Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo

TEOMCROTE = TEOTWAWKI on steroids! The End Of Mankind's Current Reign Over The Earth takes into account that our ancestors were neither suicidal, stupid, nor our genetic inferiors but still wound up getting wiped off the Earth. Whereas CSER [cser.org: Centre for Study of Existential Risk] tries to PREVENT this dispensation from coming to an end, TEOMCROTE works from the eventuality/possibility/probability that the end our age takes place and what to do then

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
articles


- The Diseased Mind of the Authoritarian
- The Female Moral Vacuum
- The 2 Forms of Authority and Mystery
- The 20 Year Female Window of Opportunity

]This Fun Psychology Test Will Teach You A Lot About Yourself

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 9/17/2014, 8:15 am


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:40 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The Diseased Mind of the Authoritarian


Authoritarians don’t recognize themselves as such, or in other words, when people revert to an authoritarian state of mind they don’t realize they are doing so. Authoritarians, those crippled by the authoritarian psychological trauma, consider their use of violence completely warranted and civilized. It’s therefore extremely difficult to discuss with them the nature of their attitude, aside from the fact that their minds rebel against considering authoritarian violence at all. To the authoritarian mind ‘Life’s a b!tch’ and violence will happen now and again and you’d better get used to it.
Believing that violence is unnecessary and uncivilized is considered naive and utopian by the authoritarian mind. To them debate is also not about carefully considering the facts and coming to intelligent opinions but it’s about the most powerful telling the rest/others what the situation is or what has already been decided. Talking about true debate is to them simply propaganda, i.e. they assume it’s always about someone telling someone else what their truths are. True civilization is alien to them in all aspects of life.

The authoritarian mind was created during infancy and consolidated during childhood. To such people the thought of equals sharing equally is alien. Everything is about power. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don’t. That’s life and it’s a b!tch. When you’re on top you’re on top, when you’re at the bottom, tough !@#$!
This explains why and how it’s possible for such people to abuse the most innocent of the innocent: new-borns. Babies are just sh!t-outta-luck. Life is gonna teach them that it’s a b!tch and the person with the authoritarian trauma is just the person to teach them this lessen! This process is subconscious as it was conditioned before development of the conscious mind. As an infant the authoritarian was made to accept that there’s no fairness, no mercy, no guarantee of love or kindness. It was made to phase out emotion in order to survive and that heartlessness comes up any time any feeling of compassion threatens to come up. Seeing their very own infant lying there crying would trigger compassion in any psychologically whole person but with the authoritarian something completely different is triggered. To them the trigger is to shut out all sensitivities. If they did not the situation would remind them of their own childhood suffering, something they were conditioned to ignore in order to survive it.

  
The subconscious thought that comes up when they see their own children is “Life sucks, doesn’t it? See how it feels when YOU’re on the butt end of it! Better get used to it, kid.” This thought doesn’t actually come up because true feelings and thoughts about the matter are unacceptable. Such thoughts would lay bare the blame that should be placed at the feet of the sacred authorities in their lives. "Their authorities would never be so callous" for that would mean they were cruel and wrong and that is a truth that cannot be accepted by the authoritarian mind because that would mean their sacred authorities were just plain mean and should be discarded. Since authoritarian minds fear for their lives when their authorities threaten to fall away, (even if they themselves were to cast their authorities down) nothing that threatens their authorities is permitted to come up to the conscious mind. It is filtered by the mind, leaving maybe a vague sense that’s something’s missing or not in synch. Truly intelligent thoughts about the matter, however, will never be allowed to enter the conscious mind unless the mind is willing to accept the crisis that will ensue. This is why the mind allows idiot thoughts instead if forced to consider the matter. Under normal conditions, however, it avoids such considerations altogether.

Authoritarians don’t think they’re cruel at all. They’re nice, civilized, generous, charitable, tolerant, and loving. It’s just that they are all these things only when it suits them, that’s all. But isn’t everybody?
It never enters their mind to actually ANSWER this rhetorical question. For, in fact, the answer to that question must be that psychologically healthy individuals can be civilized under any circumstance. The thought of such civilization is truly alien to the authoritarian mind. If they ever consider such an attitude at all it’s deemed saintly or utopian, and certainly not realistic in their lives or in this world. They love their children, they say, it's just that sometimes the are 'forced' to become angry or violent towards them. It never enters their mind that you don't have to be a saint to consider that anything you're children do is the result of YOUR parenthood and therefore YOUR responsibility. So if anybody should be punished it's you, the parent. But why punish at all? Does it work? No. Violence only begets violence and trauma. Violence as 'solution' is only considered because of your conditioning. Aside from the authoritarian trauma violence as response to problems can only be considered barbaric and/or insane.

Basically authoritarians are nice as long as nothing triggers their authoritarian conditioning. After that everything shuts down but before that they can seem as civilized as the next person. (Of course considering the next person is probably as traumatized as they are that’s not saying much.)
Authoritarians give presents, love, attention, adoration, everything,, and look at that behavior and say “See? I’m a nice person”. When they’re cruel, opportunistic, or act insane they dismiss this with a “Nobody’s perfect” or “Well, in such and such a situation anybody would react like that!”
Therefore they never assume responsibility for their violence or actions in general. To them it’s all part of the Life’s a B!tch equation. THEY didn’t come up with that, did they?
The truth is they didn’t come up with it but they are the ones continuing it and passing it down to their children. In their lives it was their parents who came up with it but in their children’s lives they actually will be the ones that ‘came up with it’…

Everybody has their own specific triggers and even the triggers can vary in all kinds of ways like in intensity. In the end, however, what is universal is the authoritarian mind’s obsession with the sanctity of authority and violence they assume their authorities condone. What constitutes an authority can vary, as well, so some people challenge political authority but then they rebel at challenging their idea of divinity or parenthood or ‘science’. Authorities vary but the disease remains the same. It is the disease that cripples the mind through emotional scars that can’t bear to suffer thoughts that threaten the saviors in their lives.

Sometimes a movie, even one of little merit otherwise, can offer a unique dialogue or argument for a uniquely well put idea. In the case of saviors the movie Reign of Fire stars Matthew McConaughey as a dragon slayer who at some point in the movie admonishes the crowd who're celebrating him as their hero and says that a people that need a hero [or savior] are a sad people indeed; for if they look to a savior they are not looking to themselves and their own responsibilities. What the character in the movie is making clear is that you’re playing the victim when you accept heroes and saviors. Why do you need a savior, be it your authorities or something else? Because you are a victim and victims don’t have responsibility for their thoughts or actions and since you'd rather not accept your responsibility you accept heroes and yourself as victim.
But the saddest of all is how these self-imposed victims then create true victims of their children because their lack of responsibility for caring for them will result in yet more crippled minds to carry on the psychological trauma.

The true mark of civilization isn't how you face some fantasy outside demon but how you face your very real inner demons.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 1/29/2012, 10:43 am


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:42 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The Female Moral Vacuum [part 1 of 2]


If you ask a man whether he'd ever consider having a (sexual) relationship with another man, most will respond outraged. "How dare you suggest it?!" At that moment it's clear to them, and they make it clear, that there's a HUGE difference between men and women. This is something we as a society tend not only to ignore but to negate. Our whole system of schooling, for instance, seems based on the assumption of equality (of faculties) of men and women. The man defending his sexuality will assure you men and women are certainly very very different, but that same man will claim they're almost the same when it comes to how men and women function and what they're capable of. Well, one of the two must be wrong...
Mankind was Charles Darwin's favorite subject. In his book The Descent of Man he argues that mankind is typical of species of which male and female differ greatly. Unlike wildebeasts, crocodiles, hamsters, etc. etc., which are only distiquishable by experts. Even crocodiles can't tell a male from a female and only find out after certain rituals in which the female gives female responses. Not so mankind. Even human children differ, boys and girls, but this really takes a great leap forward during puberty. During this time the male adolescent starts developing the left side of the brain at the cost of overall development. The female adolescent really just goes on as she always has and is essentially ready for her biological task of mothering somewhere during adolescence [11 to 20 years, depending on diet; on average 18 in rural China according to The China Study]. Very young ages may only be actually USED to propogate in certain cultures or extreme conditions [if you need children in a hurry after a disaster, for instance] but God, nature, or biology has determined that females are set to go at a relatively early age. Not so young men.

Adolescent males are considered immature in our culture. This is a loaded sentiment. In fact, biologically speaking, they ARE indeed immature, but this has nothing to do with cultural connotations. Young men develop the left side of their brains at the cost of the development of the right side of the brain (and even of the body) for a good biological reason. They are to be the hunter/gatherers of their kind. This is a biological distinction in function of the human species. We aren't all grazing all day like wildebeasts or zebras. Nature has determined that mankind differentiate. Males develop the left side of their brain more than women so they have a great sense of space. We joke about women losing their way but it's very realistic to expect men to have a better sense of direction and 3-dimensional understanding. This talent was developed in puberty at great cost. Men sacrificed the development of the right side of the brain for this cause and in a way they suffer for it for life. But the suffering is mutual, because women too lack something: this development of the left side of the brain.

 
The development in brain humans have may be unique in nature and may be the clue to our intelligence. As a species it also means we are dependent on each other, as the male has a relatively stunted development of the right side of the brain and the female doesn't have the extreme development of the left side of the brain, which may not be necessary for her as a female but IS necessary for the species of which she is a part. The simple matter is that women are dependent on the male capabilities that are uniquely human. Men are dependent on women for what their right side of the brain has to offer them because evolution has in part closed this off to them. This is, of course, completely different from, say, species like the guinea pig which live in solitude all their lives except when they feel the need to breed. Men and women are dependent on each other for their specific talents: men for women's innate sensitivity and women for men's innate human characteristics of logic, 3-dimensional thinking, and focus.

Of course it's relative; a female bodybuilder or boxer, for instance, will exibit strength common men do not, i.e. culture, breeding, talent, and chance are still factors to take into account. It is therefore by no means logical or sensical to assume all men are superior to all women in certain areas, just like it's unrealistic to assume that a traumatized female soul may always exibit a superior tendency or ability to empathize or feel than a man. Generally speaking, however, there are specific natural/biological tendencies for each gender. Genetics and especially the important formative adolescent years make this an undeniable fact of nature.

 
continue to part 2

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 2/14/2012, 12:51 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:44 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The Female Moral Vacuum [part 2 of 2]


Having said that (to cover my back) there's a reason why men generally distribute philosophy and law, and it's not [as some women may conveniently suppose] merely because of woman's subjugated cultural role. Men are left-brain oriented. It's a matter of priority. Men tend to put reason before emotion. This is important for their genetic role; in order for man to fulfill his role of hunter/gatherer he must be able to put some goal before sensation. In order to cross a desert one cannot be primarily concerned with quenching the thirst one feels. Animals can be one-minded but that usually concerns very basic and simple concerns: the need to mate, to reach some destination, like salmon or migrating birds. Men can let a principle lead them and damn what it takes or what comes in their way! Women are nurturers; their tendency to think much of feelings serves them in their biological role of mothering. Millions of years of evolution have determined these distinctions. Though men are capable of nurturing, still their style of nurturing will always tend towards principle. Even when their principles are based on emotions and therefore outwarding seemingly very similar to a female focus on emotion, in fact it's source is quite different.

 
Men [generally and by nature, a distinction i'll omit for the rest] put reason before emotion. Women put emotion before reason. Neither is without reason, neither is without emotion,, but sometimes priority is everything. I've asked a few people "would you rather have good news that's a lie, or the truth that hurts?". I'm amazed how often people would prefer a lie. That to me shows a focus on emotion. I'm a man and i love good emotions, but i don't believe i'm going to get there by focusing on them primarily. I innately assume acting intelligently will get me further and am constantly ignoring certain emotions in order to obtain good LONG TERM results. This is a good way to distinguish between man and women, as well: women are about short term, men focus on long term primarily. It's not that men are totally unaware or uneffected by short term, just as women aren't totally oblivious of long term; it's about focus and priorities and someone who's generally focussed on long term will lead a different life than someone focussed on the short term just like someone bent on success through stealing leads a different life than someone who assumes hard work is the way to go; it's not about any one situation or result, it's more about general tendencies and the big picture. And the big picture of women is that they tend to short term and to weigh emotion over reason.

Men's minds focus on reason but also on principle. I've never seen someone throw principle to the wind like a woman can. You know the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". This illustrates how women can throw all reason, principle, fairness, sense of propriety or measure with abandon like men usually don't. I've heard a thieving, conning, uncultured druggie uttering "you don't kick a man in the balls, you just don't go there" but noticed how women in wrath hold no bars, know no limits to their cruelty and vindictiveness. Women in a fight don't scratch out eyes, stab you in the back, or drive you insane with cruel manipulations because they have less muscle and therefore no choice in the matter [though this is their excuse]; any small man might reason such; no, they do such things because they just don't care, there are no morals in the way. This is not because they are inherently evil, it's because they are inherently opportunistic and without principle. They focus on the moment, on the emotion of the moment, on how they feel, not on principle. This is logical because it correlates to the right side of the brain. It's a balance one can choose: "I feel this, I can do this or that; do I act according to what's right/smart or according to how I feel?" [One obviously doesn't necessary differ from the other in every case.] Men will choose for the intelligent/long term in more cases than women, it's because they're left-brain minded, that's all.

Ultimately this means women are inherently immoral. They are opportunists. They derive their morals from a number of sources:
- Upbringing
- Their father, brother(s), or husband
- Their culture
- Opportunity

 
If you bring a man to a new country with different morals, chances are he will keep his all his life. Women, on the other hand, will adjust their morals to suit their new culture/surroundings. This is primarily because a clash of morals is a strain the right-brained woman experiences as confrontational; she's buffeted by what she experiences as conflict with those around her with different morals. Men don't even notice such strife, they're focused on long-term goals, not having a good vibe with everyone they come into contact with. Many are the men who have seen their pliant, submissive, hard-working oriental wife turn harlot or high maintenance once imported to their western home. Men that move to the country where the pliant good-natured [feminine!] women come from don't have to deal with her reverting to western ways because she stays focused on the oriental culture surrounding her.

Some women receive an upbringing that more or less sticks for life, but there's a reason young women of subjugated peoples/tribes are taken and the men killed; the women will ultimately grow to accept the new culture, the men, even young ones, would rather die. Generally speaking women will adjust to new morals. That's not to say they do so easily or happily, but it's a basic difference between them and men. Women, therefore, not only CAN but need to be led, considering the fact that they are not focused on long term issues and tend to make emotional rather than intelligent decisions or to ignore matters that cannot be ignored. Certainly women in many cultures simply accept this fact, albeit not consciously.

It's important to point out here how their natural pliance is a good thing for the species and to men in particular. Because men are focused on long term issues, they don't let them go easily and women help them with this. Women serve to help men get back in touch with the moment and this is an important role for them to play in men's lives. This female moral flexibility on the one hand is important to men, on the other hand it's better to accept it's nature and not assume a morality where there is none. Though such a reasoning is unpopular in a culture that pats itself on the back for considering women's right to vote a matter of course and a matter of civilization, one might keep in mind what NATURE [as opposed to culture] has to say on the subject.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:46 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The 2 Forms of Authority and Mystery [part 1 of 2]


Blood type, conditioning [psychological trauma], and gender are factors that help determine how much one makes of authority. But there are 2 kinds of authority and the before statement refers to authority based on power. There is also authority based on competence or knowledge but that usually doesn't count for much and certainly not politically. And since politics colors just about all aspects of life power-based authority is everything, just as the result of power-based authority is that politics colors everything. It's a vicious circle mankind is caught up in at the moment.
In the same way there are 2 kinds of mystery. There's the kind that is supported by power-based authority and there's the authentic kind. In the end, whether talking about authority or mystery, it's always comes down to a struggle between power and truth.
As explained in part in my article Sanguinism; Differentiating Between Humans, bloodtypes 0 and A have a natural/genetic tendency to support who or whatever is in power. Contrary to this tendency is blood type B's tendency to base their actions on principe/law. This is a basic divide between 0 and A on one hand and B on the other. The 0 preference for strong authority is clear: the clan needs a strong leader and the members of the clan are conditioned by evolution to either lead or be led. The A preference to authority may be less clear. The kind of power-based authority that forms the basic tenet of A culture, however, is simply the authority of numbers. The masses are the ultimate authority. Think of democracy. Basic unrefined democracy is based on the concept that whatever the majority prefers is (therefore) preferable to all. It is reminiscent of the hive mentality. The only reason such an attitude can ever work for humans is because the fundamental human tendency to empathize with other human beings remains paramount. Laws or traditions, however, can override such tendencies and offer little space to those who belong to a minority. Imagine therefore your plight if you find yourself living among A's [or generally in a society with laws based on tradition or burocracy] and DON'T share this affinity with the traditions or tendencies that determine what is considered appropriate or good, let alone what's mandatory.

  
The only true measure of civilization must be to what extent freedom is acknowledged and accomplished for ALL kinds of people, no matter their conditioning, gender, or blood type. Any society based on tradition or more direct forms of power-based authority is basically ruled on the principle of might = right. Such 'culture' must be deemed barbaric and inferior. Yet this is the authority most mean when they speak of it. As i've mentioned before, one of the most violent peoples recent history has revealed, Germans, have indeed one word for the two concepts; Gewalt means either "violence" or "authority". How more blatantly obvious can one be? The very language of the German people itself implies the might = right principle: violence and authority are 2 sides to the same coin.
The second definition of authority, that of competence or knowledge that leads to a right to speak ' with authority' , can only thrive in the absence of power-based authority, people with the right to speak based on their (political) position. We see, for instance, how power-based politics ursurps science because science stands defenseless before political power. Only if political power were limited by law [constitutional laws especially] and a general culture of law-based power were the norm, could authority based on knowledge/competence exert the kind of influence it might/should. (The 2 definitions of "law" as either 'legal rules' or true laws [i.e. like gravity] are merely an extension of this divide of authority.)

Besides blood type the psychological authoritarian trauma rampant among mankind contributes to obsession with power-based authority. Authority is a kind of god to those with this disease. Loss of authoritarian leadership leaves such people with a deep-rooted fear. This fear of loss of authority is basically a primal clinging to a savior force supposed to be essential to life. Loss of authority for such people is equal a direct threat to safety and existence. A threat to the power-based authorities in their life calls forth a primal desire to defend their savior authorities. This is a life or death matter to the people involved. The tendency to support power-based authority is subconscious and deeply imbedded in the psyche during infancy. It cannot be understood or accessed through simple power of thought. As the Milgram Experiment shows that 65 to 85% of Westerners suffer from this condition to a considerable extent it's obvious that the authoritarian trauma is a force of extreme importance supporting power-based authority and the might = right barbarian forces in society.

  

A third support of power-based authority [one that is utterly culturally incorrect to discuss] stems from women. As already discussed in my article The Female Moral Vacuum women naturally tend to support force. Naturally women have evolved to be attracted to a male who will be a good father and provider and that means the most powerful mate they can find. Though this is subtle and certain characteristics in prospective mates that are usually not attributed to power may be attractive to a woman, in the end they are founded in what makes the strongest mate. Power can be subtle; if a man is intelligent this may seem to have nothing to do with strength but obviously knowledge and understanding have everything to do with power. In the same way there are male characteristics that may seem to have nothing to do with being the strongest male but ultimately the natural search for a strong mate overules all else and a nice male will probably be many times more attractive when he's SUPERIOR and nice. A woman intuitively realizes that a nice but weak male may be good for a time but doesn't offer defense against life's threats.

continue to part 2

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:48 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The 2 Forms of Authority and Mystery [part 2 of 2]


It should be acknowledged that this typical female attribute is appropriate when dealing with their motherly role. Children need leadership and the parent-child relationship is essentially an unequal one in which the parent is the leader. Therefore, the female authoritarian attitude is appropriate for both their dealings with children as it is with (prospective) mates.
Unfortunately, however, this female preference also works its way into what they prefer politically. The Western obsession with authority is aggravated by allowing women political influence. Their political choices as voters or politicians will naturally tend to support the principle of might = right. This is a general statement, of course. Obviously a blood type B female would tend to support law and principle more than a 0 or A female would, just as any female with a sophisticated civilized upbringing might. As a gender, however, their tendency to support power-based authority should be realized and acknowledged. Basically, the female mind works differently than that of men. They are right-side-of-the-brain-oriented and filter their choices through how something feels to them [feeling is situated in the right half of the brain] though men can filter something based on logic [centered in the left half of the brain] and damn how it feels! The male approach obviously leads to more intelligent results as far as political matters go. A man is far more likely to accept or do something that is necessary but uncomfortable or not in accordance with previous preferences.
In this respect it's interesting to note how Western people consider non-western attitudes towards women barbaric when in fact the Western attitude is really the most supportive of barbarism [i.e. the might = right principle], especially in the way it works its way into politics.

  
Like there are 2 kinds of authority there are also 2 kinds of mystery and these 2 are directly related to the 2 kinds of authority.
Authority is based on the unequal relationship between 2 parties and the power the authority bases its right to rule on usually has everything to do with information. Knowledge is power. The lack of knowledge obviously supports the existence of mysteries. (In this sense even a third kind of mystery may be considered: those created by a deliberately imposed ignorance. But i won't go into that further here.)
The typical mysteries associated with power-based authority are self-inflicted. The person suffering from whatever desire for a savior authority accepts all kinds of faulty information, gaps of logic and knowledge, and downright lies in order to support the savior authority goal. The truth is the first victim to this approach. The psychologically traumatized person who feels a deep and all-consuming need for a savior cannot support knowledge or understanding that undermines the savior. The mind of such a person looks for (and finds!) whatever idea or information supports the savior authority and attacks, ignores, ridicules, and generally discards all knowledge that threatens it. Doing so is a matter of life or death to the so conditioned mind. The primal fear driving such a mind becomes severly aggitated at truth that does not support the savior myth. When such knowledge is forced on such a person mental processes search for ways out, culminating ultimately in violence or if that doesn't work, in a general system shutdown. The truth can truly not be forced on someone. Because the primally conditioned mind believes and feels in its very fibres that losing the savior authority means death, any and all means to support the disinformation or ignorance that supports the savior authority are considered warranted.
Mysteries in this light are all of those truths that need to be suppressed in order to maintain the savior authority. If the savior authority claims the workings of the body are unknown, then all knowledge to that effect are relegated to the realm of the mystical. If someone proceeds to share knowledge of the workings of the body anyway, then that knowledge is dubbed suspicious at best and '(workings of the d)evil' in the worst case. Such ignorance is then easily maintained for if someone refuses to look into matters properly the only available knowledge remains that already supported by authorities.
As mentioned before, the self-inflicted ignorance means much knowledge is ignored as a matter of course, even when it doesn't directly confront the trauma or authorities. Life then becomes one great mystery and the role of (the) authorities is therefore evermore supported by the authoritarian culture, ignorance building on ignorance until all knowledge is suspect and only power is left to matter.

  
As power-based authority has its counterpart in authority based on knowledge and competence, authority-supportive myteries have their counterpart in true mysteries. A true mystery, then, is something one can simply either never know or not know yet. This can be as mundane as the mystery to men of how the female mind works or as profound as the concept of the divine. Though knowledge of divine matters may be acquired to some extent and thereby understanding can be achieved, truly religious authorities support the concept of divine ignorance: in the end we know nothing and the human mind cannot grasp ultimate knowledge about the divine, or if it is possible it is a matter for very few to achieve and to most people such matters will always remain a mystery.
Power-based authorities obviously have a lot to say about mysteries, even the profound ones. What they have to say, however, will obviously be based on their own power-based approach to life and not be profound itself.

Society and language itself are perverted by these developments. When using the terms "authority" or "mystery" there is really nothing intelligent to be said without prior mutual consent of what is being discussed at all. Intelligent debate about such matters implies understanding of the above and without such understanding all discussion of mystery or authority can be nothing more than going through the motions of the primal authoritarian conditioning and the resulting barbaric culture. No matter how much sophistication, reputation, research, tradition, or other forms of power supports artificial mysteries and so-called truths, power can never replace knowledge. Knowledge can create power but not the other way around. Power doesn't give one understanding of true mysteries nor does it ever give one true authority. Power is and always will be the ultimate tool of the barbarian, devoid of any true civilization and understanding of life's true mysteries and what power-based authorities have to say on the matter is to be ignored in its entirety.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:48 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The 20-year Female Window of Opportunity [part 1 of 2]


As suggested in my previous article ]The Female Moral Vacuum, women are inherently quite different from men and this fact has been ignored and made little of by Western culture. I don't refer to Western "civilization" because i feel it's not civilized at all to treat women as beings they are not. Generally speaking the so-called advancements Western culture has gone through have done little to make women happier; women have been offered new opportunities but these opportunities are those that tend to appeal to MEN, not to the nature of women. I'm not being fundamentalist or reactionist here; women have certain biological and genetic needs and though it may be true that many of those needs weren't being met by Western culture one hundred years ago, the fact that culture has changed doesn't mean their needs are being met now.
In fact, and i will argue, as far as female genetic needs are concerned, we are even further away from fulfilling feminine needs now than we were 100 years ago and the amount of lonely, heart-sick, and unfulfilled women who feel society has not done well by them is staggering.

  
Having children is a basic part of this issue. Women are naturally mothering people and it's part of their genetic make-up to feel a need to have and take care of children. It's good for them and it makes them happy. When can women have children? When can MEN have children? Well, men can have children from about age 12 upwards. Women, on the other hand, can only have children during an approximate 20 to 25-year window of opportunity starting around age 12/13 until around their late 30's. For women to have children at a late age is terribly inconvenient and sometimes dangerous; their bodies get too fragile and rigid to cope with the enormous biological investment that constitutes child-birthing. For a girl of 15 or 20 recuperating from child-birth and then taking care of a small infant can be a walk in the park; a more 'mature' woman not only doesn't have the physical recuperative ability to recover from childbirth but also often lacks the energy of a young woman needed for the strenuous task of taking care of a baby, losing sleep, waking up at all hours, nursing, etc. etc. etc. Women should have the children in their lives between the age of about 15 to 35 years of age, approximately. One can stretch this either direction, either to it's biological extremes of youth or maturity, but as a rule of thumb 15 to 35 is reasonable. However, it should also be noted that a woman in her early 30's having a child is pushing it: if she loses the baby, gets divorced, or if she wants another baby for any reason,, her window of opportunity is rapidly closing. A young woman of 15 or 20 who chooses to have another child is still very fit to do so. If she gets divorced she has years to find a suitable new husband while still having the attraction of youth on her side.

Our society, however, is pushing women to be MEN. There are a number of factors in their lives that are making it hard for them to live a life that allows them to take advantage of their 20-year child-rearing capabilities. This is disastrous to them as FEMALE PEOPLE. Having children is important to everyone, as any parent will testify, and denying women the chance to take full advantage of their ability to do so is unfair, uncivilized, and downright inhuman. Our culture assumes women must get an education while they are young but this is nonsense. First of all it negates the opportunity to rear a child when young, which is essential to their physical and psychological wellbeing, and secondly, why the obsession with getting an education at a young age? Women have to choose, as men do not, between getting an education at a young age or having children. Either we accept women can get an education later or we could respect young women for having children and set up opportunities at universities and schools for them to attend and still have their babies. Society right now is forcing the issue and denying young women to be what Mother Nature in her millions of years of experience would have them be.

In fact, the schooling system is the whole key here. It starts with forcing all young women, by law, to attend schools where they are corraled with not only others of their age but exclusively so. At no other time in their lives will their associations be exclusively limited to people their own age, but our schooling system forces this very situation on all our teenagers. Not only do teenagers hang out with only other teenagers, giving them a warped view of society, their own social capabilities, and people in general,, but they live in the teenage world where mature people [and possible mature mates] are 'the enemy'; after all, in our violent authoritative society where children are 'battered into submission' according to the rules of Black Pedagogics, no love is instilled for grown-ups. How can you expect young women to find a mature mate when it's socially not-done? Not only are the possibilities limited but as i explain in The Female Moral Vacuum they tend to adhere to cultural conventions and not take an independent moral stance. Therefore, if it's expected they find a young mate they usually shall.

  
continue to part 2

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:51 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
The 20-year Female Window of Opportunity [part 2 of 2]


The simple fact of the matter, however, is that a young man makes a poor mate. Two young people setting up a family, let alone two teenagers, are uniquely unqualified to do so. That's just a case of the blind leading the blind. It's much more logical for a young bride to seek out a mature mate who can not only appreciate what she has to offer, i.e. the ability to have children and youthful attractiveness, but who himself has to offer what she needs in order to take advantage of her child-bearing window of opportunity, i.e. career/money, wisdom, and the life experience he needs to be able to focus on one woman and children instead of 'sowing his oats' in every pasture he happens across. Our school systems, however, make it practically mandatory that young women romance with men their own age. It's a loss for all concerned, even the young men as the divorce rates illustrate.

Whatever the politics, that determine that our teenagers are to be locked away in schools, suggest, or the culture, biologically our species is set up to service this age difference between men and women. There are a number of physical factors to mention besides what pure logic might suggest:
1. Nature intended women to mother at a young age, men at a more mature age. The biological differentiation between men and women i discussed in The Female Moral Vacuum makes clear that men go a specific male route of specialization that sets them up for certain human tasks. This entails a focus to that which is 'outside'. Part of this development is that it takes decades; young men naturally seek out experience and information and this, and not raising a family, is their natural focus. Sex has nothing to do with this; they DO want sex, they DON'T want to be tied down yet. Young women, as discussed in the above-mentioned article, are naturally set to embrace their role of mother as soon as they reach 'maturity'. Their part in the human puzzle is to NOT specialize and be ready to procreate and assume the role of mother immediately. They not only can and wish to have children immediately [unless culturally discouraged, as in Western culture] but SHOULD, as part of their psychological growth, as it's what nature intended and for any organism to deny nature isn't healthy.
2. Men are attracted by beauty, women by maturity, mainly. It's commonly accepted that women are the beautiful of the two genders. If women looked mainly for beauty, they'd generally be terribly disappointed by what nature has to offer them. Though they are not blind to it, they focus on other matters such as security, luxury, or what can be rated as manly abilities that women naturally appreciate. There are only a few reasons to seek a young man as mate:
 a. there's a shortage of good mature males
 b. the only men you know and feel comforatable with are young men
 c. you're yourself a mature female; see next point

  
3. Men reach their sexual height around the age of 18, women around the age of 35. For this reason alone men and women of the same age are ill suited to each other. Young women don't need a strong sex-drive; they're beautiful [as Darwin has pointed out in his Descent of Man, health is the greatest attractive force and young more or less equates health] and can't help but attract a mate. Also, they can only get pregnant once so what would a strong sex-drive achieve but frustration? Mature females, however, indeed have a strong sex-drive. One can argue about what is the purpose of this function but it should be clear it's NOT for procreation, there's no logic to that. Though Western culture frowns on it, the most logical thing, therefore, would be for mature women to have (much) sex with young men. Everybody happy! In that case both young women and young men would profit from mature lovers to help them along in their development. How could nature have missed this opportunity? It didn't! We are biologically engineered to suit those not our own age and the species is the better, and the happier, for going with this natural flow.

Part of the above problem is the result of our, quite unnatural [if we're to take Darwin's research seriously], obsession with monogamy. It's natural for females to search for the best genes and wish to COPULATE with the healthiest males, which means they'll often be young. This is not at all necessarily the same as wishing to MATE with said males (in the sense of entering into a committed relationship). Women even have the ability to store the sperm of different males at the same time, thereby creating the opportunity for the longest living or most powerful or most compatible sperm to win from the competition. SEXUAL fidelity has nothing to do with the human species; it's a cultural convenience, no more. The male a woman chooses as FATHER of her children doesn't necessarily correlate with who she chooses TO FATHER them, much like chimpansees consider the dominate male to be the father of all children born but females still secretly seek out other males for copulation.

  
We defy nature at our peril. Our genes developed in the course of hundreds of millions of years of evolution and the same goes for our psychology. Recent discoveries suggest mankind in its present development has been around for about 1,5 million years. A few thousand years of cultural preference, and not even world-wide, wouldn't make a dent or a scratch in that development. We are the children of immutable biological and cosmic laws and no mortal authorities or even mass wishing are ever going to change that. Just like 85% of the peoples of the planet practice polygamy though the so-called West finds such a thing destestible, there are other human characteristics our culture is defying at its peril. It's like shaking your fist at a storm and expecting the storm to back away in awe.
This doesn't mean fidelity is meaningless, though it does mean sexual fidelity is. It's strange, though, that something most people wish to do every day [talking about sex], like eating, must be culturally delegated to one certain individual as if we would feel betrayed if our mate enjoyed a delicious meal with another! It's madness in any biological sense but with childplanning what it is today the sense of it is even more limited. You deny your mate, one you supposedly love and wish the best for, to have pleasurable experiences with others for what purpose? Our culture isn't adding to nature, it's subtracting from what nature has to offer us. The psychological authoritarian disease plaguing our planet, Black Pedagogics, has an important role to play in keeping these sick preferences in power. It's obviously not making anybody happy. It's merely a sick cultural game we play and we could all be much happier living our biological imperitives instead of wasting our time seeking to be some fantasy lifeform that we're not. Men are men, women are women, and both are human. Deal with it and you'll be happier for it.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 2/14/2012, 1:35 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/29/2012, 10:51 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top