Not time for war yet

It is because you are correct, that MGTOWs must also be correct: anything that could diminish the value of bio-women and their bargaining power vis-a-vis men, such as sexbots, VR porn, and artificial wombs — and other things more technologically advanced, such as synthetic eggs for instance — is a justified means for the achievement of this end, an end whose ultimate upshot should be the absolute obviation of female sexual choice.

Every time I suggest that women control men because men have a substantially higher sex-drive (on average) than women, the denizens of this esteemed abode pounce on me and, with what appears to be denial induced by an ego-preservation mechanism, claim just the opposite. If my thesis were accepted, we could then discuss how biologically-constructed “sex-drive egalitarianism” would fundamentally undermine social egalitarianism, as men would no longer succumb to female demands with such servility. The implication being that a method to increase female sex-drive (what the horny Jews would prefer) or, conversely, a method to reduce male sex-drive without a corresponding reduction of testosterone (the better option), should be devised. But because various ideological conceptions and ego-investments prevent the people here from accepting my premise, no such discussion could be had here.

The puritans would not like to see any reduction in male sex-drive, because they confer feelgood/skydaddy points on humanity in accordance with their conception of “the struggle against sin”, so if we simply remove the “sinful” desire itself, that would deprive them of the immense pleasure they gain from upbraiding fellow man and guilt-tripping their own selves over the “omnipresent temptation”. Puritans enjoy nothing more than to tell you that you should struggle and struggle and struggle against your natural biological drives, and instilling a sense of guilt in you for failing to do so. That’s why puritans are vehemently against modesty: modesty reduces the temptation, ergo “the struggle against sin” becomes easier, and so fewer feelgood/skydaddy points can be conferred thereby. The puritans — MODERN DAY puritans — support immodesty, because that way they can high-five one another for not giving in to temptation.

Thus, they would be vehemently against any attempt to simply reduce the “sinful” desire by scientific means. In case you still don’t grok my point:

The puritan tells himself “I feel very strong temptations, but I resist them,” and after telling himself that, he experiences a pleasant sensation known as the “feelgood” in his brain, and if religious, invokes skydaddy’s abstracted approval, though most modern-day puritans aren’t very religious. Because of the brain-sensation known as “feelgood”, he persists in his struggle against sin, and when he occasionally fails in the struggle, for instance by jerking off to Eichenwald-tier pornography, he feels a sense of guilt; but the sense of guilt eventually brings a smile to his face, because puritans are masochists who feel superior for their exquisite self-abnegation, and so the emotion of guilt also results in a “feelgood” sensation in their brains. (that’s right, there I said it: puritans enjoy feeling guilt and enjoy making you feel guilty)

The non-puritan, who is often in the minority unfortunately, has no time for this feelgood-accumulation psychology, he just wants the “struggle” to be over with so he won’t have to be distracted by the incessant “noise” that is liberated female sexuality, therefore he supports modesty and he supports the alleviation of the sex-problem by means of reducing female control over males through sexuality. I’m the only one here who is 100% consistent about this issue, so naturally all the confused fellas attack me for my clear-cut exposition of my view.

Most of you haven’t dug as deep down into the rabbit hole as I have, so you are unfamiliar with the great MGTOW website “No Ma’am”, which is one of the websites that have inspired the whole manosphere. On no-maam dot blogspot, titled “Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise is Deafening”, there is a great post which I would like to share for your edification:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Quote: “… young women tend to get away with murder just by flaunting it.”

Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!”

I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I’ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris’ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species’ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents–which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it’s never an accident: it’s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.

If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.

Once again, women don’t make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males “can’t keep their eyes to themselves.” It’s just more testing. If nothing else, it’s a test of the male’s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. “I’m not logical. Deal with it.” What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate.

In “traditional” cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn’t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.

In our “modern,” revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it’s a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don’t feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the “patriarchy” women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our “enlightened” social order, where women are “free to be themselves.” The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don’t know what’s best for their own welfare.

People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you’re selling what you’re showing? But of course, as our “modern” culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures’ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I’ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn’t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, “This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?” It was sad.

I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments”:

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less “nasty, brutish and short” than that of the animal world from which we came–and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.””

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Lastly, I (Anonymous, in case you are retarded and don’t realize the quote from the website is over now) would suggest reading the entire website of No Ma’am as that’s one of the best anti-feminist websites that have ever existed. Take the damn redpill motherfuckers.