Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:04 am
1) The Dems need to resign from
the Gynocracy!
2) Basically,
we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.
I tend to see things through a neo-Elizabethan psychological lens. I am definitely advocating for a return to masculine intellectual
power. But when I use these terms I do really mean to the faculty of
intellectus. Intellectus was understood as the higher -- the highest -- faculty of the soul and as such can, and is, drowned out and dampened when the individual gives themselves over to the lower pleasures of the body function. My primary observation is that culture, generally, has become
feminized -- that is given over to sensual pleasures; to seductive pleasures; to rhetorical appeals that play upon desire and appetite -- and this affects how the faculty of higher reason (ratio) functions in men.
You get it?
Presently, there is taking shape in American culture a form of revivalism which is based in the recovery of a set of principles that, to speak generally, are part-and-parcel of religious philosophy. So, I have mentioned that JD Vance converted to a traditional form of Catholicism. There is a widespread cultural return of this sort taking place and it has been associated with Trumpism and the MAGA Movement. There is a very curious thing that Catholics (and perhaps other Christian sects?) have noticed: Today, more men are returning to the religious fold than women! Now why is that?
I say that the answer is intellectual, and therefore again I refer to
intellectus:
The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.
The vagina, the female orgasmic potential, the sensuality of the body and life lived and experienced through this level, is certain real and
possible. In our culture -- in the Occident -- we have been through cultural, ideological and advertising (rhetorical) processes that have seduced us away from genuine intellect and down into the dampening and stifling realm of the sensual. These are, in the end, political tools.
Now, what is the connection between Gynocracy and Faggotry. OK, good question. Faggotry is, I think, the male version of giving oneself over to excessive sensual pleasure. It is a type of spiritual weakness. But please note that I do not know where to place, let's say, a genuine homosexual love (if agape were possible) and I do not wish to be too condemnatory of homosexual love or unions. But what I do think is that they must be relegated to their place. "The closet" is perhaps a bit extreme. But as I have often written I believe that all forms of deviant sexuality must be repressed. I.e. not brought out, as if they are equal to heterosexual productive unions, into the visible cultural sphere.
So, I suggest examining the general, operative Democrat ideology or to state it differently the intrusion of a colonizing ideology into the inner fold of the Democrat operative perspective. Again, and by reference to Augustine, once a man (o person) has become infected by vice and corrupted by it, they have to go through a process of recovery of (what I refer to as) those higher faculties.
This is not an easy process. It is like recovery from addiction. I might say that the Occidental imagination (again I refer to imagination on the Elizabethan metaphysical sense) has been infected by outrageous, over-the-top, sexual imagery and the desires associated with that.
Can women also turn against gynocracy? Well certainly! But it is a problematic notion. In the truest sense a man must really fulfill his patriarchal role. And this role is defined as involvement in and subservience to intellectus. And that really does men to be aligned with, to become incorporated into, allt hat is invisible and only perceived by the higher intellect. That is where *God* and *the Angels* have realness.
When a man allows himself to sink down into the mire of the lower levels he loses the
CAPACITY to conceive of God or a higher metaphysical order.
And I am associating the Gynocracy with different forms of blind appetite and in a related sense also include faggotry (and a whole range of sexual deviancies) with the feminized, luxurious, sensual pull
downward.
Has any of this been able to break through any of your hardened mental defenses?
away at it?