by Aaron Kahland I have been living in Germany now for half my life. Men spend time with men, women spend time with women. If a man spends time with women (I have encountered such an example once) the other men think he is odd and want little to do with him. Indeed, the women think he is odd and say so openly. Reinforcement takes place in language – there is no ‘wife’ – you refer to her as ‘my woman’ and women refer to their spouse as ‘my man.’ Inter-gender social activity takes place when sharing meals or evenings together. If outdoors, men congregate at one end of a table or elsewhere and women at the other. What is constantly reinforced is gender difference. Women make jokes about men’s traits and men counter with jokes about women. It is unheard of that a woman would find offense at such joke because doing so would be considered a social faux pas and a denial of reality. This is, from my experience, true for the rest of continental Europe (Britain is culturally American in my view). The idea that women and men are the same would be completely alien to the French. Their society is more feminine so gender differences are more pronounced at the feminine end – with women in a constant state of emphasis on the feminine which manifests itself frequently via female elegance. In much of Eastern Europe the manifestation occurs principally at the masculine end – men not making any particular effort to dress well is an outward sign of masculinity. Man’s role is to work, work is physical, dressing well means you’re not working. Women dress well. What is also alien to me is this constant whining (I witness online, not in person) by young American males about their women folk. Maybe this is justified. If young women there are behaving like Kardashians etc then I’d be disatisfied also. But whining is the solution to nothing. So here’s my advice – 1. With few exceptions, don’t spend social time with women. What’s the point of that? Are they your peers? Are you going to learn something from those interactions? Is time spent with them somehow going to improve you? If you’re spending time with women frequently you’re probably weak and looking for some emotional comfort or some such nonsense. 2. Stop spending time with males who are losers and this goes for family members also. If your father is a loser – and for many this is unfortunately the case – then you assume the role of family Oberhaupt (head of family). 3. Build things. Build physical things. Build your physique. Build extra-salary/wage income. Build families. Build tribes. This is the most important advice. You do this and I can tell you that women will be attracted to you like a moth to a flame. 4. If you have children spend time with them? Where? In the forest, hiking, reading to them. Use every experience as a lesson – walk past an interesting building and tell them about the architecture. Walk past a monument and tell them about the history behind it. This same interactivity suggestion goes also – and especially so – for your woman. Developing a critically important relationship with your children is improtant for multiple reasons not least that your woman will see you as irreplaceable. 5. Read non-fiction – lots of it. This is needed for point 4. 6. Take offense at NOTHING – no exceptions. Taking offense is for the weak. Women don’t like weakness and real men despise it. The approach to criticism is simple. Do you respect this person? If the answer is no, you laugh it off. If the approach is 2, you think about and, if necessary, ask them for constructive advice on how to improve. Corollary to this point is apologizing. Tend towards apologizing by deed (self-improvement) not word. 7. If you are a young man and begin to date – take the earliest opportunity to assert the fact that you are masculine and you will not tolerate disapproval or even doubt about this fact. Make it clear that you expect your woman to fully commit to the notion that you will both be adopting different roles. Reinforce this via adopting chivalry. Walk on the road end of a pathway, open doors, reject traditionally women’s work but double up on traditionally men’s work. Be more masculine than her father – which for many women will be their benchmark. 8. Learn to cook – this is not women’s work until you have a family. Self-reliance is critical. Food, shelter and warmth are your core responsibilities. Think about this, do you think your grandfathers, if they were both your age and living today would be competitive males? Do you think you or your friends would stand a chance against them in competing for women? I expect they’d be at the apex of the dating game and laughing about all the pussies they were surrounded with.
Form: Excerpt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE ANSWER: PRICELESS ADVICE TO AMERICAN MEN
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE ANSWER: PRICELESS ADVICE TO AMERICAN MEN
by Aaron Kahland
I have been living in Germany now for half my life. Men spend time with men, women spend time with women. If a man spends time with women (I have encountered such an example once) the other men think he is odd and want little to do with him. Indeed, the women think he is odd and say so openly. Reinforcement takes place in language – there is no ‘wife’ – you refer to her as ‘my woman’ and women refer to their spouse as ‘my man.’
Inter-gender social activity takes place when sharing meals or evenings together. If outdoors, men congregate at one end of a table or elsewhere and women at the other.
What is constantly reinforced is gender difference. Women make jokes about men’s traits and men counter with jokes about women. It is unheard of that a woman would find offense at such joke because doing so would be considered a social faux pas and a denial of reality.
This is, from my experience, true for the rest of continental Europe (Britain is culturally American in my view). The idea that women and men are the same would be completely alien to the French. Their society is more feminine so gender differences are more pronounced at the feminine end – with women in a constant state of emphasis on the feminine which manifests itself frequently via female elegance. In much of Eastern Europe the manifestation occurs principally at the masculine end – men not making any particular effort to dress well is an outward sign of masculinity. Man’s role is to work, work is physical, dressing well means you’re not working. Women dress well.
What is also alien to me is this constant whining (I witness online, not in person) by young American males about their women folk. Maybe this is justified. If young women there are behaving like Kardashians etc then I’d be disatisfied also. But whining is the solution to nothing. So here’s my advice –
1. With few exceptions, don’t spend social time with women. What’s the point of that? Are they your peers? Are you going to learn something from those interactions? Is time spent with them somehow going to improve you? If you’re spending time with women frequently you’re probably weak and looking for some emotional comfort or some such nonsense.
2. Stop spending time with males who are losers and this goes for family members also. If your father is a loser – and for many this is unfortunately the case – then you assume the role of family Oberhaupt (head of family).
3. Build things. Build physical things. Build your physique. Build extra-salary/wage income. Build families. Build tribes. This is the most important advice. You do this and I can tell you that women will be attracted to you like a moth to a flame.
4. If you have children spend time with them? Where? In the forest, hiking, reading to them. Use every experience as a lesson – walk past an interesting building and tell them about the architecture. Walk past a monument and tell them about the history behind it. This same interactivity suggestion goes also – and especially so – for your woman. Developing a critically important relationship with your children is improtant for multiple reasons not least that your woman will see you as irreplaceable.
5. Read non-fiction – lots of it. This is needed for point 4.
6. Take offense at NOTHING – no exceptions. Taking offense is for the weak. Women don’t like weakness and real men despise it. The approach to criticism is simple. Do you respect this person? If the answer is no, you laugh it off. If the approach is 2, you think about and, if necessary, ask them for constructive advice on how to improve. Corollary to this point is apologizing. Tend towards apologizing by deed (self-improvement) not word.
7. If you are a young man and begin to date – take the earliest opportunity to assert the fact that you are masculine and you will not tolerate disapproval or even doubt about this fact. Make it clear that you expect your woman to fully commit to the notion that you will both be adopting different roles. Reinforce this via adopting chivalry. Walk on the road end of a pathway, open doors, reject traditionally women’s work but double up on traditionally men’s work. Be more masculine than her father – which for many women will be their benchmark.
8. Learn to cook – this is not women’s work until you have a family. Self-reliance is critical. Food, shelter and warmth are your core responsibilities.
Think about this, do you think your grandfathers, if they were both your age and living today would be competitive males? Do you think you or your friends would stand a chance against them in competing for women? I expect they’d be at the apex of the dating game and laughing about all the pussies they were surrounded with.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-02 12:20:56 UTC
-
THE ANSWER: PRICELESS ADVICE TO AMERICAN MEN by Aaron Kahland I have been living
THE ANSWER: PRICELESS ADVICE TO AMERICAN MEN
by Aaron Kahland
I have been living in Germany now for half my life. Men spend time with men, women spend time with women. If a man spends time with women (I have encountered such an example once) the other men think he is odd and want little to do with him. Indeed, the women think he is odd and say so openly. Reinforcement takes place in language – there is no ‘wife’ – you refer to her as ‘my woman’ and women refer to their spouse as ‘my man.’
Inter-gender social activity takes place when sharing meals or evenings together. If outdoors, men congregate at one end of a table or elsewhere and women at the other.
What is constantly reinforced is gender difference. Women make jokes about men’s traits and men counter with jokes about women. It is unheard of that a woman would find offense at such joke because doing so would be considered a social faux pas and a denial of reality.
This is, from my experience, true for the rest of continental Europe (Britain is culturally American in my view). The idea that women and men are the same would be completely alien to the French. Their society is more feminine so gender differences are more pronounced at the feminine end – with women in a constant state of emphasis on the feminine which manifests itself frequently via female elegance. In much of Eastern Europe the manifestation occurs principally at the masculine end – men not making any particular effort to dress well is an outward sign of masculinity. Man’s role is to work, work is physical, dressing well means you’re not working. Women dress well.
What is also alien to me is this constant whining (I witness online, not in person) by young American males about their women folk. Maybe this is justified. If young women there are behaving like Kardashians etc then I’d be disatisfied also. But whining is the solution to nothing. So here’s my advice –
1. With few exceptions, don’t spend social time with women. What’s the point of that? Are they your peers? Are you going to learn something from those interactions? Is time spent with them somehow going to improve you? If you’re spending time with women frequently you’re probably weak and looking for some emotional comfort or some such nonsense.
2. Stop spending time with males who are losers and this goes for family members also. If your father is a loser – and for many this is unfortunately the case – then you assume the role of family Oberhaupt (head of family).
3. Build things. Build physical things. Build your physique. Build extra-salary/wage income. Build families. Build tribes. This is the most important advice. You do this and I can tell you that women will be attracted to you like a moth to a flame.
4. If you have children spend time with them? Where? In the forest, hiking, reading to them. Use every experience as a lesson – walk past an interesting building and tell them about the architecture. Walk past a monument and tell them about the history behind it. This same interactivity suggestion goes also – and especially so – for your woman. Developing a critically important relationship with your children is improtant for multiple reasons not least that your woman will see you as irreplaceable.
5. Read non-fiction – lots of it. This is needed for point 4.
6. Take offense at NOTHING – no exceptions. Taking offense is for the weak. Women don’t like weakness and real men despise it. The approach to criticism is simple. Do you respect this person? If the answer is no, you laugh it off. If the approach is 2, you think about and, if necessary, ask them for constructive advice on how to improve. Corollary to this point is apologizing. Tend towards apologizing by deed (self-improvement) not word.
7. If you are a young man and begin to date – take the earliest opportunity to assert the fact that you are masculine and you will not tolerate disapproval or even doubt about this fact. Make it clear that you expect your woman to fully commit to the notion that you will both be adopting different roles. Reinforce this via adopting chivalry. Walk on the road end of a pathway, open doors, reject traditionally women’s work but double up on traditionally men’s work. Be more masculine than her father – which for many women will be their benchmark.
8. Learn to cook – this is not women’s work until you have a family. Self-reliance is critical. Food, shelter and warmth are your core responsibilities.
Think about this, do you think your grandfathers, if they were both your age and living today would be competitive males? Do you think you or your friends would stand a chance against them in competing for women? I expect they’d be at the apex of the dating game and laughing about all the pussies they were surrounded with.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-02 08:20:00 UTC
-
Sex Differences in Brain Structure
https://www.wax-science.fr//srv/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/Sex-diff-connectome.pdf -
Sex Differences in Brain Structure
https://www.wax-science.fr//srv/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/Sex-diff-connectome.pdf -
Aesthetics: European vs. Abrahamist
By Daniel Gurpide Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance. Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter. The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation. Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm. Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism. Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form. The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images. Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes) The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things. Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad. For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.
-
Aesthetics: European vs. Abrahamist
By Daniel Gurpide Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance. Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter. The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation. Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm. Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism. Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form. The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images. Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes) The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things. Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad. For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.
-
Aesthetics and Post-Modernism
by Daniel Gurpide Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos. The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare. From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.
-
Aesthetics and Post-Modernism
by Daniel Gurpide Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos. The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare. From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.
-
Aesthetics and Eugenics
by Daniel Gurpide In 1920, Knight Dunlap, President of the American Psychological Association, published “Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. “ Dunlap’s thesis is that what is called personal beauty really inspires the emotional appreciation of the many qualities that make an individual a fit and healthy parent for a fit and healthy next generation of one’s race. Beauty is a measure of racial fitness for the future. Men and women long for it in their mates, even if they do not understand the nature or significance of that longing. The desire for a beautiful mate is an ineradicable, primordial urge. It is an instinctive part of us. It guides us on our recently interrupted upward journey to higher intelligence, greater strength and power—and increased consciousness and wisdom. Dunlap asserts that the preservation of beauty is inseparable from the preservation of all civilised values and progress. To lose one is to lose the other. Further, Dunlap warns that our civilisation is fostering increased human ugliness and a withering of human beauty so drastic that only radical and strenuous change may suffice to reverse the process. What is personal beauty? Dunlap says that it varies distinctly from race to race, ‘but the type which is highest in value tends to approximate the European type, wherever the European type becomes known.’ What is personal beauty for Europeans? There are a great many markers of beauty applying to both sexes. In some cases, these are also marks of an ‘advanced’ race, from a phylogenetic point of view: characteristics which signify the greatest possible difference from more primitive forms. Considering the profile of the face, one may note the facial angle: the angle, relative to the horizon when a man is standing normally, of a line drawn from the greatest protuberance of the jaw to the most prominent part of the forehead. The average facial angle of the European race is the closest to vertical of any human race. Non-human creatures have lower and lower facial angles as we make our way from the more advanced to the more primitive. Less advanced and smaller-brained creatures (and races) have a lower, more sloping forehead (and hence less capacity in the frontal regions of the brain). More primitive creatures and races also tend to have larger teeth, and larger jaws which jut forward, hence making the facial angle ever closer to the horizontal. A man or woman with a high or ‘noble’ forehead is better looking to us than one with a steeply sloping forehead. The latter we instinctively view as primitive and ugly, whether we use those words or not. The protruding jaw or the underdeveloped chin and outsized nose give—to European eyes—the human profile a convex and snout-like appearance. Hence, they are bars to beauty, as Europeans perceive it. We may not be conscious of the reason, but our instincts are telling us that the highly evolved is beautiful and the primitive looking is not. The cast of expression of the human face may be the most important single factor in personal beauty. Even in classical sculpture, where the ideal of European beauty is literally carved in stone, and the entire nude form is revealed, it is still the sublimely high and spiritual expression of the face which arrests our attention more than any other single quality. The face is the site of the most complex muscle structure anywhere in the body—with a complex nerve structure to match—hence giving our faces an extremely wide and subtle variation of expression. With the dependence of these many muscles on the structure, health, and current state of the nerves, it is unsurprising that much may be learned of the temperament, state of health, and intelligence of a man or woman by studying his or her face. The face and, to a lesser extent, the other parts of the body, offer a constant and multifaceted reflection of the brain and nervous system within. Clearly, we find our instinctive ideals of beauty—not only as expressed in our sexual selection, but also in our art when uncorrupted and free—in these respects far outstrip reality. Very few embody all such ideals anywhere close to perfection. However, they are our ideals, and insofar as these ideals are favoured in our selection of who will be the mothers and fathers of generations to come, they will indeed offer a glimpse of unborn generations: a glimpse of what will be; a glimpse of the future.