Gregory's Server
@nyx I have this idea: pedophilia is only possible through the emasculation of women. It is ingrained in our society that feminine women are highly desirable. Strong men and women represent the opposite of a submissive wife or husband. Male and female is not only a dichotomy between domination and submission but also between adulthood and childhood, between strength and helplessness. Young girls and boys are the exaggeration of submissiveness and helplessness that are characteristics of a tradwife. Our system makes it so feminine women are highly desirable while attraction to strong women and men is frowned upon. Thus the system reproduces pedophiles as the attraction to helplessness and submissiveness is encouraged. Just look at the alt-right, their most common fetishes are femboys and lolicon.
No wonder why popes are pederasts, they are the manifestation of preference for femininity in our patriarchal culture. No matter how males may mock it, they need femininity. And that's why masculine accelerationism is valid, Nyx. Once the society becomes masculine, the preference for the biological domination will wither away and we all will be lifting each other up like bros at the gym. Chackmate, I have won the game.
Don't take it seriously, I'm just a little bit Jregtarded today, doing some mental gymnastics with dialectical masculinism.
No wonder why popes are pederasts, they are the manifestation of preference for femininity in our patriarchal culture. No matter how males may mock it, they need femininity. And that's why masculine accelerationism is valid, Nyx. Once the society becomes masculine, the preference for the biological domination will wither away and we all will be lifting each other up like bros at the gym. Chackmate, I have won the game.
Don't take it seriously, I'm just a little bit Jregtarded today, doing some mental gymnastics with dialectical masculinism.
@nyx Speaking of dialectics, Stirner actually mocked the dialectics in Philosophical Reactionaries:
Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you? But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did. Precisely here the philosopher has revealed himself as the “clumsy” subject; because he is as ignorant in a “clumsified” sphere in which he has no power, as a witless Gulliver among the giants.
@nyx Speaking of dialectics, Stirner actually mocked the dialectics in Philosophical Reactionaries:
Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against...