Women sublimate their logic to their instincts via their emotions. Emotions are the conscious representation of instincts to be obeyed. Per Evolutionary Psychology, this allows women to mimic whatever role will gain the most relative status in the loose feral pack of primitive humanoids. Yes, Betsy, women are evolutionarily anachronistic. Men were culled twice as much from the gene pool, and nature selected for humanoid men who ran on the ‘Reality Principle’.
What is so profoundly interesting is that humanoid women were selected on a specialized ‘Pleasure Principle’. It works like neurosis in that feeding it pleasure does NOT lead to a pleasurable state. It may be the original neurosis, done in fixed logic circuitry. What does lead to a pleasurable state for women is to be broken in to one capable man. Basically, women have a hardwired neurosis demanding more, more, more—and it is tiring.
In the wild, relative status correlates with absolute living standard. Relative thinking is comparative, and comparative thinking is associative. Women don’t think in terms of causality, time, or consequences. They pursue their instincts with socially fluid scheming made possible by female logic serving the proxy female emotions.
The associative ‘thinking’ or reckoning is quite simple: X in real life is labeled with feeling Y. All feelings have some relative value on a linear scale from overwhelmingly positive to overwhelmingly negative. That’s it. One dimension. Everything is reduced to sorted comparisons. Women mentally require the #1 choice in all the known universe per the reproductive instincts unless menacingly rebuffed per the survival instincts. Evolution did not reward the women who were content with #2. Remember, this is a rating system through the pussy goggles engineered by evolution in the wild before agriculture and culture. Seeing how women see the world is the key to dealing with women, whether as a domesticating patriarch or an opportunistic player. Again, I defer taking that path of exposition.
The main thrust of this post is how non-causal, associative, comparative, one-dimensional reckoning of women has been coddled and leveraged with fiat money and institutional force into a joke philosophical enlightenment taken seriously by innumerable useful idiots. That so-called enlightenment is called humanism. It is the female mimicry of philosophy to gain relative status under the authority of alpha government. Now, for the record, I acknowledge perhaps one in a million women are reliably insightful and accurate philosophers.
The only two that come to my mind are Ayn Rand and Esther Vilar. I suspect the fact that Rand and Vilar were too damn pragmatically intelligent to make good wife material, certainly in the traditional sense. A women needs to see a Masculine Mystique in her husband to arrive with finality in her quest for #1. The few women who can constructively contribute to society will usually find audience in a man’s world, but for all practical purposes of societal design, AWALT.
To not make AWALT the impersonal, inflexible default is to unleash the hounds of hell. Women are not just not civilized, they are lower than savage. To be a ladies’ man is to see women as net ugly ’cause they ain’t ladies except by the nature of patriarchal fathers then husbands who keep them chaste and societally useful. It is the role of civilized fathers to pass cultural bounds to their daughters and cultural ideas to their sons. That role for non-elite men is antithetical to the plans of the global elite; hence, feminism with all its ugly accessory outgrowth, like humanism.
My Webster’s dictionary (a 1996 edition) says this:
humanism (…), n. 1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. 2. …
The Wikipedia entry for Humanism (as found early February 2014) gives the following definitive summary:
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking, and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a “human nature” (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).
In coded terms, humanism is the philosophism to popularize the predetermined and illusory ethics of humanitarianism, a Trojan Horse cause célèbre engineered by the Nu Wurld Oder. The unfettered juxtaposition of ideas appeals to the female mind, hardwired as it is to compulsively take the feral best from the buffet of life and thereby ‘have it all’. What all women can never understand about themselves in practice, and virtually all women can never understand about others in theory (except that one in a million philosopherette), is cause and effect cascading through time and space.
Gloria Steinem, past CIA operative exposed by Warren Hinkle, was dubbed the 2012 Humanist of the Year by American Humanist Association (AHA). Ms. Steinem was interviewed for the occasion by AHA’s organ The Humanist, both by the magazine incarnate through magic and by the magazine’s editor-in-chief if not a living caricature of femininity. From “The Humanist Interview with Gloria Steinem” (http://thehumanist.com/september-october-2012/the-humanist-interview-with-gloria-steinem/) by Jennifer Bardi, dated 14 August 2012:
Jennifer Bardi: Do you consider yourself a humanist?
Steinem: Yes, a humanist except that humanism sometimes is not seen as inclusive of spirituality. To me, spirituality is the opposite of religion. It’s the belief that all living things share some value. So I would include the word spiritual just because it feels more inclusive to me. Native Americans do this when they offer thanks to Mother Earth and praise the interconnectedness of “the two-legged and the four, the feathered and the clawed,” and so on. It’s lovely.
The Humanist: Some people call themselves post-theological, which is kind of a mouthful.
Steinem: It’s kind of great though. I like to say that the last five-to-ten thousand years has been an experiment that failed and it’s now time to declare the first meeting of the post-patriarchal, post-racist, post-nationalist age. So let’s add “post-theological.” Why not?
Cultural Marxism is an attack on Western culture made by white men. How about a philosophical rational for dysgenics?
From the Humanist Manifesto III (http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III) by AMA:
We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
New Age guru Deepak Chopra has discovered evolution is post-modern and the laws of the nature that gives us shared context is serving billions and billions of human masters without conflict or care or self-awareness. From “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success” (http://quanta-gaia.org/reviews/books/sevenSpiritual.html):
Whatever relationships you have attracted in your life at this moment are precisely the ones you need in your life at this moment. There is a hidden meaning behind all events, and this hidden meaning is serving your own evolution.
Completely desist from defending your point of view. When you have no point to defend, you do not allow the birth of an argument. If you do this consistently — if you stop fighting and resisting — you will fully experience the present, which is a gift. Someone once told me, “The past is history, the future is a mystery, and this moment is a gift. That is why this moment is called ‘the present’.”
We are told, over 3 million (http://store.chopra.com/productinfo.asp?item=55) physical copies sold. I recommend selling to the blue-pill market with red-pill calculation rather than to the red-pill market for a fucking reason.
Kurt Vonnegut (1922–2007), named AMA’s 1992 Humanist of the Year after he became the organization’s honorary president, following the death of incumbent Isaac Asimov. Use of Vonnegut’s name garnered AMA greater public attention.
Vonnegut’s successor as honorary president was Gore Vidal, a member of the American intelligentsia who played the gadfly and offered gems of realism:
- “Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.”
- “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”
- “You know, I’ve been around the ruling class all my life, and I’ve been quite aware of their total contempt for the people of the country.”
Vonnegut’s humanism as he describes it in God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian, pp. 9–10 is rather benign:
I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I’m dead. My German-American ancestors, the earliest of whom settled in our Middle West about the time of our Civil War, called themselves “Freethinkers,” which is the same sort of thing. My great grandfather Clemens Vonnegut wrote, for example, “If what Jesus said was good, what can it matter whether he was God or not?” I myself have written, “If it weren’t for the message of mercy and pity in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, I wouldn’t want to be a human being. I would just as soon be a rattlesnake.”
It’s benign until maybe that last part, not to mention the title. It is not hard to imagine he developed self-loathing and misanthropy from serving in WWII. He was a Nazi prisoner.
Did you ever notice how the effected solution to government failure is always more fucking government? Always another inch deeper.
The AMA and Kurt Vonnegut (http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Quotations_from_Famous_Humanists) are fighting for you!:
Our nation’s founders saw a free press and an educated citizenry as the twin pillars of democratic health. But we no longer live in their world of numerous small, independent presses. These days, the vast majority of Americans get their news from corporately-owned information monoliths and from their local newspapers, most of them corporate subsidiaries as well. That is why humanism and the Humanist magazine are so important. Won’t you join us today?
Yes, the false dichotomy, like Republican or Democrat. Pick a side on the menu, please.
From Vonnegut’s interview (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-13-2005/kurt-vonnegut) (h/t) on The Daily Show, 13 September 2005:
Jon Stewart: Do you find? you know I always felt in your writing that you were admiring of man but disappointed in him.
Vonnegut: Yes, well, I think, I think we are terrible animals, and I think, I think our planet’s immune system is trying to get rid of us and should.
SWPL Audience: *laughter and applause*
Vonnegut: [Describes the maturation process of democracy: letting slaves go after 100 years, letting women vote after 150 years (white man sins), and the healthy genocide and ethnic cleansing at the beginning that is ‘quite okay’ and ‘going on now’. (Would that mean wiping out a specific group for the Nu Wurld Oder? In September 2005, Arab Muslims were killing or raping—holy, big statist polygamy surprise, Batman—rival blacks. The Sudanese Janjaweed doing it began in the late 1970s as fighters armed by and for the Moammar Gaddafi/Qadhafi regime ruling the conterminous Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, ostensibly a sort of Communist republic. The international governance that is the US Government, the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court were authoritative critics of the Janjaweed attacks, calling them ‘war crimes’ and ’crimes against humanity’. Hegelian dialectic? as in political circus shrouding social engineering?)]
Jon Stewart: You know, I, I have to say, when I, when I first read your books, ahh, they opened up a whole school thought to me of, of humanism that I never thought possible; and the one thing that always struck me was the inherent decency of, of the characters that you cared about [uptalk], and it struck me that those characters reminded me so much, ahh, upon reading interviews of yours, of you; and this book feels like a really nice, it’s call A Man Without a Country, it feels like a wonderful conversation with Kurt Vonnegut.
Vonnegut was promoting his new book, and what globalist elite would not love the title? Some characters we don’t care about in the name of equality for all. The Chinese peasants missed that fine print in the Chairman Mao prospectus. All the best peasants do.
A Man Without a Country (2005) ends with a poem entitled “Requiem”:
The crucified planet Earth,
should it find a voice
and a sense of irony,
might now well say
of our abuse of it,
“Forgive them, Father.
They know not what they do.”
The irony would be
that we know what
we are doing.
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
“It is done.”
People did not like it here.
That is the real goal of humanism because that is the real goal of the debt enslaving elite, to destroy rival humanity. They know spruce tax farming requires price inflation and so livestock liquidation. There is no way to conserve livestock using credit leverage because credit leverage requires the money supply to expand faster than the wealth supply for loans to unwind profitably. The banksters are of necessity socially engineering an exit strategy, but not literally for themselves.
Humanism is a fake philosophy mass marketed as preapplied rationalism for dummies. New Age is the companion fake religion. Marxism is the companion fake science. The planet is neither so fragile nor at all human. George Carlin was correct that the earth is robust and, if necessary, will create a new paradigm: earth + plastic.
That which does not kill civilized essentially white patriarchy will make it stronger. You made the dumbass bubble so pop it, banksters. See if you get enough of us.
Turns out the globalist’s exploitation and exit strategy for useful idiots must at some point be a service to those who would want the range to retaliate. Fellow NTs, milk the primigenial reckoning fools now and position yourselves to survive the initial culling of SHTF. That’s what they are good for. Why let all that burdensome sheeple vitality go to your merciless adversary?
Justice is for the victors.
Cherchez la femme,
—‘Reality’ Doug, 09 March 2014