Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
No bio...
User ID: 3132
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
Men overwhelmingly make the first sexual move (and then make 3-5 moves for every 1 his female partner makes). This roughly 4:1 sexual dance is preferred by the overwhelming majority of men and women.
I think it's moreso a compromise rather than a mutual preference. I feel like most men would ideally want something like a 1:1-2:1 ratio (and with bigger tits) and most women would ideally want something more, ah, romance novel-esque (though only with the most desirable men, of course).
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
Israeli meddling may be its own thing, but I'm skeptical of conspiratorial accusations against the Jewish presence in globohomo/woke/$CURRENT_THING-ism. After all, PMC Whites aren't particularly known for their opposition to woke; I suspect that the overrepresentation of Jews in general wokery is primarily a function of their increased presence in the PMC and not reflective of a distinctly Jewish bent towards leftist progressivsim. If you had data showing jews to be significantly more woke than status-matched whites, that would be more convincing.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
You said that "the Torah says it's ok to rape boys under the age of 9". This reads to me like autistic legalist interpretation on precisely how the laws around equal punishment for sexual offenses and minimum age for criminal culpability interact, not an endorsement of pedophilia; it's no more sinister than an Aella poll.
Semi-relatedly, here's a funny bit from Sanhedrin 55a on the halakhaic status of putting your dick in your own ass:
Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who performs the initial stage of homosexual intercourse on himself, what is the halakha? Is he liable for homosexual intercourse? Rav Sheshet said to him: You disgust me with your question; such an act is not possible.
Rav Ashi said: What is your dilemma? With regard to doing so with an erect penis, you cannot find such a case. You can find it only when one performs this act of intercourse with a flaccid penis. And the halakha is subject to a dispute: According to the one who says that a man who engages in intercourse with a flaccid penis, with one of those with whom relations are forbidden, is exempt, as that is not considered intercourse, here too, when one does so to himself, he is exempt. And according to the one who says that he is liable, he is rendered liable here for transgressing two prohibitions according to Rabbi Yishmael; he is rendered liable for engaging in homosexual intercourse actively, and he is rendered liable for engaging in homosexual intercourse passively.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
4d ago
· Edited 4d ago
Any value that humanity has above other animals is completely dependent on motherhood, and is therefore subordinate to it.
This, of course, is why garbage men and truck drivers are among the most admired and desirable professions.
If we're the same, but women fail to reach the same heights as men, that has far harsher implications than if we're different, and have different strengths.
The point is that, from a bioessentialist framework, the female role requires little to no particular strength of character. Pregnancy is a completely automatic process, caring for babies may be arduous but is not particularly skilled work, and if you believe the hereditarians, the actual raising of children has little effect on how they turn out. Additionally, none of the above tasks is particularly suited to cooperative effort, stunting the potential for camaraderie; as the saying goes, nine women can't make a baby in one month. Thus, if woman's sole or primary duty is to fulfill the female biological role, she will be naturally baser and ignobler than the men she pairs with, who must cultivate virtue in themselves to become capable protectors and providers.
The question, then, is how much impact has this lack of incentive for virtue had on the evolutionary development (or lack thereof) of the female mind. While I personally believe that ingrained differences in potential for virtue between men and women are relatively minimal, what differences exist are surely exaggerated by restrictive norms surrounding women's options for societal contribution.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
5d ago
If womanhood is synonymous with femaleness (that is, performing the biological role of the female sex), then woman has no more claim to dignity (that is, the natural sense which leads us to value man over animal and noble over savage) than any other mammal.
Oh no, not a barely-out-of-the-bronze-age pagan!
If you would prefer an abrahamic source:
[…] who has created me a human and not beast, a man and not a woman, an Israelite and not a gentile, circumcised and not uncircumcised, free and not slave.”
- fragment of a prayer, Cairo Geniza
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
5d ago
Assuming you mean actual William Shockley style "color coded by nature" scientific racism and aren't just smearing around slurs towards anyone who believes in HBD.
As I understand it, William Shockley was his era's equivalent of modern HBD wonks, being consistently polite and sufficiently apologetic with his message. He was probably coarser with his exact phrasings than you could get away with now, but he was still closer to Charles Murray than William Luther Pierce.
Not that it really matters how polite you are, anyways. "[Your race] intrinsically sucks" is never going to be a popular message, and I'm always bemused by people who appear to think that the normalization of HBD isn't RaHoWa-complete.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
5d ago
· Edited 5d ago
If we flinch away from the idea, it is because we realize that such norms are incompatible with dignity of womanhood. If woman's sole appropriate domain is the bearing and raising of children, then Schopenhauer and Thales are substantially correct:
Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.
[...]
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
There are three attributes for which I am grateful to Fortune: that I was born, first, human and not animal; second, man and not woman; and third, Greek and not barbarian.
- Thales
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
5d ago
· Edited 5d ago
People in third world countries don’t have time for [gender equality], so they get real logical and strait laced about the correct attitudes much easier when their daily bread and way of life is under threat.
Do those people believe that men and women are "spiritually and morally equal before God in dignity and respect"? (Quote from the pre-edit version of the above comment)
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
16d ago
My whole perspective is that the spouses differing roles are complementary
Three sentences earlier:
if women are even less able to sustain a relationship if their partner is a woman, it indicates that they're not very good at being a 'partner' at all.
The perspective explicit in this statement, and implicit in most other trad apologia, is not "men are good at some things and women are good at other things, so they should both stick to what they're good at", but rather "women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import". Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master. Although modern trads are always quick to assure us that they mean no such thing, learned men of ancient times understood this:
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
19d ago
Nick is absolutely anti-Semetic, in the sense of holding an animus against the Jewish people and not merely the modern state of Israel. Probably not in the "6 million wasn't enough" way, but likely in the "109 aren't enough" way and the "~250k is more like it" way. The same applies for the charge of racism: I don't think he'd push the TND button, but he'd definitely support a back-to-Africa program, and not out of any sense of care or goodwill towards blacks.
More importantly, his audience is not captive to his particular politics; if anything, it's the other way around. Fuentes is currently the most influential avatar of right-wing antisemitism, and if he moderates his stance to unacceptable levels the memeplex which backs him will simply find a new host.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
24d ago
· Edited 23d ago
Retard strength is powerful, yes, but wielding it carelessly incurs a terrible cost. By my observation, highly-motivated maximalists(of which RW retards are a subset) are a tenacious species. They feed off of every bit of momentum in their favor to spread and legitimize their memes while following closely behind the gains of their more moderate kin, such that by the time they've reached the borders of the Overton Window they're already primed for exponential metastasis; the history of the last {NumYrs=22.24*log14.88(PwrLvl) + 5} years of progressivism presents an excellent example of this sequence. If the modern right-wing coalition gives its retards too much slack, in due time they will swallow the movement whole.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
25d ago
· Edited 24d ago
Well, just like when a wife stops submitting when a husband demonstrates over the long term that he doesn’t love her, when women as a class have demonstrated over the long term that they are not interested in anything that even smells like submitting, they shouldn’t anticipate much love from men as a class.
I don't think this works as a parallel. It seems to me that submissiveness is not desirable in of itself, but as a proxy for a cooperative demeanor. Trivially, a wife who is capable of exercising sound judgement within her domain and contributing effectively to collective decisions seems superior to a more "submissive" wife who never exercises her agency to the benefit of the couple. I suppose that most men would prefer to be the generally senior partner in the relationship, but that's a much looser paradigm than 1 Timothy 2:12 would have it. If I may also get a little Freudian, surveys consistently find that men prefer to be the dominant partner only by a relatively small margin. By contrast, women are much more insistent that they be the submissive party and are far more averse to dominating than men are to submitting.
Now, insofar as one believes that women are intrinsically poor agents, then female submission is approximately equivalent to effective cooperation. I know @hydroacetylene is insistent on women's lesser capacity for agency, and I presume you are too. However, this view would naturally seem to lead to a recognition that women are lower creatures than men, in accordance with the pre-Christian understanding; a donkey may not be a defective horse, but it is still an ass. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with Christian philosophy and there's some galaxy-brained epicycle around this implication, but everything else within the redpill/traditionalist consensus on women seems to implicitly corroborate this outlook. This, fundamentally, is the core concern of feminism, or at least the most defensible steelman of feminism, and so long as the Right neither has a satisfying answer for them nor reinstates complete patriarchal control, its spectre shall continue to haunt them.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
25d ago
Well, I guess they'd say that they hate women not for being women per se, but for being irrational, cowardly, idiotic, etc etc you get it. The chuddiest among them might draw parallels to 13/52 and whatnot.
Honestly, they have a point. The moral inferiority of womankind is an obvious conclusion of most redpill/traditionalist thought, but proponents of such always either handwave it away or dutifully ignore the implications.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
29d ago
· Edited 29d ago
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
If you haven't yet completely flounced, would you mind posting what you found anyways? I'm working on something of a steelman of your and magicalkittycat's positions and I'd like to see what you managed to dig up.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Looking at the image, the femboy isn't particularly muscled or otherwise masculine asides from the flat chest, this is more like a 20-25%. Did you mean to link something else?
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Perhaps on a surface level, but even in the most progressive milieus "getting fucked" is understood as something to be suffered. The association of being sexually penetrated/femininity/weakness/inferiority still holds, just in a sublimated form.
I have never seen it used with the caveat just meaning bottoms.
See my flair.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
The condemnation of active homosexual behavior is fundamentally removed from contempt towards gayness, as defined in my reply to @AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic above. The charge placed against the erastes isn't that he is personally weak or incapable, but that he defiles and corrupts the vulnerable; he may be a predator, but he's not a bitch.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
I'm not talking about the technical, sterile definition of the word "gay", but rather the broader memetic associations that the word carries which everyone intuitively understands.
Consider this scenario: your sports team played against their rivals in the big game and utterly crushed them. In your celebration, you might say that your team fucked them, or blew them out, or made them your bitch. When one refers to a male as a "faggot", or by other coordinate terms, it degrades by asserting effeminacy—a proclamation that they are beneath you.
Per this association, mere homosexual behavior, or even a corresponding aversion to heterosexual behavior, is not "gay" per se. Gayness/faggotry, as a phenomenon with the above associations, is thus a particular subset of homosexual behavior which reflects a typically feminine constitution, including weakness and passivity unbecoming of a more capable type.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Straight men are aroused by penises after all
This is an important point, and a reason why "likes dick" is not synonomous with "gay"; as a quick survey of pornography will show you, straight men love seeing big hard throbbing cocks(SFW).
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Because “gay” doesn’t really mean “male who fucks males”, but rather “male who is fucked by males”. For further reference, compare the coordinate terms poof, sissy, and faggot.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
The “BD” in HBD is Biodiversity, not Biological Determinism.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
As hydro said, the Amerindians were originally kept as separate as possible from the white American population. Amerindians weren't given unconditional birthright citizenship until 1924, and the reservations are still considered sovereign territory for their respective Indian nations. Later developments would take Indian policy in a more assimilationist direction, but that was mainly from a Christianizing perspective and not broadly miscegenatory.
The Australians went around massacring Aboriginals in an ad-hoc bottom-up way because it was easy but there was never any actual policy to get rid of them, the closest they got is 'the arc of history bends towards us, no big deal if they wither away but we won't actually make it happen, we'll do weird things like them away from their parents and raise them as our own'.
While there was no official policy of extermination, there was a considerable amount of more active efforts to expedite the withering process.
From Mark Twain's "Following The Equator":
Here is an instance. A squatter, whose station was surrounded by Blacks, whom he suspected to be hostile and from whom he feared an attack, parleyed with them from his house-door. He told them it was Christmas-time-a time at which all men, black or white, feasted; that there were flour, sugar-plums, good things in plenty in the store, and that he would make for them such a pudding as they never dreamed of-a great pudding of which all might eat and be filled. The Blacks listened and were lost. The pudding was made and distributed. Next morning there was howling in the camp, for it had been sweetened with sugar and arsenic!
The white man's spirit was right, but his method was wrong. His spirit was the spirit which the civilized white has always exhibited toward the savage, but the use of poison was a departure from custom. True, it was merely a technical departure, not a real one; still, it was a departure, and therefore a mistake, in my opinion. It was better, kinder, swifter, and much more humane than a number of the methods which have been sanctified by custom, but that does not justify its employment. That is, it does not wholly justify it.
Found it in video form.
More options
Context Copy link