Romance
#1
for various reasons the subject of romance has been on my mind lately. in one way or another every man desires the company of a woman: the negro and his spiritual equals are drawn by animal lust to the sexual organs and the size thereof, but such vulgarities do not move the higher specimen who yearns for a woman's unalloyed love above all else. much can be said about this difference, but that is not my intention today.

true romance is free from the basal desires of the body, and though as fallen men love will always progress towards sex, the most cherished phase of the relationship is always the beginning, when the couple-to-be is still unsure of their feelings and their emotions gradually build to a peak. of course, media depicting romance invariably focuses on this aspect of relationships as well. anime like nagatoro and mysterious girlfriend x and their female leads are so popular because they evoke this feeling of innocent romance. such romance teeters on extinction, with only the form of "young love" remaining. the many who feel they missed their chance for it are right to feel betrayed.

the woman question is of grave civilizational import and the modern woman is abhorrent. bereft of everything that once made her so alluring, she still demands humiliating displays for a mere chance at temporary access to her pudenda. it is natural then, that much brainpower (which could have been allocated to much greater things) has been spent on finding ways to circumvent this--it is a rare breed who can do entirely without woman, after all. the result is a science of female nature which callously lays bare the unsettling inner workings of the female mind. now, any man who comes across PUA-adjacent writings can score himself some casual sex, but at what cost?

in internalizing this cynical outlook, a man can never again see women through the innocent eyes he once did. this is a profound tragedy, because the priceless romance one truly desires cannot grow when the sexual aspect is acknowledged from the start, and the naivete which intensifies emotions is absent. admittedly, this is much preferable to falling for the predatory lies we are fed through the wicked cultural apparatus: in game theory terms we have a classic prisoner's dilemma. the cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is unattainable if either party is choosing to defect, and with the vanishing rarity of cooperative women, men are left no choice but to adopt the defect strategy.

i would even go as far as to say that this characterizes all of society. if you naively trust any institution, you will end up burned. you can't simply trust the government to protect you, for news media to report the truth, or for academia to educate you. no matter, one can take those matters into his own hands, but i lament the death of romance, which is irreplaceable.
#2
(09-03-2022, 12:54 AM)parsifal Wrote: in internalizing this cynical outlook, a man can never again see women through the innocent eyes he once did. this is a profound tragedy, because the priceless romance one truly desires cannot grow when the sexual aspect is acknowledged from the start, and the naivete which intensifies emotions is absent. admittedly, this is much preferable to falling for the predatory lies we are fed through the wicked cultural apparatus: in game theory terms we have a classic prisoner's dilemma. the cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is unattainable if either party is choosing to defect, and with the vanishing rarity of cooperative women, men are left no choice but to adopt the defect strategy.

Never forget who took this from you:
Quote:Even more interesting than their ease of employment is their ease with women. This is unintentionally a feminist novel, in that once you read it (at least from a modern perspective) you end up realizing the vast cultural shift that had to (has to?) take place in order to protect women from people like the authors. Poor Galatea Dunkel seems to have been more of the rule than the exception – go find a pretty girl, tell her you love her, deflower her, then steal a car and drive off to do it to someone else, leaving her unmarriageable and maybe with a kid to support. Then the next time you’re back in town, look her up, give her a fake apology in order to calm her down enough for her to be willing to have sex with you again, and repeat the entire process[...]

On The Road seems to be a picture of a high-trust society. Drivers assume hitchhikers are trustworthy and will take them anywhere. Women assume men are trustworthy and will accept any promise. Employers assume workers are trustworthy and don’t bother with background checks. It’s pretty neat.

But On The Road is, most importantly, a picture of a high-trust society collapsing. And it’s collapsing precisely because the book’s protagonists are going around defecting against everyone they meet at a hundred ten miles an hour.
#3
(09-03-2022, 03:24 AM)Chud Wrote: Never forget who took this from you:

Genuinely good piece of work from SSC. I used to think about this a lot back when I was still trying to integrate into normalfag society. How basically every incentive to not fuck over everyone around us is gone and honest system-respecters are just dumbasses refusing to learn at this point, and still better than everyone else despite that.

I personally solved the prisoner's dilemma by refusing to play. A luxury not open to all in all things, I'm aware.
#4
(09-03-2022, 03:24 AM)Chud Wrote: Even more interesting than their ease of employment is their ease with women. This is unintentionally a feminist novel, in that once you read it (at least from a modern perspective) you end up realizing the vast cultural shift that had to (has to?) take place in order to protect women from people like the authors. Poor Galatea Dunkel seems to have been more of the rule than the exception – go find a pretty girl, tell her you love her, deflower her, then steal a car and drive off to do it to someone else, leaving her unmarriageable and maybe with a kid to support.

>believing that feminism has anything to do with 'protecting' women from men
It's so laughable that I'll leave it without a comment. Same as the typical whining about "muh black people in the 1950's".

It always amuses me how people can at the same time espouse belief that women are responsible, independent, free-thinking and rational beings, but automatically put all the blame on men for "taking advantage of them" speaking of purely consensual sex between adults. Am I to believe there were no spinsters back in the day, that women didn't deceive men for fun? Generally, it seems to be rather short-sighted to assign blame to individuals such as Kerouac for the cultural shift that has already been going on for decades before the events he described. It makes as much sense as blaming de Seingalt of doing the same thing in his time. The fact is that both of them were [b]exploiting the decline that was already ongoing, not creating it. They were riding the wave; to say they created the wave is just stupid. The ease of getting jobs doesn't point at the employers being "trusting" - the economy was booming, they needed cheap labor and were willing to accept anyone. Is Kerouac responsible for mass immigration too?

People on our side nowadays idolize the 50's as the ideal decade where everything was perfect, everyone was rich, healthy, beautiful, and it would be the best if we managed to retvrn. Unfortunately, like all people, we're suffering from selective memory, nostalgia, short-sightedness, wear rose-colored glasses, you know the thing. There's nothing I loathe more than nostalgia, because it makes morons out of people who are supposed to be smart. I'll quote Revilo P. Oliver, who perfectly illustrates my point (the emphasis is mine).

"On us, who would take thought to conserve the civilization ofthe West and the nation that, fulfilling a prophecy that seemed fantastic fifty years ago, is now the last great power of that civilization, devolves a task of painful delicacy and appalling magnitude. But the duty is one that no one of us can evade, for there are no longer ivory towers to which scholars may escape as Marie Antoinette escaped from politics to the simple life of the Petit Trianon. That very fact is a measure of the terribly rapid declension of our civilization. There is no cultivated man today who does not look back, as to a lost Paradise, to the beautifully stable world of 1910, and who would not gladly settle for 1926 or even 1932 - and there is a very good chance that a few years hence 1960 will have charms that have not yet been disclosed by contrast.
("Modern Age", Fall 1961)"
#5
(09-03-2022, 07:20 AM)Guest Wrote: It always amuses me how people can at the same time espouse belief that women are responsible, independent, free-thinking and rational beings, but automatically put all the blame on men for "taking advantage of them" speaking of purely consensual sex between adults. Am I to believe there were no spinsters back in the day, that women didn't deceive men for fun? Generally, it seems to be rather short-sighted to assign blame to individuals such as Kerouac for the cultural shift that has already been going on for decades before the events he described. It makes as much sense as blaming de Seingalt of doing the same thing in his time. The fact is that both of them were [b]exploiting the decline that was already ongoing, not creating it. They were riding the wave; to say they created the wave is just stupid. The ease of getting jobs doesn't point at the employers being "trusting" - the economy was booming, they needed cheap labor and were willing to accept anyone. Is Kerouac responsible for mass immigration too?[/b]
I don't consider it entirely wrong or unfair to point blame at those who exploit a situation for their own benefit rather than doing anything about it. The "wave" required constant forward momentum. What you're saying here is basically that nobody can be accountable for anything because larger social forces exist.
#6
(09-03-2022, 07:20 AM)Guest Wrote: People on our side nowadays idolize the 50's as the ideal decade where everything was perfect, everyone was rich, healthy, beautiful, and it would be the best if we managed to retvrn. Unfortunately, like all people, we're suffering from selective memory, nostalgia, short-sightedness, wear rose-colored glasses, you know the thing.

I'm reminded of this shit that gets shared in leftist circles every month.[Image: FUCZscRX0AEzsjt.jpg]

 I'm sure the bad things you're refering to are in fact mistakes and symptoms of decline (civil rights etc) but it should be obvious that right wingers are aiming for the idolised society of the 50's without those things. Is it that outlandish to want 'this' without 'that'? To not throw the baby out with the bathwater I believe is the phrase.

"But they started to ____ in the 50's!"
"Okay, we won't do that."
#7
(09-03-2022, 07:20 AM)Guest Wrote: >believing that feminism has anything to do with 'protecting' women from men
It's so laughable that I'll leave it without a comment. Same as the typical whining about "muh black people in the 1950's".

It always amuses me how people can at the same time espouse belief that women are responsible, independent, free-thinking and rational beings, but automatically put all the blame on men for "taking advantage of them" speaking of purely consensual sex between adults.

If men can't be trusted to uphold their end of traditional courtship and matrimony norms, then it's rational for women to choose careers and "sexually liberated" life over pair-bonding. One is a steady, sensible investment, the other is a moonshot.
#8
Women have intelligence. They can tell the difference between a guy who will be loyal to them and a guy that will defect. And they will choose the latter every time because they perceive that as alpha. You are basically claiming that women have no intellect but are perfectly rational and moral when in reality it's the exact converse.

I liked the SSC piece too but "communism happens because men acted like that" is completely detached from all other observations about reality and the behavior of women in the current day and historically.

Oops I was a high trust Evropean man and I let a vagabond fuck my daughter. I guess we have to have low trust COMMUNISM and diversity now that is the only solution for this problem.
#9
I believe the idea of the timid or even chaste kind of love to an ordinary woman described here has very shallow historical roots, and even the early Romantics who themselves inverted the chilvarous culture of the Middle Ages would have found it quite unappealing. It is true that one finds it portrayed in movies and literature today, but is it truly a remnant of an earlier, more noble European culture or is itself a corruption?

If the act of trying to know woman results in a loss of innocence and cynicism, then the latter is more likely to be true, since knowing is not sinful and can also be an act of love. The disillusioned romantic will usually say that woman is untamed and a whore who is readily seduced by men that would be best described as lechers. And what if this is true? The romantic would have to admit to himself that the woman he sought for was not a woman at all, but a sort of idol manifested by his personal weaknesses and privations, under the pernicious influece of contemporary culture. Thus purified he might be able to love woman and not a mere idol.

Although it might be painful for some due to their sentimental attachment to old forms and institutions, a positive aspect of the nihilism of modernity is that it will also dissolve those that were corrupt or premised on falsehoods & lies.
#10
(09-03-2022, 12:54 AM)parsifal Wrote: and though as fallen men love will always progress towards sex,

"Ha, gaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy"
#11
(09-03-2022, 02:38 PM)Ophis Wrote: I believe the idea of the timid or even chaste kind of love to an ordinary woman described here has very shallow historical roots, and even the early Romantics who themselves inverted the chilvarous culture of the Middle Ages would have found it quite unappealing. It is true that one finds it portrayed in movies and literature today, but is it truly a remnant of an earlier, more noble European culture or is itself a corruption?

If the act of trying to know woman results in a loss of innocence and cynicism, then the latter is more likely to be true, since knowing is not sinful and can also be an act of love. The disillusioned romantic will usually say that woman is untamed and a whore who is readily seduced by men that would be best described as lechers. And what if this is true? The romantic would have to admit to himself that the woman he sought for was not a woman at all, but a sort of idol manifested by his personal weaknesses and privations, under the pernicious influece of contemporary culture. Thus purified he might be able to love woman and not a mere idol.

Although it might be painful for some due to their sentimental attachment to old forms and institutions, a positive aspect of the nihilism of modernity is that it will also dissolve those that were corrupt or premised on falsehoods & lies.
i mentioned that the only remaining form of romance is young love, but it is not the historical norm. in the past when marriage came after a very brief period of courtship, if any at all, the domestic romance of the honeymoon was common. i wouldn't call it a cultural remnant, it's a manifestation of the same innate urge. if my choice of examples gives the impression that i'm describing a situation where the man is passive and meek, it is not my intention. i have not watched or read either of the series i mentioned.

something i elected not to mention explicitly, is the nature of love. as weininger and others pointed out, it is entirely the creation of the male imagination projecting his ideal onto a vessel who, if the feelings are mutual, is all too happy to be its recipient. this is why i framed everything from the male perspective. to "love a woman for who she is" is a misleading concept.

furthermore, the unsuitability of women is only incidental. when men control society they decide how women are socialized and ultimately how they turn out. but love is individual, not societal, and just as surely as there was the occasional whore daughter in medieval europe, there is still the rare lovely maiden. when one chances upon her, which might be so unlikely as to happen only once or twice in a lifetime, is it possible to forget about every other girl you've ever met? i hope so.
#12
(09-03-2022, 11:07 AM)BillyONare Wrote: I liked the SSC piece too but "communism happens because men acted like that" is completely detached from all other observations about reality and the behavior of women in the current day and historically.

Oops I was a high trust Evropean man and I let a vagabond fuck my daughter. I guess we have to have low trust COMMUNISM and diversity now that is the only solution for this problem.

[Image: adoption-curve.jpg]

Social decay follows a bell curve in its spread. Think of it like a cancer or wildfire: cancerous mutations happen in a human body every day, as do small fires in a forest; but it's what happens immediately after the initial "spark" that determines whether the infestation will grow to devour its host.

Three parties can be held responsible for the decay of this high-trust equilibrium:

- The innovators who provide the initial "spark" to make defecting palatable to the early adopters - usually intralexuals with academic arguments against the equilibrium
- The early adopters, opportunistic people like Kerouac et al. who defect for their own benefit
- Whatever caused the historical enforcement mechanism to slacken



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)