horizontallytall
"Every cope has an end ":psalm 14:3
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Posts
- 7,963
- Reputation
- 5,278
I've personally experienced all of those traits and have seen them throughout all women I've known or known about. I don't believe most of "mental illnesses" exist, the traits related to a personality type are just traits related to innate characteristics and their relationships with the environment.
The "psychopatic" traits are actually just traits related to female characteristics when maximized. Since female ontology exerts itself indirectly on nature (primarily because of their lack of physical and ambiental abilities compared to males), they need to rely on men to do those things that bring them material life.
Because of this, women's survival mechanism induce them to develop their interior world based on social manipulation - and to do this, they need to be hyper aware of their own world and necessities, and those of others who can provide for them, in order to close the math and bring them material security - thus the well known solipsistic nature of women's thinking and that of the psychopath.
Men, on the other hand, are more capable of handling material reality, and thus, out of their own necessity and survival mechanism, are induced into developing their interior world and its relationship with external objects based on the rational distribution of resources in order to provide himself with material security. Thus, men create the division of labour in order to maximize and rationalize its power over material resources - it is "civilization" itself.
Both have purpose, but one's is only to leech, the other's is to build.
Anyways, this all relates to how you see all of those researchs saying positions of power in both government and private entities are held by "narcissistic" people. Many say these positions are filled with "psychopaths". Are they women? No. They're mostly men who were so "feminine" in their internal world that they mastered the skill that is most needed to succeed in an increasingly modern world where the division of labour has been internalized - deception. You win not by force, but by manipulating the masses (third parties) into exerting their physical power onto others. Thus, the most powerful men are those that can manipulate those into government to use police or army force on citizens and foreign powers. All through deception, propaganda, and the tactics of manipulation to keep all of those Universe 25 experiments you see around the world. Only because the "tip of the spear" low value males on the army and police dumbingly enforce the rules because they are so deprived of purpose and a lot of time material resources to build instead of mindlesly destroy.
This is what the women's ontology is based on.
It is why women are natural lawyers, politicians, psychologists, teachers. They are masterful at manipulating and making it seem like they are the ones being manipulated on. They are not logical for some things, but for others, they are extremely logical. They know in law what matters is the logic of voluntary serfdom. So what matters is the credibility of those that hold the power to say what is the truth, women can analyse what is being valued (instead of making their own metrics of what's valuable or not), so they learn how to cater to the narrative and manipulate their particular narrative to fit that. That's exactly why women succeed at both pretending to be perfect whores or pretending to be perfet wives, sometimes at the same time (madona-whore complex), even if they are not inately either - they are what the environment tells them to do.
This is why they need external stimulation so relentlessly - it is what makes their survival instict react. Men, on the other hand, are naturaly integrated with "nature" material reality, their brain is made to think of how to manipulate it, and for what end, purpose. It is ontologically structural-oriented.
Male politicians and private billionaires, just as the most heinous low-level criminals, are all obsessed with status and aesthetics (banging JBs for instance). Patrick Bateman is a perfect depiction of a psychopath. It's funny that many bluepilled retards think it's made to look men look bad at how their supposed narcissism is - but Patrick Bateman is the most "feminine" man you can think of. It is actually a depiction of how women in general (and male "psychopaths", those who have an inner world which is like that of a woman) view the world and interact with it. They could fuck Chad for their own mental pleasure and for the status it gives her in her mind and in seconds later slaughter them with a chainsaw if it is what is needed, both literally and figuratively.
This is the reason why modernity comes with political and private power being superficially "given" to women. Women manipulate the masses easier, thus making it even easier for the true elites to control all of the cattle (including women). It is a tendency that is not going to go backwards, tradcels.
Unfortunately, this current moment of the world's existential zeitgeist leaves those men that are more inclined and even more able at the building-oriented trait (instead of the social/third-party manipulative one) means two things:
1) The first class of men will be punished;
2) The second class of men will be rewarded.
In a world where the manipulation of physical reality is scarcely needed because of technology, traits related to social manipulation are more prone to be developed by people. Thus, males become feminized (just see the physical difference between a man 5000 years ago and today), in all aspects, including being more manipulative than builders. More men want to leech off the government and private entities.
Is there a tipping point? I don't know. Judging by history, it just gets progressively worse. The less individual power a man as a individual is able to have. This is the reason why in the beginning of times men who were leaders actually needed to show competence at bulding skills, because power was so dispersed that it required ability to gather it together. Today, power is monolithic and there is nothing a single individual can do to change how it works or reclaim his personal power.
Therefore, what matters is how to engage in the big gear (the established social contract) and how to benefit from it using the least amount of personal resources. It is a logic that is itself based on leeching.
Of course, this also means it is naturally inclined to decline. Thoughout history, though, it seems the mechanics just keep reinventing itself in order to preserve itself. It is why a decline in birth rates is irreversible and the natural conclusion of this. Division of labour made it able that humans itself are no longer needed in big collective settings for the optimal reproduction of life. You can have a world inhabitated by 500.000 humans of excellent genes being procreated by powerful DNA-editing machines and it all works fine. Isn't it funny that the Georgia Guidestones exist? Hahaha.
I don't know. Even as a complete nihilist it still somehow makes sense the story in the bible. Or the one told by most religions really. Some form of eschatology. My summed up reading of the Bible is that the beginning itself is the start of the end. The moment Adam and Eve ate the apple, the moment we were thrown into the world, it was the beginning of the decay. Nothing can be changed. Things are just reacting, the same way energy dilates and dissipates, it's a cycle made of cycles. All we see are temporary ends that only become new beginnings. I fear it looks like a circular thing, an eternal reocurrence. And we're all fascinated and fearful at the same time of this nature.
I don't know, yesterday I looked closely into my cat's eyes and felt a deep sense of inexistence. It made me think >why< - for what reason - "we" are "born" into this physical world just to be so bound to its immutable nature. If you we powerless as a human today, imagine being such a fragile and simplistic being. All they do (the "domestic", "tamed by civilization" ones...) is play all the time to fight boredom until they die because of a simple flu. Existence is just terrifying and laughable at the same time hahahaha. Makes me think it's some sort of simulation in the end. The lack of sense in its sense just doesn't add up.
It's over.
The "psychopatic" traits are actually just traits related to female characteristics when maximized. Since female ontology exerts itself indirectly on nature (primarily because of their lack of physical and ambiental abilities compared to males), they need to rely on men to do those things that bring them material life.
Because of this, women's survival mechanism induce them to develop their interior world based on social manipulation - and to do this, they need to be hyper aware of their own world and necessities, and those of others who can provide for them, in order to close the math and bring them material security - thus the well known solipsistic nature of women's thinking and that of the psychopath.
Men, on the other hand, are more capable of handling material reality, and thus, out of their own necessity and survival mechanism, are induced into developing their interior world and its relationship with external objects based on the rational distribution of resources in order to provide himself with material security. Thus, men create the division of labour in order to maximize and rationalize its power over material resources - it is "civilization" itself.
Both have purpose, but one's is only to leech, the other's is to build.
Anyways, this all relates to how you see all of those researchs saying positions of power in both government and private entities are held by "narcissistic" people. Many say these positions are filled with "psychopaths". Are they women? No. They're mostly men who were so "feminine" in their internal world that they mastered the skill that is most needed to succeed in an increasingly modern world where the division of labour has been internalized - deception. You win not by force, but by manipulating the masses (third parties) into exerting their physical power onto others. Thus, the most powerful men are those that can manipulate those into government to use police or army force on citizens and foreign powers. All through deception, propaganda, and the tactics of manipulation to keep all of those Universe 25 experiments you see around the world. Only because the "tip of the spear" low value males on the army and police dumbingly enforce the rules because they are so deprived of purpose and a lot of time material resources to build instead of mindlesly destroy.
This is what the women's ontology is based on.
It is why women are natural lawyers, politicians, psychologists, teachers. They are masterful at manipulating and making it seem like they are the ones being manipulated on. They are not logical for some things, but for others, they are extremely logical. They know in law what matters is the logic of voluntary serfdom. So what matters is the credibility of those that hold the power to say what is the truth, women can analyse what is being valued (instead of making their own metrics of what's valuable or not), so they learn how to cater to the narrative and manipulate their particular narrative to fit that. That's exactly why women succeed at both pretending to be perfect whores or pretending to be perfet wives, sometimes at the same time (madona-whore complex), even if they are not inately either - they are what the environment tells them to do.
This is why they need external stimulation so relentlessly - it is what makes their survival instict react. Men, on the other hand, are naturaly integrated with "nature" material reality, their brain is made to think of how to manipulate it, and for what end, purpose. It is ontologically structural-oriented.
Male politicians and private billionaires, just as the most heinous low-level criminals, are all obsessed with status and aesthetics (banging JBs for instance). Patrick Bateman is a perfect depiction of a psychopath. It's funny that many bluepilled retards think it's made to look men look bad at how their supposed narcissism is - but Patrick Bateman is the most "feminine" man you can think of. It is actually a depiction of how women in general (and male "psychopaths", those who have an inner world which is like that of a woman) view the world and interact with it. They could fuck Chad for their own mental pleasure and for the status it gives her in her mind and in seconds later slaughter them with a chainsaw if it is what is needed, both literally and figuratively.
This is the reason why modernity comes with political and private power being superficially "given" to women. Women manipulate the masses easier, thus making it even easier for the true elites to control all of the cattle (including women). It is a tendency that is not going to go backwards, tradcels.
Unfortunately, this current moment of the world's existential zeitgeist leaves those men that are more inclined and even more able at the building-oriented trait (instead of the social/third-party manipulative one) means two things:
1) The first class of men will be punished;
2) The second class of men will be rewarded.
In a world where the manipulation of physical reality is scarcely needed because of technology, traits related to social manipulation are more prone to be developed by people. Thus, males become feminized (just see the physical difference between a man 5000 years ago and today), in all aspects, including being more manipulative than builders. More men want to leech off the government and private entities.
Is there a tipping point? I don't know. Judging by history, it just gets progressively worse. The less individual power a man as a individual is able to have. This is the reason why in the beginning of times men who were leaders actually needed to show competence at bulding skills, because power was so dispersed that it required ability to gather it together. Today, power is monolithic and there is nothing a single individual can do to change how it works or reclaim his personal power.
Therefore, what matters is how to engage in the big gear (the established social contract) and how to benefit from it using the least amount of personal resources. It is a logic that is itself based on leeching.
Of course, this also means it is naturally inclined to decline. Thoughout history, though, it seems the mechanics just keep reinventing itself in order to preserve itself. It is why a decline in birth rates is irreversible and the natural conclusion of this. Division of labour made it able that humans itself are no longer needed in big collective settings for the optimal reproduction of life. You can have a world inhabitated by 500.000 humans of excellent genes being procreated by powerful DNA-editing machines and it all works fine. Isn't it funny that the Georgia Guidestones exist? Hahaha.
I don't know. Even as a complete nihilist it still somehow makes sense the story in the bible. Or the one told by most religions really. Some form of eschatology. My summed up reading of the Bible is that the beginning itself is the start of the end. The moment Adam and Eve ate the apple, the moment we were thrown into the world, it was the beginning of the decay. Nothing can be changed. Things are just reacting, the same way energy dilates and dissipates, it's a cycle made of cycles. All we see are temporary ends that only become new beginnings. I fear it looks like a circular thing, an eternal reocurrence. And we're all fascinated and fearful at the same time of this nature.
I don't know, yesterday I looked closely into my cat's eyes and felt a deep sense of inexistence. It made me think >why< - for what reason - "we" are "born" into this physical world just to be so bound to its immutable nature. If you we powerless as a human today, imagine being such a fragile and simplistic being. All they do (the "domestic", "tamed by civilization" ones...) is play all the time to fight boredom until they die because of a simple flu. Existence is just terrifying and laughable at the same time hahahaha. Makes me think it's some sort of simulation in the end. The lack of sense in its sense just doesn't add up.
It's over.
