A Treatise on the Neumale
-
The Child
The neumale does no wrong because he does no good. The psycho-homosexual neumale was not taught the spiritual masculine: “agency” — but rather the spiritual feminine: “consensus.”
They look toward their mother for permission before doing something, as the mother is the arbiter of good, bad, and most of all, safety. In a healthy parenting dynamic, this is natural and vital to survival for young children.The Man
When the boy child develops enough energy to raze the house, they are developing the strength of immense power for great good or bad, that is intended to be harnessed and disciplined for good — the father assumes authority of this son, and gives him spiritual and physical rites of passage, a sacred connection in the human social order, to build and destroy at the greatest level. He then becomes a man: Man over his own potential chaos, and the chaos of the world around him.Social Enforcement
In adulthood, the society, government, institutions, etc, will manifest either masculine or feminine natures, according to their goals. When there is no spiritual mother to guide him, the neumale avoids the risk of doing a bad/dangerous thing, by doing nothing. He is emotionally frozen in place, because his power was never fully embraced or permitted, it was neutered by distribution among consensus of social acceptance and permittances in this toxically feminine culture of weak men. No longer a child, for a man to be good is to take agency over chaos without permission, but, this is to be dangerous, and danger is a risk to the morality of consensus.I was inspired to write this, due to the Bondi beach shooting, where the shooter was dissarmed by good, but weak men, twice. The first paid for it with his and his wife's life when the shooter retrieved another gun; the second got shot but survived when the shooter again retrieved another gun, and others were shot to death. Commenters were praising them for not shooting the shooter when they captured the gun, because one presumes that at that moment the shooter becomes a non-combatant and the rules of hollywood cowboy shootouts ensues... this is of course laughably stupid, but it was being considered murder by a former cop if a victim had shot the perp with the gun and the perp died.
The fact is, it's scary to force someone hands-down on the ground and shoot them if they disobey -- even when you just saw them shooting people -- the flight mind only wants it to stop, and would be able to breath again if the whole problem just stopped being a problem by wishing it away.
-
@LetTheRedeemed
I find your thoughts interesting; and an apt and well thought out analysis of our current state. When I first saw the title I thought it was a formal argument for a prescription drug or something — no joke; so I passed on reading it. Passing across the tile again, some time later, and seeing the word Neumale for a second time, the meaning hit me and I was intrigued to read further. I was pleasantly surprised to see where you went with this, as you've articulated ideas on the battle of masculinity that have been brewing in my mind for quite some time; and I could imagine in others minds, given the state of things. Your thought, "the neumale avoids the risk of doing a bad/dangerous thing, by doing nothing", is very fitting to the idea of sins of omission: which I think is a foreign concept to the contemporary mind. I was reminded of William Blake after reading your thoughts, and that this masculine spirit — energy — is a core of Blake's perspective; and that for a man to choose against this, is feminine, in the negative, anti-masculine sense. Blake was big on energy and action, as you say "agency", and that in the name of avoiding wrong, if one chooses inaction — or defers to the path of consensus, to use your contrasting idea — he doesn't necessarily choose the better and right path (to say the least):"Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.
He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." -
@Mossy thanks for sharing. Appreciate your thoughts.
This is part of why I like Peat's work.
I'll take the opportunity to add, that fundamentally at an individual level, it's not corresponding to the sex, but rather, it's fundamentally high energy vs low energy. Women are simply weaker than men, not made to have any lesser of the fundamental virtues of good people (indeed, some women punch far above their weight in terms of being excellent people, and some men coast on the ease of being stronger or having a bigger brain, without truly sacrificing or stepping outside of comfort). The female sex is weaker at a societal level, where those bearing children must reserve energy, and thus they produce different outcomes for their industries or institutions of need.
Ideally, men and women produce a society of fractals, if you will...
-
@LetTheRedeemed said in A Treatise on the Neumale:
@Mossy thanks for sharing. Appreciate your thoughts.
This is part of why I like Peat's work.
I'll take the opportunity to add, that fundamentally at an individual level, it's not corresponding to the sex, but rather, it's fundamentally high energy vs low energy. Women are simply weaker than men, not made to have any lesser of the fundamental virtues of good people (indeed, some women punch far above their weight in terms of being excellent people, and some men coast on the ease of being stronger or having a bigger brain, without truly sacrificing or stepping outside of comfort).
What does this mean in clearer and more explicit terms, if its high energy vs low energy and not sex related, whats the link with your next claim"women are simply weaker than men...etc", if any link?
What is "good" people, whats fundamentals virtues, "not made to have any lesser...etc" does this mean women not made to have any virtue of "good" people?
-
@user1 women are capable of great things too. they aren't lame useless pushovers, they are just smaller than men. like how we wouldn't claim smaller than avg men are useless etc. i mention it because when you start talking about feminine males it inneviably gets misconstrued as dissing in women because they are feminine.
Good people see a problem and fix it. they are honest and brave, etc, the basic stuff. women just can't do as much identical things as men, like 5ft men can't do as much as 6 ft men.
-
@LetTheRedeemed you haven't seen many North American woman, I see many large woman who have more bodily mass and physical space taking than men
also have you ever heard of a step stool or ladder
I think your theories are interesting and fun to read and also some of them are yap
especially the theories derived from some philosophers who seem cringe -
@LetTheRedeemed said in A Treatise on the Neumale:
Women are simply weaker than men, not made to have any lesser of the fundamental virtues of good people
Indeed. My comment about a man making low-energy decisions was meant to show that this is feminine in an anti-masculine sense, being a negative only as it pertains to a man. I was not implying femininity, as it pertains to women in general, is less virtuous or lacking in good.
-
@Mossy oh I get you and I didn’t mean to imply you meant that, maybe I doubled back too thoroughly, but I just know someone will read this one day and misinterpret everything almost on purpose hahah.
It’s a fun dance to explain how it’s weak for men to be feminine without claiming its weak for women to be feminine. -
@sunsunsun haha thanks for the compliment.
I get it, There’s a lot of dysfunction out there today. I’m speaking in potentials. There’s a lot of weak men in North America, too. We are not at our historical best right now that’s for sure!
What philosophers did you catch in my rant? I didn’t intentionally pull from any known ideologies, rather behavioral research from guys like Jonathan Haidt.
-
@LetTheRedeemed idk im just yapping
-
@sunsunsun here you dropped this
-
sounds Jungian. "Puer eternus" goes to this point.
-
@Corngold interesting. I’ll look that up
-
-
@LetTheRedeemed
yes. It's a whole thing. Peter Pan syndrome, Puer eternus, etc. My opinion, it's definitely being forced onto men via gay+, infantilization, isolation, techmology, drugs, etc. The devouring mother is definitely being forced on women via feminism, pill, hypergamy, abortion, etc. It requires manipulation of both genders in my opinion. Courtly love is irrelevant because women have a million options. Men's refinement becomes mere homosexuality, etc. -
@sunsunsun indeed. Women are literally the devouring mother, while dudes are suffering total twinkification def con / norwood 4 by 25. By design. Also mass shootings I'm quite certain are fake.
-
@Corngold The only part I disagree with is the idea that it's principally a woman problem.
-
@LetTheRedeemed yeah I didn't watch that specific video but there are several on Jung Aion channel with a lady, Marie-Louise von Franz, who was one of Jung's students, and was analyzed by him. She goes into all of this but frames it as a modernity and almost anti-feminine problem dating to medieval times. Her point is Mary became the innocent / divine / perfect feminine in that time, replacing an earthly Eve feminine. I won't say I'm sold on it, but it is interesting, given that Troubador poets in France and Spain and probably most of Europe ended by the 1500s (if not mid 1400s). Look at some of the poetry and you'll find very lewd and vulgar language in the 13th century (lol). Maybe Eve did rule over that period's divine feminine.
Cervantes was Spanish and Spain was under Arab / Jew rule and mixed with Greek, Germanic, etc cultures. I.e., it was very worldly and certainly not a Catholic monarchy. All of the rigidity I believe was Council of Trent / counter-reformation tactics. Quixote is fairly lewd at times. I would guess it is repeating older stories, too, not just what happened mid to late 16th century in Cervantes' time.
To me, that makes sense, but probably the WWI and WWII divine feminine was what Franz called "Sophia" or basically wisdom embodied by women, taken to its logical end. It is similar to Aristophanes' Assemblywoman in real life - women rule society and replace men because gender no longer "matters." In her view there are four feminine archetypes (Eve, Mary, Helen, Sophia). In my view they must be cyclical or at least rhythmic in every culture and possibly globally. For instance, Helen and Mary are known for beauty and warmth; Sophia is colder and Eve is visceral. I think that Sophia leading to Eve is very telling of Rosie-the-Riveter turned Margaret Sanger and every other "strong woman" ultimately deconstructing and destroying any Helen or Mary figure of women. That leads then back to Eve. That's also where we're at. I would also call it Lilith, because Jewish / Christian lore also includes the gnostic Adam and Lilith myth which supposedly occurred before Eve. Either way Lilith and Eve are similar and identified as sinister, but also maybe dumb i.e., "I'm just a girl."
Lol enough for me today.
