wisdom is helpful - it depends on what you value. It helps people understand and accept suffering for what it is, but in and of itself doesn't lessen or liquidate suffering.

Simply because suffering is caused by holding on to something and yet having to realize one cannot hold on to something: the other, themselves, health or joy.

I think that is the point where some (genuine) deeper philosophy has already been done, and resulted in deeper suffering.

There's nothing to say about "genuine deeper philosophy" which cannot be said as well about engaging life, experience and suffering. It's actually the same path, but it helps to understand first that life equals awareness of life, its experience, appropriation and the proportionality of it all.

Well, "engaging" can mean a lot of things and most of them are not deeper philosophy/wisdom. One can engage life by getting rid of harmful bad habits for example, but that doesn't necessarily invoke wisdom or even much reasoning.

[Santiago Odo]

Then again, what would be the correct and realistic definition of left and right wing politics?

A very good question, to which Pye has a very good answer. You seemed to think that it portrays the extremes, but how better to delineate a fundamental binary? The extremes don't deny the possibility of moderation: they simply define the range within which that moderation occurs.

Conservatives believe that there is a natural hierarchy present in everything; man is on top, next to God, animals next, and so on down the line. Even if no God in the conservative equation, humans are superior beings to all other life.

I read Pye's post and thought it interesting. I think it fair to say, though, that her biases shine through. If I recall her position correctly she described herself as an 'atheist' and, because this is so, would have no, shall I say 'instinctive' grasp of the metaphysical thinking and perception that informed what she referred to as 'natural hierarchy' with 'man at the top next to God'. Thus, she misstates the position.

What she is referring to though is The Great Chain of Being. Not only was it a 'pervasive' view and understanding of Reality, it was one that substantially understructured Occidental civilizations. However, it should also be mentioned that a similar view and orientation was also common for example in (mediaeval) India. It is best described, in my view, as 'the former metaphysics' and, in one way or another, when we refer to the main religions, and even to Taoism and original Buddhism, we are accessing if you will this System of View, though now we select out of them those elements that make sense to us. Scientism has displaced the former metaphysics and nothing as substantial has yet replaced it. That is, no New Metaphysics and an encompassing New View that everyone can agree on. Thus we live within a chaos of collapsed ideas, half-dead, twitching, rising up and possessing from time to time, but mostly (in the First World) in retreat. There is little power in the Former Metaphysic, but All-Power in the new physics.

It is right and good (I mean helpful and accurate) to counter-pose what we tend to call the Liberal view with the Conservative view when we can simultaneously locate, and understand, how the former arose within the context of the latter, and is a rebellion to it, or put in other terms a 'correction' of it. Liberalism is definitely associated with science, with rationalism, and with scientism, and it can perhaps also be associated with the Protestant rebellion against Catholicism, if Catholicism is understood (as it should be) as an expression of a *system* for the organization of culture and civilization that conforms to the Olde Metaphysics.

If you study the Old Catholic Rite (the Ordinary of the Mass, pre-Vatican ll) it is not at all hard to grasp how profoundly, if you'll permit that term, it conforms to the former metaphysical understanding. The Rite in itself is a metaphysical and transcendental act or engagement which, shall I say, joins the upper, metaphysical world, with that of fallen man who aspires to the upper regions. Those upper regions *exist* according to this Metaphysic, and yet the only way to encounter them, or better put the place where they are encountered, is in man's imagination: in his *imagined world* or as Richard Weaver put it in man's 'metaphysical dream of the world'. As one uncovers the *layers* as it were within the Catholic Rite, one discovers underneath it, as it were, the essence of Greco-Christian metaphysics which can be understood and expressed without, necessarily, all the embossment and over-structure that Roman Catholicism lays on top of it. The core of it though is, in essence, the old metaphysics.

What helped me (trmendously I must say) to understand 'the former metaphysics' and the 'new anti-metaphysics' was the work by Basil Willey called Seventeenth Century Background. The first chapter alone gives a good outline of what is at stake and what happened within Occidental ideation that has led to the undermining and substantial overthrough of the possibility to live out of the former metaphysics. That is, to see it as *real* and to *believe* in it. I have come to speculate that we cannot in full faith actually *believe* in the olde metaphysics. I think we attempt to force ourselves to do so, and this act of self-forcing is peculiar and also distorting in its way.

Liberalism and the new anti-metaphysics is ascendent and totalitarian insofar as it dominates most all areas of human activity and also of ideation. Theology, which is the zone of Former Metaphysics, is a relic-zone; a zone of shadows and *allusions* which is no longer substantial to the modern mind.

Conservatives - because of this natural hierarchy - believe that Social Darwinism best informs our moral landscape. In others words, it is a naturally hierarchical world, and hence, survival of the fittest naturally rules the day. In this view, that which is is also that which ought to be. Might makes right. This is where you will hear a conservative arguing that many people have made it out of social disadvantage without our throwing money at the problem. If they are naturally strong, they will naturally rise.

Here, I would suggest, Pye's bias is evident. First, Darwinism is entirely anti-metaphysical and Darwin and a whole new structure of view that came on the scene, and which has worked but consciously and unconsciously to topple the Olden Metaphysics, is entirely Liberal and also Protestant (if these terms are taken loosely and as references to a range of forces arising out of new ideation). Social Darwinism is therefor more aligned with later modes of though. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

If one can grasp what The Great Chain of Being is and how it came to be conceived, and if one sees Mediaeval Catholicism as the social and cultural expression of it, and indeed it had been for a 1000 year period, the notion of Social Darwinism would not and could not be conceived. Social Darwinism is, I think, a critical term and arose in so-called Liberalism's attack on Catholicism (to state it most directly). The Catholic conception of social hierarchy is, of course, linked to notions of the Three Estates and could be said to be feudal. And it is true that conservative political powers sought to conserve the social order for political and economic reasons. And these structures were *critiqued* and assaulted for different reasons by anti-metaphysicians and new and rising political and economic actors. But Social Darwinism does not function well enough as a term to describe both the resistance to the tiered structure of society, nor conservatism's resistance to liberalist rebellion.

And though we are all products of late modernity and live breathe and exist within its tenets, in order to understand the Former Metaphysics and the entire idea of hierarchy as it was previously understood, we would have to seep ourselves in it; not merely intellectually and on a mere mental plane, but as something lived and, shall I say, integrated into us.

Therefor, it seems to me that those who could actually succeed in revivifying on Olden Metaphysic are, in spirit and in essence, out of step with the times. The Time, in this sense, has us all in its current and carries us along with and against our will. In order to recover the Olden Metaphysics we have to deliberately block out the messages of anti-metaphysics, which means to isolate ourselves from its 'frequency'.

In any case, this is how I understand the essential conflict between Metaphysical Conservatism and Anti-Metaphysical Liberalism. I think it safe to say that Liberalism could not become 'metaphysical' in the former sense. It can only become increasingly physical: concerned only for the manifest and contingent realm, which is to say a specific way of seeing The World and also existence.

[Santiago Odo]

My understanding, at this point, is that Diebert and Jupiviv both, in their strange and different ways, cannot posit and have no idea at all as to *what is required* in the present impasse. When one reads what they write (speaking generally) one realizes that they are *substantially lost* but yet have access to an amazing array of words and phrases.

It is the whole intellectual armament (what they call *philosophy* and rationalism) but cut off from a base and from *substance*. That is, their minds spin endlessly, but yet their minds are basically moribund minds. They are moribund in the sense that they are *outcomes* of modern and liberal processes which lead to, in essence, dissolution of the self. Diebert, for example, cannot define a *self*. But he can define *fractured selves*. This sound like a personal criticism but it is not. It is a philosophical criticism and a necessary attempt to *locate* him and then *you*: that great plurality of persons, and of course the *we* around which all these conversations revolve.

In my view, in our present, we see new and powerful manifestations of what we can call 'Anti-Liberalism'. The reactionary right, the 'Alt-Right', the so-called fascism of the former Soviet satellites, etc. And we have very confusing manifestations of ideational chaos in America (what a thick and terrifying soup that is!)

But if what I wrote previously is true, to the degree that it is true, there can be no substantial anti-liberal position unless it is founded and grounded in Metaphysics. But this is our problem! We do not *exist* in that world. We are exiles. We exist in an anti-metaphysical mind-frame. It is the Current of the Age. Thus, political reaction, and social reaction, to be effective and to be real, require a profound re-grasping of what they are. One does not merely *think* this, one must actually live in it and out of it. In this sense one has before one almost a Confucian manoeuvre: to retreat from 'the world' into a 'metaphysical dream of the world'.

The entire conversation -- I repeat THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION -- on the topic of masculinity and femininity as it has played out over the many years on this forum is, according to my view, fundamentally skewed. It has been and it still is a joke. Neither Diebert, nor certainly Jupiviv, have in fact any real idea what they are talking about! If they knew this they'd be in a much more powerful position. Let me rephrase this: they do not know what to talk about nor how to approach the question (of relationship either to Woman, to women or to the feminine). They will chatter -- at length! -- and profess this-and-that about *wisdom*, but substantially have nothing to offer. It is a recycling of moribund ideation that goes nowhere. But this is also true for The Founders (especially true).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Let me rephrase this: they do not know what to talk about nor how to approach the question (of relationship either to Woman, to women or to the feminine). They will chatter -- at length! -- and profess this-and-that about *wisdom*, but substantially have nothing to offer. It is a recycling of moribund ideation that goes nowhere. But this is also true for The Founders (especially true).

So yeah. Feel free to move at any time to a more interesting, stimulating or truthful venue. Jesus fucking Christ!

But here you are, the perfect little bitch who has no existence but the one created through feeding off bottoms, stuck to internet bodies like a tick, having no other intellectual or philosophical existence than perhaps exactly that very position, or so it seems.

For any man to have embodied the feminine game of appearance to that extent, immersed within superficialities without any ability to go further than anything skin or page deep, and then whine and whine, spending all her time undermining, criticizing and generally hanging around waiting for some final kick---it's near "criminal" indeed! And all too common, which is the worst.

[Santiago Odo]

Is this directed at me?

[Avolith]

I went into this subject because I'm in a difficult situation where someone I know is going through trouble, and it's hard for me to figure out how much the situation can be helped and how much I can help given my level of clarity

What has surprised me is how little can be done beyond the basics. People are on a trajectory which in nearly all situations can't be helped by deeper philosophy. Simply because suffering is caused by holding on to something and yet having to realize one cannot hold on to something: the other, themselves, health or joy. So what good does it do to help someone to realize even more, the very thing causing the suffering? In many cases it's about sticking around, enduring it and let the whole of life move on by itself.

Earlier you wrote:

You mention an outspoken rebellion would be masculine in origin. Continuing along this line of thought I wonder, assuming the ideal of some kind of enlightenment, if an organised rebellion would even be possible, since, it would involve some sort of group identity that is precluded by absolute truth. So then organized rebellion could be an intermediate step towards the ideal, but this rebellion would only exist in a context of adversity, and eventually dissolve into one-ness, out of the limelight, and we will all be floating blissfully through the air in a peaceful world of love and compassion

As you wrote "rebellion would only exist in a context of adversity". Perhaps it should be added that this is also its nature, to oppose, to confront, to challenge, being it frontiers, limits, humans, humanity, rules, impositions, with some disregard to safety or even common ideas, ordinary sanity. Hell, even opposing life itself can be part of a rebellion. It's the nature of a cutting blade to divide.

There's a lot of foolishness and idiocy possible with the above. That is because masculinity does not equal wisdom but nevertheless cannot be seen separate from all meaningful growth, development and gaining of wisdom. And the truth of this becomes all too clear when the nature of ignorance, getting stuck, the known twisted mess and all existential suffering is understood: as something that needs to be overcome by this fundamental, active drive. The alternative is the system, the "dead", to organize what remains.

As for the "oneness", if masculinity and the feminine are seen as opposites, they should not be seen as opposing parties in a struggle. They do not inhabit the same universe, they will never "meet" or "melt". It's important to understand the nature of opposition and the lack of hostility, as there's no actual competition beyond the struggle for what the individual orientation will be.

I read this post for the first time shortly after you posted it. It was helpful.

The last paragraph didn't make sense to me at all at the time, but now, after reading it again, I'm starting to take it in. It's a very interesting understanding of femininity and masculinity. If I try to take on this perspective, thinking back of past experiences, it's like I could see the same past event, as occurring both in the masculine and feminine 'universes', as if one event has two versions of itself, yet, it's only one event.

And when I'm in the moment, when reacting to something, there is a choice, to 'be' either in the feminine or masculine universe and thereby respond differently?

For example, I might interpret something someone said to me as being superficial charm, and respond with annoyance at someone trying to deceive me, or, i could see the same thing as an expression of truth, which happens to be inevatably wrapped in some illusory form.

Am I interpreting your idea correctly? I might be completely off on a tangent here that you didnt intend, so I hope you can correct me if I am.

[Avolith]

Then again, what would be the correct and realistic definition of left and right wing politics?

A very good question, to which Pye has a very good answer. You seemed to think that it portrays the extremes, but how better to delineate a fundamental binary? The extremes don't deny the possibility of moderation: they simply define the range within which that moderation occurs.

Conservatives believe that there is a natural hierarchy present in everything; man is on top, next to God, animals next, and so on down the line. Even if no God in the conservative equation, humans are superior beings to all other life.

I read Pye's post and thought it interesting. I think it fair to say, though, that her biases shine through. If I recall her position correctly she described herself as an 'atheist' and, because this is so, would have no, shall I say 'instinctive' grasp of the metaphysical thinking and perception that informed what she referred to as 'natural hierarchy' with 'man at the top next to God'. Thus, she misstates the position.

What she is referring to though is The Great Chain of Being. Not only was it a 'pervasive' view and understanding of Reality, it was one that substantially understructured Occidental civilizations. However, it should also be mentioned that a similar view and orientation was also common for example in (mediaeval) India. It is best described, in my view, as 'the former metaphysics' and, in one way or another, when we refer to the main religions, and even to Taoism and original Buddhism, we are accessing if you will this System of View, though now we select out of them those elements that make sense to us. Scientism has displaced the former metaphysics and nothing as substantial has yet replaced it. That is, no New Metaphysics and an encompassing New View that everyone can agree on. Thus we live within a chaos of collapsed ideas, half-dead, twitching, rising up and possessing from time to time, but mostly (in the First World) in retreat. There is little power in the Former Metaphysic, but All-Power in the new physics.

It is right and good (I mean helpful and accurate) to counter-pose what we tend to call the Liberal view with the Conservative view when we can simultaneously locate, and understand, how the former arose within the context of the latter, and is a rebellion to it, or put in other terms a 'correction' of it. Liberalism is definitely associated with science, with rationalism, and with scientism, and it can perhaps also be associated with the Protestant rebellion against Catholicism, if Catholicism is understood (as it should be) as an expression of a *system* for the organization of culture and civilization that conforms to the Olde Metaphysics.

If you study the Old Catholic Rite (the Ordinary of the Mass, pre-Vatican ll) it is not at all hard to grasp how profoundly, if you'll permit that term, it conforms to the former metaphysical understanding. The Rite in itself is a metaphysical and transcendental act or engagement which, shall I say, joins the upper, metaphysical world, with that of fallen man who aspires to the upper regions. Those upper regions *exist* according to this Metaphysic, and yet the only way to encounter them, or better put the place where they are encountered, is in man's imagination: in his *imagined world* or as Richard Weaver put it in man's 'metaphysical dream of the world'. As one uncovers the *layers* as it were within the Catholic Rite, one discovers underneath it, as it were, the essence of Greco-Christian metaphysics which can be understood and expressed without, necessarily, all the embossment and over-structure that Roman Catholicism lays on top of it. The core of it though is, in essence, the old metaphysics.

What helped me (trmendously I must say) to understand 'the former metaphysics' and the 'new anti-metaphysics' was the work by Basil Willey called Seventeenth Century Background. The first chapter alone gives a good outline of what is at stake and what happened within Occidental ideation that has led to the undermining and substantial overthrough of the possibility to live out of the former metaphysics. That is, to see it as *real* and to *believe* in it. I have come to speculate that we cannot in full faith actually *believe* in the olde metaphysics. I think we attempt to force ourselves to do so, and this act of self-forcing is peculiar and also distorting in its way.

Liberalism and the new anti-metaphysics is ascendent and totalitarian insofar as it dominates most all areas of human activity and also of ideation. Theology, which is the zone of Former Metaphysics, is a relic-zone; a zone of shadows and *allusions* which is no longer substantial to the modern mind.

Conservatives - because of this natural hierarchy - believe that Social Darwinism best informs our moral landscape. In others words, it is a naturally hierarchical world, and hence, survival of the fittest naturally rules the day. In this view, that which is is also that which ought to be. Might makes right. This is where you will hear a conservative arguing that many people have made it out of social disadvantage without our throwing money at the problem. If they are naturally strong, they will naturally rise.

Here, I would suggest, Pye's bias is evident. First, Darwinism is entirely anti-metaphysical and Darwin and a whole new structure of view that came on the scene, and which has worked but consciously and unconsciously to topple the Olden Metaphysics, is entirely Liberal and also Protestant (if these terms are taken loosely and as references to a range of forces arising out of new ideation). Social Darwinism is therefor more aligned with later modes of though. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

If one can grasp what The Great Chain of Being is and how it came to be conceived, and if one sees Mediaeval Catholicism as the social and cultural expression of it, and indeed it had been for a 1000 year period, the notion of Social Darwinism would not and could not be conceived. Social Darwinism is, I think, a critical term and arose in so-called Liberalism's attack on Catholicism (to state it most directly). The Catholic conception of social hierarchy is, of course, linked to notions of the Three Estates and could be said to be feudal. And it is true that conservative political powers sought to conserve the social order for political and economic reasons. And these structures were *critiqued* and assaulted for different reasons by anti-metaphysicians and new and rising political and economic actors. But Social Darwinism does not function well enough as a term to describe both the resistance to the tiered structure of society, nor conservatism's resistance to liberalist rebellion.

And though we are all products of late modernity and live breathe and exist within its tenets, in order to understand the Former Metaphysics and the entire idea of hierarchy as it was previously understood, we would have to seep ourselves in it; not merely intellectually and on a mere mental plane, but as something lived and, shall I say, integrated into us.

Therefor, it seems to me that those who could actually succeed in revivifying on Olden Metaphysic are, in spirit and in essence, out of step with the times. The Time, in this sense, has us all in its current and carries us along with and against our will. In order to recover the Olden Metaphysics we have to deliberately block out the messages of anti-metaphysics, which means to isolate ourselves from its 'frequency'.

In any case, this is how I understand the essential conflict between Metaphysical Conservatism and Anti-Metaphysical Liberalism. I think it safe to say that Liberalism could not become 'metaphysical' in the former sense. It can only become increasingly physical: concerned only for the manifest and contingent realm, which is to say a specific way of seeing The World and also existence.

Soooo summarizing your post, according to you a lot of people here don't know what they're talking about when it comes to masculinity and femininity? If that's true, why don't you correct them where they're wrong? Even if everything they say is completely without merit (which I don't believe), at least they're making an effort to reach a deeper understanding - the only thing I see you doing is telling readers here that they know nothing.

I also find it ironic that you accuse them of superficially using big words, because as far as I can tell you're the one doing this. Call me an idiot, but I find it much easier to make sense of diebert and jupivivs posts than yours.

[Santiago Odo]

Soooo summarizing your post, according to you a lot of people here don't know what they're talking about when it comes to masculinity and femininity?

Let me put in the most direct and, if you will permit me, the most uncompromising terms: the founders of this forum, and very definitely Diebert and Jupi, 'don't know what they are talking about when it comes to masculinity and femininity'. I think it fair to put it in such reduced terms as to say that *they* recoiled away from their own selves when they tried, Weininger-style, to find a place for themselves in an imagined *above*. That is, in a theoretical position outside and above the fray of life. Their 'solution' to the problem of woman (the *woman question*) was and is to avoid any sort of relationship with women and to define that as *spiritual path*. My opinion is that this particular manoeuvre is not connected to spirituality, not really, and in fact connects to late cultural trends more linked to loss of nerve and which will result, eventually, in 'white extinction'. (This is a far more complex term than it appears).

If that's true, why don't you correct them where they're wrong? Even if everything they say is completely without merit (which I don't believe), at least they're making an effort to reach a deeper understanding - the only thing I see you doing is telling readers here that they know nothing.

Thanks for issuing the challenge! Again, to speak in over-general and reductionist terms -- and also again IMO -- *they* got invested in their choices and decisions to such a degree that, try as one might or as anyone might, to get them to budge was and is impossible. I have written at significant length over the years about this *stubbornness* and *hard-headedness*. It is a wide topic, a complex one, and it is one that *we* now, as Occidentals, have to come to terms with. We either do this -- we either make an effort -- or we lose everything. If you read anything I write you will notice that I connect my sense of *spirituality* to a deepening, not a loosening, not a denial of, our matrix and our 'situation'.

It is my view that *they* (the fellows who started this Forum) did so impelled by a form of reaction. Briefly, that might be named a *reaction* to the superficiality of society; its descent into late forms of postwar decadence; into what they called, often accurately, as the *feminization* of culture and the attack on masculinity. This attack is and was, naturally, against *them*, but they did not and do not understand the array of forces operating against them. All this [their initial reaction] was and is necessary and good. But my position is that one has to get fully to the heart of the problem, and defining what that problem is is, in fact, a spiritual project of the first order. They did not get close even to the surface.

You say that 'they are making an effort to reach a deeper understanding' and, to counter that, I would direct you to a recent (relatively) thread in which the *real* position and orientation of these fine fellows was revealed in splendorous detail. No nonsense, no mincing of words: the straight skinny as it were. It is here, IMHO, that one can clearly observe that they do not serve, in any sense of the word, 'masculine projects' vis-a-vis our culture, our civilization, our present condition (significantly under siege), nor do they have much relationship at all to, shall I say, a turn from the unreal and the phantasy-based to the real and the necessary.

While I fully and sincerely admire what they put in motion, and no one can take that away nor minimize it, they are to put it in Taoist, or Communist, terms just 'paper tigers'. ["Paper tiger" is a literal English translation of the Chinese phrase zhilaohu (纸老虎／紙老虎). The term refers to something that seems threatening but is ineffectual and unable to withstand challenge.]

I also find it ironic that you accuse them of superficially using big words, because as far as I can tell you're the one doing this. Call me an idiot, but I find it much easier to make sense of Diebert and Jupiviv's posts than yours.

If you provide and example of what you mean by a *big word* I will have a better idea what your issue is. You could also mean that I am speaking to concepts and ideas that you have not devoted much time to thinking about. Such as 'The Great Chain of Being' or, perhaps, the term 'metaphysics'? My very late response was, superficially, to a post by Pye who is a trained, working philosopher and professor. Therefor, she set the tone really and the terms that I used would not be incomprehensible to her or to someone interested in these topics and ideas.

One possible answer to you is to say -- to point out -- that we now live in a really dumbed-down present. Many different ideas and concepts that were formally part-and-parcel of a basic education have been shunted to the side. Our *conceptual order* has been gutted. If this is so, and if I or anyone speaks to things that you do not immediately grasp, the responsibility is yours to bring yourself up to the level of higher ideation, not to ask it to be dragged down to your level. See for instance the chapter 'Distinction & Hierarchy' in Richard Weaver's book Ideas Have Consequences.

To gain a sense of where we are now, of what happened to us, of why we are in such a wretched position, and why we are (literally) on the brink of something akin to annihilation (both inner and spiritual and also outer and existential) is a project that takes years and years to understand. You might be satisfied with your own *complaint* of what I attempt to convey -- fairly or unfairly it is for you to decide -- but if you are really serious about profound understanding set up your self-education project within a 10 year time-frame. That is a starting point. You will find (as I have found) genuine and valid pointers to be few and far between. Very few, in my view, understand our quandary.

[Avolith]

Soooo summarizing your post, according to you a lot of people here don't know what they're talking about when it comes to masculinity and femininity?

Let me put in the most direct and, if you will permit me, the most uncompromising terms: the founders of this forum, and very definitely Diebert and Jupi, 'don't know what they are talking about when it comes to masculinity and femininity'. I think it fair to put it in such reduced terms as to say that *they* recoiled away from their own selves when they tried, Weininger-style, to find a place for themselves in an imagined *above*. That is, in a theoretical position outside and above the fray of life.

I recognize this is something that could happen, an escape into a mental fabrication of a version of enlightenment, I'm guilty of it myself. But this possibility does not invalidate their argument and does not exclude the possibility of true insights. Just out of curiousity, do you believe in the ideas of enlightenment in a buddhist sense at all?

Their 'solution' to the problem of woman (the *woman question*) was and is to avoid any sort of relationship with women and to define that as *spiritual path*. My opinion is that this particular manoeuvre is not connected to spirituality, not really, and in fact connects to late cultural trends more linked to loss of nerve and which will result, eventually, in 'white extinction'. (This is a far more complex term than it appears).

Could it be linked to both loss of nerve AND spiritual insight? Regardless, your argument still comes mostly in the description and then rejection of the behaviour of the people you mentioned. I don't see you engaging with their arguments, correcting them or positing your own understandings of femininity and masculinity.

Edit. In the other thread you linked I do see you doing this, but on different subjects.

If that's true, why don't you correct them where they're wrong? Even if everything they say is completely without merit (which I don't believe), at least they're making an effort to reach a deeper understanding - the only thing I see you doing is telling readers here that they know nothing.

Thanks for issuing the challenge! Again, to speak in over-general and reductionist terms -- and also again IMO -- *they* got invested in their choices and decisions to such a degree that, try as one might or as anyone might, to get them to budge was and is impossible. I have written at significant length over the years about this *stubbornness* and *hard-headedness*. It is a wide topic, a complex one, and it is one that *we* now, as Occidentals, have to come to terms with. We either do this -- we either make an effort -- or we lose everything. If you read anything I write you will notice that I connect my sense of *spirituality* to a deepening, not a loosening, not a denial of, our matrix and our 'situation'.

So you're saying they don't understand you after your repeated efforts to explain something to them. This could be understandably frustrating and put your post in context. But I can also understand how this situation could come about given your style of communication. Again in this paragraph, you don't go into your own understandings, instead only describing other's behaviours and points as wrong and mentioning that 'the topic is wide and complex', and some more vague terms. I had to google 'Occidentals', to find out that it means 'westerners'. This gives me the impression of obfuscating, or dressing up language to hide a lack of any real point, or, a lack of ability or courage to put it forward.

It is my view that *they* (the fellows who started this Forum) did so impelled by a form of reaction.

Briefly, that might be named a *reaction* to the superficiality of society; its descent into late forms of postwar decadence; into what they called, often accurately, as the *feminization* of culture and the attack on masculinity. This attack is and was, naturally, against *them*, but they did not and do not understand the array of forces operating against them. All this [their initial reaction] was and is necessary and good. But my position is that one has to get fully to the heart of the problem, and defining what that problem is is, in fact, a spiritual project of the first order. They did not get close even to the surface.

So summarizing, they correctly identified feminization of society and an attack on their masculinity, but, they didn't get to the heart of the problem. I still see your post is a criticism on them that they didn't reach far enough - you give implicit hints that you have a better understanding, but the understanding itself is still withheld?

You say that 'they are making an effort to reach a deeper understanding' and, to counter that, I would direct you to a recent (relatively) thread in which the *real* position and orientation of these fine fellows was revealed in splendorous detail. No nonsense, no mincing of words: the straight skinny as it were. It is here, IMHO, that one can clearly observe that they do not serve, in any sense of the word, 'masculine projects' vis-a-vis our culture, our civilization, our present condition (significantly under siege), nor do they have much relationship at all to, shall I say, a turn from the unreal and the phantasy-based to the real and the necessary.

While I fully and sincerely admire what they put in motion, and no one can take that away nor minimize it, they are to put it in Taoist, or Communist, terms just 'paper tigers'. ["Paper tiger" is a literal English translation of the Chinese phrase zhilaohu (纸老虎／紙老虎). The term refers to something that seems threatening but is ineffectual and unable to withstand challenge.]

Alright. So what should they do then to be effectual? Can you explain the mechanisms they apparently don't understand that make them ineffective?

I also find it ironic that you accuse them of superficially using big words, because as far as I can tell you're the one doing this. Call me an idiot, but I find it much easier to make sense of Diebert and Jupiviv's posts than yours.

If you provide and example of what you mean by a *big word* I will have a better idea what your issue is. You could also mean that I am speaking to concepts and ideas that you have not devoted much time to thinking about. Such as 'The Great Chain of Being' or, perhaps, the term 'metaphysics'? My very late response was, superficially, to a post by Pye who is a trained, working philosopher and professor. Therefor, she set the tone really and the terms that I used would not be incomprehensible to her or to someone interested in these topics and ideas.

One possible answer to you is to say -- to point out -- that we now live in a really dumbed-down present. Many different ideas and concepts that were formally part-and-parcel of a basic education have been shunted to the side. Our *conceptual order* has been gutted. If this is so, and if I or anyone speaks to things that you do not immediately grasp, the responsibility is yours to bring yourself up to the level of higher ideation, not to ask it to be dragged down to your level. See for instance the chapter 'Distinction & Hierarchy' in Richard Weaver's book Ideas Have Consequences.

Fair enough, you're allowed to use a large vocabulary if you have it and it gives you the ability to express things more accurately, and I agree that you don't have to let yourself get dragged down if others didn't make a proper investment. But a big vocabulary also comes with a dark side, an ability to bamboozle people to smooth over any rough edges of your understanding by simply pointing out that they didn't understand or aren't learned enough. This could fulfill a need, of recognition of ability, intelligence, whatever. I especially get the impression that some of this is going on when terms that are more complex than necessary are consistently used, although, I can't know for sure how much is to be attributed to my own lack of understanding. One thing I do know for sure is that I will only trust things I can come to understand myself.

To gain a sense of where we are now, of what happened to us, of why we are in such a wretched position, and why we are (literally) on the brink of something akin to annihilation (both inner and spiritual and also outer and existential) is a project that takes years and years to understand. You might be satisfied with your own *complaint* of what I attempt to convey -- fairly or unfairly it is for you to decide -- but if you are really serious about profound understanding set up your self-education project within a 10 year time-frame. That is a starting point. You will find (as I have found) genuine and valid pointers to be few and far between. Very few, in my view, understand our quandary.

So again summarizing this paragraph, to truly understand what you understand, it would take a 10 year span of studying, that is very very hard kind of studying to boot because 'real pointers are few and far between', and there are only very few people who have achieved this. You are, again, hinting that you understand something great and important, yet making no attempt to communicate it, citing that, first I would have to ascend to your level of learnedness. Why not save us the trouble and sharing the 'pointers' that *were* useful, for example, saving your fellow man the suffering you had to go through. This is the way a society as a whole advances over time. I cannot escape the impression of your trying to come off a certain way. This does not mean that no such understanding is there. But if there is, maybe you are not being effective at using it for good, just as you say the others are ineffective?

What good is a hard earned understanding if you cannot share it with others, however difficult. Isn't that the whole point?

[Santiago Odo]

...an escape into a mental fabrication of a version of enlightenment...

I more or less came to conclude that 'enlightenment' and 'samadhi' are in themselves 'mental fabrications'. Looking into Tibetan mystical practices, dream manipulation (from which Carlos Castaneda may have borrowed his elaborate dreaming scheme), I think that one must conclude that mental states can be cultivated. (But it would be a mistake to interpret that I think that wisdom of Orientals (that is, the other side of the Occidentals!) is not a container with things of value).

I reject outrightly the *value* of the assertion of relevance of 'enlightenment' and say, and have always said, that any person on this forum who has pretended to 'enlightenment' is involved in layers of self-deception. And one has to pay attention to how this notion and concept of 'enlightenment' has entered into Western categories, and who began to promote it and why. Unhappily, it came along with Sixties drug-like intoxication and seems to me a part of *general cultural acids* that are also part-and-parcel of anti-intellectual forces.

...do you believe in the ideas of enlightenment in a buddhist sense at all?

I would not phrase it in terms of belief or disbelief, but rather of 'relevance' and (sorry to use such a word but) 'utility'. The way that the notion of 'enlightenment' is used, in most situations where it is held as a value, seem to me to have psychologically pathological elements. Like a drug addict who smokes a crack-pipe and has Visions of Grandeur of one sort or another, so our minds can become captivated by the *unreal* (the irrelevant in my parlance) and through these means we self-dupe ourselves. This 'self-dupery' is a big element in my philosophical and spiritual understanding. I phrase it that: 'Our very self gets wedded, through complicity, in lies and deceptions'. How to arrive at what is true, I admit, is not easy in our present intellectual climate (and I use the word 'intellect' in a special sense).

Every jackass who has spouted Buddhist nonsense on this forum, I have, I think, been able to see through. They have not appreciated this much and this goes without saying. That is my own assessment of course. David and Dan both desired to establish themselves as minor Mahatmas. It always seemed to me a tremendous self-deception. Diebert has a sort of fake interest in Buddhism -- a Nietzschean 'Chinese' attitude that will subsume Western categories of relevance. In different ways, these show what self-dupery produce. It is endless and labyrinthian. It would, I reckon, take some years to work one's way out of it.

Could it be linked to both loss of nerve AND spiritual insight?

Of course. Take an example. It has been said that Occidental art is in a decadent phase. What formerly gave sense, meaning and shall I say power to Occidental art became weakened or even undermined. These are historical eventualities and they have to do with trends that occur over centuries. Much of this can be grasped through examination of European intellectual history and as I mentioned previously in Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences.

When I speak of 'loss of nerve' I means specific things, not vague unstated things. But, just as much of modern art is interesting, complex, 'fascinating' one might say, and though in aspects it is devoid and even 'nihilistic', no one could say that it is not technically competent. It reveals content. Messages are communicated. Therefor, it will definitely have its 'insights' and, perhaps, they might be of a *higher order*. But the question has to do with general ascent or of general descent. Decadence, as a technical term, means specific things, not vague things.

What I say and have always tended to say is that one must examine the trends in society that have produced these descents and this tendency to descend. That is 'loss of nerve' in my lexicon of meaning.

So you're saying they don't understand you after your repeated efforts to explain something to them.

You could of course put it in that way if you desire to. I look at it from a larger framework. I say that *we have all* lost our connection with those things -- ideas, categories -- of *genuine value*. We don't know how to recognize what really has value. And we trick ourselves with contrived pseudo-values. Our culture is in the grip of a fantastic array of deceptions, and I certainly understand that Dan and David and Kevin noticed this. But they rejected what is in fact the most essential and the most relevant. They traded their patrimony for a 'mess of pottage' to quote a known phrase. They did this because the surrounding and general intellectual direction of culture goes in this direction. They tried to propose a sound alternative, but lost the proper track, and got lost themselves. They now dwell in underworld regions of irrelevance. But it is a larger problem. They are simply *victims* of it.

...dressing up language to hide a lack of any real point, or, a lack of ability or courage to put it forward.

Again I notice the *challenge* to reveal something essential to you. That is a mistaken platform right there. You must assume that some people, somewhere, are going to be further along some particular path. Don't claw at them like a frustrated teenager and demand that they 'Explain things to me in a way that I can understand!' You have to make the effort to ascend yourself. I would suggest a reading of the chapter 'Distinction & Hierarchy' in Weaver's book. It is that important of an idea.

In order to grasp a 'real point' you must, eo facto, have at least an intuition of it. So, reveal to me something of a 'real point' and something of real, valuable content!

If you had to google 'Occidentals' I can only say that you need to do more reading of more advanced material! Our language and some level of mastery of it are such basic necessities. It is your responsibility to choose to educate yourself, despite the limited hand that was dealt to you in your upbringing. As I said this must be viewed in a longterm time-frame. Ten years is not unrealistic. Take it for what it is worth or reject it.

So summarizing, they correctly identified feminization of society and an attack on their masculinity, but, they didn't get to the heart of the problem. I still see your post is a criticism on them that they didn't reach far enough - you give implicit hints that you have a better understanding, but the understanding itself is still withheld?

You are not going to get anywhere with this line of inquiry. I recommend to you something far more difficult and far more demanding: the undertaking of a self-education project. Did I give you the impression that I am here to reveal something to you? To dole something out like a mouthful of pablum? You can only encounter an important essence (of an idea, in a value) if you yourself have entered into it. You have to have an 'inkling'. This is a Platonic idea. In order to be stimulated to understanding something latent has to be awoken.

If you wish to understand my critique of the founders of Genius Forum you can research my writing here. But you cannot have it doled out to you as if understanding of the complex ideas I deal in can be received on the end of baby's spoon. This sounds insulting but truthfully I don't mean it that way. To understand what I am getting at you'd have to grasp the idea of 'dumbing down'. It is an accessible idea but it would take an investment on your part.

What good is a hard earned understanding if you cannot share it with others, however difficult. Isn't that the whole point?

The sort of communication that you are referring to occurs not on Internet forums and in written form, but in fact between people who have intellectual relationship. It is obvious to me (if I must apologize to you for being this direct I will give you that sort-of apology) that you have very little foundation for your intellectual being. You can take this as an *unfair insult* or take it in, mull over it, and decide what such a truth means to you. I suggest setting yourself on a path of *genuine learning* and to avoid the mishmosh of Buddhist and neo-Buddhist garbage. But you will have to define what *genuine knowledge* is and what its effect is. It is, in my view, a teleological issue.

You make the mistake as I said before of wishing something to be doled out to you. One can only offer *intimations* and these will either resonate in you, as they say, or they won't. I really do not care whether you understand or misunderstand what I am getting at. The chances are good that you came into this conversation with a will inclined to misunderstand. There is something about this Forum, I have not quite grasped it, that attracts people with this off pathology.

But that is the *starting point* that DD&K began from. If we are going to cure a pathology we are going to have to get really really serious.

[Avolith]

yuck! I never demanded you explain anything to me. You're the one who came into this topic criticizing people that they don't understand masculinity and femininity, and in a very blunt way. I've been telling you, if you really knew better, you wouldn't waste so much time an energy angrily criticizing every person who's trying to engage with you, and instead shine some light on the matter. Which you can't, because you really don't understand anything yourself.

Why are you still here if all the people here are apparently too underdeveloped to understand you? Why don't you move to more fertile grounds with people of your own great intellectual development? Because you're not as great as you think, and well, people here are still feeding the monster attention. Which I guess I will stop doing now.

[jupiviv]

You say that 'they are making an effort to reach a deeper understanding' and, to counter that, I would direct you to a recent (relatively) thread in which the *real* position and orientation of these fine fellows was revealed in splendorous detail. No nonsense, no mincing of words: the straight skinny as it were. It is here, IMHO, that one can clearly observe that they do not serve, in any sense of the word, 'masculine projects' vis-a-vis our culture, our civilization, our present condition (significantly under siege), nor do they have much relationship at all to, shall I say, a turn from the unreal and the phantasy-based to the real and the necessary.

While I fully and sincerely admire what they put in motion, and no one can take that away nor minimize it, they are to put it in Taoist, or Communist, terms just 'paper tigers'. ["Paper tiger" is a literal English translation of the Chinese phrase zhilaohu (纸老虎／紙老虎). The term refers to something that seems threatening but is ineffectual and unable to withstand challenge.]

If memory serves, you were performing your mating dance "in splendorous detail" not only on that thread but all over the forum. You even had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to inform the Father of QRStianity of that grisly betrayal by his elect janissaries and co-heirs-apparent! Evidently, your balls flunked.

[Avolith]

Maybe some women are becoming gnawingly aware of the possibility of men waking up in general, and as a fearful reaction these women frantically try to re-enlist those 'straying' men into a commitment to keeping society running? Maybe this will be a new movement after feminism XD As a non intellectual, I shall dub it post-feminism, the era of women skillfully seducing men into keeping everyone comfy, instead of being so blunt about it XD

[jupiviv]

Maybe some women are becoming gnawingly aware of the possibility of men waking up in general, and as a fearful reaction these women frantically try to re-enlist those 'straying' men into a commitment to keeping society running? Maybe this will be a new movement after feminism XD As a non intellectual, I shall dub it post-feminism, the era of women skillfully seducing men into keeping everyone comfy, instead of being so blunt about it XD

Actually we are in post-feminism right now. Millennials everywhere are shunning marriage because they don't think that arrangement will help them survive in an increasingly uncertain future, or in a present where almost none of the conditions that supported the institution of marriage in the past are operative.

I suggest you try to explore some more causes of the decline in "family values" other than feminism. Above all, beware of the illusion that the reward for "waking up" is anything more or less than the truth. It certainly doesn't entail the risk of being seduced back into conformity by a roving flock of supermodels.

[Avolith]

Maybe some women are becoming gnawingly aware of the possibility of men waking up in general, and as a fearful reaction these women frantically try to re-enlist those 'straying' men into a commitment to keeping society running? Maybe this will be a new movement after feminism XD As a non intellectual, I shall dub it post-feminism, the era of women skillfully seducing men into keeping everyone comfy, instead of being so blunt about it XD

Actually we are in post-feminism right now. Millennials everywhere are shunning marriage because they don't think that arrangement will help them survive in an increasingly uncertain future, or in a present where almost none of the conditions that supported the institution of marriage in the past are operative.

I suggest you try to explore some more causes of the decline in "family values" other than feminism. Above all, beware of the illusion that the reward for "waking up" is anything more or less than the truth. It certainly doesn't entail the risk of being seduced back into conformity by a roving flock of supermodels.

I never had the illusion that marriage would bring the things that everyone says it brings, and as far as I can tell, never will. As far as I can tell it is and will always be a bad deal. I'm somewhat aware of the development you're pointing out of millenials checking out (I'm one of them) - with the MGTOW scene, divorce rates going up, articles being written about this topic, although I'm not sure yet how widespread it is. The majority of people around me still seems to be down with marriage since they do get married and have kids, although, interestingly, practically no one challenges me on my not getting married, something which I expected to get challenged for! In fact people seem to have some sort of quiet understanding for the decision, although that's entirely my interpretation of the situation. Maybe somewhere they're afraid of me shattering some of their views if they were to engage me on the topic... or maybe they simply don't give a damn :)

Like you said the causes for this would be interesting to understand. Vaguely feminization/overshooting of feminist agenda comes to mind. Do you have any pointers where I could read about this, what are your ideas?

[jupiviv]

@Avolith, on youtube, Barbarossaa (bar bar), razorbladekandy and AlexanderMGTOW have very good insights about the causes of the decline in traditional families/marriages. The task of understanding the far broader idea of femininity - as used on this forum - is lugubrious, because you need to integrate many kinds of ideas from disparate subjects into your thinking.

For the philosophical context and underpinnings, you should probably start with the output of the forum founders. Those are available on the forum archives and on http://theabsolute.net/ Then you can move on to books by Weininger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, bits of Buddhism (the original Dharmapada, Zen master Hakuin) and Hinduism (no-nonsense translations of the Bhagvad Gita, Avadhuta Gita, the Vedas, the Upanishads). PDFs or EPUBs of most of those books (and many others) are available on Library Genesis. However, be warned that it may be illegal to download e-books with extant copyrights or which are not in the public domain.

In the end you have to judge for yourself what is wise and what isn't. All of the literature I mentioned will, at best, give you a very rough outline of what your own thoughts might look like, but you have to think them.

[Santiago Odo]

I never demanded you explain anything to me. You're the one who came into this topic criticizing people that they don't understand masculinity and femininity, and in a very blunt way. I've been telling you, if you really knew better, you wouldn't waste so much time an energy angrily criticizing every person who's trying to engage with you, and instead shine some light on the matter. Which you can't, because you really don't understand anything yourself.

Rather than the word 'criticize' I would have chosen 'explained'. I explained that neither Diebert or Jupi really understand the issues involved in relation to masculinity and femininity and that neither of them have any relationship at all with actual women. If, or when, you understand their mutual situations as I do, you will better understand how ridiculous is their pose.

To get 'light shone on the matter', in your case (and as I suggested) will take a good deal of time. I say that based on what of you I can know reading what you have written.

Why are you still here if all the people here are apparently too underdeveloped to understand you? Why don't you move to more fertile grounds with people of your own great intellectual development? Because you're not as great as you think, and well, people here are still feeding the monster attention. Which I guess I will stop doing now.

What you have just said here, is so typical of the girlish-men who regularly pass through. It is emotional to the core, *offended*. It belies a certain intellectual delicacy. You'll fit in very well! This illustrates my point: there is something about this place that attracts an essentially non-masculine sort who desires to put on a pose of masculine hardness. Read Nietzsche, read Weininger and pose.

And so it goes . . . Best of luck in your endeavors!