WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

…your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical.

Not so. But I would agree that what I mean — about men who cannot any longer control snd direct their own foundational identifications, and cannot therefore take control of their situation — requires explanation and conversation.

Bring it back to earth and give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''.

I have, but you fail to hear it for all that you have ears.

[Fairy]

No, experience happens right now. And knowledge grows right now. We live in the present -- or more precisely, in the near past -- not in the future. The future never comes, but recedes infinitely before us.

There is only the unconceptualised infinite now. Knowledge is always of past tense held as memory, now.The existence of Knowledge can only exist within the memory. Within the dream of conceptual separation, and only becomes knowable when there is in the here and now present a demand for that knowledge, which is a reactionary knowing appearing as if it is an action happening in the present now.

Sorry...I don't understand this at all. And I'm better than most at reading difficult material, so something's fundamentally confused about this.

Okay fair enough.

[Peter Kropotkin]

You are going to have to learn, Kropotkin, to listen and then to think about what is said to you in response to your odd ideology.

You react to what I have written and describe it as “in the sky” (abstract, theoretical) which to a degree is true: because that is where any reversal must begin from. You have to clarify to idea first … and then implementation follows.

K: not what is ''to a degree is true'' but in fact is completely true....
your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical...
as it has no real world application.... bring it back to earth and
give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''

Kropotkin

How can it be "completely true" if everything is subjective?

It can only be "true for you".


K: and now you are playing word games instead of understanding....
trying to ''prove'' me wrong instead of understanding what I said....

Kropotkin

[Ansiktsburk]

That weak European feminized man does indeed sound like a guy that one would like to hear more about. And I do not mean that in a mocking sense. Myself being probably a pretty common european man is probably pretty feminized by some standards now having learned that the little tag on clothes indicates washing temperatures, even spending some months away from work with my kids whe they were tiny (our systems allow for such leaves) but I don’t know if I’m in any sense more weak than the average guy anywhere.

[Peter Kropotkin]

…your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical.

Not so. But I would agree that what I mean — about men who cannot any longer control snd direct their own foundational identifications, and cannot therefore take control of their situation — requires explanation and conversation.

Bring it back to earth and give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''.

I have, but you fail to hear it for all that you have ears.


K: that you fail in turning your ''weak femininized man'' into a concrete
person, doesn't surprise me..... it is an entirely a theoretical construct
in your head...and there are no real world examples of a ''weak feminized
man""...

and your insult of a deaf person doesn't surprise me either...
you seem to roll that way......

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

K: not what is ''to a degree is true'' but in fact is completely true....
your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical...
as it has no real world application.... bring it back to earth and
give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''

Kropotkin

How can it be "completely true" if everything is subjective?

It can only be "true for you".


K: and now you are playing word games instead of understanding....
trying to ''prove'' me wrong instead of understanding what I said....

Kropotkin

That's to make you consistent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Point out actual actions of a ''weak feminized man'" what does that look like, in real practical applications?

I have a few examples in mind. Let me start at a critique at a national level of what is being called “the border crisis”. Consider a nation conceived, say, ideally. Then pose the question: What nation would allow its borders and frontiers to be breached by hordes of people who invade its territory through an act of violation of the law? And, when those millions are settled within the nation’s territory demonstrate that they are powerless to do anything about it.

One reason I think of this is because I have a university days friend, a woman, extremely liberal, who told me of her “support” for those hordes of Venezuelan illegals who are being cared and housed by the state and municipality in a particular US city where she lives and I formerly lived. When dhe spoke she used glowing terms and images of how “happy” or “smiley” they seemed, her impression of how willing to work they seemed, and then she gave them a heroic cast by stating “and they walked here!”

Of course they did not walk: because there are networks of transportation systems established in Panama where they are moved from country to country right up to the US border (and dark money supporting this transportation).

But when I listened to my friend, who was not motivated by an argument as such but rather by sentiments, I realized how feminine is her mode (or lack thereof) of analysis. That these Venezuelans smile and have cute children and that they walked here is thoroughly insufficient as sound reasons for such invasion.

In my view — I refer to what is “manly” knowing that this term has come to inspire resistance — it is absolutely improper that anyone be allowed to violate the law in this manner. And if anyone allows it, or encourages it, they do so for feminine reasons. I.e. non-manly reasons, emotional reasons based in misplaces succor and an unstructured permissive ideology which is destructive for numerous reasons.

I think the ideology (however loose it is, however henid-like) that allows for open borders or permeable frontiers is a sign of non-manly weakness. You may or may not have read Kafka’s In The Penal Colony (an extremely clever portrayal of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals) but the general who runs it is corrupted and seduced by soft, sentimental womenfolk who influence him to modify rigorous policies through whispers.

My friend, you see, is motivated by generous sentiments — a type of virtuousness — but her motivations, though heartfelt, are actually destructive (though she doesn’t see it that way).

I have numerous other “concrete examples” in mind.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And your insult of a deaf person doesn't surprise me either. You seem to roll that way.

Note that I had forgotten you’d even mentioned you were part or all deaf.

But it is interesting to consider that you talk up a storm in ridiculously badly formatted and tedious to read posts — and technically are incapable of (literally) hearing.

If I “roll” any particular way it is because of a desire to cut through sentimental bullshit and uncover useful facts and indeed truth.

I guess that in your world it is all self-talk (?)

[Alexis Jacobi]

That you fail in turning your ''weak feminized man'' into a concrete person, doesn't surprise me. It is an entirely a theoretical construct in your head. And there are no real world examples of a ''weak feminized man".

Yes, because you are deaf. Examples abound but they are non-intelligible to you — you can’t hear of them.

Recently, in San Francisco and a Pride Day celebration homosexual men, with children present, were filmed giving blow-jobs and pissing on one another (some type of fetishism). This occurred in public. In open, communal, civic space.

The police explained that they would do nothing.

Now, one must examine this attitude of permissiveness — and I do so from my “manly” perspective. Those homosexuals doing this should not only have been arrested and charged with crimes, but in my view a “manly culture” (supported by the will of sensible, value-grounded women) would have served themselves well by beating these queers severely.

You do not do that kind of stuff in public and not in front of children.

How is it that simple, intelligible, commonsensical rules are allowed to be violated?

In my view only a “feminine man” — a man incapable of demonstrating intolerant power — would allow such things to occur in his community.

[phyllo]

Here is some advice for our times from the police:

WATCH: Toronto police chief acknowledges backlash over controversial home invasion advice – Mar 18, 2024

A Toronto police officer suggested that residents leave their car keys by the front door to avoid a home invasion, seemingly to let criminals steal their vehicle if they break in, leave and avoid injuries.

The Toronto Police Service issued a statement Wednesday confirming that an officer made the remarks at a recent community meeting.

The officer suggested “that people leave the keys to their vehicle in a faraday bag by the front door,” the statement said.

“While well meaning, there are also other ways to prevent auto theft motivated home invasions,” it continued.

Faraday bags block signal-duplicating devices used to replicate key fobs which criminals can use to steal vehicles.

In Toronto, home invasions and break-ins for auto thefts rose 400 per cent last year, the Toronto Police Service said.

At an Etobicoke community meeting, Const. Marco Ricciardi is heard saying, “To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at your front door.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10359055/lea ... to-police/

[henry quirk]

From the piece: “A lot of them that they’re arresting have guns on them and they’re not toy guns, they’re real guns. They’re loaded.”

Well by golly, so is mine, with #4 buckshot.

[Peter Kropotkin]

That you fail in turning your ''weak feminized man'' into a concrete person, doesn't surprise me. It is an entirely a theoretical construct in your head. And there are no real world examples of a ''weak feminized man".

Yes, because you are deaf. Examples abound but they are non-intelligible to you — you can’t hear of them.

Recently, in San Francisco and a Pride Day celebration homosexual men, with children present, were filmed giving blow-jobs and pissing on one another (some type of fetishism). This occurred in public. In open, communal, civic space.

The police explained that they would do nothing.

Now, one must examine this attitude of permissiveness — and I do so from my “manly” perspective. Those homosexuals doing this should not only have been arrested and charged with crimes, but in my view a “manly culture” (supported by the will of sensible, value-grounded women) would have served themselves well by beating these queers severely.

You do not do that kind of stuff in public and not in front of children.

How is it that simple, intelligible, commonsensical rules are allowed to be violated?

In my view only a “feminine man” — a man incapable of demonstrating intolerant power — would allow such things to occur in his community.

K: my goodness, you are clueless.... women are by far, by far, way
more judgmental than men...... an act that a man will say, meh...
a women will pass judgement on.... women will pass
judgement on ''men acting indecently'' faster than men will pass judgement, if
men make a judgement at all....

simply fact is that women control the morals, ethics of a community,
not men....and how do I know this? who raises children? for the most
part, women..... and having lived with wife and having 3 sisters
and being in the world for over 60 years, I can state that women
make far more moral judgements then men....

or to say this another way... you have your understanding backwards...
it is women who control the morals, ethics, not the men...
and if you do makes such ''moral'' judgements, I would suggest that
is very feminine.... you are feminine if you make moral judgements
about others.... it is a women way, not a man's way......

Kropotkin

[henry quirk]

Recently, in San Francisco and a Pride Day celebration homosexual men, with children present, were filmed giving blow-jobs and pissing on one another (some type of fetishism). This occurred in public. In open, communal, civic space.

*

In my view only a “feminine man” — a man incapable of demonstrating intolerant power — would allow such things to occur in his community.

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

Don't mind me...I'm just helpin' the conversation along.

[phyllo]

From the piece: “A lot of them that they’re arresting have guns on them and they’re not toy guns, they’re real guns. They’re loaded.”

Well by golly, so is mine, with #4 buckshot.

Gun ownership isn't common in Toronto

Population 2.8 million

Registered gun licenses 36,832

[Alexis Jacobi]

Monsieur Kropotkin: It is men -- I use the term manliness for a general state of mind and an attitude -- who define values. When values are concretely defined they also become mores and laws. There at first is required the defining act. It is intellectual and is best carried out non-emotionally.

Men who renege on their responsibilities do so for a group of reasons. One of which is that they don't use, or surrender, their masculine, deciding and defining mind. This idea runs through everything I write.

In the sense that I use the term 'feminization' I mean losing this defining power, or allowing it to be undermined. The world of ideas, in my view of things, is a man's world. I do not mean to say that women, now more than ever, do not or cannot participate in it but that it was carved out historically by men.

Nevertheless, I do not have strong evidence that even you description of women as the upholders of morality is factual. In my view, in my experience, it is women who have become *comfortable* with (in reference to my example) homosexual antics. In any case, you must understand my use of the terms masculine and feminine in precisely the way that I mean, not as you wish to read it.