Female power in the occult

https://www.clairenakti.com/articles/what-is-the-real-essence-of-beauty


Reminds me of Taoism.
Taoism doesn’t actually have sexual practices (however some have twisted it to try and claim they do) for that reason. It is the spiritual overcoming the physical. To “de-base” yourself again completely extinguishes the work already built on. Monasteries and nunneries were rooted in this idea.

The wise men don’t want to be drained (and by strangers) and be thrown off with bad karma (like a creative block or stumped feeling, apathy or obstacle event). Action —> Result. You choose one, you choose the other.
Historically a promiscuous man is considered weak in all religions (except Satanism, you’ll note*) because the male path of enlightenment involves impulse control, that’s the male power. Think of a military general. A promiscuous woman gives up something that is (because of her chosen condition) worth nothing, quite a disgusting notion to people who believe in sanctity, and promiscuous men also don’t value their energies as special either, so their own influence disappears from themselves like morning dew (and they typically blame women for ‘tempting them’, projecting the problem is typical). This leads to a permanent dissolving of willpower (death of will) eventually, they call it “player burnout” online but it’s really like tapping your own veins and draining your blood then wondering why you’re weak. Idiots with scant self-awareness had little influence to spare in the first place, and so drain themselves into a curious blend of melancholy, apathy and furious self-pity faster than other, hardier men. Celibate men were respected in saner times because they had power (of the self) and this produced a laser-like focus and it’s no coincidence so many geniuses did their best work while surrendering sexually to no women.

How much bland art was clearly made by a degenerate who slept with the subjects?

How much great art was made by homosexual men, who couldn’t possibly be tempted by a woman? (or married hetero men for other reasons).

How does the art of each make you feel? Typically, the first makes people feel unclean but the latter a strange purity.

Women seen as inspiration on a collective level strengthens a man.

To surrender sexually to an improper woman or to be an improper man individually is draining (like the trail of bad luck following degeneracy that can even be seen in statistics like suicide risk). At best, the man tries to take on a female role (Lord Byron hoovering up muse figures, Wilde the same with men) and this is repellent to those who believe that men should be masculine (most men, back then) and stand firm in their principles. This is the ultimate cause of those principles and as you can see, it isn’t a double standard at all. If women aren’t meant to sleep around, that implies directly men aren’t meant to either, otherwise they’d have to become homosexual. Patriarchies protect men from wasting themselves by masturbating inside various women (it’s a loveless union) although when it overdoes this or for unclear reasons lost over time, the subjects assume it’s keeping them away from the “fun” (a child’s assumption) because they don’t understand the risk or threat to themselves. It goes beyond themselves individually too; to family name, personal social reputation, family estate and fortune, future marriage prospects, shaming their friends with bad company and associations and so on. At minimum, it lumbers others with awkwardness, selfishly. A man’s responsibilities in society forbid dalliance with the underworld elements. It always resurfaces somewhat with the degenerate, sin sticks to them, however they might appear unscathed to shallow people. If everyone ate from the cookie jar, the tragedy of the commons would pretty much provide what we consider a Third World society. It would be unruly and the individuals selfish, feral and uncivilized. We’re well on that course because, since women can’t rein the men in (and some are Satanic, hating men and encouraging their destruction**) then who is supposed to play father to men who shunned that powerful leadership role of their own sex? Men are too PC with one another and standards died as a result. It’s a youth cult that makes them wish they were Peter Pans, never changing or learning or taking on duties, stuck in a hedonic purgatory, like being dutiful is shameful and up is down. The manchild doesn’t rebel so this shift was planned. Where is the honour in such people? Natural slaves.

They don’t have dignity to value themselves beyond a performing phallus, integrity to choose their hobbies and friends wisely, they don’t know the value of hard work (bitching on twitter is not work) nor the satisfaction of being useful to your kin and the relief that duty brings the salt of the earth character.

They assume everyone is jealous of them (projection) because they cannot comprehend how lower impulses can disappear entirely when you realize their illusory nature (best known in Buddhism but Jesus embodies it too).

Most modern men would surrender to Satan in the desert after one hour for a glass of cold water and a shiny car.

No wonder women don’t respect that and ignore it for distractions like career, hoping it’ll go away and they’ll police their own standards in their sex eventually. Like, stop wearing your trousers round your ankles, for one. That’s an easy one. Women by definition cannot play father to a man and guide him like this, playing mother is enabling (and sexually repulsive) and the smarter ones don’t want to encourage it unless they hate men.

Corruption is the rotten apple spoiling the barrel. When it comes to rampant hypersexualization in society, consider the source. Do you think various pajama boys would get away with it, if they didn’t get the biological kick of orgasms as a reward (from porn or a woman in person)? What you reward, you encourage. We encourage indolence, insolence and weakness (this was the intentional product of the ‘Sexual Revolution’ in destroying Western Men). A man loyal to more than one nation is a traitor, what is a man loyal to more than one woman?

…Useless to either, at best. A burden, like an overgrown child.

Like the self-proclaimed family man avoiding his wife and children for a ‘mistress’. I’m sure that doesn’t mess them up at all….

Male power involves as much discernment as the female, for different reasons, throughout all religions. Chastity benefits men in their personal life more than women although it is a virtue for both (power for the male, discernment for the female). Lust is a deadly sin especially for men although modernity has encouraged you to forget this and disturbingly, treat it as the ultimate virtue of a man (to lose himself). They never expressly say what form Satan assumed in the desert to tempt Jesus, I assume female (although the energy of all Devil figures is very destructive and not at all nurturing). I think the #MeToo stuff is triggering the weaker men because it exposes their loss of control which they had believed was cunning concealed from women. Logically, they claim they want tougher punishments on all criminals, including hanging and I’m sure they’d change their tune if it involved their mother/sister/daughter. To personally identify with various types of rapist (including those who target men or boys) shows how weak the modern character is. Everyone gets tempted by things from time to time. So what?

It’s a test, you’re supposed to be strong. These are the defective ‘beautiful ones’ who believe gym gains and sickly cologne make up for their defective and subhuman nature. Metrosexuals don’t survive various societal corrections. Their first impulse on seeing beauty is corruption and degeneracy, much like the rapists they empathize with (instead of their victims like a man with a conscience would).

If you transported them back to the 50s they sexually fantasize about, where the streets were apparently full of young, thin and femininely dressed women, they’d be Ted Bundy. “But they looked really sexy!” level of retarded entitlement. They actually think tease is an insult (women are supposed to look like it) and temptation is an excuse for crime.

Your lust is your business. Picture a fat person blaming cake. Just because you’re triggered doesn’t give you any rights or privileges to get what you want. If so, every time I walk past a jewelry shop and they don’t shower me in diamonds, they must be taunting me. I want it, they’ve got it, what’s the problem? Why can’t I always get what I want? (Women want more from life than men so this is a very good example, nesting instinct means men would still come out with less). It’s just an excuse for anger, popping off like an irritable toddler, it’s the sexual equivalent of road rage. (Ragequitting from women, expressed in hatred of becoming a husband, is actually funny to women – they’re complaining they’d make a bad husband who’d make a bad choice of wife). Mantrums are embarrassing, they’re announcing, proudly how unfit they are. It’s like misogynistic Trigglypuff. They act like women are chasing after them down the street with a veil and false pregnancy positive.

If it’s so bad, get castrated. Honestly, if being horny provokes so much suffering or you are so self-destructive as to hand a rope to a misandrist in fucking one. Chemical castration seems to be a popular option nowadays. They assume women and their hormonal profile don’t feel temptation (HA) and by the time they come to the truth that the problem is them (and not all men) they want to switch back because men get away with more weakness (boys will be boys, weak men turn a blind eye to one another). Eventually they’ll get swept up in a war, probably civil war.

nb *Because Satanism isn’t a religion, it’s anti-religion, it intends to destroy men by encouraging their weakness and worst impulses. Rationalizations are the best way to accomplish this, stupid men are very gullible to any idea that makes them feel strong or impressive, because this way they can delude themselves and appear to have their cake and eat it.

**Remember when the SJWs openly screeched that Trump supporters wouldn’t sleep with them? It’s the witch with the poison apple, come on. It’s the only way they can corrupt and influence men, wasting their energy that could be put toward MAGA and other greatness.

Explaining shit like that.

There’s wasting time, then there’s a Margaret Thatcher colouring book.

Why do they think female rapists exist and the Bible says to avoid seductive women? Whether you think you want them or not, they’re sexual predators. Of course they’ll ruin your life if you let them, that’s what predators do! Stop encouraging them.

This post also clarifies this section of the Bible.

God made femininity and not to have something to shame or corrupt.

What about the white minstrels?

Yeah, aren’t racial stereotypes evil? Or could they be reasonable at times?

Such as…. when they’re true?

My issue with those is that they aren’t true/were never true/are deliberately inflammatory and personally insulting in a way you simply couldn’t get away with, with any other race.

What would be the term for this? Crackaninny? The American media stereotype of certain white people as weak, silly and abusive.

Note: yeah is the redneck form of Yes, you all sound like that abroad.

In spite of the fact Brits have better teeth on average than the modern American (sure, blame corn syrup), our celebrities are rarely anorexic or fat and rugby players don’t wear padding and cups, unlike the NFL sissies.

UN employs thousands of child rapists

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/report-finds-un-employs-3300-pedophiles-responsible-60000-rapes-worldwide/

I thought that was part of the interview?
The real interview where they take them to a distant place and “test” their resolve confronted with a helpless child.

https://www.rt.com/uk/318844-sex-abuse-testimonies-deleted/

Since they don’t believe in Hell, can we believe in a special place in a high-security prison in the frigid Atlantic ocean?

https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/imam-child-rape.html/

Sluts unhappy monogamously

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!

Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?

Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.

Pictured:

WAS THAT SO HARD???

Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.

I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.

“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”

Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!

Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.

Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.

If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?

Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?

This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.

Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.

Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.

It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.

So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?

Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?

“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”

Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.

It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.

Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?

“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”

Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?

“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”

So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?

“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”

aka normal
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!

Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!

It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”

Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.

as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”

Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.

Almost like monogamy evolved or something….

http://brembs.net/hamilton/

If only we had a parental unit investment formula…

“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”

Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.

Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?

If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.

Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.

Spirit guides, demonic intentions

Something that’s never been human has never been good.

I find it equally dodgy when Christians claim to be talking to angels. Said angels aren’t right in front of them, physically. How does that work?

This is why every Christian should be forced to read about demonology and yes I’m serious, otherwise it leaves them like a sitting duck. A gullible duck wearing a sign saying EAT ME.

Imagine going bird hunting and having no idea what a bird looks like or how it acts. How can you spot something to avoid it if you don’t know what it is?

If you look at the Satanic materials, they summon demons to help them with various tasks and the Solomonic keys describe this perfectly in many ways, by going into detail about what each demon helps with as a specialty. Every time you encounter one of these idiots playing with fire, they claim it cannot be evil because it helps them…. That’s the hook. They help a little while and slowly mislead and deceive and then you’re dependent. It’s evil genius. “Don’t trust something if you can’t see where it keeps its brain” is good advice, whatever Rowling intended.

Satanic books actually warn how tricksy these spirit guides are and how to potentially thwart them and what to never let them do. So by banning Christians from these materials, it’s like throwing a kid into a fire fight when he isn’t allowed a gun. My cynical side says this disarmament is deliberate.

People normally do all that channeling bullshit because they’re hoping something good is out there. Good things have no reason to contact humans. Energy vampires, a New Age term for how demons ‘feed’, live off humans as host and that’s without going into possession cases. Picture Borg.

Even if something good were to contact a human, the “cost” of help would be too heavy on the human, so a good thing would never agree to make the trade (so you cannot sell your soul to an angel).

Think of a human soul like an eternal energy generator and that’s the basic motivation of why a demon or Satan or whatever else in the spirit world would want it. Allegedly. It frees them up by giving them power, via slavery. That connection begins before death, causing the person to be weaker (parasited host) but feel stronger (a temporary ‘gift’ to make them useful conduits, moth to a flame charm brings in yet more victims), while to all the world, they don’t seem to age well or lose something you can’t put your finger on (if you lack discernment).

Humans later made spirits (such as those who sold themselves) don’t really remember their living years anyway because you’re theologically dead a lot, lot longer than you’re alive. Demons know this. Imagine if lending someone a dollar you found on the floor today (something they could get for themselves if they looked) guaranteed you a million dollars every day from tomorrow onward.

The only way to promote atheism and make people do these trades is by making them think the spirit is worthless – because it doesn’t exist. How to do that? Cut them off from the perception of it via hedonism. By being so fully in their body, called the base chakra for a reason, they become numb to spiritual matters and divine truth and conversely, all enlightened people shun hedonism for that reason, they know it pollutes their connections. They can try to be spiritual but a hedonist will only experience it secondhand, cheaply and misinterpreted (as the Ape of Thoth) and as materialism (virtue signalling). They’ll run around in circles following self-improvement fad after fad, bingeing and always hungry like the Asian concept of a hungry ghost, their spirit is empty. They die by self-destruction over years, bringing forward the worst parts of themselves. Self-corruption, truth be told.

Demons feed off the stress of this moral decay. Look into Lord Byron’s life and how he ruined everyone around him. Night Watch had a great scene where the subject of a curse was like a vortex of pain, it made me laugh because it’s true. If you even believe in luck and no gods, it’s true.

The vanity of diet, dress and exercise are the new ‘virtues’.

We live in the Vapid Epoch. People who think of looking good and being evil.

Unable to be openly religious, we observe the rituals with a hollowness bordering on parody, a final blasphemy. We fast and call it “good” but what is good? We may abstain from meat and call it cruel but think nothing of our daily cruelties against our fellow man, our pettiness and spite. We wear fine clothes on spirits of sackcloth. It’s a grandiose lie intended to deprive us of the most vital parts of ourselves and consequently, our lives.

How can people who mock the concept of evil’s reality be anything less?

Don’t let the Devil in with his sweet lies, all religions contain this essential truth.

Give the Devil one lever and he can lift the world. Shiny world, festering underbelly.

Mystical Christianity has a gnosis of its own, it isn’t witchcraft (it’s monotheistic FFS) and you don’t need ‘guides’ other than the Bible. Denial of these inherent elements of the religion will only cause well-intentioned if naive people to turn away and seek false versions like a golden calf.

I write this down, knowing it’ll be mocked by some, because it’s rarely written down, considered obvious by those who already know (such as myself). However there are newly awake people who wish to know like this man so… here.

This has been my candle on the matter, light yours to it or not.

I don’t give a damn. Your soul is your own damned business, chap.

It’s unusual how this is all starting to come out. All cases can’t be true but some cases are hard to deny.

The simplest test is to ask the psychic to view their guide and call on Jesus, with full conviction and while holding a Bible, to show its true face.

Where they’ve had the balls to do it, I’ve never known it go well for them.

Jesus is an enlightened spirit so this shouldn’t harm a positive guide in the same mould, right?

Can psychics be Christian? Prophecy is a gift in the Bible but they don’t need “guides”.

It’s also more of a sudden revelation and considered unpleasant as a spiritual fruit due to the content, which is seldom nice.

The people who try to summon angels are idiots. The point of life is to live and do the hard work yourself. Serving it up on a plate treats you like a child. They say where is my ship coming in and refuse to go to a port. You’ve got trials, pass more of them and you’ll see good results. It isn’t difficult to understand.

There’s your karma, by the way. It can block you and your connections or help you like a river flowing (you’ve seen Donnie Darko, right?)…

Generally, if you feel stuck, there’s something you’re still doing that’s really bad for you and future You can’t exist until you stop it. This is why therapy works as the basic principle. You need to shed the skin, call it Sin or Pain.

I don’t do the Youtube role model thing because I’d be a charismatic leader, I’d be bloody good at it and those are prone to corruption. Same reason I take no money, keeps me honest.