Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
No bio...
User ID: 3132
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
2d ago
· Edited 2d ago
I’m curious, if you were to estimate the level of care you owe to the following people on a scale of 10 (as a brother) to -10 (omnicidal maniac), what would it be? (assuming you’re a white American)
-
Another white American
-
A white European living in Europe
-
A Hispanic mestizo legally living in the US
-
A Hispanic mestizo living in Mexico
-
An Ethiopian Christian
-
A Saudi Muslim
-
A black American who has been convicted of two counts of petty vandalism and one count of shoplifting
-
A white American who has been convicted of three counts of felony assault and one count of attempted murder
-
A Simbari tribesman who practices traditional pederasty rites
-
A black American pedophile with a preference for young white boys
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
C'mon Turok, I like tolerate you, but you gotta stop making yourself such an easy target. It's a bad look to start your post with "some rando on Twitter said something", you could have easily made the point yourself.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure that people believing and spreading factually false things is an unsolvable problem, certainly with the existence of the internet. While I am regularly dismayed by the selective gullibility/incredulousness of the twitterati, it probably can't be helped at any sort of scale, and the sort of public concessions that you seem to seek would probably backfire and result in further ideological entrenchment. You can call out that attitude where it happens here, but don't just complain to us about wrong and stupid everyone else is.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
I got sniped by your edit, RIP. To respond, you seem to think of the “weak but strong” mindset as recognizing the enemy’s strength but thinking oneself still capable of taking them on. This is, indeed, a healthy mindset to have towards one’s adversaries. As I tend to see it in practice though, it’s a cognitive trap that does improve morale, but usually does so at the cost of epistemic clarity(e.g. “Republikkkans are literal fascists, we can surely defeat them with protests and slogans!)
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
> it’s a common narrative and, one step further, it’s a good and healthy narrative.
As for truth, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a fascinating concept, but people can and do come to definitive conclusions about the world all the time. Are the #resist libs correct in assuming themselves the underdogs?
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
You’re right, it’s a common narrative because it is adaptive—but as a cursory look at the natural world will tell you, “adaptive” does not necessarily mean good, true, or righteous.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
The ideal immigrant comes here not because his home country is a shithole, or because life here is easy and you get paid for showing up, or because his co-ethnics invited him to join their enclave, but because he wants to be German.
But of course, they all already want to be German. They obviously desire your material wealth and geopolitical power, and while they don't want to adopt your pro-social habits per se, they certainly enjoy the more immaterial fruits of your labor: your clean streets, your trusting and friendly people, your effective governance. They openly desire your women's gracile features and quietly envy your men's tall stature.
However, if HBD is to be believed, they can never be Germans, nor can their descendants be Germans; at least, not any recognizable descendants. For the foreseeable future, the only way that they may truly secure the prosperity they desire at scale is to intermarry with your people en masse and encourage their half-breed offspring to do the same. In doing this, they must internally accept the intrinsic inferiority of their type and witness the subsumption of their own clan and lineage into a wholly alien and unrecognizable gestalt.
... to be clear, I derive no pleasure from these words; I am one of the aforementioned half-breeds myself. I've been wanting to do a big top-level post detailing my outlook on these matters for a while, and writing this comment has given me the drive to actually write out the whole thing, so be on the lookout for that, i guess.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
This one from @WhiningCoil. I can see where she(?)'s coming from, I had my own problems with that comment's plausibly deniable undertones, but Coil's a particularly abrasive poster and I don't think the median Mottezen's opinions are necessarily "tainted by racism".
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
13d ago
They recommend three days, that's apparently optimal.
Weird, that’s not what I’ve heard. Longer time between ejaculations trades off fresher, more motile sperm for bigger loads, and what I’ve read suggests that 36-48 hours between is ideal for maximum fertility. It’s moot at this point though, so congrats!
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
14d ago
Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not. [Men] belong to the less valuable half of the human species.
I get the underlying sentiment, but this is such an overextension of the concept that it's almost backwards. Yes, a woman can be literally brain dead and still fulfill her biological function, but in all areas except reproduction and survival in starvation-times, a male body is more useful than a female body—the value of literally doubled upper body strength and 1.5x greater lower body strength at base cannot be ignored. Add on top the other advantages of the male form (generally better grasp of logos, less susceptible to pathological emotionality, peeing your name in the snow), and it's apparent why men are universally considered the default sex.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
14d ago
I think you meant to respond to @Hoffmeister25 above.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
14d ago
It's the emphasis on "invasive species" that's the icky bit; I had a similar gut reaction. Yes, yes, 13/52 and all, but that particular phrasing hits different.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
24d ago
I don't think the the concept of more or less recessive phenotypes is particularly valid in the first place. Sure, hair and eye color are pretty much Mendelian, and I've noticed a few other discrete traits that seem to be pretty dominant/recessive (Hapas always seem to have the epicanthic fold and Blasians usually have darker skin than the median of their parents), but most traits seem to average out. The American understanding of White features being "recessive", particularly to Black features, probably derives from the existing admixture in the Black population (thus creating a broader range of "Black" phenotypes) and general cultural norms of hypodescent (the "one drop rule").
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
27d ago
So you believe that the purpose of genitals is to engage in sexual intercourse, defined as PIV resulting in internal ejaculation, correct? Furthermore, you believe that using genitals for sexual acts outside of sexual intercourse is immoral or at least improper, yes?
Such a narrow understanding of telos seems... fragile. The way I see it, using one's genitals in a way that does not deposit semen intravaginally is less like using a gun as a table leg and more like using a flathead screwdriver as a pry: it's not the "primary" purpose of the object(s), but it's a valid alternate application that can be rewarding if used properly.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
27d ago
· Edited 27d ago
Since when did population ratios matter? They certainly didn't matter to the British Raj or to the conquistadors. Sure, the power gap between whites and everyone else is smaller than it was in 1870, or even 1492, but most of the other ~7.2 billion people on Earth simply can't constitute a real existential threat to whites, you don't even need HBD to justify it. Even wrt China, they're a unproven upstart that lacks the proven track record of Europeans in global dominance.
seeing only one kind of racial solidarity as unacceptable is A) illiberal and B) corrosive to multicultural societies.
I offer an explanation, not an excuse. As for multicultural societies, their myriad weaknesses have already been extensively detailed, what's one more?
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
27d ago
The disconnect is that you conflate sexual intercourse (i.e. PIV) with "firing the gun", when under your metaphor PIV would be shooting to kill (fulfilling the act's primary purpose) and non-procreative sex would be target practice (fulfilling a secondary, recreational purpose).
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
27d ago
I can't speak for him, but I think that in general the particular aversion to white solidarity comes from the understanding that ingroup preference necessarily induces outgroup hostility; it is impossible to love your neighbor without (at least somewhat) hating the outsider. Considering that whites are by far the most dangerous race on earth, with a proven track record of BTFOing everyone else, it's completely reasonable for white solidarity to be seen as more of a threat than other races' ingroup preferences; if you lived next door to an 800-pound gorilla, you wouldn't want to give it any ideas about how hungry he is and how tasty you look.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
30d ago
You might want to remove the part of that link after ”?igsh=”, because it’s showing me your insta account.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
things are just simpler when you're inherently on the same page
I'll note that this doesn't seem to be symmetrical; there's no real male counterpart to the tomboy archetype. AFAICT, women don't fantasize about doing their nails and gossiping with their BF(F)s, or at least there's not nearly as many of them as guys who fantasize about playing videogames and shittalking with their GFs.
The chauvinistic side of me wants to say that it's because girl stuff is just objectively lame, or at least less cool than guy stuff. I think that's half-right, but I feel there's still something missing.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
Seconding @thrownaway24e89172's response below. I see this kind of disclaimer for HBD-based arguments all the time (e.g. "there are no inferior or superior races, but...") even though the conclusion they dismiss is usually an obvious extrapolation from the forwarded premises. You might justify the "unequal but equal" mindset by pointing to the special role of women in childbearing, but nevertheless men are still universally regarded as the primary sex, with woman defined in relation to him; Eve was made of Adam, after all. I hate that it's the case and wish it weren't so, but women are definitely seen as intrinsically lesser (in the "great chain of being" sense) compared to men.
With that said, what's your justification for the equal worth/dignity of the sexes despite their unequal ability?
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
Sorry for the late response, I've drafted this far more times than I really should have.
I've completely changed most aspects of my life, in many cases entirely reversing my previous preferences or habits.
You would consider you new preferences and habits to be unambiguously superior to before, yes? If so, where is the aforementioned trade-off?
To put it another way, a true believer in the Greek Pantheon is obliged to offer libations and sacrifices to the gods to remain pious. From a secular perspective, this serves zero purpose and is an active waste of valuable resources. In your worship, what do you sacrifice for your faith?
If we return to Deus Vult and the sword, will that satisfy you in some way?
It would, yes. If the word of Christ really is the Way and the Truth and the Light, Christians ought to be far less complacent in their efforts to spread the gospel than they currently are. Should you not rout the disbelievers, those who lead souls astray with false idols and apathetic impiety? Should you not hate the heretics, those who twist revelation into abomination? Your predecessors certainly did, so what changed?
there are also a lot of Christians like myself who are not partaking of "modern" Christianity but rather the old sort, and for whom it is an actual way of life.
I think the Christianity you practice is actually quite different to the old sort, at least in practical implementation. For one, the demons of the earth who possessed the insane, swapped babies with changelings, communed with witches, and who many good Christians thought actually, literally existed have seemingly vanished. I can only assume that amulet technology and exorcism procedures have seen massive improvements in the last couple of centuries.
I don't mean to say that you're obligated to believe in witches and demons, or that you're a hypocrite for not. But I have a hunch that the sort of casual superstition that past Christians practiced may have been vital (or at least a factor) in avoiding the exact sort of secularization that modernity hath wrought, at least among the common folk. Us gentry might be able to satisfy ourselves with philosophies of the Good, but many don't see the point of belief when there's nothing concrete in it for them.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
We haven't seen an impassioned and unambiguous attempt at genocide by a first world country since the Holocaust. Israel's actions, as genocidal as they may or may not be, simply don't compare to the total national annihilation that I think you're envisioning.
Despite your fantasies, I don't think you are actually Holden Bloodfeast incarnate. It's easy to say that you want all your enemies (who consist of an entire ethnic group) to die in nuclear hellfire on the internet, but I'm confident you aren't actually sociopathic enough to push the button and witness the results yourself. In any case, nobody really wants the game-theoretic consequences of real genocide being back on the table. I certainly don't, as I'm not exactly lily white myself and I'd prefer p(TND) or even p(Liberia) to stay as low as possible.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
This is all well and good, but what stake do you put in your non-materialistic beliefs? How much does the Word of God guiding you trade off against anything an agnostic in your position would do?
I don't want to be a Redditor about it, but I don't see the point of modern Christianity. Coming from a largely apatheistic perspective, it's trivially obvious that the actual importance with which people generally and Christians especially treat religion is at an all-time low. Christians have gone from waging holy war against the heathens to missionary expeditions seeking conversions to "interfaith dialogue", from hanging homosexuals and other sinners to socially ostracizing them them to... IDK, frowning concernedly? From a historical perspective, nearly all Westerners are thoroughly unserious in their practice of religion. If the faithful don't take themselves seriously, why should I?
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Considering that a common point from apologetics is that Christians tend to have healthier communities and better lives than their atheistic peers, that seems pretty categorically false.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
…Where are you getting your numbers from? I simply cannot believe that support for criminalization of homosexuality approaches 1 in 5, let alone support for construction crane conversion therapy. By my observation, the anti-LGBT crowd generally don’t desire to go on the offensive, they just want to be left alone.
It's not a death blow to the redpill or anything, but the article does dispel maximalist claims that redpill types tend to imply about the reciprocity of men and women's attitudes towards each other (e.g. "women desire dominant men who are their social superiors, thus masculine men reject uppity girlbosses for submissive women who know their place"). In truth, women have a much stronger preference for dominance than men have for submissiveness. (source)
More generally, redpillers/antifeminists tend to have a myopic focus on the utility of a woman within the "trad" marriage script (cooking/cleaning/birthing/boning), to the exclusion of more general or "unfeminine" traits/considerations that might be desirable in a wife[1]. It won't make your dick hard to know that your wife has an MBA, but an intelligent and educated woman has far more potential as a proper life partner than a meek and servile tradwife.
[1] See Primaprimaprima below for further commentary in this direction.
More options
Context Copy link