How come the left has power?

[Avolith]

I associate the left with the feminine, with nature, unconsciousness, and the right with the masculine and the spiritual. Both sides seem necessary to me, and both can go bad. So in recent times and in history as well, I wonder, what are the methods by which the right and more specifically the left gain power? The ideology of the left is that no one should have power over another, yet in some subverted manner they still play power games, seemingly by framing and shaming if their demands aren't met, which is effective because people don't always see through their tricks.

Sorry if this seems chaotic, I'd be interested in another perspective.

[jupiviv]

I associate the left with the feminine, with nature, unconsciousness, and the right with the masculine and the spiritual. Both sides seem necessary to me, and both can go bad.

That is a flawed and unrealistic definition of left and right wing politics, thus questions of necessity or going bad are moot.

The ideology of the left is that no one should have power over another, yet in some subverted manner they still play power games, seemingly by framing and shaming if their demands aren't met, which is effective because people don't always see through their tricks.

Things like the dictatorship of the proletariat or labour laws are both leftist and explicitly about having power over others. Lying about wanting power is a different, and nonpartisan, issue.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Then again, what would be the correct and realistic definition of left and right wing politics? The proposed gender assignment can be useful still but there are caveats: in certain times and places, "left" or progressive values surely appear as more masculine than over-emotional and unreasonable conservative forces. But perhaps we could focus on the current situation in the West, especially the US or the Netherlands while I'd hesitate to apply it to for example the UK. Sometimes it seems the parties in opposition, forced to supply critique and reflection always are displaying a bit of a masculine edge going on. But during the last years, not so much any more in the USA though. There the notion of mindful opposition has been completely muddled by the circus noise.

The ideology of the left is that no one should have power over another, yet in some subverted manner they still play power games

To the degree that (extreme) left groups really believe power structures are bad or can be done without, to that degree delusion creeps in as power dynamics are ultimately part of the dynamics of every complex structure. The only thing we can add from a progressive point of view is the demand for some degree of oversight, checks and balances as "feedback loops" to the power structure. But not to a degree that having power would become diminished to something useless and only meant for display.

Things like the dictatorship of the proletariat or labour laws are both leftist and explicitly about having power over others. Lying about wanting power is a different, and nonpartisan, issue.

It's important to mark the differences between Marxist sociopolitical thought (where " dictatorship of the proletariat" means something) and various social reform movements throughout the ages, which are mostly coming from the outside as movement and only tangibly related to the political spectrum. For example historically the Church campaigned for social reform while still upholding conservative values overall. For labor laws it was a classical issue that owners of industry resisted the change and became "right", that is, conservative with this social change. But same captains of industry were often morally progressive and even reformers in their own right. Right now, many political conservatives protest against specific unrealistic social reform and not against having social progress of some kind in the first place.

[guest_of_logic]

Then again, what would be the correct and realistic definition of left and right wing politics?

A very good question, to which Pye has a very good answer. You seemed to think that it portrays the extremes, but how better to delineate a fundamental binary? The extremes don't deny the possibility of moderation: they simply define the range within which that moderation occurs.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Then again, what would be the correct and realistic definition of left and right wing politics?

A very good question, to which Pye has a very good answer. You seemed to think that it portrays the extremes, but how better to delineate a fundamental binary? The extremes don't deny the possibility of moderation: they simply define the range within which that moderation occurs.

Yes, thanks, it's quite the instructive thread where Pye addresses more typical Conservative and Liberal notions but it's a bit different from Right and Left in my view. In that thread I spoke from the point of view of a parliamentary democracy engaged by a pluriform party system in which the right spectrum is not consistently identifiable with Pye's definition of the conservative, which seems more typical to the American landscape as it was traditionally at least. We can witness only the remains today.

Better yet perhaps then borrowing from Wikipedia: the cleavage between supporters of a strong executive and supporters of the primacy of the legislature. This generally still holds in most democracies.

[jupiviv]

Things like the dictatorship of the proletariat or labour laws are both leftist and explicitly about having power over others. Lying about wanting power is a different, and nonpartisan, issue.

It's important to mark the differences between Marxist sociopolitical thought (where " dictatorship of the proletariat" means something) and various social reform movements throughout the ages, which are mostly coming from the outside as movement and only tangibly related to the political spectrum. For example historically the Church campaigned for social reform while still upholding conservative values overall. For labor laws it was a classical issue that owners of industry resisted the change and became "right", that is, conservative with this social change. But same captains of industry were often morally progressive and even reformers in their own right.

There is a marked difference between struggles by (in many cases self-identifying) proletariat/labour, and ad hoc social/moral but not structural reforms by churches and elites (including kings etc.). The former is very easily within the leftist category, and certainly not tangential to Marxism and/or socialism in terms of origin and development.

Right now, many conservative political protest against specific unrealistic social reform and not against having social progress of some kind in the first place.

Being against unrealistic things eo ipso isn't what conservatism appears to mean. In fact the only valid candidate for that would probably be something like bipartisan special interests. Anything bigger than tiny isolated issues that don't affect many people would involve too many contradictions which eventually materialise.

I'm fairly certain the OP isn't interested in any real discussion, but a better and perhaps related question to ask might be "how and to what extent can masculinity and femininity manifest in politics?" Politics discriminates and acts, which are masculine because they need reasoning and boldness. This masculine element is ultimately in the service of feminine needs (happiness, security, newness, solidarity etc. as ends rather than means). The interlocking of masculine and feminine in this way makes politics in a way a transtesticle in relation to both feminine mainstream/decent society and the occasional masculine spark, and both sense in it something shameful and unnerving. And yet, what is more responsible for all of mankind's fabulous achievements? Humanity, by its own collective de facto/jure standards, is at its best only as a transtesticle! And we dare call them names...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm fairly certain the OP isn't interested in any real discussion, but a better and perhaps related question to ask might be "how and to what extent can masculinity and femininity manifest in politics?" Politics discriminates and acts, which are masculine because they need reasoning and boldness.

You mean leadership discriminates and acts but leadership is not necessarily a part of politics. Although a political system is supposed to address the problems around the establishment, selection and transference of leadership.

But more simply put, if one starts from the idea of something like the feminization of mankind any oppositional force to this particular progress, any outspoken rebellion would have to be called masculine in origin, no matter how ugly or frustrated this might come out as. And any social-liberal force holding on too strongly to what appears like all too often failed policies would seem very much like the notion of attachment and ignorance with all the suffering as outcome attached. Then again, being simply another opposition party does not masculinity make. And in the end nobody really disagrees about the idea of progress, just the ideas on proper direction differ.

the interlocking of masculine and feminine in this way makes politics in a way a transtesticle in relation to both feminine mainstream/decent society and the occasional masculine spark, and both sense in it something shameful and unnerving. And yet, what is more responsible for all of mankind's fabulous achievements? Humanity, by its own collective de facto/jure standards, is at its best only as a transtesticle! And we dare call them names...

There's of course the process of general dissolution of genderization, which makes sense when it's understood that sex as division and the social upholding of genders was a masculine project to start with: to self-define and define what-is-not. However at a deeper level, something will have to be defined and created, for the human mind and identity as we know it to function.

[Avolith]

I'm fairly certain the OP isn't interested in any real discussion, but a better and perhaps related question to ask might be "how and to what extent can masculinity and femininity manifest in politics?" Politics discriminates and acts, which are masculine because they need reasoning and boldness. This masculine element is ultimately in the service of feminine needs (happiness, security, newness, solidarity etc. as ends rather than means). The interlocking of masculine and feminine in this way makes politics in a way a transtesticle in relation to both feminine mainstream/decent society and the occasional masculine spark, and both sense in it something shameful and unnerving. And yet, what is more responsible for all of mankind's fabulous achievements? Humanity, by its own collective de facto/jure standards, is at its best only as a transtesticle! And we dare call them names...

This is exactly the lines I was thinking along. Thanks for putting it in a better structure.

Code: Select all

But more simply put, if one starts from the idea of something like the feminization of mankind any oppositional force to this particular progress, any outspoken rebellion would have to be called masculine in origin, no matter how ugly or frustrated this might come out as. And any social-liberal force holding on too strongly to what appears like all too often failed policies would seem very much like the notion of attachment and ignorance with all the suffering as outcome attached. Then again, being simply another opposition party does not masculinity make. And in the end nobody really disagrees about the idea of progress, just the ideas on proper direction differ.

Exactly this is a worry of mine. I see Feminine environments around me that actively resist truth actively. Do you think I also come across as an ugly and frustrated resistance to this?

Here is a thought - what would politics and companies look like if truth were regarded as the highest value, the thing of the greatest importance? Ultimately it's in their own interest to do so, even if they can't see it. Would all workers and politicians cease to build society at all and simply sit quietly in acceptance of current reality? Would they divert all efforts to be in service of awakening all of us? What would that look like?

[Natural Order]

The fact that Leftist ideologies are of the Feminine is something so obvious and matter of fact that one would have to be severely detached from reality if they were to deny this. That explicitly Leftist political movements around the world find greater support among women is all that needs to be said really. But if we want to go deeper, one will find Leftism at its core to be a violent hatred of Nature and God. Leftists seek to bring down the high to the level of the low. We can can see this play out in their myriad of social and economic agendas they implement by placing women above men, the poor above the wealthy (feminism), the stupid above the intelligent (communism), the ugly above the beautiful (fighting racism), and the sick/perverted above the healthy (LGBTQPedophilia). The ultimate result of which is nothing less than a dystopian hellscape. For in their minds, these polarities only arise due to some kind of imaginary injustice that they just so happen to have the remedy to. They are a truly satanic force of darkness and chaos. They will not stop until we are all brought down to the level of insects. Furthermore, it is the epitome of irony that a forum such as this one which claims to stand for masculinity is clearly filled with Leftists of one stripe or another.

The Right on the other hand stands for Objectivity, Truth, Beauty, and Order. The Right worships Nature and God and seeks to work in alignment with them rather than rebel and fight against them. The Right believes that the polarities found in reality are to be respected and that trying to bulldoze the high down to the level of the Low would be a most dangerous form of insanity. Again, we find that Right wing political movements around the world gain the majority of their support from men and clearly have a more masculine feel. Self reliance and the martial spirit are core to any true man, both of which find great support among any Right Wing audience. Not to mention that as people form families and become more stable and mature they naturally become more Right Wing. The Left finds its greatest support among the easily manipulated youth, criminals, sexual deviants such as homosexuals/pedophiles, and single whore mothers. This is why they are constantly fighting to lower the legal age to vote, extend voting to convicted felons, promoting fag marriage and telling young boys to cut of their genitals and go on hormone blockers, and giving hand outs to disgusting whores who give birth to children who will never know their own father.

On a more esoteric level it makes sense to say that the Left is a satanic force of Darkness and Chaos, whereas the Right is a Godly force of Light and Order. The right hand of God, or Dextera Domini in Latin, is a symbol of honor. The King's right hand man is another illustration of how the High exercises itself through the Right, and that sitting to the right of the King was a highly exalted position within the Kingdom. Not much is said of sitting to the Left of the King or God, but we do know if the right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, the usual metaphor for the left hand would be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. Some say the Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path are the dichotomy between two opposing approaches to magic; the Left-Hand Path is equated with malicious black magic and the Right-Hand Path with benevolent white magic. How could one not observe the behavior of the Leftist terrorist anarcho-communists who refer to themselves as Antifa attacking people in the streets and not see them as demons who've burst forth from the gates of hell? The only way to defeat the forces of evil is for the Right to organize a force of righteous Crusaders who will send their eternal enemies back to hell for good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt0anp7WK8

[Avolith]

The fact that Leftist ideologies are of the Feminine is something so obvious and matter of fact that one would have to be severely detached from reality if they were to deny this. That explicitly Leftist political movements around the world find greater support among women is all that needs to be said really. But if we want to go deeper, one will find Leftism at its core to be a violent hatred of Nature and God. Leftists seek to bring down the high to the level of the low. We can can see this play out in their myriad of social and economic agendas they implement by placing women above men, the poor above the wealthy (feminism), the stupid above the intelligent (communism), the ugly above the beautiful (fighting racism), and the sick/perverted above the healthy (LGBTQPedophilia). The ultimate result of which is nothing less than a dystopian hellscape. For in their minds, these polarities only arise due to some kind of imaginary injustice that they just so happen to have the remedy to. They are a truly satanic force of darkness and chaos. They will not stop until we are all brought down to the level of insects. Furthermore, it is the epitome of irony that a forum such as this one which claims to stand for masculinity is clearly filled with Leftists of one stripe or another.

The Right on the other hand stands for Objectivity, Truth, Beauty, and Order. The Right worships Nature and God and seeks to work in alignment with them rather than rebel and fight against them. The Right believes that the polarities found in reality are to be respected and that trying to bulldoze the high down to the level of the Low would be a most dangerous form of insanity. Again, we find that Right wing political movements around the world gain the majority of their support from men and clearly have a more masculine feel. Self reliance and the martial spirit are core to any true man, both of which find great support among any Right Wing audience. Not to mention that as people form families and become more stable and mature they naturally become more Right Wing. The Left finds its greatest support among the easily manipulated youth, criminals, sexual deviants such as homosexuals/pedophiles, and single whore mothers. This is why they are constantly fighting to lower the legal age to vote, extend voting to convicted felons, promoting fag marriage and telling young boys to cut of their genitals and go on hormone blockers, and giving hand outs to disgusting whores who give birth to children who will never know their own father.

On a more esoteric level it makes sense to say that the Left is a satanic force of Darkness and Chaos, whereas the Right is a Godly force of Light and Order. The right hand of God, or Dextera Domini in Latin, is a symbol of honor. The King's right hand man is another illustration of how the High exercises itself through the Right, and that sitting to the right of the King was a highly exalted position within the Kingdom. Not much is said of sitting to the Left of the King or God, but we do know if the right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, the usual metaphor for the left hand would be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. Some say the Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path are the dichotomy between two opposing approaches to magic; the Left-Hand Path is equated with malicious black magic and the Right-Hand Path with benevolent white magic. How could one not observe the behavior of the Leftist terrorist anarcho-communists who refer to themselves as Antifa attacking people in the streets and not see them as demons who've burst forth from the gates of hell? The only way to defeat the forces of evil is for the Right to organize a force of righteous Crusaders who will send their eternal enemies back to hell for good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt0anp7WK8

So your white magic involves killing the deluded violent people on the left? That would make things worse. Besides, there's plenty of violence in the name of right wing politics.

[jupiviv]

But more simply put, if one starts from the idea of something like the feminization of mankind any oppositional force to this particular progress, any outspoken rebellion would have to be called masculine in origin, no matter how ugly or frustrated this might come out as.

Not if the quality "femininity" only denotes the external or circumstantial. Masculinity would look - indeed feel compelled to look - deeper, although still often hating outward manifestations. Rebellion directed at annoying or dangerous new fashions is again a kind of transtesticularism.

the interlocking of masculine and feminine in this way makes politics in a way a transtesticle in relation to both feminine mainstream/decent society and the occasional masculine spark, and both sense in it something shameful and unnerving. And yet, what is more responsible for all of mankind's fabulous achievements? Humanity, by its own collective de facto/jure standards, is at its best only as a transtesticle! And we dare call them names...

There's of course the process of general dissolution of genderization, which makes sense when it's understood that sex as division and the social upholding of genders was a masculine project to start with: to self-define and define what-is-not. However at a deeper level, something will have to be defined and created, for the human mind and identity as we know it to function.

You're missing my point about politics throughout history being about the merging of male/female attributes. In fact even the political/politicised ideas about what is "truly human" seem to have a connection to androgyny. The more consummately feminine and masculine individuals - the less "human" ones - are never interested in politics per se. The ones who value it as more than expediency are the transtesticle types. Appearances vary but I see *seduction* as the essential commonality - the ordering/shaping/interpretation of environment (masculine) to affirm and accommodate desire (feminine). The archetypal seducer, both male and female, has transtesticle qualities - nymphomania, impudence, whimsical creation and destruction of boundaries. What I really had in mind is Weininger's analogising of prostitute and politician/conqueror in the "Motherhood and Prostitution" chapter of his book (too lazy/tired to look for quote). Weininger's mother-type is purely feminine while the prostitute-type is gilded with elements of masculinity.

I guess continental European politics are still "motherly" (and thus a-political!) on the whole, i.e. solving immediate, tangible problems while scoffing at fancy ideals and grand debate. They've had a good, stable monogenerational run as vassals or tributaries of the postwar fossil fuel empires.

Obviously my theory leaves much to be explained and correlated, but this can be a good starting point for such a discussion.

[jupiviv]

I see Feminine environments around me that actively resist truth actively. Do you think I also come across as an ugly and frustrated resistance to this?

To be honest I initially thought you were that Natural Order idiot setting the (empty) stage for another "right wing" diatribe.

Anyway, your question assumes that all responders to it will define left & right wing, female & male, etc. exactly the way you do. These are complex issues with many possible layers of understanding, so clarity and context are vital for honest discussion about them. The view you expressed certainly isn't ugly, but frustration might be a factor because you seem unsure of what you are asking.

Let me ask you a couple questions:
a) Can left and right wing political thought be identified in human societies *before* the industrial revolution?
b) Do their erstwhile occurrences, if any, conform to the feminine/masculine dichotomy you have proposed?

[Avolith]

I have to say I'm not well read enough in history to answer your questions. Maybe another way to verify whether the left and right are each rooted in the feminine and masculine is by observing right wing/left wing type behaviours in the context of smaller groups in the present. For example, in a family, if the child comes to the parents for financial aid, will a father be more likely than a mother to refuse to help? Will the mother try to seduce the father into providing aid? In social circles, will women manipulate men into giving others aid they would otherwise not have given?

[Natural Order]

So your white magic involves killing the deluded violent people on the left? That would make things worse. Besides, there's plenty of violence in the name of right wing politics.

You have a simple mind looking for simple answers. I don't have simple answers, but I'll tell you one more thing. It doesn't matter what I want. The leftist agenda to flood The West
with endless third world hordes will result in the greatest war in all of human history. A demographic replacement of this scale has never been attempted and I pray every day for the chance to slaughter my enemies who are responsible for this. People like you who are either too cowardly or too naive to fight will find themselves on the other end of my sword.

[jupiviv]

For example, in a family, if the child comes to the parents for financial aid, will a father be more likely than a mother to refuse to help? Will the mother try to seduce the father into providing aid? In social circles, will women manipulate men into giving others aid they would otherwise not have given?

Given that you're trying to prove a left/right dichotomy among the genders, the first question to ask would be: are left-aligned families more likely to give financial aid to children than right-aligned ones? But more fundamentally your assumption that aiding one's own children is an indicator of masculinity/femininity or left/right wing views is problematic to say the least. Again, unless you provide clear definitions of these things it isn't possible to answer your questions. Is general indifference to others' suffering supposed to be masculine? And how is such indifference related to the willingness to think rationally?

The leftist agenda to flood The West
with endless third world hordes will result in the greatest war in all of human history. A demographic replacement of this scale has never been attempted and I pray every day for the chance to slaughter my enemies who are responsible for this.

A demographic replacement huh? And people are just accepting it instead of listening to you because they're really stupid and feminine and you're very manly and smart, you say? Start decapitating some hot chicks and sand niggers then you worthless prick!

[Avolith]

For example, in a family, if the child comes to the parents for financial aid, will a father be more likely than a mother to refuse to help? Will the mother try to seduce the father into providing aid? In social circles, will women manipulate men into giving others aid they would otherwise not have given?

Given that you're trying to prove a left/right dichotomy among the genders, the first question to ask would be: are left-aligned families more likely to give financial aid to children than right-aligned ones? But more fundamentally your assumption that aiding one's own children is an indicator of masculinity/femininity or left/right wing views is problematic to say the least. Again, unless you provide clear definitions of these things it isn't possible to answer your questions. Is general indifference to others' suffering supposed to be masculine? And how is such indifference related to the willingness to think rationally?

The leftist agenda to flood The West
with endless third world hordes will result in the greatest war in all of human history. A demographic replacement of this scale has never been attempted and I pray every day for the chance to slaughter my enemies who are responsible for this.

A demographic replacement huh? And people are just accepting it instead of listening to you because they're really stupid and feminine and you're very manly and smart, you say? Start decapitating some hot chicks and sand niggers then you worthless prick!

You equate not aiding someone with indifference. It's not necessarily the case. In many cases, providing aid only serves to perpetuate someone's dependence, unconsciousness, lack of development - 'a man has to be able to stand on his own'. (If you push this to the extreme, you might imagine the overbearing smothering mother, and her child that does not learn how to deal with the world by himself.) The equating of not aiding someone with indifference (and maybe even cruelty) can in this sense become a (feminine) way of framing, shaming and manipulation. A man wants to be respected and seen as a generous person, and is thereby vulnerable to these games.

I think natural order (and forgive me for the referring to you in the third person) at least spots a valid problem, but he does not see any means to address it but to resort to unleashing his rage and violence on the objects he (incorrectly) holds responsible. Although i also think a more important and problem of his seems to be his own unconsciousness, which he projects on the people around him who are 'unconsciously allowing bad things to happen'. I might actually learn a thing about myself by analyzing his thoughts. Jupiviv, you are no where near comparable to natural order. Do you not think that the issue of natural order's misguidedness can't be solved by directing anger towards him?
I say it's somewhat scary for me to be confronted with natural order's kind of thinking, as I know that these kinds of thoughts are sometimes acted upon.

[Natural Order]

This guy has a good take on the topic du jour right here, among many others.

https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2018 ... overnment/

Here's another one that's full of the spiciest of takes.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/

And if you like to laugh while digesting these spicy meat-a-balls, don't forget the most censored LEGAL website of all time...

https://dailystormer.name/

You can thank me later.

[Natural Order]

A demographic replacement huh? And people are just accepting it instead of listening to you because they're really stupid and feminine and you're very manly and smart, you say? Start decapitating some hot chicks and sand niggers then you worthless prick!

Here we have an individual of the street shitting variety throwing a tantrum because he feels he is entitled access to European nations. Guess what? You're going back, along with all the others who don't belong here. Go make India great again.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This forum is owned in Australia hosted in the USA and populated by thinking individuals from all over the world, while Jup resides in India and does not magically inhabit the server hardware but I'd say generally the members are from developed regions or cities, which is not a surprise as only such individual are bored, fluent or connected enough to hang around discussing existence.

But it's impossible to escape the Atlantic mark, ranging from the language of Angels to shared cultural symbols and references. But this is a self-selecting thing, as for communication to actually work, there needs to be some shared vocal fabric. Even more so, any distinct large cultures tend not to co-habit the same cultural space: one will obtain dominance, tending to become universal & imperial and the others go in remission or become dormant, becoming more insulated. This is the cause of the perception of superiority, a simple but tempting reversal of cause & effect. Any members from Asian, Chinese, African or South-American descent are then indeed versed in and oriented on European and Western thought, style and partly the language or in other words a dominant mode of expression of internationalism and modernism all over the world.

So while the aim of the forum might be truly international, cross-cultural and non-religious, it remains also an artifact of language, mechanics of communication and thought. But not of blood as that contains little meaning and expression by itself.

[jupiviv]

You equate not aiding someone with indifference. It's not necessarily the case. In many cases, providing aid only serves to perpetuate someone's dependence, unconsciousness, lack of development - 'a man has to be able to stand on his own'. (If you push this to the extreme, you might imagine the overbearing smothering mother, and her child that does not learn how to deal with the world by himself.) The equating of not aiding someone with indifference (and maybe even cruelty) can in this sense become a (feminine) way of framing, shaming and manipulation. A man wants to be respected and seen as a generous person, and is thereby vulnerable to these games.

Your original assertion was that willingness to aid one's children in general may be an indicator of either/both femininity/masculinity or left/right views, and I responded to that. The new issue is that aid given *unreasonably* i.e. due to an emotional need of some kind is an indicator of femininity, and I agree.

Jupiviv, you are no where near comparable to natural order. Do you not think that the issue of natural order's misguidedness can't be solved by directing anger towards him?
I say it's somewhat scary for me to be confronted with natural order's kind of thinking, as I know that these kinds of thoughts are sometimes acted upon.

It wasn't anger. Someone like him cannot be properly reasoned with because he is too mired in emotional pain and fear etc. to care about that. The views he expresses - whatever they may be - are just proxies to hate whatever he identifies as the cause of pain. At least an actual radical forum/online group might provide him with some compassionate, perpetually lilting and nodding groupies. If he is seriously contemplating actual violence of some kind, we aren't equipped to do anything about that either way. On the other hand such contemplation could lead to soberness.

[Avolith]

The confounder of unreasonableness is in general always present unless we're dealing with fully enlightened people. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Therefore a measure of the amount of aid given in general does not need to or can even be controlled for unreasonableness.

[Avolith]

I'm fairly certain the OP isn't interested in any real discussion, but a better and perhaps related question to ask might be "how and to what extent can masculinity and femininity manifest in politics?" Politics discriminates and acts, which are masculine because they need reasoning and boldness.

You mean leadership discriminates and acts but leadership is not necessarily a part of politics. Although a political system is supposed to address the problems around the establishment, selection and transference of leadership.

But more simply put, if one starts from the idea of something like the feminization of mankind any oppositional force to this particular progress, any outspoken rebellion would have to be called masculine in origin, no matter how ugly or frustrated this might come out as. And any social-liberal force holding on too strongly to what appears like all too often failed policies would seem very much like the notion of attachment and ignorance with all the suffering as outcome attached. Then again, being simply another opposition party does not masculinity make. And in the end nobody really disagrees about the idea of progress, just the ideas on proper direction differ.

the interlocking of masculine and feminine in this way makes politics in a way a transtesticle in relation to both feminine mainstream/decent society and the occasional masculine spark, and both sense in it something shameful and unnerving. And yet, what is more responsible for all of mankind's fabulous achievements? Humanity, by its own collective de facto/jure standards, is at its best only as a transtesticle! And we dare call them names...

There's of course the process of general dissolution of genderization, which makes sense when it's understood that sex as division and the social upholding of genders was a masculine project to start with: to self-define and define what-is-not. However at a deeper level, something will have to be defined and created, for the human mind and identity as we know it to function.

You mention an outspoken rebellion would be masculine in origin. Continuing along this line of thought I wonder, assuming the ideal of some kind of enlightenment, if an organised rebellion would even be possible, since, it would involve some sort of group identity that is precluded by absolute truth. So then organized rebellion could be an intermediate step towards the ideal, but this rebellion would only exist in a context of adversity, and eventually dissolve into one-ness, out of the limelight, and we will all be floating blissfully through the air in a peaceful world of love and compassion

[jupiviv]

The confounder of unreasonableness is in general always present unless we're dealing with fully enlightened people. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Therefore a measure of the amount of aid given in general does not need to or can even be controlled for unreasonableness.

I'm not sure what you mean. We don't need to identify unreason since we can't get rid of it entirely? Or do you mean that unreasonableness per se cannot indicate whether an act of giving aid is feminine? As far as I'm concerned though, masculine = reason; feminine = mental barriers to reason like emotions and desires.

[Avolith]

The confounder of unreasonableness is in general always present unless we're dealing with fully enlightened people. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Therefore a measure of the amount of aid given in general does not need to or can even be controlled for unreasonableness.

I'm not sure what you mean. We don't need to identify unreason since we can't get rid of it entirely? Or do you mean that unreasonableness per se cannot indicate whether an act of giving aid is feminine? As far as I'm concerned though, masculine = reason; feminine = mental barriers to reason like emotions and desires.

I could reword it and say that almost all aid given, save that given by a buddha himself, ultimately stems from some sort of selfishness or unreasonableness. Therefore when speaking about aid being given *in general* it's safe to assume that this is the feminine kind of aid being given by men and women alike.

[jupiviv]

The confounder of unreasonableness is in general always present unless we're dealing with fully enlightened people. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Therefore a measure of the amount of aid given in general does not need to or can even be controlled for unreasonableness.

I'm not sure what you mean. We don't need to identify unreason since we can't get rid of it entirely? Or do you mean that unreasonableness per se cannot indicate whether an act of giving aid is feminine? As far as I'm concerned though, masculine = reason; feminine = mental barriers to reason like emotions and desires.

I could reword it and say that almost all aid given, save that given by a buddha himself, ultimately stems from some sort of selfishness or unreasonableness. Therefore when speaking about aid being given *in general* it's safe to assume that this is the feminine kind of aid being given by men and women alike.

That doesn't follow at all. You're saying that if someone isn't *always* perfectly wise, they can *never* be perfectly wise. "Buddha" simply refers to all states of mind uncluttered by delusions, not a permanent state of existence.

You still haven't stated any reason for making the assertion that giving aid is *in itself* feminine. It can't be feminine just because it has some degree of unreasonableness, because that logic applies to everything, including *not* giving aid.