Scientism as ugliness

Empty, soulless man-made crap.

Where is the elegance?

The sophistication?

The form that isn’t functional!!!

Globalist culture is no culture.

If you want a scientist on the matter:

“If this does not appeal to you sufficiently to recognize in me a discoverer of principles, do me, at least, the justice of calling me an “inventor of some beautiful pieces of electrical apparatus.” – Nikola Tesla, 1907

The test of today

http://meetingthemasters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-test-of-today.html

Of course, even love of one’s neighbour is only observed theoretically and as a means of signalling that you are on the right side. Incidentally, I find that loving your distant neighbour is now used as an excuse to pay less attention to your near one, demonstrating that love has little to do with it and is just used as an excuse to dismantle traditional structures of truth and rob them of their spiritually protective qualities.

So modern liberal doctrines might have some truth in them but it is the truth of a counterfeit rather than the genuine article. Indeed liberalism is best seen as precisely that, a counterfeit of Christianity, a Christianity flattened out, secularised and brought down to this world. It was very probably specifically designed to replace the real thing by apparently retaining the good bits

superficially

superficial Christianity

but throwing out the superstitions. In fact, it does the very opposite and keeps the shell while discarding the nut.

BYO nut.

But then those who oppose liberal doctrines must take care that they do not fall into the extreme of denying these have any validity at all, even on a relative level. If you oppose liberalism, as you should, you must not let that push you into the opposite extreme.

Keep philia.

Remember there are two commandments, love God and love man. The latter must be seen in the light of the former but if you neglect the latter then you become almost as bad as those who neglect or deny God. This too is part of the test of today. Don’t let the lies of the enemy lead you into the over-reaction of rejecting the reality of the truth he presents in a deformed and corrupted state….

FYI

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/things-coming-to-point.html

there is now no excuse for being a Leftist, its falsity and its evil are there for all to see – in the foreground and in the background, in books and in our daily lives and face to face conversations.

Every single Left Wing prediction has failed. Count ’em.
Every. Single. One.

While a century, or two, ago the pretensions of atheism, materialism, radicalism, modernism etc. were superficially plausible – now they are not.

Assuming human beings have their eyes open.

Generally, I have found them to be walking around with both eyes shut.

They don’t want to see.

It would be inconvenient.

They might need to change and self-improve in real ways and actually give up things that are bad for them.

Not the January selfie model of self-improvement.

I’m considered very good-looking and even I think the selfie thing has gotten silly.

Another post: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/why-are-things-coming-to-point-now-in.html

This is a time when those on the side of Good should not fear: fear is the motivation of evil, not Good. Evil is afraid because it is ultimately unnatural – a web of lies – and must be sustained artificially by energy, effort, control…”

Love the truth and hate the Father of Lies. Now..

Someone help me down from this pulpit.

Seduction starts within marriage

http://www.yourtango.com/200941926/how-seduce-difficult-women

It’s short but the man speaks the truth.

It’s like being rich. Becoming rich is the easy part, staying rich is the kick.

If you care less after you’ve signed your life over, you shouldn’t have married them. When you stop trying, the marriage is over. A marriage is a dual effort.

Also, it handily points out the American mistake: it takes far more work to keep one woman happy forever than a number of cheaper ones for a few weeks at a time. The best seducers have the loyal marriages to the best wives.

Link: The Western Way of love

https://aeon.co/essays/russia-against-the-western-way-of-love

It’s lust or limerence. There is very little love in the West.

They consider people as interchangeable, nobody is special. Decisions are rationalized, they aren’t rational. Having a rotation of people isn’t a choice, it’s an addiction to the thrill of a new prospect. Narcissus going speed dating to get that high of being admired for the first time again and again and again. Using the other person AS a mirror.

This observation from Mann’s novella Death in Venice (1912) encapsulates a great cultural leap that occurred somewhere close to the beginning of the 20th century. Somehow, the Lover pushed the Beloved from the centre of attention.

Atomised units in a swirling cosmos.

The divine, unknowable and unreachable Other is no longer the subject of our love stories. Instead, we are interested in the Self, with all its childhood traumas, erotic dreams and idiosyncrasies. Examining and protecting this fragile Self [DS: ???] by teaching it to pick its affections properly is the main project of the Regime of Choice – a project brought to fruition using a popularised version of psychotherapeutic knowledge.

Navel-gazing bullshit.

Rieff describes him as ‘anti-heroic, shrewd, carefully counting his satisfactions and dissatisfactions, studying unprofitable commitments as the sins most to be avoided’.

That isn’t love, that’s work. Hedonic profit. You can’t be a Scrooge with real love.

The psychological man is a romantic technocrat who believes that the application of the right tools at the right time can straighten out the tangled nature of our emotions.

Men have never been the romantic sex. Their revulsion for courtly love, their open contempt for romance alone (no sex), demonstrates this better than their appeal to their own vanity as if it’s something possessive (henceforth the best Romantic heroes were written by women and popularized by them). To this day, romance is still considered a Female Genre!

Video: What is the most important thing in life?

There is scientific basis for this.

http://www.iev.si/european-ethics-and-values-framework-eevvf/

You must decide. Everyone has a hierarchy of values, a values system, but the order we rank differs.

Closely related, people may have hit this page based on the question:

What is the most important thing in a woman, man or husband/wife?

The most important trait in a spouse? Perfection.
It’s always that one thing.

 

 

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.

Love/hate “drama” and the romance lovemap

I’m in a pub mood. Story time.

Disclaimer: This is about bringing together a lot of ideas in a correct way, instead of the misconceptions from multiple angles that wear blinkers and assume the tip of the iceberg is the whole thing. It’s difficult for me to put into words because I’ve never had to explain it before, so bear with me.

Common observations;

  • Why do women love “drama”? (Not a modern thing).
  • Why do women prefer so-called love-hate relationships to just… love?
  • Why aren’t they happy in an easy relationship? (n.b. This is often called hypergamy by the manosphere. This is wrong. The man isn’t actually anywhere near the centre of that problem, let alone a conveyor belt of them).
  • Finally, why do feminists and other moody women choose inferior status men only to blame the men for their later irritation?

There is a connection.

The concept of a lovemap was invented by a paedophile sexologist but it’s somewhat accurate, he simply gave it a name. A better way to think of it is as a set collection of impressions and beliefs regarding sex and the courting of the sexes similar to a schema. Everything from fairytales, to comic books, to the Bible, to family stories, urban legends, town gossip and so on. A big puddle of information related to the topic, from a genetic perspective this is priority #1, hence the strength of this lovemap/template/schemata.

The most valuable resource on this topic is the written projection of the Female Lovemap General onto paper, billions of times over. I’m referring, of course, to romance novels. Consider the almost monomythic similiarity between these stories. That’s the Romance Lovemap of Women. There is no choice, all women are aware and affected by it to some extent. There is a probably a parallel for men too. I dunno about that.

What does this schema call for?

In essence, a submissive beautiful woman clashes with dominant noble man.
(n.b. This is not “tingles” or other infantile descriptions of lust by the manosphere that make women cringe in disgust, it would be like calling male lust the Flow for the blood movement; this is a purely psychological phenomena of attraction which is sexual, but only to the extent that it requires both the sexes, one man and one woman, it has nothing to do with sexual congress per se).
The course of true love and all that jazz (Shakespeare merely noticed this).

By being submissive, the woman conquers the strong man in a way even other men cannot. This is how women win. Feminine wiles and control from the King’s ear. Various stories aimed at men are based on warning them about the potential for this, it’s likely part of their Lovemap and the moral of the story is in choosing a (non-crazy, good) woman who will at least guide you in a prosperous direction for you both (behind every good man…).
It isn’t twisted logic that you may be strong by being ostensibly weak when you realize the sexes are unequal but complimentary. It reminds me of a passage of Taoism, by Laozi naturally;

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because there is nothing that can take its place.

The manosphere, and MGTOW especially, would do well to meditate on this symbol on a daily basis.

Women are not the enemy. Modernity is.
No man would exist without a woman to birth him.

I digress.

What explains the above examples of seemingly irrational behaviour? (Irrational if you are a simple man who prefers to look for the easiest possible solution to feel better about himself instead of the correct one).
Their lovemap is being damaged. Something has gone wrong. Just like women nag a man to do a DIY project they’ve left for weeks with increasing irritation, as the man isn’t pulling his weight on the gender scales, this becomes a central issue in their mind long-term.

[Also yes, that’s why. Women keep the nest and men guard it in one piece. When pieces start breaking it becomes their job but happens to be on our primary territory.]

How does this hypothesis match up, case by case?

well doctor

*deep intake of breath*

  • In romance novels, there is always an external social conflict in the plot i.e. “I want to be with you! -We can’t!” *swoon* This is usually family, protective fathers and clucky mothers, but may be as generic as a disparity in social class or later on, an occupational hierarchy. This introduces an element of taboo common to most relationships however innocent between the sexes before there was even a word for social mobility. Hence you get the same pattern repeating in literally all the bloody stories: humble girl/aristocrat, good girl/rebel (n.b. not for his damaging behaviours or Dark Triad psyche, but the taboo of socialization with him whatsoever), Teacher/Student and recently, Rich Man/Secretary Underling. The difference in social power adds a certain spice. When the gap is broached, and they overcome the difference, the attraction fizzles like a firework in April.
  • Love/hate relationships are tricky because it’s often a synonym for entirely different emotions and women certainly feel multiple emotions simultaneously in love (it isn’t crazy, it’s processing) so we give it the first relevant-ish word that pops into our head. Essentially we’re discussing the balance between positive and negative emotions. Every healthy relationship, platonic to sexual, has both, because needs are being met or unmet and desires exchanged and negotiated. A woman expects to play the role of woman deep in the subconscious, and this is largely Second in Command barring Special Conditions. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s like sitting with the popular kids at school, a kind of halo effect making you feel wanted and crucially, needed, which means you are worthy to be in the social proximity to this person, who needs and wants your company in turn. (Women compete socially, men compete sexually). A man who solely inspires lovey-dovies is going to make us pause and think Is he gay or something? [another topic of concern] Since we all know men like the chase more than the actual capture. If it’s too easy, there must be a bad reason, and we aren’t going to like it. He’s cheating behind your back and being sweet to keep the guilt at bay is among the most common, we’re totally out of his league and he tricked us into undervaluing ourselves is the runner-up. Others includes He’s totally fake and I fell for it, He doesn’t have a personality what am I doing and the ever-reliable He wants something I don’t care to give and he’s buttering me up as emotional blackmail. I believe this sense of “everything is easy, too easy” is part of supposed Woman’s Intuition. Since when did the course of true love run smooth? Therefore, it’s highly logical on our part to deduce that – It’s going smoothly – with, -It’s going to go wrong – or, – Something is wrong here. That’s totally rational.
  • The “easy” question somewhat relates to the point above with a difference. Few relationships today are marriages, and the only true relationship statuses, as men secretly know in their hearts, are single and married. That’s all folks. Marriages bring in clear responsibilities and duties which many modern nancyboys are allergic to (inc. the DIY). Replace easy with lazy and it’s obvious the problem resides in the unmet needs of a woman who may not be able to vocalize the problem or be heard on the issue, who also senses the man is phoning it in i.e. he communicates she is no longer worthy and the path to commitment she believed she had been building up is revealed to be yet another cruel trick. It’s like the female experience of a pricktease, it’s hard not to hate the entire sex for a while after it occurs. Every relationship has exchange requirements to be met, needs to be fulfilled and simply, both parties need to pull their weight or there is no relationship. Notice how the manosphere never mentions lazy husbands? Yet the mystery of female-instigated divorce goes unsolved…
    Obligations don’t end at the altar, they begin there. 
  • The last example is a basic transgression of the lovemap. The type of boy who will allow himself to be browbeaten by such a useless harpy is essentially the double negative image and type of the Lovemap template. In any other society in history he’d die without touching a boob, he isn’t a fit mate to any woman. You see, they, the feminist, consciously believed they could switch out the roles and take the (apparently) bigger and “better” one, because men and women are the same, right? /sarc Eventually, this schema truth from the lovemap rises and stirs from the slumber of the subconscious, shaking the woman out of the temporary thrill of being “boss”. It grows with each demonstration of the reverse expectation in the male chosen, from his behaviour, to his manner and his dress. She knows deep down she bought a lemon. She begins to doubt him because naturally, feminists never correct themselves on anything. This spirals into a deep resentment until the relationship fails or she checks out mentally to preserve her ego. The ‘men’ go along with this because they know it’s the only way they’ll get laid, subconsciously they know they are an unfit male, probably in total contradiction to any male Lovemap, and that’s how male feminists are born.

A simple introduction but I hope you will permit me to end it there for now.
I’m sure you can apply these concepts to your own observations.

friendly happy nice smile relaxed pretty