zazen

Demeaning an entire religious group of 2 billion people because some of them incompetently perform their responsibilities and abuse their position to cause undue harm is foolish and short-sighted. Most muslim men are not monsters looking to cause harm and it's ignorantly offensive and unjust to characterise them as such. In Islam and in their patriarchal structure the conduct of wives, sisters and daughters is regulated by fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands - incidences of mistreatment from a man towards the women in his family or community is dealt with by other men. Men do not just exist to control, but to guide and protect. It's not as if every man she knows is conspiring to make her life hell. Such a notion is a ridiculous caricature of patriarchy.

No civilisation is good or bad in its entirety. But we can't leave out the golden age of Islam and their preservation of and writings of the greeks which some say sparked the 'Western' enlightenment and others say contributed to it. You are categorising almost 2 billion people as hateful and sterile people with no conscience or morals. ''Westerners are more mentally ill than they've ever been before and there exists a dearth of rationality in public discourse. Everything's hyper emotionalised and exaggerated, reactive + bereft of stoicism. Westerners are, quite simply, going nuts, because the natural order has been disrupted, and because the disruption of that order has taken the steady political and communal functioning of their families away from them, and the stability that provides. Combine that with Godlessness, and you have mass misery. There is no purpose, nor sense of connection to anything - just an endless hedonic treadmill of capital pursuit - an obsession with money. That's all that remains to fill the gaping void left by social breakdown. And so a high trust culture becomes a low trust culture, and the height of civilization becomes the global laughing stock. Loneliness is greater than ever despite connectivity being greater than ever - a dark and poetic irony. People are miserable, but they think is normal. And our governments try to export this to you. They try to break you like us, to destroy you in the way they destroyed their own people. And if your government tries to preserve your culture and defy their social edicts, they subject you to regime change to impose their ways. But the main regime that needs changing is the one that goes around trying to change everyone else's. The regime that broke its own people, then exports its dysfunction globally and labels it progress, when not doing as they say leads to punishment and lack of foreign investment. As a westerner, I would like to think the west is a force for good in the world - but I struggle to see it. I am not treasonous or self-loathing, I love our heritage, but I am observant. And the culture we are exporting is poisonous. Where we once civilized we simply now corrupt. The most ardent anti-westerners will of course deny we ever civilized anything at all. That the western man was always evil, never did any good for the world, and deserves the current doom befalling him - I don't believe that, but I appreciate why they might hold this sentiment. ''

The problem with religion isn’t that it attempts to reveal the absolute, but that it believes its interpretation of it is absolute. People will misrepresent and use religion to justify what reason can't. The problem with ideology and identity is that they can become rigid in their limitedness and fight against the unlimited outside of themselves. The problem with industry is that it unpersons the people who fuel it as 'consumers' and turns members of society into numbers and cogs in the machinations of industry whose apex value is profit. What we are seeing is an intersection of the shadow elements of religion, ideology, identity and industry.

Rollo couldn't answer what a high value man is, yet made a list of how to become one in the fastest way possible (which included getting a vasectomy to not get baby trapped and knock you off your grind to building an empire of millions). What is a high value man? A high value man is valuable in his totality, not just in one domain. He is a convergence of values. In terms of dating this would equate to fulfilling what women find valuable, and women, like men are multi dimensional (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual). The body has needs (survival and reproduction), psychology has wants (fulfilment and connection) ,and the spirit has a longing to realise its source (enlightenment). A man would satisfy these values by being healthy and strong (physical), intelligent and creative (mental), loving and playful (spiritual). The masculine principle is strength / a projecting energy of the sun, where as woman's is softness / a receptive energy of the moon. The above are just manifestations of strength. Would love your guys thoughts?

Great responses. Funny he couldn't define what a high value man is, as its more metaphysical. A high value man is one who has higher values of morality, not just high in values of the lower world of material, in arrested development. A high value man entails a convergence of values towards the apex of values, that integrates the lower ones - he becomes a sort of meta man. A man can be high in certain values, yet lack higher values - he is just high value in lower values, not high value per se. Material values are quantitative, moral values are qualitative, and a high value man is one of quality, not just a quantity of things.

''At first you thought Elon was backing out of the deal to buy Twitter, but he got the people who didn't want him controlling it begging him to to buy it anyway. Now you think Elon's jumped the shark by hiring this new WEF, pro vax, BLM supporting raging leftist as CEO. Man's playing 4D Chess and installing an ideological enemy as a puppet head. It's a prophylactic move. Think about it. Much harder for the US government or the left to delegitimise Twitter when it's public facing top executive is some radical leftist woman who spouts all the acceptable mainstream talking points. As long as she's just a hamstrung symbolic figurehead he damage controls behind the scenes - which I believe is his intention - all is well. So it's not over, and we're not done. Big man Elon is just playing games you don't understand. You don't get to be a billionaire without being shrewd - remember this lesson: if a genius does something that looks stupid to you, it's probably 4D chess. '' illimitable man

Reality is biologically / physically conservative yet mentally / spiritually liberal. The level of form / material has limits, is finite, conserved by form. The level of the formless / spiritual is limitless, infinite, liberal. Right is masculine,yang. Left is feminine,yin. To deny objective physical reality for the subjective metaphysical reality is where the far left get things wrong. They choose the fluid formless essence of God over the external form of God. Trying to impose the spiritual fluid realm onto the physical realm of fixity is the issue. Lost in translation of realms. Though the soul is boundless, we are bound in flesh. Though spirituality has subjectivity, we are still subject to the physical, for we are incarnate. The duality - awareness of it, articulation of it, understanding of it, and living with it is the art that we need.

From Illimitable man blog on the red pill and its inception '' First and foremost, the red pill is about giving males direction in order that they may fulfill their innate potential, in a culture which gives the male gender little to no guidance on actualising their sense of innate and biologically driven masculinity, where society has ignored male needs The Red Pill takes centre stage, a reaction to a societal problem, it attempts to give men of all ages the tools they need to introspect (take a look at themselves) and address their shortcomings in order to overcome them. No rites of passage, a common prevalence of absent fathers and a feminised gynocentric culture has essentially robbed fathers of agency over their children, with a lack of fatherly input into the raising of children in modern western feminist societies men are becoming increasingly lost. These are the same feminist controlled societies which shame masculine norms and values left, right and centre and resultantly has left a lot of teenage boys, young men, fathers and divorced men feeling disillusioned because society simply just does not care about their existence, their growth or their needs. They feel invisible because society focuses purely on the needs of the feminine and ignores masculinity outside of a negative context. When broken homes and single parent families are the norm there’s a lot of children out there growing up without the direction they need to succeed in life. Young girls are hurt by the feminist destruction of the family unit too, however The Red Pill’s main focal point is the male perspective of the fallout that institutionalised radical feminism has created and what we, young boys, young men and older men can do in the paradigm our ancestors left us by successfully adapting to it. ''

Chris Wiliamson isn't 'red pill' per se but discusses dating dynamics and is writing a book called Mating Crisis. Very balanced guy. The below is from Illimitable man blog. ''To fully live all the aspects of red pill philosophy in your life, you’d have to be incredibly immoral. Immoral to a degree that the vast majority of people are incapable of becoming without severely damaging themselves. Be that their mental health, physical health (drug usage) or both. To be amoral is to be psychopathic, because amorality is neutrality, it is factual, it is absent human emotion. Human action and intent is not amoral, only strategy/knowledge itself is. Do you see the disconnect there? If humans are emotional and amorality focuses on the realm devoid of emotion, then amorality is quite simply not a realm you operate in. The world is not a fair place. Sometimes unvirtuous behaviour is a question of simple survival, but this needs no glorification. If it’s necessary, and you’re not simply indulging yourself, so be it. There’s a difference between stealing to eat, and stealing because “well, who’s gonna stop me?” Men who get the game, but choose not to steal other people’s girls or scam people out of money in manipulative sales pitches aren’t blue pillers; they simply have stronger moral principles than you do. Maybe they can afford to have those principles and live well, and you can’t. Maybe they enjoy being altruistic more than they enjoy being sadistic, and for you phenomenon is inverted; it is what it is. Red pill philosophy is here to show you how the game works, not to tell you how to live your life. We give advice when asked, sure, but you live the way that suits you best; you own your choices. The red pill philosophy is amoral in the sense that it says “it is what it is.”: Hypergamy? It is what it is. Branch swinging to the next best thing? It is what it is. Alpha fucks, beta bucks? It is what it is. Women have innate value whilst men don’t? It is what it is. You can’t change these things, you can build a culture designed to subvert these things, but they’re not going anywhere. The reason the modern west is falling apart socially is because we don’t subjugate these things like we used to. Peel back all the bullshit, and you see women, as well as a lot of men who utilise red pill philosophy, are immoral creatures. I don’t intend that to be a value judgement, but without getting into some nuanced philosophical/metaphysical argument and redefining what good and bad are (people always try to whore up my time with this nonsense,) we all know what good and bad is innately. I’m not going to debate you on technicalities to help you justify the virtue of what is otherwise deemed morally reprehensible.''

If looking at it from a purely rational view, what reasoning is there behind having kids? We don't ask the reasons for beauty, laughter or joy in that they are in and of themselves valuable inherently. It seems having children intentionally is almost like voting that one thinks the world is headed in the right trajectory and improving. If one is aware of the many issues at hand be it environmental, demographic contraction causing a cascading economic decline, social issues and humans wielding the power of the gods (tech) without the commensurate wisdom to steward such power and technologies without self annihilation, what sane conscious individual would choose to bring kids into existence? The uphill task of firstly just making enough to afford it, then to educate and bring up children in a more degenerate and lost culture brings one to conclude the reward is not worth the effort, other than making a rational case for an emotional decision.

Nicely put!

Life is so vast, that intellect and logic are unable to contain it. Life contains logic and intellect that is part of man. Logic parts life in an attempt to grasp its immensity and in which man feels an existential angst. Science is to know the exterior objective physical world, religion is to know the interior subjective world of man. The subject of which is an abyss to the intellect, for the source of who we are, that is God, is vast. A part can’t contain the whole, but is contained by it. We are in a intellectual abyss for we are trying to grasp an abyss beyond logic and duality (subjective), with an intellect that is logical and dual (objective) Man is lost in translation, the translation of realms and dimensions that he is betwixt. The realm of logic and love. Metaphysics is about that which is beyond physics, beyond the laws of the physical world, for we exist within the spiritual,within God, not without. Logic deduces the whole to its parts. In deduction exists reduction. The part tries to get to the whole that is larger than itself. The physical world follows logic, the other world is beyond logic. Logic is science, what is beyond logic is religious. Science is about the seen world, religion about the unseen. It is not that God is dead, but that we are dead to the world of God. People who sense something beyond the objective materialist world, are correct, but not in their interpretation and application of it to the world of physical laws. They try to impose the metaphysical which is illogical and infinite to the physical which is logical and finite. Both exist, but in their respective realms, within reality. Reality encompasses realms, a certain realm cant encompass and be imposed on reality. To fit the metaphysical onto the physical is the issue. We are not apart from the metaphysical, but in process with it, and yet we try to part ourself from it in order to grasp it with our intellect of which it can only grasp the part and not the whole. To tie this into politics, the far left lean into subjective reality denying the objective, the far right objective reality at the cost of the subjective. The spirit is bifurcated through biology but longs to transmute that to which it is born into, back to its source, unity. The trans movement,whether in biology or humanism appeals to the spirit of man but not in the expression it takes in society. It is a hijacking and misinterpretation of the spiritual instinct to transcend biology and be free from the flesh. Man wants to transcend the duality of his biology, not transmix biology. If we are subjects experiencing the objective world, then the question arises who is the subject, who am I? Beasts know not that they are, man knows that he is, but not who he is. An awakened one, a prophet knows who he is. Ordinary man is in limbo between these dimensions. The external world is dual, dialectic, syllogistic, logically a place of cause and effect, thesis and antithesis. The interior world is in its essence synthesised. Synthesis isn’t external but internal, of the spirit that is one. We try to synthesis that essence, externally. Mans trouble is his sense of being between the duality of realms, lacking the awareness and comprehension of his oneness amongst the duality. His struggle and angst is in comprehending, translating, and existing between these realms, to be in the world and not of it. To partake in life, without parting himself from it through the means of his intellect, which tries to fragment the tapestry of the life to its parts in an attempt to feel at ease with it. The finite can only hold the finite, the mind makes the infinite finite for its sake. To hold life's essence is to be-hold it. To behold, one must first be. The intellect, a lousy master but a good servant clouds this being. Empty the mind and be, to behold life and be held by the essence that is life, that is to be with the infinite, dis-embodied yet embodied. Logic asks why, love asks why not. Logic reduces life to its part, love raises life to its whole. Logic is the realm of the physical world of cause and effect, love the realm of the spiritual world of union. Logic is causal minded, love is union felt. Logic goes through the part, love through the whole. Logic is linear, life non-linear, circular. Alchemising itself. A straight line, taken to its end will circle the earth back to itself. A line is part of a circle, yet we focus only on the line. Behold, the circle of life.

Life is so vast, that intellect and logic are unable to contain it. Life contains logic and intellect that is part of man. Logic parts life in an attempt to grasp its immensity and in which man feels an existential angst. Science is to know the exterior objective physical world, religion is to know the interior subjective world of man. The subject of which is an abyss to the intellect, for the source of who we are, that is God, is vast. A part can’t contain the whole, but is contained by it. We are in a intellectual abyss for we are trying to grasp an abyss beyond logic and duality (subjective), with an intellect that is logical and dual (objective) Man is lost in translation, the translation of realms and dimensions that he is betwixt. The realm of logic and love. Metaphysics is about that which is beyond physics, beyond the laws of the physical world, for we exist within the spiritual,within God, not without. Logic deduces the whole to its parts. In deduction exists reduction. The part tries to get to the whole that is larger than itself. The physical world follows logic, the other world is beyond logic. Logic is science, what is beyond logic is religious. Science is about the seen world, religion about the unseen. It is not that God is dead, but that we are dead to the world of God. People who sense something beyond the objective materialist world, are correct, but not in their interpretation and application of it to the world of physical laws. They try to impose the metaphysical which is illogical and infinite to the physical which is logical and finite. Both exist, but in their respective realms, within reality. Reality encompasses realms, a certain realm cant encompass and be imposed on reality. To fit the metaphysical onto the physical is the issue, its not that we come from the metaphysical, but out of it. We are not apart from the metaphysical, but in process with it, and yet we try to part ourself from it in order to grasp it with our intellect of which it can only grasp the part and not the whole. To tie this into politics, the far left lean into subjective reality denying the objective, the far right objective reality at the cost of the subjective. The spirit is bifurcated through biology but longs to transmute that to which it is born into, back to its source, unity. The trans movement,whether in biology or humanism appeals to the spirit of man but not in the expression it takes in society. It is a hijacking and misinterpretation of the spiritual instinct to transcend. Man wants to transcend the duality of his biology, not transmix biology. If we are subjects experiencing the objective world, then the question arises who is the subject, who am I? Beasts know not that they are, man knows that he is, but not who he is. An awakened one, a prophet knows who he is. Ordinary man is in limbo between these dimensions. The external world is dual, dialectic, syllogistic, logically a place of cause and effect, thesis and antithesis. The interior world is in its essence synthesised. Synthesis isn’t external but internal, of the spirit that is one. We try to synthesis that essence,externally. Mans trouble is his sense of being between the duality of realms, his juvenile awareness of his oneness amongst the duality. His struggle and angst is in comprehending, translating, and existing between these realms, to be in the world and not of it. To partake in life, without parting himself from it through the means of his intellect, which tries to fragment the tapestry of the life to its parts in an attempt to feel at ease with it. The finite can only hold the finite, the mind makes the infinite finite for its sake. To hold life's essence is to be-hold it. To behold, one must first be. The intellect, a lousy master but a good servant clouds this being. Empty the mind and be to be hold life and be held by the essence that is life, that is to be with the infinite, dis-embodied yet embodied. Logic asks why, love asks why not. Logic reduces life to its part, love raises life to its whole. Logic is the realm of the physical world of cause and effect, love the realm of the spiritual world of union. Logic is causal minded, love is union felt. Logic goes through the part, love through the whole. Logic is linear, life non-linear, circular. Alchemising itself. A straight line, taken to its end will circle the earth back to itself. A line is part of a circle, yet we focus only on the line. Behold, the circle of life.

Life is so vast, that intellect and logic are unable to contain it. Life contains logic and intellect that is part of man. Logic parts life in an attempt to grasp its immensity and in which man feels an existential angst. Science is to know the exterior objective physical world, religion is to know the interior subjective world of man. The subject of which is an abyss to the intellect, for the source of who we are, that is God, is vast. A part can’t contain the whole, but is contained by it. We are in a intellectual abyss for we are trying to grasp an abyss beyond logic and duality (subjective), with an intellect that is logical and dual (objective) Man is lost in translation, the translation of realms and dimensions that he is betwixt. The realm of logic and love. Metaphysics is about that which is beyond physics, beyond the laws of the physical world, for we exist within the spiritual,within God, not without. Logic deduces the whole to its parts. In deduction exists reduction. The part tries to get to the whole that is larger than itself. The physical world follows logic, the other world is beyond logic. Logic is science, what is beyond logic is religious. Science is about the seen world, religion about the unseen. It is not that God is dead, but that we are dead to the world of God. People who sense something beyond the objective materialist world, are correct, but not in their interpretation and application of it to the world of physical laws. They try to impose the metaphysical which is illogical and infinite to the physical which is logical and finite. Both exist, but in their respective realms, within reality. Reality encompasses realms, a certain realm cant encompass and be imposed on reality. To fit the metaphysical onto the physical is the issue, its not that we come from the metaphysical, but out of it. We are not apart from the metaphysical, but in process with it, and yet we try to part ourself from it in order to grasp it with our intellect of which it can only grasp the part and not the whole. To tie this into politics, the far left lean into subjective reality denying the objective, the far right objective reality at the cost of the subjective. The spirit is bifurcated through biology but longs to transmute that to which it is born into, back to its source, unity. The trans movement,whether in biology or humanism appeals to the spirit of man but not in the expression it takes in society. It is a hijacking and misinterpretation of the spiritual instinct to transcend. Man wants to transcend the duality of his biology, not transmix biology. If we are subjects experiencing the objective world, then the question arises who is the subject, who am I? Beasts know not that they are, man knows that he is, but not who he is. An awakened one, a prophet knows who he is. Ordinary man is in limbo between these dimensions. The external world is dual, dialectic, syllogistic, logically a place of cause and effect, thesis and antithesis. The interior world is in its essence synthesised. Synthesis isn’t external but internal, of the spirit that is one. We try to synthesis that essence,externally. Mans trouble is his sense of being between the duality of realms, his juvenile awareness of his oneness amongst the duality. His struggle and angst is in comprehending, translating, and existing between these realms, to be in the world and not of it. To partake in life, without parting himself from it through the means of his intellect, which tries to fragment the tapestry of the life to its parts in an attempt to feel at ease with it. The finite can only hold the finite, the mind makes the infinite finite for its sake. To hold life's essence is to be-hold it. To behold, one must first be. The intellect, a lousy master but a good servant clouds this being. Empty the mind and be to be hold life and be held by the essence that is life, that is to be with the infinite, dis-embodied yet embodied. Logic asks why, love asks why not. Logic reduces life to its part, love raises life to its whole. Logic is the realm of the physical world of cause and effect, love the realm of the spiritual world of union. Logic is causal minded, love is union felt. Logic goes through the part, love through the whole. Logic is linear, life non-linear, circular. Alchemising itself. A straight line, taken to its end will circle the earth back to itself. A line is part of a circle, yet we focus only on the line. Behold, the circle of life.

If one is spiritually actualised do they transcend lower base desires? Not that they have to deny them, but that they are no longer controlled by them and can choose to act upon them. Being spiritual doesn't mean not being among the physical world or denying it which moralist seem to do. It seems we are at civil war between our animal instincts and our higher intelligence telling us not to indulge those instincts. Actualisation integrates us, allowing us to have some control over our instincts and the ability to consciously respond to such instincts as we wish. Not all instincts serve us, this falls into the natural fallacy, that just because something is natural (polyamory) it is good for us. It isn't natural for our animal selves to be flying planes, create complex systems of civilisation, say no to calorific highly palatable foods filled with sugar fat and salt. We evolved in scarcity yet live in abundance, theres a mismatch with our genes and our environment triggering such genes. The instincts that evolved over millennia to serve us in the past now have the ability to destroy us if not managed and directed appropriately. Don't repress or indulge instincts, intelligently integrate them. Cultural and technological evolution is faster than biological evolution. We have excelled technologically/culturally, yet this victory has defeated us to the extent that our biological evolution hasn’t kept pace, and the instincts that once served us now hinder our well being when pulled out in the modern environment. Evolution on the level of biology doesn’t care for feelings, emotions, or our psychological well being. Only to reproduce and survive, it is amoral. But we are no longer just animal, we are more and have evolved the faculties to be conscious of consciousness and determine the path to evolution. We can now live by imagination rather than what our instincts tell us. Humans have a higher level of consciousness on the evolutionary spectrum, which come with a more complex psychology, emotion, rationality and intelligence. Because spirit has evolved this complexity within us, we have managed to build civilisation unlike other animals. Animals just have sex, eat and survive. We imbue these same acts with a sacredness, with our being and consciousness. Animals don’t have a choice in how to procreate, eat and survive, we do. Animals share their bodies, we share our beings. To be human, and to allow our animal heritage to still weigh on us and act upon us is missing the potential of being human. This isn’t to say we shun and deny our animal heritage, or feel guilty, dirty etc about it which is what religion has tried to do in an attempt to keep our instincts in check, that only creates more suffering and a rebellious attitude. We are seeking to liberate ourselves from our animal nature towards a higher divine nature, to live consciously from intelligence rather than compulsively through instinct. Humans have the privilege of having intimacy, to see another human not just on the physical plane, but the emotional mental spiritual also. Our experience of life is more intense, due to our intelligence giving us the faculty for such intensity. Animals just live, humans experience and create art and poetry out of living itself. Because we live more intensely we are affected emotionally more intensely. We ascribe meaning to the world around us because of the intensity of experience this world gives to our senses and our consciousness that experiences it. On a spiritual level we are one, and we try to extrapolate that out to the physical and promote sleeping around with multiple people because we are all 'one' and connected anyway, and try to normalise it. But in reality the spiritual doesn’t map out or translate onto the physical realm where the laws of biology are at play. Spirit animates the physical, yet we are still bound to the physical world and its laws. It is good that social shame and stigma has gone away from sex and women being more free in that regard, shame and tying our self worth to our 'purity' causes its own psychological mess. But to promote the other extreme where women are told to sleep around as a man would, when we have different biologies, and to socially nurture something against their nature in the name of freedom and the liberation movement does is ignorant. On a biological level women haven’t evolved to mate with many partners, there is a higher physical cost and due to this it is harder for women to decouple sex from emotion the way man can. Men are capable of sex with emotion, but also are far more easily capable of sex without it, whereas for women the natural tendency is sex with emotion. To nurture a promiscuous society, neurally wires the brain to respond to novelty and dopamine hits, ruining our ability to bond deeper with someone, or be satisfied in a relationship as you have more partners to compare to and are wired for novelty the same way social media wires us for short attention spans. Comparison is the thief of joy as they say. Practicing forming and breaking bonds, or learning to participate in the physical act of sex like a robot, without emotion as a animal would do, is against what it means to be a human. It misses the potential of what our imaginations could accomplish in terms of civilisation, rather than what our instincts would lead us to degenerate into. Its more plausible for men to go along with this line of thinking and promote free sex as its closer to our biology to mate with many partners, but in the it ends up ruining society as a whole, and the men who aren't able to obtain physical intimacy as easily end up hating the sexual free market we have today, sexual capitalism causes inequalities just as the economic capitalism. Alphas spoil women in the process of going through them hooking up, or occupy their heart and minds away from other men whilst they juggles a few at a time, causing emotional distress and collateral damage in the process when these women can’t tie down such men due to their high demand. These top men are incentivised to indulge in base instinct. If these alpha’s were actualised and more integrated i.e. compassionate for example and had the intelligence to see into society and the impacts there actions had, they would nobly attempt to overcome their base desire to not ruin women in the pursuit of short lived pleasures, and to leave these women for other men. Call it sexual socialism, a more fairer society in the realm of sex. Women who won’t settle for less then they got to experience at their peak (the alphas) or keep waiting out until they lock one down, leaves a lot of men and women without the possibility of love, causing the incel/black pill culture we increasingly have today. If the alphas were truly actualised they would realise the affects of this and have self control, transcend their instincts to stabilise society and give their fellow men and women of the tribe a better chance of having healthy relations, and in turn a healthy prosperous civilisation. Opening the floodgates of sexuality ruins a society, as Rome fell, the liberal West is having its own battles now. In the past, the left over men channeled there aggression towards armies and conquered lands, or were castrated to protect concubines. Today, to an extent endless porn / entertainment and a lifestyle causing lower testosterone is keeping things sort of peaceful,yet we still have bitterness taking place and lashes of violence ie shootings etc. Our animal nature isn’t bad, but to default to it because it is our nature, or that we should act according to our animal instincts is too simplistic and comes with its very own set of issues which we can now see around us in society. Sex isn't bad, but sexuality, an obsession with one aspect of life and to indulge in it has its consequences. Broken families, relationships, bitterness and broken hearts between the sexes. We have freedom and liberation only partially, for we haven’t exercised that freedom correctly in how to conduct ourselves sexually/relationally. We are liberated in the sense of no shame in indulging our instincts, but not liberated from the consequences of indulging those instincts and the pain that brings. We are spiritually liberal, yet biologically conservative. Our spirit is liberal, in the sense it always wishes to expand us as its nature is infinite. Our biology and physical form is conservative due to it being physically finite. Form takes far longer to evolve and has the inertia and heritage of the past, and the traditions that formed around it that keep us grounded to our past. We must keep a balance between the two, for if we force the liberation our the spirit seeks, we shake our biological well being which is still heavily rooted in our ancient instincts and are yet to evolve to where our imagination and spirit wish to take us, which is towards liberation. Ultimately liberation from the self.

Depending on how its done

Very interesting post.

If you are long distance and rarely meet (if thats the case) shouldn't she be using her holiday time/resources to want to meet you? Depending on the age and frequency it matters. If younger than its natural for women to want to go on holidays with their girls, there still in their party phase and don't want to be stopped. You stopping her will make you come across insecure. If she does this on a frequent basis instead of coming to see you then its another issue. You can set boundaries and be cool at the same time without coming across needy. If she frequents girls holidays not wanting you there instead of coming to see you or arrange to meet somewhere with you instead, then she could be keeping you on the wings whilst on the lookout. You say she's amazing but does she think you are? Flip it on her head and realise your the prize, doesn't matter how hot she is, its not about that. Being with a hot girl who doesn't respect and love you and would rather party than meet you on a frequent basis (one off is understandable) isn't worth it. Your the prize, remember. You have the standards to be lived up to. Could say something along the lines of: I don't give my commitment away that easily, and appreciate you. Your free to do as you wish, likewise Im free to respond how I feel appropriate, and in my eyes a woman in a relationship doesn't frequent holidays or parties without her boyfriend. If that something you'd want to continue maybe our values are incompatible, but you do what you feel is right. You've told her your boundary, but given her the freedom to live up to it or not. Her actions will tell you what she really thinks at that point. But you setting your boundary and that your the chooser, sets a frame that your the one who's high value. And if her or anyone ever tells you your insecure due to your natural instincts as a man hold your ground and tell them its about respect not insecurity. Your frame should be, I dare another guy to talk to her and think he can out do me, good luck.

Lol, jokes aside though. Quote '' The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a girls night out is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviours by acting indifferent.'' Quote '' There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. '' We have instincts that are natural, how we respond to them and how they act out is what matters. A man who doesn't care at all about his woman and her behaviours clearly doesn't have value himself or the relationship. It may come across cool, and initially being cool in the beginning stages is what hooks a woman into a relationship, but once in you must start protecting the relationship as the man. It is in our nature to protect, and a women to feel protected by you. If not, her comfort level will diminish. In pick up they talk about the balance of value and comfort, not caring at all so that you don't come across 'needy' doesn't fulfil the comfort side of the equation, only the fuck boy non chalant side, but a high value man is an integrated man, an actualised man who balances the precipice of both. Its tricky as theres a fine line between coming across insecure (not worthy and fearful of competition) and showing that your a man with standards and boundaries to be respected. If you keep conceding to everything like a walk over then that can tilt into the opposite and imply that your so insecure and don't want to upset your woman that you'll just let her do whatever in an attempt to please her and keep her happy or that you just don't care about her at all that she feels insecure in the relationship or not protected and will seek security in another man. The balance between stimulation and security. Not giving a shit may stimulate her, but it won't feel secure either. Your not trying to pick her up anymore, so put the tactics aside. Your not controlling her, your containing her feminine chaos within as masculine frame work in which she can feel protected in. Its not that your jealous or insecure as much as you think so highly of yourself and know your worth that you believe women come into your frame and respect the boundaries you have as a man, and if they don't your confident in your worth to replace her and know theres a line of women who will. You don't want to be too strong with boundaries to the point your woman is walking on egg shells as thats an unpleasant experience and will ruin the relationship. But if you let her get away with anything then ironically you don't come across as a man of value, or respect. A man of values has values in the first place, those values have to be lived up to, boundaries and standards are formed around them to which you hold others in your life too, including your woman. By having these and her living up to them or attempting to, she feels she is winning you, that she has someone of value, because he valued him self and had his own set of values and that she is valued and can obtain your valuation of her by living up to them. You improve her life in the process, win win. My question to other on this forum regarding looser boundaries to not come across 'insecure'. Where is the boundary then? If letting your girl go to vegas clubs continuously isn't worthy of a boundary then what is?

Love whatifalthist. If you see Peter Zeihans work its also very doom and gloom. A lot of the data presented can be true but its the projections of whats to come from the current data/facts that can be tricky to pin down as the human factor isn't always known, we can adapt in many ways and there are so many moving parts in the world. Saying that, some very intelligent people across different spheres have mentioned the next decade being a tricky one , and if things prevail then a transitory one to better times if we can make it so. Teal swan, Eckhart tolle, Ken wilber just to name a few from the spiritual community have said the next decade of two don't look very good. Ken Wilber mentions he's not hopeful for the next 10-15 years but eventually/hopefully we'll grow from it into something better. See timestamped video below. Some major negative trends seem to be - Demographics / a declining birth rate = growing populations lead to economic growth (if that population is educated skilled etc). We've been riding on the back of the baby boomers after world war 2 which had plenty of children. Young people are needed to fund the care of the elderly (via taxes etc). With a inverted demographic pyramid where there are much more old than young, the young are pretty much working and getting taxed heavily to care for the old which burdens the welfare system. With population below replacement immigration will open up to bring in younger populations, this causes tensions with parts of the population who would be anti-immigration, especially if that migration isn't the correct kind or don't assimilate well causing ghettos/gangs/crime. - Economic model = generally capitalism is good at growing the pie whilst socialism is good at dividing the pie, however socialist can erode the very pie it divides by its nature if left un checked in certain ways. Capitalism, especially late stage leads to the problem of high in-equality and the erosion of buy power for the average person as basics (housing,healthcare,education) outpace the growth of wages. Once in-equality gets to unsustainable levels as we have now, civil unrest being. What happens in the world of negative population growth, or the wrong kind of population growth ie unskilled,educated etc. How is economics structured for a society where the pie isn't growing any longer like we'v seen as the world globalised and traded over the past decades. - De-globalisation to regionalism = with tensions arising between competing powers and the world becoming a more multi polar world (the west and the east), if there are trade route disruptions vie choke points, or proxy wars in vulnerable regions (Ukraine) this affects energy markets, agriculture etc. Countries who are self sufficient can bear these situations. Countries will look to regionalise / on shore manufacturing, and obtain energy themselves or with allies to become self sufficient. - Energy = green energy is noble but unrealistic that it can replace fossil fuels at the stage they are currently at. The world has to slowly transition to green energy, and put more towards R and D. The inputs required for green energy are mostly under control of China/Russia, and require heavy mining. Through the whole life cycle of these technologies aren't as clean as they seem to be, only the dirty parts of it are out sourced to the mining regions where the mineral inputs are, even then the social factor comes in to question if the labour is ethical or not. With the squeeze of fossil fuels via the green agenda, the current war, and the world we are going into, the West in particular Europe will have to face whether they push their 2030 net zero goals later and find fossil fuel replacements or go back to coal if Russia turns the taps off. - Social / culture wars = The dating scene and the rise of black pill etc is self explanatory, the high divorce rate, broken families etc. In the name of liberalism and liberating ourselves from social shame and guilt of being promiscuous we have denigrated family units and trust between the sexes, only fuelled by the technologies that facilitate these social values ie dating apps, social media etc. Broken families leads to broken people leads to broken society. What could overcome these problems is awareness, innovation and communication. Unfortunately, modern technology and platforms stifling speech and communication due to their incentive structures isn't helping us with overcoming the many challenges we face.

Depends on age and cultural background. In the east leaving parents (especially when they are older) is heavily looked down upon and brings 'shame' upon the family. Tough situation when they have a very different mindset/values and judge everything you do or would like to do, and then balancing that with taking care of them and not upsetting them or the wider family that holds those traditional views. Very common amongst traditional minded asian (or eastern) families living in the west. You wish to live a certain way (ie don't agree with marriage0 but the family looks down upon you just being with someone as a partner as its 'haram' (sin) in Islamic culture or not 'proper.'

Quoted from Illimitable man: Women are enthusiastically attracted to cocky men. The more brutish, rough, arrogant, selfish, cruel, risk taking and self-superior he is, the more attracted she is to him. And all these qualities make for a terrible husband. Strength = survival, and in the mating game women are hardwired to secure strength in a man, in any of its forms be it good or bad. This is why women can be bad at picking men - they are specifically drawn to the primal, raw strength, rather than refined strength. Even if the mind (logic) says this man is bad, it the body and nature responding instinctively, rather than intellectually. Because of this specific attraction towards what is deemed toxic men, we hear about how terrible men are, despite knowing plenty who are very much good. Women can pick or have eyes on predominantly the worst of men, then besmirch all men. They have apex vision (only such men are visible to them or come on their radar excluding the rest of the normal guys who don't garner any attention, especially romantically). Men are constantly incentivised to become the very worst they can possibly be, to be shadow possessed (by animal nature) and stay shadow possessed so they have access to a plethora of women - women are unknowingly incentivising and rewarding the very thing they constantly complain about. Primarily and primally attracted to and giving sexual attention to dark triad men, narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals (Hybristophilia) and all the rest, to the exclusion of good neurotypical men, and then have the nerve to call men as a group terrible despite their continual preference for deviance and brutality. They did not care those men had those traits when they were seduced by them, they only found them repulsive when they were used to betray them and hurt them. Only then did they have a problem with it. They are drawn to raw strength, but only renounce it once it's done with them. Regular men see this, and it creates a perverse incentive structure in society. They think "how can I become a narcissist?" or the 'bad boy' - because they see "toxic men" with little regard for morals having so much success with women. Women are malleable, but aren't blind. They tend to be more socially intelligent than most men - and yet they continuously date the very worst men. So can we say the socially and emotionally superior gender's ignorant? No. It is a matter of subconscious preference for primal strength. Most men would rather become what women want, than be what they believe is right (most likely not men on this forum). Meaning if they see women always sleeping with terrible guys, they will aspire to become terrible in order to sleep with them too. Show him the villains get all the girls, and guess what he wants to be? Men must have a sense "the good guy gets the girl" to inspire heroism. There must be some pretence of this, even if it's not the pure and unmitigated truth, or we cultivate degeneracy amongst our men. Women and human biology isn't going to change in our life times or any time soon, biological evolution is far slower than cultural or technological evolution. This doesn't mean women are bad. It's more the case that they do not reject raw forms of strength that evolutionary served us over Millenia in harsh environments. It entices and tempts them easily, and they enjoy it. It is far rarer to see healthier forms of masculinity which can take that raw strength and refine it, it doesn't come as easily. Women fall to temptation first (wicked men) and because she is his temptation, he aspires to become what she is tempted by (a wicked man) and thus we have this unholy and unvirtuous feedback loop of sorts. He becomes his temptation's temptation to win the desires of his temptation, but in failing to restrain her, he has lost to her. Because he allowed her (women) to dictate the kind of man he would be, rather than aspire to be the kind of man he believes he should be. Many men today lose in this way, but they all feel like winners. Of course they do. They are sleeping with beautiful women, so why would they think they lost? It would never dawn on them. They wouldn't think they lost their soul. They'd believe they improved and evolved. Sad. There is a kind of dark poetry to the notion that in surrendering his goodness in order to become wicked enough to sleep with women, she in turn surrenders her body to him. It is a perverse kind of reciprocity. This is the damage free + unlimited female choice has on society, without the oversight of patriarchs to protect daughterly integrity and discriminate against deviant men, deviant men have their pick of the women, and the women's unconscious preferences encourage men as a whole to be deviant. So next time you hear a woman complain about her ex boyfriend being a narcissist, a sociopath, an abuser or some such, she is either wrongfully defaming a good man, or putting herself forward as proof and living testament of these words.

Theres a lot of content now days about hook up culture and its negative affects, or mens spaces talk about how body count affects pair bonding. How do we morally without guilt go about dating if we aren't in a position to be in a relationship due to focusing on other areas of life ie work, self actualisation or simply find it better to have a degree of independence, or we just want to do pick up for self development. We don't want to be celibate, but don't want a full blown relationship as that takes a lot of energy and time or if you don't believe in legal marriage/want kids. Mens spaces talk about casual sex being bad for women then promote spinning plates and 'enjoying the decline'. How can we enjoy the decline when we are living in that declining society. There are karmic affects, we create the society we live in. Dating can be viewed as development in that through the pain/pleasure cycle we experience, it forces us to seek the peace of presence which is always with us, it can be a force that pushes us and others towards self actualisation. But what we actually see in reality is most people becoming bitter, nihilistic, closed off, and dis embodied. They'll still have sex or meet those needs, but with minimal emotion, only going through the motions. And this is helped further through numbing, and substances such as alcohol, drugs etc. A emotionally healthy person should be able to feel emotion, a spiritually advanced person will feel emotion and yet not get attached. Thats what life and especially dating should teach us, to not be attached to form, and yet enjoy it. Be in the world yet not of it, I just don't see that happen and so have to question whether I want to contribute to that suffering. Knowledge makes one aware of the amoral aspect of human nature and biology when it comes to mating, evolution doesn't care about human happiness. We have to consciously live life to find happiness without giving in to some of our instincts. Ancient instincts, in a alien modern environment if not controlled will cause pain. Its why we can't just gorge on sugar salt fat, or have to fight to not be lazy when survival is taken care of. In the same way our mating instincts can cause a lot of problems and is in the modern world. As we become aware of the negative emotional consequences unfettered mating has long term when people can't get into relationships or have so much baggage from failed hook ups or dating trying to lock down people or guys who just want to keep things casual, it makes it harder to partake in the dating game knowing its negative effects it has on women and society. Even if you are honest that you don't want anything serious, people still try to change you or view it as a challenge, and even if they sleep with you that can bond them despite what they say. In the end people get hurt and there is collateral damage. What is the right path.. our instincts drive us to mate, but awareness of the heartbreak those instincts can have causes conflict on what to do. The celibate life is lonely and your suppressing your desire unless transcended, the bachelor life is emotionally taxing and causes guilt of countless heart breaks, the monogamous relationship route is a huge time/energetic investment and thats if you even find the right partner, that also comes with its own challenges as being life long monogamous isn't even within our nature and is almost a spiritual yoga in and of itself. Each have theirs pros and cons and offer growth in different ways. Even if one wants a relationship, the process that leads there ie dating is bound to cause emotional heart break. Maybe the past way of courting (ie dating without sex) was the safest way as sex emotionally bonds us too much to people we find in the end aren't even compatible. People we have love affairs with aren't always people we can build a life with, and that whole process adds baggage disrupting happiness in future relationships. Now we get to know people whilst having sex, where as before people got to know each other before sex. Maybe that is the best method of dating whilst minimising heart break.. but attempting that in todays world you'll come across weak or not confident enough before they move on to someone that seems more 'serious' in their eyes.