Bear in mind, Jung bitterly referred to Freud’s work as “Jewish Psychology” after he left, because Freud generalised the problems of Jews (or normalised their pathologies) to all of humanity, falsely.
He was fundamentally intellectually dishonest, that is why a surgeon claimed to be the first psychiatrist.
Like, the aggression/low IQ link is somewhat known, but the circumcision/violent crime (especially rape) connection is almost unheard of….
What do the groups otherwise have in common?
This reads like something about Muslim slavers (sex slavery).
“the dismal history of how far too many of those cases have been assiduously concealed both from the public and from the police: how influential rabbis and community leaders have sided with the alleged abusers against their victims; how victims and witnesses of sexual abuse have been pressured, even threatened, not to turn to secular law enforcement for help; how autonomous Jewish ‘patrols,’ displacing the role of official police in some large and heavily religious Jewish neighbourhoods, have played an inglorious part in the history of cover-ups; … how some Jewish communities have even succeeded in manipulating law enforcement officials to protect suspected abusers.”
The likes of Kinsey were also frauds, previously covered and connected to sadistic pedophilia.
S&M used to be a pathology (as per Psychopathia Sexualis) but their ilk normalised it with postmodernism as an eccentric paraphilia. That isn’t strictly true, a paraphilia refers to objects and enjoying pain of others doesn’t meet the standard. They’ve also blocked “sexual sadist” and “sadistic personality” from entering the DSM (which would make it legally actionable) despite how Marquis de Sade types (read about his crimes) prevail in the modern day and forensic jurisprudence is powerless to label them.
The story has been told by Jeffrey Masson in The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory (1984). In 1895 and 1896, Freud, listening to his neurotic and hysterical patients, became convinced that most of them had suffered from traumatic sexual abuse in their childhood. The traumatic origin of “hysteria” (an overused diagnosis in those days) had already been discussed by neurologists, including Jean-Martin Charcot, whose conferences Freud had attended in Paris, and Hermann Oppenheim, who published in Berlin in 1889 a treatise on traumatic neuroses. Yet psychological traumas of sexual nature were rarely discussed openly. On the other hand, there were medical publications, known to Freud, documenting the frequency of violence on children, including sexual assaults, but they focused on the physical consequences. In April 1896, confident to have made a major breakthrough in psychiatry, Freud presented his findings to the Society for Psychiatry and Neurology in Vienna, his first major public address to his peers. His lecture met with total silence. According to Masson, Freud was urged never to publish it, lest his reputation be damaged beyond repair. He found himself isolated, but nevertheless published his paper, “The Aetiology of hysteria.”
Of course he did.
Freud wasn’t even the father of psychology, as is often claimed, it was the gentile Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, a brilliant man.
He was conducting laboratory experiments into behavioural science (empirical) while Freud was a child.
Explain that, small hats.
Jewish “doctors” also told white women of the time they were oppressed by their husbands (especially since some men in those days were circumcised by concerned “doctors” and thus, dissatisfying to their wives – see below) and further, they were told they were too ‘frigid’ to be adulterers or fornicating whores and must remedy this aversion to promiscuity for their very sanity. That rhetoric continues to this day.
The Freemason and con artist quack salesman Holloway built a women’s college for the procurement of fresh meat and also an asylum for women who talked about all the Satanic abuse they suffered at the hands of powerful men, because that isn’t weird at all… then his wife suddenly died under suspicious circumstances and the building has known tunnels to places unknown… as well as a roof nobody is allowed to see on the tour. I’m sure they do nothing dodgy... but there’s a lot of Freemason symbology on the FRENCH styled castle if you go on the tour.
But the 1960s were seeded about half a century before, have no doubt.
If we take hysteria as a legitimate amygdala response to trauma, it cannot be definitively female, since plenty of boys are targeted by pedophiles (most pedos are male seeking male victims). Still, they toy with our language.
Some of Freud’s work is interesting e.g. inversion (cycle of abuse, projection) but don’t think for one minute he lacked motives.
It’s funny to watch Frasier and spot all the jokes in two categories: anti-white and childhood trauma.
It’s 90% of the show.
They’re really touchy if you point out no woman wants a man with a mutilated manhood:
“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin . Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”
“The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men  suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying .”
“”Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus…. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”
They’ve been trying to destroy Christian marriages the same way their mothers destroyed theirs.
Circumcised men (partial castrati, technically) are impotent, the data’s in the link.
From top link:
Among other remarks, he suggests that children who aggress sexually other children do so as a result of having been sexually abused themselves: “children cannot find their way to acts of sexual aggression unless they have been seduced previously.”
True observation but…. how did he know?
Using Hollywood to spin seduction from predatory to complimentary lead to the pedophilia of various “rock stars” and actors. You can’t prove a negative. It blames the victim, gentile or child.
From the standpoint of Freud’s earlier theory—which he euphemistically called the “seduction theory”—his new theory of spontaneous infantile sexual fantasies can be seen as a projection, not unlike sex offenders’ tendency to blame their victims: the patients themselves are now accused of both sexual passion and murderous fantasies toward their parents. By repressing these self-generated impulses, says Freudian orthodoxy, they have created their own neuroses which may, in hysterics, take the forms of false memories of abuse.
“look what you made me do, sexy person” …savages
Sandor Ferenczi wrote in his diary in July 1932 that the Oedipus complex could well be “the result of real acts on the part of adults, namely violent passions directed toward the child, who then develops a fixation, not from desire [as Freud maintained], but from fear. ‘
Passion is a bad thing, whatever the publicity for the word. Read the Bible for more.
The First World has always rejected the excuse of “feels” for being bestial in sexual conduct. Jesus himself blames the lecher, lechery is a sin – existing in the vicinity of one is not.
Recently, a mother was shamed for not putting a bikini top on her child. …Why? What if a pedophile pinned her down, that’s still on the predator! Even if we did cordone off all attractive women and girls, the creeps would seek them out still. The r-solution is always protecting themselves from the responsibility for their own feels and acts.
His paper contains a number of important ideas confirmed by later research, such as the victims’ psychological “identification with the aggressor,” or “introjection”: “the aggressor disappears as external reality and becomes intrapsychic instead of extrapsychic,” so that even the guilt feelings of the aggressor are introjected. Ferenczi hypothesized that helplessness causes the victim to empathize with the aggressor, a process today known as “Stockholm syndrome”.
Why pedophiles claim their victims ‘love’ them.
Like serial killers who claim multiple women “made them” angry because they’re too weak to impulse control, so too is the sexual deviant and serial rapist (most acts of rape are re-offences by the same parties, SJWs dread mentioning this fact for fear we might not infantilise the predator and might not want them out in society after ‘rehab’, their deviant form of buying forgiveness from the church).
“Extreme adversity, especially fear of death,” may also trigger a premature development, for which Ferenczi uses the metaphor of “a fruit that ripens or becomes sweet prematurely when injured by the beak of a bird, or of the premature ripening of wormy fruit. Shock can cause a part of the person to mature suddenly, not only emotionally but intellectually as well.”
R-selection, deliberately depriving their future competition.
Creeps breed by predation, the young are just the softest prey. Most naive.
They actually never complete mental maturation, when the body skips ahead. Hinted here:
Such traumatic maturation happens at the expense of psychological integration, and Ferenczi brings in the notion of a personality split: “there can be no shock, no fright, without traces of a personality split.” In his personal diary, reflecting on a patient who cannot remember having been raped, but dreams of it ceaselessly, Ferenczi writes:
“I know from other analyses that a part of our being can ‘die’ and while the remaining part of our self may survive the trauma, it awakens with a gap in its memory. Actually it is a gap in the personality, because not only is the memory of the struggle-to-the-death effaced, but all other associatively linked memories disappear… perhaps forever.”
multiplicity, occurs in all people, rarely pathological
also why psychopaths are “nice” and oddly blank, like Bundy – to fit in better
still no excuse to commit offences, it doesn’t absolve the predator of criminal responsibility (the purpose of infantilisation)
actually, isn’t it funny offences went from rape and murder to saying certain words or ideas?
Pathological dissociation is a little different but various drugs pushed by the postmodern academics (most notably weed) produce dissociation on purpose then wonder why schizophrenia and brain retardation in development occurs during the critical windows.
….Secondly, and more importantly, why was Freud’s theory so successful, despite being long proven scientifically flawed, and its therapeutic value baseless?
They have an unspoken rule:
If it enables pedophiles, they keep it.
I’ve heard them discuss how we “cannot marginalise these groups” by “conforming to archaic notions of stigma”.
So stigma seems to be a keyword.
As if child abuse victims suffer no injury.
Well, the same sniff test passed with whores via the libertarian shitstains ignoring drug abuse, mental illness and suicide rates, so why wouldn’t they try it on?
They go after women first, then girls and boys, then finally the men too weak to stand up any of the other times. This is their MO, again and again.
First it’s “let your daughter strip”, then “let your grand-daughter ‘date’ age 12, by the way she’s on the Pill” and then “let your son be a drag dancer” and finally “by the way, we won’t let your grandson hit puberty because he glanced at a Barbie once”. The men who allow all those moral violations along the way and enable evil because they like the idea of brothels and porn are a pox on decency.
They don’t deserve to live in a First World society.
Most SJWs would cease to exist if men stood up to the moral rot at the ‘stripper’ stage. A lot of them secretly crave the old bans back on obscenity too, haven’t you noticed? They have a false moral consciousness. Hence their constant hand-flailing appeal for white men to “do something”.
We all know what.
Additional insight has been supplied by two books published almost simultaneously (1979), one in French and one in German, both translated in English in 1982: Marie Balmary, Freud and the Hidden Fault of the Father, and Marianne Krüll, Freud and His Father. Both draw extensively from Freud’s letters to Fliess, which document how Freud was led to his theoretical about-face by his introspective self-analysis. Balmary and Krüll point out that Freud undertook this self-analysis just after the death of his father Jacob. On November 2, 1896, ten days after his father’s death, Freud wrote to Fliess about a dream he had the night before the funeral, in which appeared a sign saying, “You are requested to close the eyes,” which he interpreted as referring to “one’s duty to the dead.” Yet on February 11, 1897, after mentioning that forced oral sex on children can result in neurotic symptoms, he adds: “Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother (all of whose symptoms are identifications) and those of several younger sisters. The frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder.” The following summer, he went through a depressive episode, and wrote on July 7: “I still do not know what has been happening to me. Something from the deepest depths of my own neurosis set itself against any advance in the understanding of the neuroses, and you have somehow been involved in it.” Soon after, September 21, he announced to his friend: “I want to confide in you immediately the great secret that has been slowly dawning on me in the last few months. I no longer believe in my neurotica [his seduction theory].” He gave as one explanation, “the surprise that in all cases, the father, not excluding my own, had to be accused of being perverse.” In the next letter, October 3, he wrote confidently that in the case of his own neurosis, “the old man plays no active part.” Finally, October 15, he referred to the Oedipus story:
“A single idea of general value dawned on me. I have found, in my own case too, [the phenomenon of] being in love with my mother and jealous of my father, and I now consider it a universal event in early childhood.”
Narcissists assume everyone is like them, nobody may experience life differently (key to critical theory) and the Jewish temperament never ceases to amaze with its grandiosity.
As always, it starts with a deadbeat.
Balmary and Krüll bring in the equation a recent biographical discovery of Jacob Freud’s less than perfect behavior; a forgotten second wife named Rebecca, who mysteriously disappears, possibly by suicide, at the time of Jacob’s marriage with his third wife, the beautiful Amelia Nathansohn, half his age and already pregnant of Sigmund (a fact Jacob tried to conceal by falsifying Sigmund’s date of birth). In light of post-Freudian developments in transgenerational depth-psychology, it is possible that Freud had from early age an intuitive sense of a “hidden fault of the father” linked to his own identity, which may have combined with memories of his father’s sexual abuse on himself and his brother and sisters.
The only true pansexual is, like the rapist god Pan, a pedophile.
During his self-analysis at the age of 40, the whole thing came knocking at the door of his consciousness, but he finally surrendered to the subconscious imperative to “close the eyes.” To cover-up the menacing truth of his father’s faults, Freud invented the Oedipus complex, charging children themselves of “polymorphous perversion.”
“What was the girl in Rotherham wearing?”
Classic predator behaviour.
Chastise people in the First World for being free, especially if white.
Thus, in the complete myth, Oedipus’ predestination to kill his father and marry his mother is not determined by his own impulses, but by the fault of his father. For Balmary, Freud’s ignorance of this part of the myth reveals and symbolizes his own blind spot, his failure to discover the secret guilt of the father—both his own father and, by consequence, the fathers of his neurotic and hysterical patients.
Neither Masson not Balmary deal with the Jewish aspect of the issue. Marianne Krüll hints that the father’s mandate to “close the eyes” was a question of “filial piety on which, ultimately, the entire Jewish tradition is based” (Krüll, p. 178), but, although Jewish herself, she does not insist on that aspect.
An aspect of all shitty societies – Chinese oppression, Muslim abuse, Jewish abuse….
How about don’t be a shithead to your kids? How about that?
In other words, comments Cuddihy, Freud “proposes a theory to explain the play’s power over him and to make ‘intelligible’ why he should identify so deeply with its hero, Oedipus. It is in the course of that effort that the core of the theory of psychoanalysis is born.”
Rationalization. Absolute bullshit dressed up in fancy words.
Americans continue this tradition to this day and your replication suffers because of it.
bears an uncanny resemblance with another story that had made a lasting impression on Freud a few years earlier, as he explained in The Interpretation of Dreams. This is a story that his father, a shtetl Jew from Moravia—where Sigmund was born—, had told him when he was ten or twelve years old,
“to show how much better things were now than they had been in his days. ‘When I was a young man,’ he said, ‘I went for a walk one Saturday in the streets of your birthplace; I was well dressed, and had a new cap on my head. A Christian came up to me and with a single blow knocked off my cap into the mud and shouted: ‘Jew! get off the pavement!’ ‘And what did you do?’ I asked. ‘I went into the roadway and picked up my cap,’ was his quiet reply. This struck me as unheroic conduct on the part of the big, strong man who was holding the little boy by the hand.
Bluffing is huge.
Glibness of a psychopath, call it what you will.
“Freud presumably experienced not only this rage and shame, but guilt about the rage and shame. He quickly ‘censored’ these unacceptable feelings, unacceptable to a dutiful son ostensibly proud of his father; he ‘repressed’ them. Years later he encounters Sophocles’ tragedy and it lays a spell on him.”
According to Cuddihy, the supposedly universal “Oedipus Complex” that Freud thought he discovered was in reality the veil of a characteristically Jewish complex of his time.
..we can appreciate how Cuddihy draws attention to the fact that Freud’s father—the father whom he felt compelled to exculpate, but toward whom he nevertheless experienced a murder wish—was a Jewish father recently immigrated from Yiddishland into the heart of European civilization.
And so the gamma self-destruction takes down the locals.
Most “psychoanalysis” is just bitchy stuff a gamma would come up with.
Literally “your mom” tier. Gaslighting a whole society.
Pathologizing the enemy like Communism did later….
In the preface for the Hebrew translation of Totem and Taboo, for example, asking himself rhetorically what is Jewish in his work, Freud answered: “a very great deal, and probably its very essence.” In a speech prepared for delivery at the B’nai B’rith Lodge in Vienna in 1926, Freud explained his motivation for joining thirty years earlier (1897):
“Whenever I have experienced feelings of national exaltation, I have tried to suppress them as disastrous and unfair, frightened by the warning example of those nations among which we Jews live.
integration is a myth yo
it’s fake news
But there remained enough to make the attraction of Judaism and the Jews irresistible, many dark emotional powers all the stronger the less they could be expressed in words, as well as the clear consciousness of an inner identity, the familiarity of the same psychological structure. … So I became one of you.”
birds of a feather
This statement is an excellent illustration of what Cuddihy calls “the ordeal of civility,” the struggle of every Jew who wishes to assimilate yet feels unable to overcome the “dark emotional powers” of his ancestral Jewishness, with its implicit imperative not to assimilate. Jewishness has much to do with what Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy calls those “invisible loyalties” that can bind a person to his ancestors, by an irresistible system of values, obligations and debts. The question is to what extent Freud’s psychoanalytical theory is the result of Freud’s surrender to those “dark emotional powers.”
We must take Freud seriously when he tells us, in The Interpretation of Dreams, that his own Jewishness took the form of an identification with Hannibal, and the fantasy of “taking vengeance on the Romans.” He went on to say:
“I myself had walked in Hannibal’s footsteps … Hannibal, with whom I had achieved this point of similarity, had been my favourite hero during my years at the Gymnasium; … Moreover, when I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging to an alien race, and was forced by the anti-Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand, the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized, in my youthful eyes, the struggle between the tenacity of the Jews and the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our emotional life which the anti-Semitic movement has since assumed helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those earlier days. Thus the desire to go to Rome has in my dream-life become the mask and symbol for a number of warmly cherished wishes, for whose realization one had to work with the tenacity and single-mindedness of the Punic general, though their fulfillment at times seemed as remote as Hannibal’s life-long wish to enter Rome.”
The significance of this public confession, printed in 1899 for all the world to read, cannot be overestimated. Here Freud names as the driving force in his life the fantasy of entering Rome (the Christian world) and destroying it to avenge the Phoenicians (the Jews).
Wait, weren’t the Phoenicians practicing Satanic orgies, child rape and cannibalism?
It was a Babylon mystery cult, wasn’t it? There were so many it’s hard to keep up.
God destroys it over and over for a reason!
If Freud was deeply influenced by his Jewish background, so were the other founding members of the psychoanalytical movement. Dennis Klein writes in Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement:
“From its beginning in 1902 to 1906, all 17 members were Jewish. The full significance of this number lies again in the way their viewed themselves, for the analysts were aware of their Jewishness and frequently maintained a sense of Jewish purpose and solidarity. … this feeling of positive Jewish pride formed the matrix of the movement in the psychoanalytic circle: As a spur to renewed independence, it tightened the bond among the members and powered their self-image of a redemptive elite.”
The exception is Carl Jung, whom Freud named president of the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1910 precisely to deflect the reproach that psychoanalysis was a “Jewish science.” Interestingly, Jung is the only member who never subscribed to Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality. In response to a letter by Karl Abraham, who complained that “Jung seems to be reverting to his former spiritualistic inclinations,” Freud explained : “it is really easier for you than it is for Jung to follow my ideas, for … you stand nearer to my intellectual constitution because of racial kinship (Rassenverwandtschaft).” Freud asked Abraham not to antagonize Jung because “it was only by his appearance on the scene that psychoanalysis escaped the danger of becoming a Jewish national affair.”
In contrast to Jung, Abraham was the most zealot supporter of Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality. In The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, 1919, Freud wrote that, “The last word in the question of traumatic etiology was later on said by Abraham, when he drew attention to the fact that just the peculiar nature of the child’s sexual constitution enables it to provoke sexual experiences of a peculiar kind, that is to say, traumas” (self-inflicted traumas, so to speak). Freud was referring to a 1907 paper by Abraham, “The Experiencing of Sexual Trauma as a Form of Sexual Activity.” It is perhaps significant that Abraham, son of an Orthodox rabbi, was also the most ethnocentric of Freud’s disciples. He wrote in 1913 an essay “On Neurotic Exogamy,” diagnosing Jewish men who say they “could never marry a Jewess” with a neurosis resulting from “disappointed incestuous love.”
In the 1890s, Freud’s clientele was drawn exclusively from the Jewish middle class. Imagine if Freud’s seduction theory had earned him the recognition he craved for: although he disguised the identity of his patients in his case studies, it would not have been long before his work was attacked, not just as “Jewish science,” but as evidence of the depravity of Jewish mores.
But then Hollywood/porn/brothels proved everybody wrong!
. Anything contradicting this superiority creates a cognitive dissonance which is overcome by denial.
superiority complex, like the guys who go on and on and on about how ‘stupid’ women are… but not so stupid as to be tricked into going out with them, interestingly…
Denial means projection: to protect the dirty secret of child abuse in Jewish families—including his own—, Freud projected an imaginary repressed infantile perversion on all mankind. Projection, in turn, means inversion: Freud’s close disciple Otto Rank claimed that Jews had a more primitive, and therefore more healthy sexuality than Gentiles (Rank, “The Essence of Judaism,” 1905). Freudians and Freudo-Marxists have systematically denounced Christian civilization as suffering from sexual repression.
Women who don’t want to be sluts and love their husband are “frigid”, a type of sexual insanity according to Jews.
It just so happens those therapists wanted to bone them.
According to Wilhelm Reich, anti-Semitism is itself a symptom of sexual frustration, and could be cured by sexual liberation (The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1934)—an improvement from Leo Pinsker’s theory that Judeophobia was a “hereditary” and “incurable” “disease transmitted for two thousand years.”
“We’re all equal but you can’t question us”.
Pull the other one.
In order to understand the psychological background of this Reichian messianic mission to cure the Christian West, and in order to see more clearly the projective nature of the psychoanalytical theory of repression, it is helpful to know the personal story of Wilhelm Reich, which reads as a caricature of Freud’s: At ten years old, when he realized that his mother was having an affair with his tutor, the young Wilhelm thought of blackmailing his mother into having sex with him. Eventually, he confided in his father about his mother’s adultery. In 1910, after a period of beatings from his father, his mother committed suicide, for which Reich blamed himself.
Well… yeah. You can see why they hate Darwin to this day and all theories that extend from it, including Trivers parental investment (a purely K-theory).
Faithful fathers are biologically more successful, mathematically. It’s been proven.
The “spread your wild oats” bullshit is Jewish, similar to the ‘frigid’ rhetoric, as is the “quantity over quality” fallacy applied to men who deadbeat their children (note the Jews themselves do not do this?). It’s been debunked.
Child psychology has also shown since the outcomes of abandoned children to be poorer across the board (physically, mentally, financially) so anyone pushing that “men are supposed to be slutty” bullshit is either stupid or certainly thinks you are.
It’s literally bullshit peddled by Victorian Jews to seduce Christian wives.
And naturally, they cannot appeal to Darwin on the subject of sterile sex, it’s a false equivalence, they’re not having real sex (reproductive) and manwhores are functionally homosexual.
Nobody tells them this but it’s known. Well accepted.
They have the same disease risks, fertility issues, impotence performance, porn addiction and everything.
Well, the circumcision link goes into some of it.
“Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function”
They can’t even really get it up, perform and keep it up to satisfy women. They don’t even like adult, round breasts, small waists proportionately (not athletic or anorexic), with broad hips and pubic hair that make nubile women, nubile. Secondary sexual characteristics dictate sexuality, and with it fertility.
The r-select category is not hetero-specific, they’re on that half of the spectrum. It’s a series of acts and vices, including a preference for only sterile sex. Arguably, such men are functionally virgins. They’ve never engaged in the reproductive act with a fertile female human. Only chemical crones. Which they expect all women to be, or become repulsed by those women. Functionally homosexual.
The Jewish and Muslim obsession with anal is explained:
The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.
And who in society has the tightest arsehole?
Evil people have reasons.
Ancient societies only celebrated a figure like Zeus because all his coitus was fruitful. That’s what made it divine instead of a sin.
Notice nobody dared boff Hera?
And nobody just did oral (or ANY oral) with him, he practiced ‘anal’ on nobody. Those were considered immoral by the king of the pantheon of PAGAN gods, yet how many fake pagans push those things as pagan? How many creepy gay rapists in particular?
The things we’re desensitized to now, post-WW2, would’ve horrified actual pagans.
His responsibility was to reproduce, it had F-all to do with orgasm. The psychiatrists lie.
It wasn’t even about him and neither the ‘sex’ (so sometimes rape) but about being the Patriarch, the Father, the genetic legacy.
Hence the expression “the embrace of a God is always fruitful”.
’embrace’ meant carnal knowledge
and why Aphrodite was considered a virgin goddess, since she had zero children
how could the inspiration of the concept lust act upon herself?
she can’t embrace herself, and everyone else was fruitful
that was her sacrifice, having no children of her own but inspiring others in a time when few humans were around
within Jewish thinking, saving the nations and destroying them are not two sides of the same coin, but one and the same, because what nations are supposed to be cured of is their very identity (their gods, in biblical terms). According to Andrew Heinze, author of Jews and the American Soul, Jews have shaped “American ideas about the mind and soul” with the preoccupation “to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization.” It really started with Freud. In September 1909, invited to give a series of lectures in New England, Freud jokingly asked his companions, Sandor Ferenczi and Carl Jung: “Don‘t they know we’re bringing them the plague?” An extraordinary statement for a medical doctor pretending to have found a “cure” for neurosis. And a prophetic one: Freudism became a justification for a sexual “liberation” that can be seen in retrospect as a massive sexual abuse of the youth.
Kinsey picked it up.
That man is possessed.
You cannot convince me otherwise.
By a stunning coincidence, Freud was initiated into the recently founded B’nai B’rith in September 1897, precisely the time of his conversion to the dogma of infantile sexuality.
..He recruited at least three members and in 1901 was a founding father of a second lodge in Vienna, the Harmony Lodge. The same year, he gave a talk on “Goals and Purposes of the B’nai B’rith Societies.” Freud often presented his work to the B’nai B’rith before publishing it. In this respect, writes Klein, the Viennese B’nai B’rith lodge “was a precursor of the movement of psychoanalysis.” “After his death in 1939, the B’nai B’rith of Vienna continued, relentlessly, the support granted during his lifetime to the famous ‘brother.’”
To what extent were the B’nai B’rith masonic meetings influential in Freud’s swing from the seduction theory to the Oedipus theory? No one can say. However, we can hold as fairly certain that Freud’s membership in the B’nai B’rith was influential in his becoming one of the major intellectual stars and gurus of modernity.
It could easily be argued that, in matters of psychology, every sensible thing that Freud said had been said before him, and that almost everything he said that hadn’t been said before has been proven wrong.
A Jewish plagiarist, why repeat yourself?
So why did Freud become so famous? The long answer is that Freud benefitted from the same kind of communication networking that produced many other Jewish intellectual “geniuses”, and made French novelist André Gide comment in 1914 (in his diary) about “this tendency to constantly emphasize the Jew, … this predisposition to recognizing in him talent, even genius” The shorter answer to the question above is: B’nai B’rith. I will not suggest that the B’nai B’rith supported Freud’s Oedipus theory because they saw its potential for the moral corruption of the West. Nor do I suggest that the B’nai B’rith and Freud conspired to ruin Western civilization with the pestilential idea of infantile sexuality. But I do suggest that, had Freud maintained his earlier conviction in the reality of the abuses suffered by his Jewish patients, he would not have received as much support.
Muh superior IQ, just don’t remove the verbal section we added and never ever control for class and education!
In 1913, the B’nai B’rith created the Anti-Defamation League to save the life and the reputation of Leo Frank, the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, who was convicted of the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, a thirteen-year-old girl working in his pencil factory. The evidence for Frank’s guilt was overwhelming, but tremendous financial resources were deployed for his legal defense—including false testimonies—and an intense publicity was orchestrated in the news media, with the New York Times devoting enormous coverage to the case. I quote from Ron Unz’s article:
“For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system. … All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the legal partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. … A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.”
Lynch mobs don’t form for nothing.
If the courts are corrupt, mob justice prevails.
Thanks to the mobilization of the Jewish power elite—“as one man”—, Leo Frank has been turned from a convicted pedophile and child murderer into a martyr of anti-Semitism. We don’t know what Freud thought of the case, but there is an obvious resonance between his “assault on truth” and the B’nai B’rith’s. If young Mary Phagan had visited a Freudian psychoanalyst before her atrocious death, and complained of her boss’ sexual overtures, she probably would have been told about her own “penis envy”; had she protested, she would have been told that her protest proved her sexual repression—exactly as happened to Freud’s patient Dora, Ida Bauer by her real name, an eighteen-year-old girl suffering from hysterical symptoms.
“She really wanted it” – Jewish creeps from Freud to Weinstein.
“She secretly wanted it” – Jewish psychoanalysis and rapists everywhere.
I’ve never met a woman who’d part with her clitoris for any sum of money, but I’ve met plenty of men who expressed envy of them and their nerve density, who’d happily trade their penis. Especially if they know about the possibility of multiple orgasms… the mind boggles at such a castrating obsession.
There’s also the repulsive womb envy of men literally so effeminate they want to birth their own children as its sole parent in pods like a pozzed transsexual. They want to birth their own child outside the mother (spiting the child its birthright to a mother, evil) but are too chickenshit to go through the agony personally.
Why oh WHY can’t they find any woman who wants to breed with them? A mystery, truly.
But the fact that Freud’s Jewish disciples all discovered the same impulse, and that Freudism became so widely accepted by Jews, suggests that Freud’s generalization was not without merit. It only suffered from the tendency of Jewish intellectuals to project Jewish issues on all humankind. The child’s repressed wish to kill his father is not universally human, but may be characteristically Jewish. For the Jewish father is the guardian of Jewishness and the representative of the Jewish god. And every Jew aspires in the depth of his soul to free himself from Yahweh, the archetypal abusive and castrating Father.
And so the secret wish to murder the Jewish father is also a secret wish for the death of the Jewish god.
You had ten rules to follow.
Ten rules and you fucked it up.
It is therefore identical with the so-called “Jewish self-hatred” that Theodor Lessing saw as affecting every Jew without exception: “There is not a single man of Jewish blood in whom cannot be detected at least the beginning of Jewish self-hatred.”
the whiny self-pity and projection of blame to anyone who listens
By choosing a Greek myth as a metaphor for his theory, Freud was projecting on Gentiles a Jewish problem. Had he recognized the Jewish overtone of the complex,
he might have called it the “Isaac complex,” since Isaac is the son that Abraham was willing to slaughter.
The expression “Isaac complex” has actually been used by French heterodox psychoanalystJean-Pierre Fresco,
…Kafka describes the devastating effect on his personality of a father whose means of education were “abuse, threats, irony, spiteful laughter, and—oddly enough—self-pity.”
Maybe some BPD, a lot of Jewish men are borderline symptomatic. The identity issues, compulsive lying and adultery are characteristic.
…After the death of Gregor appears his sister Grete, his double in the other sex, the homosexualized son….
Also introduces kafkatrapping. If you accept or deny you are oppressed/repressed/abused, you were because of that! Gaslight.
The paternal prohibition of emancipation through marriage is linked to an incestuous domination that becomes clear when Georg submissively proposes to the father to exchange beds.
Marrying evil women is bad goyim, love your father who hates you…. forever….
They also claim sex is about power, so by putting white men off marriage and becoming Patriarchs, who gains in power? Who loses?
Rape isn’t about power either, sadists literally enjoy pain and humiliation.
You can’t fake humiliation.
….this uncomprehensible and omnipotent slanderer-accuser-judge is “the palimpsest of an archaic Abrahamic father unconsciously introjected as an archaic and sadistic superego, and turned into an inner persecutor.”
Whiny Jews make for shitty literature.
The victim mentality is absurd.
Who’d read that?
…..while his Jewish literary critics consider him quintessentially Jewish. “By common consent,” said Harold Bloom, “Kafka is not only the strongest modern Jewish writer, but the Jewish writer.”(Hence Israel’s decade-long legal battle to secure his autograph manuscripts as national treasure.) Who is right, of Kafka and his critics? Does his genius come from his being Jewish, or from his having a psychopathic father? Obviously, it is impossible to distinguish the two factors, because the psychopathic father happens to be Jewish; he is, in Fresco’s terms, the typical “Abrahamic father.” But are not all Jewish fathers Abrahamic in the measure of their Jewishness? Is not the Jewish god a psychopathic father—and the psychopathic father a Jewish god?
This might be why God punishes you, this bullshit.
Divine punishment happens because you broke the rules, you know them.
Thou shalt not adulterate, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not worship idols like money…
There’s a psychopathic inability to learn from ‘mistakes’, typical of the low IQ.
The key lock, poor analogy is pure psychopath. They see all humans as objects to be broken.
Their emotional circumcision is showing.
Had Freud preserved his original insight into the psychological damage of sexual abuse on children, he might have eventually reflected on the impact of neonatal circumcision. But he has been rather discreet on the subject—though he didn’t have his own sons circumcised.
He actually loved them?
In New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, he speculated that “during the human family’s primeval period, castration used to be carried out by a jealous and cruel father upon growing boys,” and that “circumcision, which so frequently plays a part in puberty rites among primitive people, is a clearly recognizable relic of it.” Freud went further in Moses and Monotheism:
“Circumcision is a symbolical substitute of castration,
not symbolic, surgical and the modern kind takes far more than ancient, which might’ve (probably) just been a small notch into the foreskin, removing nothing (and explaining survival rates)
a punishment which the primeval father dealt his sons long ago out of the awfulness of his power, and whosoever accepted this symbol showed by so doing that he was ready to submit to his father’s will, although it was at the cost of a painful sacrifice.”
and the trauma of a pain only recently studied
Interestingly, Freud originally got that idea from Sandor Ferenczi, who had written in an article that greatly impressed Freud, that circumcision is “a means of inspiring terror, a symbol of castration by the father.”
A psychopath’s envy of their same-sex child, envy of their youth.
and cult indicator of obedience, obvi
Given the Jewish undercurrent in Freud’s intellectual biography, it is reasonable to assume that his inability to deal with the issue of Jewish neonatal circumcision is connected to his refusal to face the devastating reality of child abuse. Isn’t the first abuse suffered by every Jewish male from the part of his parents and kins, circumcision on the eighth day? It physically impresses on every Jew, and on all Jews collectively, the traumatic domination of Yahweh and his Covenant.
implying removing body parts (male prepuce) was indicated in Genesis, which it was not
The psychological impact of neonatal circumcision, performed without anesthesia and causing unbearable pain, has been studied by Professor Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision, the Hidden Trauma. His research shows a disturbance in the mother-child bonding process after the ritual.
Notice these women never want their own prepuce removed as adults? Nor their precious daughters.
No wonder Jews are such famed misogynists.
“I don’t feel I can recover from it. […] We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered! … When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had to cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision.”
That isn’t holy, that’s Moloch. A woman-hating fake deity would want to break up the family bonding.
It’s like all the politicians suspiciously into ‘golf’ at courses with tunnels. Duh?
The unnatural incestuous wish that Freud and his Jewish male disciples discovered in their repressed unconscious could perhaps be explained as a result of the inhibition in mother-child bonding caused by the trauma of neonatal circumcision.
R-type blame shift.
A trauma caused at this age has little chance to ever be brought back into consciousness and be healed.
But infant pain is considered a great occult tool by Satanists, even to grant wishes (second is orgy rape). It’s also a portal for possession of the infant by sinful spirits.
Hey, I didn’t make their rules. I’m the messenger.
It’s like rapists going for easy prey in drunk women (alcohol is the most common rape drug) because the wolf will go for the hobbling sheep first.
More research is perhaps needed on the possible link between Jewish circumcision and the fact, according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, that “the Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell.”
Research done by sociologist Leo Srole in 1962 showed that the rate of neuroses and character disorders among Jews was about three times as high as among Catholics and Protestants.
In The Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud describes “religion”—meaning essentially Christianity—as a “universal obsessional neurosis” which has for believers the merit that “their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.”
If you hadn’t figured it out yet. Nihilism is Jewish.
Living isn’t something most people hate, Freud.
With a similar approach, Judaism can be described as a “collective sociopathy.” This does not mean that “the Jews” are sociopaths, but rather that, in proportion to the degree of their identification as Jews, they are victims of a sociopathic mindset patterned from the Tanakh, “marked in their flesh” (impressed traumatically in their subconscious) by circumcision, and fuel by their elites with the paranoia of anti-Semitism. The difference between collective sociopathy and individual sociopathy is the same as between collective neurosis and individual neurosis according to Freud: participation in a collective sociopathic mentality allows members of the community to channel sociopathic tendencies toward the outside of the community, and to maintain inside a high degree of sociability.
We’re their punching bag. That’s why they move to white areas.
White people are the Jewish scapegoat.
An honor culture can only function in a society in which there is a shared code — clear rules, standards, and expectations for interaction and engagement — and within a closed community of equals. But as the Roman Republic transformed into a sprawling, porous, far-flung empire, its society became increasingly large, complex, and diverse, and “The citizen of Rome became a citizen of the world,” this common, level playing field disintegrated.
In an honor culture, you can only be insulted by someone you consider an equal. But in Roman society, discerning who deserved this level of respect, and whose slights to take seriously, became increasing difficult and unclear. If someone possessed a different set of values, was a citizen still honor-bound to care what they thought?
Early Romans had shared rules of engagement — boundaries that checked their competitions and kept them civil. In the greater chaos of the empire, in the absence of shared norms, citizens made the rules up as they went. It was every man for himself. In fact, the less a man cared about honor, the more unable he was to be shamed, the more strategic advantage he gained. Early Romans had not played to win, but for the sake of engaging in a good fight; now, citizens were prepared to win at any cost.
the noble loser
political gain > spiritual
Romans thus came to see contests as unequal and destructive. Those who engaged in competitions under the old assumption of participating on a level playing field, found instead that the odds were stacked, and this gap between expectation and reality engendered great bitterness. As did the fact that it seemed more and more men began receiving commendations, laurels of honor, who hadn’t actually earned them.
no meritocracy or scant
As a result, Romans became disillusioned and began to withdraw from the contest, from active engagement with their fellow citizens and civic life. “When competition was insupportable, then paralysis, the desire to hide, and the desire to be insensitive and autonomous became widespread cultural phenomena. With the loss of the good contest and the rules that framed it, cold, callous, brazen shamelessness became a cure for shame.”
hopelesssness (a sin if you check with Catholics, despair)
“individualism” ego rationalisation, vanity (good for self and appearance’s sake, not for thede)
“Shamelessness” for the Romans did not necessarily mean, as it does for us, to be unvirtuous, but rather to literally be incapable of being shamed. That is, the shameless care nothing for what others think of them.
spiritually vapid celebrities or role models
It always starts with the men doesn’t it?
Weak personal morals/actions of men, appeal to exception and excuses, weak moral authority > no honour > loss of respect to other men and all women, no social power, nobody listens. The levy breaks, the dam bursts. “If it’s okay when they do, why not me?” Monkey see, monkey do. Children don’t listen what you say, they witness you.
A hierarchy of modern men would rank far below late Romans, but how often do they virtue signal against men who’d at least risked death in battle? Like, STFU. They could build houses and fires. They were useful. Women hate gammas for the fake signals like that. The snarky “I’m so much better” – then DO something, DO anything useful!
Fathers should stick around to tell their sons this, it isn’t women’s business and we resent this novel pressure to kinda ‘mansplain’ to boys what they should already know as adults – STANDARDS.
Women who complain about the manchild are 100% right, there shouldn’t be a word! Nor mantrum! We shouldn’t understand what it means nor see it!
While today we tend to admire this kind of radical indifference to public opinion, to the Romans unbounded autonomy was the mark of a man whose energy had been drained, whose being had been destroyed;
libertarians are lazy, in practice
excuses to do less, altogether
as Cicero put it: “To take no heed of what other people think of you is the part not only of an arrogant man but, to be sure, of a dissolutus.” How could someone who remained unmoved even in the face of legitimate criticism, who refused to be ashamed even when confronted with their culpability, ever be trusted?
the shameless man, the attention-seeking psychopaths as role models based on short-term results
high time pref parasitism on society
[see Hare’s work]
Still, even Cicero, though himself a political leader, was sympathetic to the impulse to become callously disengaged, rhetorically asking, “what spirit trained in these times, ought not to become insensitive?” Elsewhere he quotes a line of Euripides: “If this mournful day were the first to dawn for me, had I not long sailed in such a sea of troubles, then there would be reason for anguish like that felt by a colt when the reins are first imposed and he bridles at the first touch of the bit. But now, broken by miseries, I am numb.”
it isn’t an excuse
it’s egocentric to assume the world must care about your trivial problems or bow to your whims, princess
Social media has even made men princesses who “need” their coffee and “need” a chest wax and “need” to take a selfie. Is all that really a need or are you an entitled brat?
Hollywood tells us stuff magically happens. That’s why people pay – to see the FICTION.
Reality doesn’t allow escapism but genetic suicide comes close. Moral self-destruction.
The Bible warns about disconnection of the spirit, it’s the ideal condition the Devil wants, all you have left is the animal body, hedonism. There’s no judgement or conscience or sense of higher things, basically Nietzsche’s abyss wasn’t death, it was hedonism. It leads to excuses for oneself – a form of moral relativism.
In this self-imposed withdrawal and “the collapse of conditions for healthy competition in ancient Rome . . . various strategies [had to be] devised by the Romans for creating a new emotional economy and redefining their spirit.” Said another way, “With the loss of the rules and conditions of the good contest, the entire language of honor ‘imploded’ and had to be ‘reconstructed.’”
oh yay critical theory
This reconstruction process would involve nothing less than a complete inversion of values, and produce multiple radiating effects on Roman society.
pride from shame
free from diseased
individual from alone
Honor centered around control, constraint, consistency; the ideal man becomes he who is poised, tranquil, disengaged. The passive values were elevated above the active.
Good for a society of strong defences, death for a society of weak ones, permitting invasion for shekels.
Virtue < Virtue signal
I can be a slut, if I criticize sluts.
Moral hypocrisy, hallmark of degeneracy. The bottom of honour’s barrel. Drunken chambering.
Soldier becomes selfish slutty peacock, basically. It’s Calhoun but IRL. Needn’t be slutty with the opposite sex either, people forget that. The homosexuality rates are an outcrop of this noxious social weed where we don’t expect successful men to marry faithfully.
Shame is GOOD and JUST and NECESSARY for civilization.
“judge not lest ye be judged” refers to using the same societal standard for the entire society i.e. NO exceptions based on class, wealth, sob story etc etc
It does NOT say “never judge” – notice that?
Double standards are the first weakness e.g. cheating in sports.
Read the rest yourself, it’s jarring.
Fifth, as Romans collectively withdrew from participating in a contest culture, they ironically began to lionize the individual who continued to play the game, and did so with a “winner-take-all” disregard for the old rules. The “man not prepared to lose” was idolized.
Instead of competition being something in which every average citizen took part, the masses mounted the bleachers, to cheer on, and live vicariously through, the few “gladiators” still in the arena. As spectators, they both worried over and felt excited by the rise of would-be tyrants who were willing to crush anyone who stood in their way; the thrill of the cult of victory,
infantilising the criminal
siding with the anti-hero
sports substitute for war
idolatry cult – celebrity role models
Cult of voyeurism, we even have that with fucking now.
There was a rarely mentioned line in Fight Club, “this isn’t love, it’s sports-fucking”.
That’s it, right there. That is the essence of the degenerate. The sick men who look up to the unreal Tyler ignore the fact it’s satire, it’s mocking them. But they are shameless. They make all sacred things worldly.
Teenagers are brainwashed but anyone older who views it feels a little disgust, if their conscience, moral compass functions. Tyler says “God hates us”, he means himself. His God is the Narrator, and does hate the impossible fake* ideal. Tyler is Ikea Model Man, a product of society and NOT a person. Americans in particular miss all this subtle irony, since it’s like an ego play. He remodels his kitchen, then his reputation. It’s ridiculous, a morality play. If you could be transplanted into the “perfect” body of a warrior, you’d still be a coward. It’s your soul, your character.
How many buff gym dudes with tatts nowadays would refuse the draft more than the scrawniest Boomer?
Some Boomer-bashing comes from weaker men. Would Tyler go to war? But he runs a military cult.
Tyler knew he was a character, from wall breaks, and would be destroyed in the end like a Devil on the shoulder.
A mannequin of postmodern immoral “manliness”. A man with the appearance of a God and the low morals of a Devil.
*worldly, hedonistic, materialistic, VAPID, Tyler is all-looks
Vapid: I don’t need women ….but here’s Marla, fuck capitalism ….but start a business, I have depression and no purpose ….except I’m energetic and obsessed**, who cares about appearances but punch my face, he’s basically a bloody thot, come on. Well ‘ard, he call them here, like a chav. Can you imagine what he’d do alone? Nothing, he has nothing. It’s like James Bond, if he can’t shoot it or seduce it, he isn’t interested.
Edgy McEdgelord, Puncheyface Champion.
Shocked he didn’t get Marla to strangle him during sex with apron-strings.
Print it, Hollywood!
A chav with better threads.
Modern men are sports-fucking civilization to death. No love, totally sterile of meaning. All about the cult of victory and selfies. Muh “men invented civilization” bullshit is proof, number 1 white men (and women) and 2 get off your arse then and at least maintain it!
It’s like the son of a famous gardener standing before a pile of weeds and bracken, pontificating how it’s HIS garden and it won awards and it’s HIS HIS ALL HIS.
Be Spartan with your words, please.
** fucking uwu lad
The 10,000 hours thing is bullshit.
A Jewish journalist lied about science.
It depends on the task, does it? So I can’t become a prima ballerina by starting now? No shit? The 5 foot guy won’t go pro in basketball, really?
Meaning is personal to each of us. However, a new study published June 15 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that some people might be better at finding that meaning than others — and the difference may come down to politics.
According to the study, which compiled survey results from more than 50,000 participants in 16 countries, people who identified as political conservatives were more likely to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives than liberals were.
“Political conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, a finding that has been labeled the ‘happiness gap’ in media reporting,” a team of psychologists from the University of Southern California (USC) wrote in the new paper. “One conservative commentator even described it as ‘niftily self-reinforcing; it depresses liberals.'”
The people who hate you want doubt, despair, hopelessness.
Deny them it.
They play dumb. Men moreso.
No shit, someone alert Buckingham Palace.
Turns out, money can buy happiness.
You think Elon Musk launders his own underwear?
They say you all have the same number of hours in a day.
I’ve met these people who think their shit doesn’t stink.
These self help gurus don’t clean their own shithouse.
Yet they deflect and shame you like you’re lazy. Four Hour Workweek from Mr Expensive Tuition.
One of the most stressful life events, moving, can be ‘outsourced’!
Why do you think they love immigrants so much?
Illegal wages – slave labour.
Nobody points out blatant classism.
Show me one working class politician.
Globalization exists so they can abuse foreigners across borders because abusing locals is more legally challenging.
Cinderella is literally about a woman marrying out of the need to do housework.
That’s the fairytale.
That’s the magical thing.
Give conservative women a housekeeper, dammit!
It’s cheaper than a divorce!
White woman isn’t a slave, the heartwarming folklore tale.
If it turns your head, “help” is why rich women have more energy for sex.
It isn’t the fucking spirulina smoothies.*
Most men don’t do manual labour anymore, most women still do. Studies only look at the middle class for this stuff.
They don’t get it. The woman on her feet for at least seven hours has it harder than the social-media browsing office worker. Who cleans the cleaner’s house? Why do women claim they can’t afford more children? When are men “run off their feet”? Why do women take longer to save for retirement while men work over-time, where are they, what are they doing in those prime dinnertime hours? Whose work uniform of clothing, haircare and make-up is more expensive? Whose ‘trims’ cost far more despite literally removing less hair per trip? Add up what women do against what they’re expected to do. It isn’t lazy.
Disagreements about chores are a primary source of relationship conflict: both men and women become frustrated working a “second shift” at home. Using data from nine studies of cohabitating working adults in committed relationships (N = 4,316), we provide the first empirical evidence that couples who make time-saving purchases in a typical month report greater relationship satisfaction. We also document why and when buying time promotes relationship satisfaction: Time saving purchases enable couples to spend more quality time together, protect couples from conflict, and are most likely to promote relationship satisfaction when couples are faced with controllable (vs. uncontrollable) stressors. These findings suggest a relatively simple solution to a critical source of marital conflict: spend money to buy time.
The Industrial Revolution caused a lot of divorces.
Suddenly, the sexes worked apart.
*Scum drinking scum.
Teenagers used to work in place of immigrants but state schools refuse to let them go below the age of eighteen now. Also their minimum wage is lower, which is slavery. The anti-social habits of modern teens are the typical depressed habits of the unemployed, who feel useless.
Middle-class frat brats holding tiki torches can be laughed off. What terrifies the Left in its nightmares is a working class capitalist demo. Wages, work hours, immigrants being held above the law (protected class is against the tenet of blind justice). Offer all three and you’ll win any election.
UBI ignores how adult mortality is most predictive at retirement and how unemployed people are almost all depressed. This isn’t pocket money from parents, these are adults. Infantilization is an abuse tactic. The poor are already infantilized are not knowing what’s good for them, high time preference (unlike spoiled brats?) and degenerate sinners (criticism of welfare queens instead of deadbeat sperm donors, who made them).
Poor people binge-drink, middle-class people are alcoholics.
Poor people are crazy, middle-class people have intermittent explosive disorder.
Poor people are stupid, middle-class kids have dyslexia, ADD, on the non-existent “spectrum” everyone is on.*
Poor people are fat, middle-class people are victims of a sedentary office environment.
Poor rape victims must’ve been prostitutes, middle-class ones are real victims.etc.etc.etc.
*If everyone is on the DISABILITY spectrum, no-one is.
Logically, if one metric of psychiatry applies, so does IQ. Doesn’t that fit the symptoms better?
Propaganda and brainwashing tactic. Common to NPCs and idiots when confronted with unknown information, so they don’t have to think, they can just dismiss.
“The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”
They know. It was deleted until I drew attention to that fact.
The book didn’t come up when I put it in the search engine, you must know where it is.
Probably related to mentacide.
for how they introduced this.
Tasteful controversy. Nice.
I find it odd we fixate on the likes of Bond girls (Mary Sues mostly) when Bond is psychologically more disturbed than a woman trying to choke him with her maternal thighs or whatever. He’s the active party, right? You could accurately describe his adventures as The Wandering Ballsack. It’s the height of 60s Boomerisms, all he does is consume and fuck around. Nobody talks about it in the context of psychiatric issues except Craig who brilliantly, when asked if there was anything real men could learn from Bond and apply in their life, replied “No. Nothing”.
Bond is the epitome of a vapid man, who only cares about cars, clothes and indulgence. He’s late-stage Roman empire. This isn’t fucking Shakespeare.
Craig couldn’t be more different from him in real life if he tried;
Bond was skewered greatly by early seasons of Archer, Bond is so weak he can’t stop drinking “or the collective hangover might kill me”. Is bravado now the substitute for genuine toughness in men? Apparently so.
It makes memes like this really fucking cringeworthy.
It hurts to read this shit. All he does is shoot things.
Bitch, he couldn’t turn up to an office job at 8am sober.
Except for token gay subplots stinking up the franchise, am I right?
If that rings a bell –
Two can play at that fucking game. Hurts, doesn’t it?
If your role model has a completely hollow life, what the hell is going on?
I air-punched at him sticking up for himself in this one:
Amazing quotes from the man himself:
“Let’s not forget that he’s actually a misogynist.”
“I still think he wants to f*ck anything with a pulse.”
“…I don’t give a f*ck.”
He’s 100% English, we hate Bond as the American’s ideal of what a man should be. It’s Hemingway with a different accent, remember he shot himself. It’s a suit and a penis, how insulting. Fleming knew his audience were gullible for some vanity and validation and this was in the 50s, by publication date, supposed heyday of the real thing? We love Craig because he gets how ridiculous it all is. There’s practically a fourth wall break and a wink.
He’ll brain a guy with a kitchen sink and smirk at the camera.
The smirk isn’t “I can get away with this”, it’s “can you believe idiots look up to this shit”?
You can easily live like James Bond these days if you get into a lot of credit card debt. He’s Zoolander with flashy murder gadgets. He’s a massive special snowflake, the world needs him, specifically, to save it. Why not #006 or #008?
In general, in real life, most men aren’t special. They can’t even save themselves from a death spiral of degeneracy. It’s ancient wisdom the wastrel (hedon) has a wasted life, male or female (before you ask).
A role model for men is not a narcissist who goes around shooting people, that’s a TV news story set at a school waiting to happen. Nowadays Bond would be social media famous like old unhinged RDJ and on a public sexual harassment watch list. This guy literally interrupts a woman in her hotel shower, (he broke in) you’d never see that scene play out the other way around. My personal favourite is the almost autistic scene where he looks in on her getting ready, what if she was replacing a tampon or something?
Who looks up to a guy like that? Seriously?
Craig is sick of being treated like a massive jerk.
Could you imagine the boundaries he must have with other men?
There’s no way he wouldn’t be bisexual, don’t lie to me Hollywood.
A man who screws anything that moves is bisexual, it’s a fact.
He doesn’t even hit on a man, not even for work purposes to get info?
You go guy, right?
Statistically, it would be mostly Bond Boys, actually.
I picture Milo in the role, he fits well.
Male honeypots aren’t sleeping with women.
Oh but Monroe’s glamour is tacky, are you kidding me? At least nobody took that seriously, it was fun play acting. If you listen to her interviews she was intelligent. Picture up top, reconcile with her infamous, “If you aren’t committed, don’t bother” speech. These guys twist it but women know that’s the rationale. Women know their worth. Men are wasting their time on external objects and bullshit posturing, while calling the women superficial. I don’t know a single woman who wants to go into debt for a slightly shinier car but okay.