The Western civilization has a reproductive problem. Bill Gates will tell you people in the West aren’t reproducing at a replacement rate or higher because they are economically developed, have excellent health care and all that, but I have a better explanation.
There are two reasons. First, they can’t afford to. Second, feminism.
The first reason is simple. Cost of living in a Western urban environment is so much higher than the historical parameters, it is simply unfeasible for a young couple to buy their own apartment or a house, pay all the bills and food, and raise a child. In order for them to be able to barely afford their own place, by rent or mortgage, they both have to work. If they both work, they can’t have children. So basically people in reproductive age are reduced to obligate wage-slavery until they are almost or fully past reproductive age. This is not conducive to reproduction, and thus the problem.
The second reason is more complicated, not because it’s really complicated, but because people are indoctrinated into assuming it without question. You see, we are being told that men and women are equal. If I tell you they are not, you will immediately come to all the hysterical conclusions you were indoctrinated to, but they really, really are not. Intellectually and emotionally they are different, but the differences are merely a combination of male and female traits that influence behavior, but those can be seen as equally good but different flavors of human. None of this is a problem, and if this were all there is, feminism would be fully justified in trying to pursue equality of sexes. Then there’s the physical difference. Women are significantly weaker than men. This disqualifies them from hard physical labor and jobs that require physical strength to either solve problems or avoid escalation of force, and if you try to pursue equality here, you will have serious problems. For instance, a male policeman can be selected to be physically imposing and strong, and he can solve most problems that require force with merely his presence, that will discourage disorderly and possibly drunk people from getting into even more trouble than they’re in already – basically, if you see a mean looking cop ordering you to stop a fight and go with him into the station, you are more likely to obey than if you’re facing a small, scrawny cop weaker than yourself, or a girl cop. It’s genetics. People, even drunk, can make very quick assessments of physical power based on what the opposition looks like. That’s what promoted survival in the past. People who made bad calls got killed. So, if you make female police officers, they won’t even be able to use batons successfully as a minor application of force, they will have to use guns. I have a hunch that’s why America had such a huge increase of police violence since women were made part of the force. They had to make safety-first rules of engagement, and they can’t rely on physical force to subdue disorderly people, they have to immediately escalate violence to the form a woman can successfully use, because they can’t have one set of rules for men and another for women, that wouldn’t pass. In the armed forces, the problems are similar: if you put women there, you basically have to change patterns of behavior of the entire armed forces, and not for the better. Contrary to what you’ve been told, diversity is not a strength, it’s a weakness. Unity is a strength. That is especially so in the armed forces. As for other physically demanding jobs, let’s get one thing straight. Those jobs are vanishing due to increased mechanization. There will be jobs that require a man’s strength, such as installing an AC unit on the roof, because most men can’t lift and successfully manipulate those, let alone women, and failure to do so will cause serious injury or death. However, a woman can use a front loader, fork lifter or a crane as well as a man. I would have to seriously think about the number of cases where my male strength advantage was really useful, in a sense that I couldn’t do something if I was female, and it’s mostly the extra height that was useful for grabbing things on shelves, and strength is mostly jar opening, which could be compensated for with a simple tool. In essence, humans didn’t get to be the top of the food chain because they were stronger than lions and tigers, but because they used tools. If the tools can give you an advantage over a lion or an elephant, they can surely compensate for the comparatively tiny difference in strength between human males and females. After all, with all the robotized factories in the future, the question is not whether men or women can better lift boxes, the question is who can write better code.
However, the real difference is reproduction, and that one is a deal breaker. Women bear children, they have the mammary glands necessary for feeding infants, and their child-bearing years are limited to young age, because they lose fertility exponentially as a function of time. For child-bearing, age is not “just a number”, and no, 40s aren’t the new 30s. With all the extension in human lifespan, the part that’s been extended is actually the old age; the reproductive age is biologically fixed and cannot be moved. Women have to have children before their 30s or they will have serious problems. That’s just how it is. Feminism tried to tell us it doesn’t matter, but it does, and because it matters we now face extinction, as a civilization, to be replaced by others who didn’t embrace feminism and all its ideas about how equality would be so wonderful it must be true. Something being wonderful or elegant doesn’t make it true. The Greeks had many elegant ideas about how the Universe works, and they were all false. Human equality is one of those ideas. However, unlike the concept of a geocentric Universe or everything being either a sphere or a circle because that would be mathematically most elegant, we as a civilization aren’t emotionally ready, or perhaps even mature enough to abandon equality. Personally, I have no problem with it. I have been surrounded by inequality for my entire life. There have always been people who could do something better than me – they could do sports, or play music, or something else I had no talent for. On the other hand, my thinking was so much better than an ordinary human’s, it’s not even funny. So, equality was never really something I gave much thought. Of course it doesn’t exist. What does exist, is that men are men, women are women, some people look better than others, some are smarter, some have additional skills, just accept it and deal with it in some acceptable manner. Have tall people, have them play basketball. Have smart people, let them solve difficult problems. Have strong people, have them install AC units or physically subdue rioters. That’s what civilization is about: not equality, but the ability to make things work for all kinds of people with their different traits. Not have too much diversity or everything will disintegrate, but have enough diversity so that there’s a place for warriors, poets, healers, priests and scientists. Don’t force everybody into a single mould, because if you try that, things get really nasty really quickly. One of those things that got nasty is the attempt to treat men and women equally.
Initially, we had separate educational systems for men and women. Then we simply erased the female-specific educational system, and shoe-horned women into the male-specific system, because feminism. This was followed by erasing every other female-specific thing in society and shoe-horning women into the male-specific version, and now apparently it’s time for female toilets to go, as well. Basically, what feminism consistently tried to do, since its inception, is to erase the female gender from existence. Feminism is a misnomer. It’s a movement that hates everything female about women and sees female emancipation as a removal of everything female. It consistently attempted to attain equality by erasing all inventions of civilization that were intended to accommodate for the specifics of the female gender and make things easier for women. And later, those revisions were made to seem like progress. In a few decades, removal of female bathrooms will be presented as a great victory against oppression and inequality. If you don’t think so, you underestimate the power of propaganda.
What we had before feminism is a society which was designed around gender differences, in order to accommodate for them and make everything work. This meant women got married young, they had babies in their fertile years, and their education was designed to accommodate for their femaleness. Today, this accommodation was removed, and we were indoctrinated to see it as progress. There are no female-specific schools today, only schools for boys that accept girls as well. Both sexes are intended to finish primary education, high school and college, and then enter the workforce. At 18, they are deemed too “immature” to have a family, and are expected to “settle down” first, by working into their 30s before even considering marriage and children. People who have children early are frowned upon. Women who marry early are frowned upon. There is strong social pressure mounted by feminists against women who decide not to play according to “female emancipation” rules designed to turn them into men with vaginas. “Housewife” is an immensely dirty and humiliating word today. Women who raise a family the way all women raised families before feminism are seen as “unemancipated”, meaning stupid, worthless, lazy, second-rate. Feminists strongly pressure women into obeying their narrative, because they know most women would choose against it if they were given a real choice. So, feminists deliberately made some choices unappealing. Women are encouraged in all ways to go against everything that created the Western civilization. And now, we are facing the consequence of extinction as a result. We will be replaced by Africans and Asians who don’t care about feminism and its nasty pecking order designed to humiliate “housewives” and extol the virtues of “successful women” with careers, trying to have their first child in her late 30s, or adopting. So, as much as feminists would try to tell you their activities resulted in nothing but great successes and victories for women, the truth is actually much nastier. The feminist path resulted in subversion of the foundations of our entire civilization, because if you attempt to eradicate differences between men and women, you basically attack history, culture, religion, and eventually science. You get women who are “emancipated” from raising their children by having to do menial work for strangers who are very seldom kind and generous, and the entire structure of civilization is modified to make it as difficult and as humiliating as possible for them to follow a traditional path. And those women are not happy, let me tell you that. They will give all the lip service to feminism and equality, but my wife tells me what they really think, behind closed doors, at the dance lessons she’s taking. Those “successful and emancipated” women in their 30s think their stellar careers just aren’t worth it, because they are reduced to trying to date someone when they should already be having their kids in high school, and they feel they’ve been screwed over, but they just didn’t think things through and understand that it was feminism that sold them a bullshit story. They were told that they will be emancipated by emulating men, because this story was invented by women who were either lesbian or transgender and always saw their emancipation in trying to be men. For normal women, however, this is far from being emancipatory. In fact, it’s the opposite. What’s emancipation for men – a successful career, for instance – means very little to a woman. Good luck trying to explain that to some lesbianic feminist who was checking whether she finally grew a penis well into her 20s.
So, we are faced with two choices. First, extinction of our civilization, and being replaced by Africans and Asians. Second, change things.
In order for us to change things we must first accept that they are now not working, and I feel this is where we have a problem, since it is quite likely that our entire population is so indoctrinated into believing that we’re doing things “properly”, that extinction might actually be more acceptable than admitting that we’ve been going in the wrong direction ever since the French revolution. Sure, it’s great for the economy to get two genders in the workforce for the price of one, but it was accomplished at the price of civilizational decay and collapse, and that’s not something I count as a success. Sure, women got to live in a feminist paradise, but they are statistically less happy the more feminism they get. I don’t count that as a success either.
The problem with feminism is that it is presented as an unequivocal success story for women, because it falsely claims credit for all the things that happened simultaneously with feminism, and also by painting a false picture of the situation that preceded feminism. As a result, it gives itself credit for things that have absolutely nothing to do with it, and, in a supremely deceptive sleight-of-hand, presents itself as savior of women.
So, let’s take a look at the things that happened simultaneously with feminism but are completely unrelated to it, and have contributed immensely to the well-being of women.
Microbial theory of disease, including vaccination, antibiotics and improvements in hygiene. Reduced mortality of women at childbirth and infant mortality by orders of magnitude. Absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
In-door plumbing. Nothing to do with feminism.
Electricity. Electric lighting, heating, appliances including iron, toaster, oven, microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, refrigeration, air conditioning. Nothing to do with feminism.
Petrochemical industry, including internal combustion engines. Improved transportation by orders of magnitude. Nothing to do with feminism.
Infrastructure, such as roads, railroads, shipping lanes, airports. Nothing to do with feminism.
Education. During the industrial revolution education greatly improved for both sexes, in direct correlation with additional wealth available. Primary education is obligatory in most countries. Nothing to do with feminism. The only thing feminism did was force girls into schools designed for boys.
Communication – telegraph, radio, TV, Internet, ability to have a mini-tablet with supercomputing power that’s connected to the global information network and everybody has it in their pocket. Nothing to do with feminism.
Advances in science – modern medical scanners such as NMRI, CT and PET, GPS network for geolocation, spaceflight enabling maintenance of a global satellite network. Nothing to do with feminism.
Voting rights – during the first world war, a general draft was introduced. Since all men were required to fight for their country, the idea was floated that limitations on voting rights should be lifted as well, according to the “no taxation without representation” principle. Essentially, if you get to be drafted into the military, you also get to vote. After that, it was “ok, let’s also give voting rights to women as well”. As hard as that might be for some to accept, voting rights for women also had nothing to do with feminism.
Basically, what feminism actually contributed to society is obligate participation of women in the workforce, because it reduced the price of labor by half so men alone now can’t financially support a family, at least in most cases. That’s what the feminist success story adds up to – it removed societal accommodations that made women’s lives easier, forced them to work outside the home and made it incredibly difficult for them to have a family. Feminism did almost as much to screw up women’s lives as Islam. At the same time, I struggle to find its single positive contribution, and as soon as I think I’ve found something, I think of the drawbacks. For instance, women weren’t allowed to do certain jobs, but then you stop to think why that was the case, and you understand that doing such a job properly would preclude being able to raise a family if you’re a woman. For instance, if something requires you to work all day, that’s fine if you’re a man, but if you’re a woman, who’s going to have children? Who’s going to raise them? Also, the often touted great GDP increase because of female participation in the workforce. Sounds great, until you realize how it’s calculated. If a woman is a “housewife”, her contributions aren’t calculated in the GDP. However, if she’s in the workforce, someone needs to watch her children while she works, so she needs a nanny, add nanny’s salary to the GDP. Kindergarten, add that to the GDP. She can’t tutor the kids if they have problems with maths, so add a tutor’s fee to the GDP. She can’t cook so she eats outside, add restaurant bill to the GDP. She can’t take care of the home so she hires a cleaner and a gardener, add that to the GDP. She also needs a car to go to work, so that’s more expenses that drive the economy. So basically she needs to work all day just to give all the earnings to all the people who get to live her life instead of her, and that’s supposedly emancipation. Yes, it is, if you always wanted to be a slave. Essentially, all those female contributions to the economy are self-cancelling and probably actually reduce the effectiveness of the civilization compared to what we would have without it, because don’t tell me that Saudi Arabia is the alternative to feminism. We didn’t have Saudi Arabia here in Europe before feminism. Before feminism, Victoria and Maria Theresa von Habsburg were the major politicians in Europe, Augusta Ada worked with Charles Babbage on his computer and in every case where it wasn’t awesome to be a woman, that’s because it wasn’t awesome to be human in general; no antibiotics, no vaccines, no electricity, no in-door plumbing, no cars, no communications, horse manure on the streets. Contrary to the claims of feminism, our Western civilization was never designed to oppress women. It was designed to accommodate for the differences between sexes and make everybody’s lives better. Sure, if you were a peasant woman, your life sucked, but so did life of your peasant husband. You died giving birth, he died behind a plough from heat and exhaustion. However, if you were a female member of the higher societal classes, your life was just as good as life of your male peers. Being a duchess was as awesome as being a duke. Remember, we’re not talking about Islamic countries. Islamic countries were always a shitty place to be a woman. We didn’t have Islam here in the west. In fact, we killed Muslims and it was a major point of pride here in Croatia. We killed Muslims so excellently, they didn’t get to invade the rest of Europe because of us. Killing Muslims was the main national sport. In Turkey, they probably still think we’re the worst people on Earth. 🙂 But that’s why our women had it so good here, and theirs got their clitoris cut off and/or got sold into slavery: there are civilizations that actually oppress women, and we successfully kept those out. Until women got the right to vote, and now they are voting to let them in, because compassion and emotions and shit.
So, now that I’m mostly done with diagnosis, I can prescribe therapy. Mind you, it can’t work while everybody thinks they are doing fine. However, we’re not doing fine, and eventually that will become clear to the majority, and then we need to be done with feminism and the feminists, and go back to where we were in the 19th century, and I don’t mean iron that uses hot coals, or horse carriages, or writing letters with goose feathers. I mean designing a civilization around the understanding that genders are different and that we need to make each gender’s life easier, in its respective role in life, while maintaining all the technological progress that we acquired. What that would look like, I don’t know. I can make a few recommendations, for instance education again needs to be gender-specific, but some things need to be common, for instance the languages, maths, science, rhetoric, philosophy, history, etc., but there need to be gender-specific subjects, like home-making, nutrition and pediatrics for girls, and survival training, shooting guns and martial arts for boys, so that they don’t turn faggots like they are today. Also, the society needs to accommodate for women’s child-bearing years, instead of forcing them into the workforce on the same schedule as men. Sure, I’d give everybody the option to do whatever, but guess what, if you made it possible for girls to have children between 18 and 25, and then return to college and enter the workforce if they want or financially need to do so, then by all means, have your careers, and you’ll actually be more successful because you won’t be biologically forced to leave the workforce in your 30s if you want to have children, or work and have children at the same time in which case your kids will turn completely fucked up. Introduce a concept of state-provided dowry for girls between 18 and 25 who want to get married and have children, instead of disrupting the workforce with the present concept of a maternity leave.
And that’s a feminist’s greatest fear: they know that they need to take that choice away from women, because if they don’t, it’s obvious what women would choose. Not all, of course, but a vast majority. Feminism needs to be understood for what it actually is: a worldview of lesbianic and transgendered women who actually want to be men, and is based on lies.
Not sure if this is ontopic here, I guess it sort of is… :-)))
https://youtu.be/zylq-oiyIl4
I will stress out here that I don’t think anything constructive can be done at this point, so my argument stands only to show that I understand the problem. The tide can’t be turned at this point, and the West is lost.
Stuff like this really makes it hard for me to believe that there’s a “method to the madness” as you’ve written in a previous article. It’s an interesting thought experiment and I could easily accept that someone “in control” has their head so far up in the clouds they can’t see the cliff in front of them, but still. Do you have any theory how this could all play out in CIA’s interest?
Unfortunately I do. It’s not pretty. I’m not saying it’s all planned, but the Muslim invasion of Europe is. Basically, America is doing a scorched-earth thing across the globe, degrading the capacity of all other powers in the world to capture the no1 spot during America’s anticipated downtime, so that they can have their version of the Soviet 1990s and still come out as the leading world power. Part of this seems to be some sort of a civil war in America with military taking control. The entire scenario is a nightmare, yet it all unfolds in that direction and I cannot see any realistic outcome that leaves us with a normal civilization within a timeframe of several decades after this kind of shit hits the fan. You’ll ask about Russia and China. Unfortunately, everything points to America wiping them out nuclearly, taking a retaliatory strike, declaring martial law and counting on all the preparatory works to leave them on top. Israel seems to know about this plan and hopes to take out Iran before it starts, because if America is out, and Iran is not, Israel will be destroyed.
Yeah, I’m a ray of sunshine, I know. 🙂
As optimistic as ever and in the meantime “The Cavalry” is playing chicken with our nerves. 😁
Muricans think for real they’re up to taking retaliatory strike from Russians alone and then be able to re-emerge after several decades as the leading world power? Based on what, AI simulations they’ve been running in Langley? 🤔
Based on what they usually do – sabotage before the attack. I think they will attempt to destroy the Russians’ communications and IT before the attack, and then proceed to target individual SLBM/ICBM launch platforms. Personally, I have a very strong feeling of someone miscalculating very badly and this ending up being a much bigger catastrophe than they are planning for, but in their plans they envision something that ends up with them destroying the enemy completely while sustaining acceptable losses.
And yes, I am quite certain that a very deep simulation of exactly that is being run, and they hope to isolate scenarios to avoid at all cost, and scenarios to pursue.
To make something already difficult to understand even more crazy and complicated, perhaps it’s not unreasonable to count in extraterrestrial influence into the story, and I’m not even joking.
Late May this year, perhaps early June, I got out in the middle of the night to have a smoke before going to bed. It was 3AM, I guess, maybe 4AM. Suddenly, something very bright showed up. It was so unusual it absolutely demanded my attention, so I had to look up to see what is actually happening. That thing calmly and noiselessly levitated in one spot at high altitude directly above me, and then turned on some sort of cloaking ability and disappeared. I can easily testify this on any kind of lie detector or wherever and whenever needed.
It was either some crazy military thing, wet dream of any conspiracy theorist, or an actual alien spacecraft, as far as I am concerned.
Who knows; although, with all the drones being tested and used recently, I’d interpret something as aliens only when actual positive evidence of that appears.
https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ
“cloaking ability” – don’t know if you know, but e.g. X-47B has cameras on top side, and displays on bottom which show picture from the cameras, so it can “cloak” itself from visual spectrum if you are looking at it from below. I can imagine they have all kinds of other spy drones high in the sky these days that can do something similar.
Apparently, my first neighbour and her younger son saw some kind of an aircraft that noiselessly levitates in one spot, roughly the same geographical area as I did. Bright blue and white lights moving in a circular motion around it. You can tell she’s scared to death when she talks about it, like she saw the Devil himself.
It’s funny because it’s just one of those things nobody ever talks about – unless you first start to talk about it – then everybody start to talk about it.
Some 10 years ago I saw something similar, luckily I got full disclosure.
When driving home from Dubrovnik, somewhere on a highway just after midnight an object flew some 50m above ground in slow, steady motion, no sound, light on top and bottom with blue/white light circle around.
At first moment I had brain overflow as I tried to figure out what the hell am I looking at, especially since it was really close not high in the sky.
I am not big alien fan, so my first thought was some unknown military aircraft.
Luckily, on the other side of the road was some highly lit area over which the object flew and as light reflected, entire object was disclosed.
It was a helicopter with lights on tip of main propeller which created circle on rotation.
Probably flew in some low noise mode because I did not hear any sound (highway speeds surely muted anything not very loud).
Anyway, if there was not that lit area, I don’t think I would figure out any other explanation but UFO (not necessarily alien).
The problem I have with your reply is exactly the same kind of problem as I have with Božo’s reply down under – I just don’t have enough resources to respond to it the way it should be responded. And by “resources” I mean “any kind of computer at all”.
In order to explain myself and provide proper description on what exactly did I saw, what is possible and what should be completely physically impossible to see on the night sky, I would need to write a very length reply, and the thought of poking a tiny touchscreen to do so gives me instant diarrhea. I’ve been in deep shit for quite a while now and I try to reduce my online presence to things that are either of immediate interest, or to those that are very short and easy to write. I make some short notes for myself on the things that I wanted to reply and I haven’t, awaiting to get back to my equipment, but there’s now well over a hundred of those notes and I’ll have to make significant cuts, because even Danijel isn’t insane enough to respond to all of that.
But for now, for a lack of a better response, let’s just say that I’ve already gone through all of the possible explanations anyone would ever think of – and then some. I’ve even considered some abnormally rare phenomenons like Iridium flare (a bright flash of light that happens when Iridium satellite aligns itself in just the right way to the position of the spectator), and none of that gave me satisfying possibility that would really fit.
Also, as I was descending deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole trying to find an explanation, I’ve encountered pretty big number of hard fact evidence that actually makes it completely irrelevant what was it that I personally saw.
Let’s just put it this way, if you look at the military radar and you see an object that’s hovering above the ground, and then suddenly shoots right up in the sky at mach 8 speed seemingly having no inertia at all, vanishing into space in a matter of seconds where you can’t even track it, that thing was probably not a Russian helicopter. 🙂
I don’t know what exactly did you saw, however, based on your description it could also be rare phenomenon when air is especially dry and there is so much static electricity buildup on the tip of the rotor blades (and they travel through the air at speed that is dangerously close to the speed of sound anyway) that they start to produce cold-blue rotating light show that’s shooting electric sparks everywhere.
It could also be an even rarer case of the so-called Kopp-Etchells effect when entire helicopter rotor starts to glow, but in order for this to work you need to have a lot of hard microparticles in the air, and I haven’t really saw many sandstorms around Dubrovnik area in my lifetime, so we can safely dismiss this idea right away. 🙂
What kind of a problem are we talking about?
https://youtu.be/iuudzN-t21Q
BTW, for anyone interested in understanding how exactly these things work, just watch this video and pay close attention to chapter “Forecasting methodology” (10:15 min).
Basically, a bit of applied mathematics, a bit of behavioural psychology, and a lot of data mining, even through mainstream media using natural language processors. Nothing new for anyone who knows how neural networks work, but still interesting to hear…
I really like what you write, Danijel, but in this matter as a woman I cannot agree. There is just too much generalizing here for me to even consider this seriously. First of all, what serious problem is a woman going to face if she gives birth in her 30s? As someone who has given birth in the 30s, I regret absolutely nothing about “waiting” to become a mother, and there is certain level of experience which makes me a much better mother now than I would have been if I had given birth at an earlier time. Also, had a really easy time conceiving, as did pretty much all of my friends who gave birth in the 30s.
Secondly, children of working moms are not necessarily fucked up. I have seen a lot of them who have grown up as complete fuck ups with their housewife mothers. It is possible to have excellent institutionalized daycares and for children to actually enjoy the experience. And lastly, being a housewife is not something every woman can do. I thought that I could, and I almost lost my mind. It can easily turn into incredible drudgery and tediousness. I prefer using my brains elsewhere and paying for quality care for those 8 hours a day. And yes, mothering a child is not defined by spending 24 hours a day with your kid.
This is not a valid argument. F=m*a is a generalization, for instance. Also, you can find specific cases of spatial geometry where it doesn’t appear to be valid, but that doesn’t mean much.
In matters of sociology, I just don’t care about exceptions. I also don’t care about samples of one, or anecdotal reports, such as “I know a woman who gave birth in her 40s with donated eggs and so your arguments are invalid”. This is all just emotional defense of your personal choices, and as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care about it one way or the other. While you had your first child in your 30s (for the sake of argument and with no other reason whatsoever I’m assuming you’re a non-Muslim European), a Muslim woman somewhere in London had her fifth child, and your single child will end up going to school with 20 other children, 15 of which will be called Ali, Mohammad, Aisha, Fatima etc. That’s because a Muslim woman gave her first birth at 17, which makes your personal experience a perfect illustration of the civilizational issues I’m talking about, and will result in extinction of the European civilization, because if you somehow think that Muslims reproducing in Europe are Europeans, well, there’s another thing we’ll disagree about.
In maters of sociology, I care about what happens in the middle of the Gaussian distribution. A white Austrian woman giving birth to four sets of twins, and a Muslim woman who gave birth to her single child at 30 are several standard deviations away from the place I’m talking about. So, yes, I care only about generalizations. Civilization is not affected by super-minorities such as myself, or some lesbian/transgendered micro-population that’s given a disproportional influence in society by the Internet. Yes, I deliberately discount my personal example, you heard that right, because I’m a statistical freak event: a yogi with two wives and two kids. You have five of those per billion. That’s the particle density of colloidal gold in sea water, for example. That’s why we don’t try to filter out gold from the sea. What I care about is salt.
This is not a serious question, because the issues should be obvious. The gynecologists can’t stop warning women not to have kids too late because the list of dangers and warnings is huge. Also, women who have kids in their 30s usually do it so late because they spent the earlier part of their lives chasing a career, which they then disrupt or end, which is in my opinion the wrong way to do it, and the recommendation would be to have kids at your reproductive peak, and have a career in your 30s, when you’re at your intellectual peak.
That’s eactly the problem I’m talking about. A median European woman will have her wonderfully fulfilling pregnancy and childbirth in her 30s. At the meantime, a Muslim or African woman living in Europe will have her fifth child by the time she’s 30. I don’t have the actual numbers at my fingertips, but I recall the average chidbirths in Austria being 1.7 per white woman and 3.1 per Muslim woman, and I am pretty sure a Muslim woman isn’t starting giving birth in her 30s. So, you might think your personal experience is a good argument for your case, but it’s really not. It’s an argument for my case.
Emotional and cultural devastation of several generations in the West says otherwise.
And there’s also probably a transgendered lesbian claiming to be a man yet giving birth. As I said, I don’t care about any number of individual cases you could point at. I care about statistics, or, as you would say, generalizations. Only generalizations matter. Everything else is just distraction from the point at hand. I, for instance, wish my mother didn’t stay at home because she was psychotic and evil, but I’m intellectually honest enough to discount my personal experience as statistically biased to the point of irrelevancy.
It’s probably possible to be sexually abused as a child and thoroughly enjoy the experience, but that example wouldn’t make me think any better about sexual abuse of children.
Apparently, the entire Islamic world disagrees.
Regarding women not agreeing with me:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/07/06/the-one-about-wherein-ann-unloads-on-feminists/
(Thanks for the link, Slacker!)
Yeah right. Women don’t agree with me if they’re fifty shades of fucked up.
“Bruce Jenner is a man. And furthermore I consider that islam must be destroyed.”
🙂 🙂 🙂
I like her already. 🙂
It’d be really, really great that your thoughts on perils of feminism enter the mainstream of political thought of western civilization, at least in Europe, where our asses are on stake, I don’t care about America that much, but it only matters until we hit the complete human race expiry date I presume?! Falling to dark ages till that time comes is just totally pointless. 🤔
It is quite possible that this thing from the global astral, this scream of frustration of all the women who can’t reproduce because they were tricked, is really a reaction to some subconscious perception of the incoming extinction of the species, and the increased desire to procreate is a normal human instinctual response to that.
I just want to ask if You can write something about current state of global astral field, how this affects one’s soul, “traps” You were talking about etc… I know You wrote about these things, but it’s never enough for audience, at least part of it. 🙂
Honestly, that’s one question I would rather avoid answering if at all possible, since it’s quite painful for me to look in that direction and attempt to formulate a detailed report. It feels like putting my head into a working jet engine. Violence, anger, insanity, hysteria, complete opposite to a calm and balanced yogi consciousness. Basically, it looks like symptoms of extremely low energy, which is expected, as I destroyed the evil structures that were powering this whole thing by basically grinding good and powerful souls into a juice that went into all that human scum in order to stabilize their existence and prevent their deterioration, as they were artificially created and kept in existence by Sanat Kumar. I was peeling that structure like an onion for years, removing layer after layer of infrastructure and energy accumulators, and as a consequence the entire thing looked progressively worse. For several years already the global astral field looks completely unsustainable, imbalanced, and maintained only by the inertia of the physical, which means physical people are doing things out of habit, but they are degrading and getting worse at what they are doing because they are no longer being artificially fed purpose, meaning and direction from the global field, through Sanat Kumar’s infrastructure, and instead there is only what they themselves create and are able to do, which is mostly chaos and evil, as one would describe spiritual low energy states.
As for the traps, they can be simply described as things that get you to invest your spiritual energy and effort into this place, and prevent you from leaving. Basically, they are things that convince you that you shouldn’t leave, for whatever reason. It’s the kind of trap that feeds of your own conviction; you refuse to let go. If you can imagine electromagnetic field that binds you, and your own energy powers the coils, you’ll get the picture. Sanat Kumar wrote his code well. I think there’s a Darwinistic aspect to it, since I saw many abandoned old versions of scripts, so apparently he tried many things and those that lasted this long were obviously the successful ones. The newest ones have such mathematical elegance to them they are really scary to look at, but it’s actually comforting to see the older attempts. It’s like a comparison of the first internal combustion engine prototypes and a modern engine. It’s comforting to know one didn’t figure all of that out in the first attempt, because it would be quite disheartening.
So, the only thing keeping astral from falling apart totally is the mere existence of physical world which seems that want go “pooof!” just by itself as, I guess, gravity law won’t abolish itself for no reason?!
No, it’s actually not at all like this.
The astral, and here we’re not talking about astral *world*, or worlds, or mahat-tattva, but astral content created by the collective of humans, already fell apart as hard as possible; basically, it looks like an explosive substance in a blender.
What I perceive is the physical lives of humans having an inertia, because everybody does things out of habit, and they have physical memory and habit-pathways in their brains, and they more or less keep doing things as usual, and the chaos I’m perceiving is only manifesting itself in areas where physical stability is lacking; for instance, the leftists manifest this madness quite nicely, while others manage to keep their heads straight and merely wonder at what’s going on. I could hypothesise that the difference is correlated to individual spiritual strength (soul size and quality), and other factors.
> Basically, they are things that convince you that you shouldn’t leave, for whatever reason.
This gives me headache 🙂
Suicide is the only “on-demand” exit from this world, but it’s designed in such way that it practically guarantees destruction of not only body, but soul as well.
So, if we scratch that one out, only other way is “wait it out” and while doing so, not investing into this world – which seems nearly impossible – since everything I do seems like an investment in this world.
Also, answer to this surely can not be trivial and straightforward since this world trapped biggest souls out there.
What I mean here is that “having kids”, for instance, seems like an obvious thing NOT to do, but I can only assume that even the smallest of desires and unfulfilled wishes can also serve the same purpose in different binding strength.
Is it so? Is it possible that even stupid things like “It would be cool to take Rimac Concept Two to Nurnberg” can serve as energy investment and binding?
Or are such things too small to be significant and we are talking about more powerful emotional investments like having kids?
Having in mind how well Sanat Kumar blocked all exits, pure logic says that such an obvious one would have been dealt with very effectively.
But of course. Just translate those into energy terms. Projection of excitement, power and focus into a situation or object on the material plane. It’s very simple.
In order to keep the energy projection satisfiable you need to maintain existence of the physical world and the technological civilization, so you strengthen those with your energy investment as well. As you strengthen them, they become infused with your energy and as such attractive to other souls as well.
What is a punishment for an active suicide? For example, in the case of terminal cancer or other awful situation? Is the punisment related to the cause of a suicide or not?
You can find Danijel’s really good comments about suicide here.
The main problem is, I don’t know. I didn’t see the insides of that particular script, if there is one; it might be just an emergent property of identification with the body.
I’m actually wondering about something else, IF something happened to me and I die (my health is definitly not great), would I have to go back to this hellhole, or something happened in the meantime to prevent such things?
Actually, my prognosis for that case is much brighter than in the case of suicide. Basically, if you die you’re out. The personal outcome is of course function of your personal karma, but Romana was taking a look at those things in the past few years and apparently everybody who is not complete garbage gets to be rehabilitated from this place and is fine. However, an enormous number of souls, the vast majority, goes to a recycle bin, because they *are* complete garbage. One of the reasons why I preach so hard against Islam is that it basically guarantees a bad outcome after death; as religions go, that one is the actual opposite of useful.
Well, that’s quite a comforting tought, at least the outcome is up to me, and not some piece of machinery that will forcefully chain me and return to this shithole. It’s also encouraging me to stay calm and peacefull in somethimes very difficult situations. Thank You for that information 🙂
I don’t think returning here is a concern at this point; this place is too far gone. The concern is to use the time before death to give yourself the best chance of having a good outcome later.
Wonderful.
I guess realisation that it is a projection and not a real thing does not help either?
What I mean is “I want excitement, power and focus”, but if I choose C2 as means to an end and not the direct source of those things, I am already screwed – making realisation that C2 is an illusion – unimportant.
And hating this world also feels “trappy” – in a similar way as a suicide – feeling hate by itself can be a very dangerous thing.
I understand those things in a way on some intellectual level, but living them is another thing entirely.
It is clear such thing is impossible without enlightenment and it seems that’s when real trouble begins.
So, running through minefield while playing Russian roulette in the same time seems like child’s play in comparison.
Wonderful.
You’re starting to understand the magnitude of the problem. 🙂
1. Regarding the blocking of all exits, do you think the material siddhis are still possible or feasible for incarnated souls?
2. Perhaps with Satan gone, I guess it would be a possible solution for incarnated souls?
I found an old article of yours that talks about this:
https://archive.danijel.org/index.php?id=clanak&articleID=100&pageID=36
I can’t read Croatian language but using google translate I got the gist that aspiring yogis and yoginis should attempt to gain siddhis as a high priority.
There is also one of your more recent articles about the embargo on your powers:
https://www.danijel.org/blog/empowerment/
3. Do you think a similar embargo exists on all souls incarnated in the physical realm?
4. If your stance on attaining siddhis has not changed, what are the prerequisites for acquiring siddhis?
5. Is attainting enlightenment or a certain degree of spiritual initiation necessary for siddhis to manifest?
You talked about spiritual powers in your book where you translated and commented on the Yoga Sutras but the concepts are way beyond me.
I would guess a very still mind.
6. Do you also think attaining enlightenment is still possible for incarnated souls that have not yet reached initiation?
From what I gather from your books and articles, if a soul somehow manages to raise their overall energy level of the spiritual body above the highest levels of the astral plane, then initiation is achieved.
I don’t think so, as a rule. I think he incrementally banned it to the point where nothing moves, except where someone belongs to him, or siddhis will be used in a very trivial or binding way.
Doesn’t affect the rules that are already in place, they can be changed only after the control passes to the next King and he gives the command. This transition did not yet take place.
If you can’t attain initiation, how would you attain enlightenment (assuming we are talking about the same thing)? The current state of things here is not really conducive to spiritual practice, to put it mildly. My best recommendation is to try to attain higher initiation after death and spend time here in learning and understanding things. I don’t know any spiritual technique that wouldn’t produce more adverse than beneficial effects in the current circumstances. The noise is simply too great and too nasty, it’s worse than any point in history, completely without precedent, because people seem to be connected over social media and brought into coherence on a very nasty energy level, and this is really bad. It used to be bad before when TV did this partially, and newspapers before that, but this is really several orders of magnitude worse.
If women were that unhappy with their choices, they would be choosing otherwise through their actions.
If women had been happy with getting married and having children as their sole purpose, they wouldn’t have enthusiastically entered the workforce and been able to compete in the work market.
When men try to figure out what’s best for women, it ends up as ridiculous as the ideas about wandering uteruses and hysteria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_womb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria
The alt-right ideas about women are reductio ad absurdum, caused by the loss of meaning in humanity and a desire to point fingers. It’s the women’s fault, clearly.
Communism, post-modernism, it’s all women’s fault. Doesn’t matter that the founders and proponents of those systems are so predominantly male, it’s not even funny.
The saddest thing about it is the hordes of young men, lacking any breadth of experience, finding these ideas attractive because they feed their ego on some shallow level.
“Wow, you’re capable of spatial reasoning? I didn’t know women could be architects.” (actual experience)
I wonder why I don’t see women agreeing with your texts about feminism. Men do. I find that curious.
I’m skeptical that this movement could lead to better lives for women.
That’s complete fucking bullshit, because women bully each other into compliance. Essentially, you are either with the herd or the herd kills you. It’s not men who invent pathological patterns for women, it’s other women. Men just try to figure out what women want in order to give it to them, and that’s how it’s always been.
What you do or don’t see says very little about what’s actually true. Everything I wrote is actually motivated by complaints I’ve heard from women.
About women bullying other women into feminism:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/480879-tradwives-brainwashed-isis-feminism-patriarchy/
BTW, I find that I’m incredibly irritated by the tone of your message, because of the implication that if I say something, it must be my male bias and men should shut up about women. FYI, I’ve been a woman for a much greater experience-timeline than you, so I actually win in any bias-related discussion. I would actually hesitate more talking with men about what it means to be a man because I have comparatively less experience-hours in a male form.
The second reason why I’m irritated is that your “arguments” are worthless shit, there’s actually nothing there that’s not either internally contradictory, obviously false, extremely biased or pure propaganda based on falsehoods and partial insights, but it’s all emotionally charged with self-righteous fake indignation of a weak person who wants to pose online from the position of strength and wants to bully me into compliance by citing propaganda all stupid people will agree with, thus putting me in a position where I am expected to yield in a discussion in which I completely own the sphere of actual arguments.
So, very sorry, but I refuse to be bullied by idiots. Either you have some actual arguments that you can present, or merrily fuck off and go whine to your leftist friends about how “alt right” people are assholes, whatever alt-right is supposed to be, since people like yourself never bother to actually define the terms they use. But that’s not because you’re a woman, that’s because you’re just stupid.
anon, or whoever you are…
I am a woman and I agree with every word Daniel wrote. I hate feminism. I would love to be stay at home mom and I know many girls who are stay at home moms. Nobody is forcing them to be at home, they are happy and they have good husbands. There are also many women who want to be at home with their children but the culture in the West does not approved that. Many, many people said to me that I am stupid and lazy and stuck in the past just because my only wish is to have a good husband and be home with my children. Women like me don’t get any support at all and I hear that mostly from feminists btw. Feminists are the worst snakes and they hate women like me.
Feminism is destroying relationships, marriages and family values. Don’t tell me that is a normal thing that when you have a child you hire a nanny to work from 7-7, 5 or 6 days in the week. What’s the point then in having a child if you are not going to be there for him? And I know what I am talking about, I work in childcare as a nanny here in London for a long time now. Most of the children don’t see their parents at all 6 days in the week. That is not normal. One of the parent should be at home with child, and it should be woman’s role.
To me, feminism, like Daniel wrote, does not have anything to do with women’s rights, they are actually just angry lesbians who hate men. They are destroying men’s lives and careers. There have been so many stories here in London where a woman would simply accuse a man that he raped her, just because a man approached her and start a conversation with her. And if she says that he raped her, the law would be on her side and just like that, his life is destroyed. So you see, women actually have all the power now. And men have to be quiet and agree if they want to keep their jobs.
Gender wage gap thing that feminists also talk about is a big lie. It does not exist. Women actually are given more privileges. They have all the rights they want. And I can see that here in London especially at schools and universities. Armies too. They lower the criteria for women just so they can get in, and that is not fair. Young men today because of it are struggling and falling behind. There is also more compassion for women then men. And that is also not fair. I really love men and patriarchy. Because of men, we have electricity, internet, floors, ceilings, buildings, houses, roads…do you think women want to do jobs like that?? I have no interest in going to a war, or sit in a big office 7 – 7. I love the feeling of taking care of my house, cook and take care of my child at home and have a great husband that works. It creates peace and harmony.
And I don’t understand why some women like you, get so angry at the fact that men are better at some things. There is a huge difference between men and women and it is biology, you cannot change that. This is how God created us.
So you see, I am a WOMAN, and I completely agree with Daniel. And I wish that feminism disappear forever because it is destroying everything.
anon, or whoever you are…
I am a woman and I agree with every word Daniel wrote. I hate feminism. I would love to be stay at home mom and I know many girls who are stay at home moms. Nobody is forcing them to be at home, they are happy and they have good husbands. There are also many women who want to be at home with their children but the culture in the West does not approved that. Many, many people said to me that I am stupid and lazy and stuck in the past just because my only wish is to have a good husband and be home with my children. Women like me don’t get any support at all and I hear that mostly from feminists btw. Feminists are the worst snakes and they hate women like me.
Feminism is destroying relationships, marriages and family values. Don’t tell me that is a normal thing that when you have a child you hire a nanny to work from 7-7, 5 or 6 days in the week. What’s the point then in having a child if you are not going to be there for him? And I know what I am talking about, I work in childcare as a nanny here in London for a long time now. Most of the children don’t see their parents at all 6 days in the week. That is not normal. One of the parent should be at home with child, and it should be woman’s role.
To me, feminism, like Daniel wrote, does not have anything to do with women’s rights, they are actually just angry lesbians who hate men. They are destroying men’s lives and careers. There have been so many stories here in London where a woman would simply accuse a man that he raped her, just because a man approached her and start a conversation with her. And if she says that he raped her, the law would be on her side and just like that, his life is destroyed. So you see, women actually have all the power now. And men have to be quiet and agree if they want to keep their jobs.
Gender wage gap thing that feminists also talk about is a big lie. It does not exist. Women actually are given more privileges. They have all the rights they want. And I can see that here in London especially at schools and universities. Armies too. They lower the criteria for women just so they can get in, and that is not fair. Young men today because of it are struggling and falling behind. There is also more compassion for women then men. And that is also not fair. I really love men and patriarchy. Because of men, we have electricity, internet, floors, ceilings, buildings, houses, roads…do you think women want to do jobs like that?? I have no interest in going to a war, or sit in a big office 7 – 7. I love the feeling of taking care of my house, cook and take care of my child at home and have a great husband that works. It creates peace and harmony.
And I don’t understand why some women like you, get so angry at the fact that men are better at some things. There is a huge difference between men and women and it is biology, you cannot change that. This is how God created us.
So you see, I am a WOMAN, and I completely agree with Daniel. And I wish that feminism disappear forever because it is destroying everything.
There’s one interesting thing she implied, that it would be some sort of an insidious alt-right tactic to imply that things in today’s society are women’s fault. After all, it’s not like they have any influence over anything, right? It’s not like they are the majority in society (there’s actually slightly more women than men), and that they basically decide who gets elected into office. Also, it’s not like a woman in charge of the strongest EU country invited Muslim refugees into Europe. Also, it’s not like all this leftist activism is primarily female-driven. Also, it’s not like women are voting for increasingly more state power and trying to “marry the state” so that they could be “independent of men”. And they are certainly not the majority of school teachers, imprinting children with leftist ideology early on. Also, mothers are always perfect and are teaching children all the good values, they are never selfish, violent whores. So nothing is really women’s fault and it must all be an alt-right conspiracy, whatever alt-right is, since it seems to encompass whatever leftists don’t like to argue against, because feelings.
I agree with everything that you wrote above except that Muslims invading Europe are refugees … they’re something more like hybrid of economic parasites and rapefugees. If they had been real refugees they would have adapted long time ago and show humble gratitude to their hosts. 🤔
Well, they call them refugees, but they are obviously invaders, yes.