women and dogs

[keenobserver]

Who would deny that the health and strength of a nation of people very much depends on the quality and longevity of marriages and families. In free countries each is supposed to have a say in who they wed, or at least live with and have children. But admittedly that "say" depends upon many factors, such as individual preference, parental pressure, the opinion of friends, lust and sex, money, etc.
As far as I know, there's not been a time when women have such a significant "say" as today. Nevertheless, men are expected to make the first move, request a dance or a drink or ask for a number. One would think that if you examined a woman's last 5 or 6 boy friends or husbands that, because men of many stripes (size,shape,colors,tempermant,appearance,age, interests, unlimited differences) must run into and approach her, they themselves would be fairly dissimilar, just to look at them and compare. But still, where I am from just the opposite seems to be the case.
Far as I can tell, women have such a large say, and such specific tastes, that their lovers often all very much look the same!
And the phenomenon is so prelavent nowadays that even the whores and prostitutes are selective. Just check out the Maury show, its simply amazing. They'll post a girls' several last boyfriends' photos all together and shit - they all could be brothers, twins even! In fact they all could pass for HER brothers.
Notice the dating ads too, the ideal partners standing together bragging about each other, they often could pass for each others sister and brother.
What is going on here?
One thing, I think, is that something about women causes her to want the same looking and or kind of man again and again, and that in places like USA she actually gets her way nearly always despite the fact that men supposedly pick; and boys who dont match her idea of the ideal man have not a chance in hell to even get the time of day, despite the fact that their judgement may be far superior and they know who would be best for her and them (that is, for the children and the nation).
It's common knowledge that mongrels are smarter and healthier than most pure breeds, and this may explain in part why Americans are so ill in body and mind.

[Ryan Rudolph]

something about women causes her to want the same looking and or kind of man again and again

Women tend to be attracted to what is dishonest in men. They value ambition, power, security, success, and a crude animal masculinity. They value an outward appearance that has a rugged sexual appeal.

This is why humans are so neurotic over celebrities, as celebrities have attained everyone's envy, and therefore everyone's misery. An ambitious man is secretly miserable.

This is why most women are turned off by wise philosophers, wise philosophers have absolutely nothing to offer women, especially if she is controlled by the maternal drive to have offspring.

[keenobserver]

It's common knowledge that mongrels are smarter and healthier than most pure breeds, and this may explain in part why Americans are so ill in body and mind.

This doesn't make sense to me. Americans are more "mongrels" than any other nationality in my opinion.

Not really. As I say, women generally dont mix it up, they hook up with men that could pass for their older brother, or younger too in modern times. For the most part.
Observe.

[keenobserver]

something about women causes her to want the same looking and or kind of man again and again

Women tend to be attracted to what is dishonest in men. They value ambition, power, security, success, and a crude animal masculinity. They value an outward appearance that has a rugged sexual appeal.

This is why humans are so neurotic over celebrities, as celebrities have attained everyone's envy, and therefore everyone's misery. An ambitious man is secretly miserable.

This is why most women are turned off by wise philosophers, wise philosophers have absolutely nothing to offer women, especially if she is controlled by the maternal drive to have offspring.

I agree, but i think you missed my point.

[sschaula]

Women are attracted to men. Very often, men don't appear to be men. Thus: the dilemma.

The solution: stop bitching, and basing your life around women, and truly be a man.

[Ryan Rudolph]

keenobserver wrote:

I agree, but i think you missed my point.

What is your point?

[ChochemV2]

The solution: stop bitching, and basing your life around women, and truly be a man.

My solution seems to have become: Don't actively look for women. I find all the normal social situations in which I'd generally ask a woman out such as parties, bars, groups (clubs, sports, etc) are a fantastically boring waste of my time and the lure of boobs isn't enough to get me off my butt anymore.

In High School girls were somewhat more important, a little bit more in college but I've never been what anyone would consider a "sexually charged" individual so my relative hermitage isn't much of a strain.

[Katy]

The exact same thing could be said for men. All their girlfriends look like sisters, too.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Men need to play a numbers game to get a mate. Women sit on their asses and wait for the next compatible guy to notice she's available, so she can accept him if (and only if) he's identical to her last boyfriend.

But no self-respecting man would play the numbers game.

[sschaula]

I don't know a single person who dates people that looks like their siblings.

[Faust]

It's common knowledge that mongrels are smarter and healthier than most pure breeds, and this may explain in part why Americans are so ill in body and mind.

This doesn't make sense to me. Americans are more "mongrels" than any other nationality in my opinion.

Not really. As I say, women generally dont mix it up, they hook up with men that could pass for their older brother, or younger too in modern times. For the most part.
Observe.

Dude, are you kidding? Women are definitely attracted to foreigners and immigrants and people not of their own race. No wonder the white race is slowly being breeded out of existence, then will white civilisation end.

http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wfpim.html

[sschaula]

Why is it that the people who come here are always so nuts?

[Cory Duchesne]

Why is it that the people who come here are always so nuts?

The word 'Genius' is why. Normal, moderation-loving people shy a way from the word Genius like it's the plague. Therefore the only people who come here are generally extremist-deviants, some wise, while others foolish.

[Pye]

keenobserver:

One thing, I think, is that something about women causes her to want the same looking and or kind of man again and again, and that in places like USA she actually gets her way nearly always despite the fact that men supposedly pick; and boys who dont match her idea of the ideal man have not a chance in hell to even get the time of day, despite the fact that their judgement may be far superior and they know who would be best for her and them (that is, for the children and the nation).

Faust13:

Dude, are you kidding? Women are definitely attracted to foreigners and immigrants and people not of their own race. No wonder the white race is slowly being breeded out of existence, then will white civilisation end.

The concerns of the patrician, the patriarch: exactly who is she breeding with and is it/why isn't it mine? Controlling the reproducing of humanity has always been the patrician's concern; hence, this one's mine, these children are mine; these children are not-mine, and any other complaint that can be leveled at what appears to be 'arbitrary' mating on the part of the indiscriminate female. Perhaps in fact, whose does not matter as such for the female, who has thunderous knowledge that the child is at least hers. Just so some male assumes it is his.

But for the male, it is utmost that he know, for the world is full of indiscriminately shot sperm and the human has to own in order to care; he must know what is his. You will live in families. They will bear the father's name. Women will belong to men, be exchanged among them, as is Nature for our resources and control. Women are too indiscriminate; too animal to know what's best for breeding, so the family - the patrician's best configuration - will help us assure that we know what is what. Meanwhile, for the indiscriminate male, we have many, many sex workers for all sorts of discriminating tastes.

The women go mine-mine, too, and then launch into 18 or so years of morbid overhandling of what's theirs.

What is absolutely central to the patriarchal configuration of the world has been to assess and control breeding practices - because the male can never really know, and he needs to. Because we think there are things that are ours . . . .


.

[Faust]

keenobserver:

One thing, I think, is that something about women causes her to want the same looking and or kind of man again and again, and that in places like USA she actually gets her way nearly always despite the fact that men supposedly pick; and boys who dont match her idea of the ideal man have not a chance in hell to even get the time of day, despite the fact that their judgement may be far superior and they know who would be best for her and them (that is, for the children and the nation).

Faust13:

Dude, are you kidding? Women are definitely attracted to foreigners and immigrants and people not of their own race. No wonder the white race is slowly being breeded out of existence, then will white civilisation end.

The concerns of the patrician, the patriarch: exactly who is she breeding with and is it/why isn't it mine? Controlling the reproducing of humanity has always been the patrician's concern; hence, this one's mine, these children are mine; these children are not-mine, and any other complaint that can be leveled at what appears to be 'arbitrary' mating on the part of the indiscriminate female. Perhaps in fact, whose does not matter as such for the female, who has thunderous knowledge that the child is at least hers. Just so some male assumes it is his.

But for the male, it is utmost that he know, for the world is full of indiscriminately shot sperm and the human has to own in order to care; he must know what is his. You will live in families. They will bear the father's name. Women will belong to men, be exchanged among them, as is Nature for our resources and control. Women are too indiscriminate; too animal to know what's best for breeding, so the family - the patrician's best configuration - will help us assure that we know what is what. Meanwhile, for the indiscriminate male, we have many, many sex workers for all sorts of discriminating tastes.

The women go mine-mine, too, and then launch into 18 or so years of morbid overhandling of what's theirs.

What is absolutely central to the patriarchal configuration of the world has been to assess and control breeding practices - because the male can never really know, and he needs to. Because we think there are things that are ours . . . .


.

There are major racial differences, and this fact alone is why preservation can be important.

[DHodges]

There are major racial differences, and this fact alone is why preservation can be important.

You're not just wrong, you are also a dick.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What is absolutely central to the patriarchal configuration of the world has been to assess and control breeding practices - because the male can never really know, and he needs to. Because we think there are things that are ours . . . .

Well, it's his in a literal sense, the seed has his DNA all over it :)

And the belief, conscious or subconscious is present that the variant is the best thing since sliced bread and should be spread around, pushing out the morons next door. In this age it would be subconsciously because of the equality death squads.

It's the same with memes these days. If you don't expand reach, no matter how 'good' and worthy your ideas might be, other ideas will outgrow it, squash it, if they happen to spread easier.

Or you can trust in wisdom as an undying 'eternal' principle that grows and spreads by itself not relying on any effort to keep it alive at all. That would completely remove the need for sex and talk for the sages.

Place your bets and throw the dice..

[Pye]

.

Diebert writes:

Well, it's his in a literal sense, the seed has his DNA all over it :)

Yes, which gives good challenge to no-self thinking that suddenly insists itself in flesh connections. Of course in the genetic age, we locate more practical reasons for needing to know our bio-roots. It is what has grown up around the concept of ownership that interests me.

Faust13 wrote:
There are major racial differences, and this fact alone is why preservation can be important.

DHodges replied: You're not just wrong, you are also a dick.

Yes, there is no gene for race, just collections of likely and habitually in-breeded characteristics that have long hooks into practice and locale. There is race in the sense that we have tended to cluster in certain geographical situations and perpetuate our sameness in our breeding practices. In turn, do certain characters or characteristics in repeat configurations appear. But these distinctions take less than geologic time to mingle, as the world witnesses today. What is left that is tenacious is praxis - each culture setting its own conditions for how to be one of them, and rooting these traditions deep. We are so easily conditioned, we are clay. And humanity is fluid in its mutations wherever [patrician] culture least rules in a race-minded, closed circuit way.


.

[keenobserver]

I dont have time to respond to each comment or objection, neither does the topic deserve much investment. Oh, this is not about getting dates either, anyone who is still looking for a member of the opposite sex is hereby asked to refrain from participating, you're not advanced enough to add anything worthwhile. haha
No, but seriously, I mean it.

First, who makes the first move, in cases where they eventually become joined as partners?
If you said the man you would be incorrect and every woman knows it. The girls decide who they want to bump into and who should approach them, then they do what girls do to get that fellow interested and wait.
In cases where they just want a fuck, girls wont give so much thought and strategy; if the guy who comes up to them is not too drunk but too drunk to hurt her or seems harmless enough and can manage to get hard, he'll do just fine.
But if they are looking for a mate, usually they will need some background info from some source in advance, make sure he's got dollars and a clean record and not dangerous, the more the better.
Now, if what may be the ideal guy approaches them out of the blue, this is a big problem. They havent the chance to investigate so they dont know if they ought to appear as fantastic as possible, women can manage either end of the spectrum, look inviting as hell or not, up to them.
These days you can find out anything about anyone, so there is no longer the need for girls to take chances, so there is much less oportunity for guys to get lucky doing what they want to do more than anything, which is - select a girl from sight alone. If she agrees to go without confirmation, expect to be quickly dumped 9 out of 10 no matter how good and generous you were in bed.
Sure at times a white girl will take a black or other dissimilar man, say he's rich enough or to prove her nasty dad wrong, whatever. Still 90plus percent end up with men, and of course men with women, that could pass for their sibling.
I was trying to examine this.
Who is most responsible, is it equal? I believe not.
THis is the point and what id hoped for comments on. One point, anyway.

[Faust]

DHodges replied: You're not just wrong, you are also a dick.

Fuck you, there's a reason why Europeans have gained control of their environment and Africans and Indigenous peoples didn't.

Yes, there is no gene for race, just collections of likely and habitually in-breeded characteristics that have long hooks into practice and locale. There is race in the sense that we have tended to cluster in certain geographical situations and perpetuate our sameness in our breeding practices. In turn, do certain characters or characteristics in repeat configurations appear. But these distinctions take less than geologic time to mingle, as the world witnesses today. What is left that is tenacious is praxis - each culture setting its own conditions for how to be one of them, and rooting these traditions deep. We are so easily conditioned, we are clay. And humanity is fluid in its mutations wherever [patrician] culture least rules in a race-minded, closed circuit way.

So are you for or against racial preservation? and why?

[Pye]

.

Faust13 writes:

So are you for or against racial preservation? and why?

well, you can't be asking me about racial preservation, so you must be asking about ethnic preservation; and I'm inclined to ask first what you see that's so valuable about it - what deserves the urgency to preserve certain breeding pools and their commensurate cultural belief systems anyway? What seems necessary to you about preserving "whites" and "Italians" and "Mongolians" and "blacks" etc.? What's your philosophic underpinning for promoting such a thing?


.

[Dan Rowden]

Seems to be a touch of bigotry and ignorance. Not sure there's much in the way of philosophy about it...

[keenobserver]

As we all know marriages of the past, well the parents and other adults had a large say, wiser people had a say, and fit and practicality were more important than emotion.
Now what have we got? Do we have two people of opposite sex each having equal say in who they marry and have children with? I say no, no not ever, and less and less equal every day.
Initally yes closer to equal, but quickly things have changed to where men's ideal ways and choices count less and women ideas and methods and preference counts more.
I could estimate that the split has become something along the lines of 80/20. Which is horrible news for the men and for the world. And we can see the results of this in not only divorce statistics but in the casual attitude people take about mates and the okness of single family homes and broken homes. Such events were seen in the past as the tremendously damaging things they were and are, but nowadays we dont want to feel so bad about the consequences of our behavior so we play down the harm and accept the inevitable making the most of it. Thats one of the marks of a femenine based society, lets all try to make hard and damaging things feel as less bad as possible, like taking drugs to hide the pain, lets even laugh about terrible things, anything to feel better and forget the mess were making.
As society has moved along making life better and better for women, at the same time not only has it become worse for men but worse for itself, and the signs are everywhere.
The biggest problem with the feminine is the inability to see how blind it is, making it impossible to talk sense into those most inflicted.

The good news is the human race will learn from this and hopefully breed out femininity entirely before too long.
You can see that even the countries that are having democracy forced down their throats are refusing to adopt it american style, having learned somewhat from our mistakes and example. More and more the good things about this country are being adopted and the shitty left behind. Already there are several countries that are free yet far superior to US.

[Pye]

.

Dan writes:

Seems to be a touch of bigotry and ignorance. Not sure there's much in the way of philosophy about it...

Is this true, Faust?

keenobserver writes:

And we can see the results of this in not only divorce statistics but in the casual attitude people take about mates and the okness of single family homes and broken homes.

More patrician freak-think. I know you are a young fellow, but you speak like big old wrinkled elephant balls.

Your quote works just as aptly here:

The biggest problem with the [masculine] is the inability to see how blind it is, making it impossible to talk sense into those most inflicted.

I judge the "most afflicted" in that sense to be knee-jerk patricians like you.


.

[DHodges]

Fuck you, there's a reason why Europeans have gained control of their environment and Africans and Indigenous peoples didn't.

Indeed there is, but not the one you seem to think. Check out the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's all about it.