Schizophonia

I'll reply to the @Lila9's post here at the same time. When I talk about powerlessness; I am not talking about motor and emotional strength, in which case girls are indeed as powerful as men if they are in good physical and mental health. There are women who are crushed, who keep their mouths shut and are beaten by their husbands, but of course that is an anomaly and it's agender; there are also men who are beaten/crushed by their wives or other men even if the other way is certainly more probable; and ofc to want to harm your girlfriend you must be a sociopath. What I'm simply saying is that women tend to be more obedient, to go with the flow; it's in their anatomy, in their appreciation of humor, in their way of loving. That doesn't mean women aren't creative or don't like discovering and sharing things; it's just a preference, an inclination. The heart of the genre is the relationship to the phallus that I described in my previous topic (I plan to make a larger and more refined V2 soon) What I mean by powerlessness is identification with limits, with negativity (not even in the perorative sense, but in the raw/mathematical sense of the term). Women start from the imaginary and descend back into reality, what Lacan would call the symbolic order, while men do the opposite; symbolism prevails. To illustrate imagine you want to buy a coffee table. If you say, "Okay, my current coffee table is already fine (the current coffee table), but the other one looks cool, so I'll work, go to IKEA, and buy it," you're simply shifting your attention to your current table before changing it and then shifting your attention to the new one once it's physically there. This way of approaching desire is masculinizing. However from the moment you shift your attention to the new table before you even have it (you ruminate on the fact that you should have a new table before you actually have it, you constantly look at the IKEA catalog (obsessive-compulsive disorder/Asperger's syndrome can lead to feminizing tendencies because of this pattern) etc.), then you're no longer in the realm of the symbolic but in the realm of the imaginary, which is feminizing. This is something you can experience for yourself. For 48 hours, try to inhibit negative beliefs when they arise; suspend this imaginary of what should be there but isn't (the phallus) and simply do what you want to do or should do; even when you're walking down the street ask yourself, "How does Sincerity like to move his member, because it's comfortable/fun?" You will: -Become sexually dominant, see much more; immediately eliminate all fetishes that go against this. -Become naturally more sociable, do more activities; strive to be a physical leader. -To be more physically powerful. -To stop wanting to listen to girly music (If the concept of self lacks lack, then you will no longer reason with this kind of music; the same goes for all the sad stuff or phonk music; it's ultimately more like music for submissive people from what i feel).

Femininity is lack/powerlessness. The female genitalia are literally a void to be filled; men are also taller and much more muscular. You speak of patriarchy but that's simply the basic social organization among most great apes; the great ape that Homo sapiens most closely resembles is the chimpanzee and it too is broadly a patriarchy. Men like submissive women; there are men who like the opposite but they tend to be less androgenic phenotypes. No, unless they're homosexual men don't like obeying other men. In the military men don't obey out of submission to a strongman; they do it because successfully obeying military orders makes them feel tough and effective.

Not being sociable enough and being too anxious

Obedience is not gendered. Men like to obey to feel that they are strong; women like to obey out of submission.

Everything

You’re already infinitely stupid and still able to awake. 🫨

It’s a fantasy

It’s certainly not very pleasant to be Bonnie blue; she does this because it's all she knows.

You just imagined it. You just imagined it too. The semi-planned Chinese economy and to a lesser extent the French one functioned very very well after the war, and Stalin's USSR transformed a group of corrupt eurasian states into an industrial superpower where living standards and life expectancy skyrocketed despite civil war, the First and especially the Second World War, and western embargoes. The USSR essentially collapsed due to Brezhnev's spending/laxity, bureaucracy and corruption, a lack of openness to global capital (I discuss this in my article about Trotsky if i rememer well), and nationalists. The USSR would have survived were it not for Boris Yeltsin's conspiracy and the support of the United States. No it's not the countries of the former Soviet bloc that have a lot of corruption, it's poor countries in general. Central American and African countries are also very corrupt, perhaps even more so, and they are very capitalist countries; because they are poor. Countries are poor because they lack capital, skilled labor, and raw materials. Now the question is, which production and distribution system throughout history has most fostered such a surge in production? I've provided ample evidence that communist states who are well planned, benefited from this surge or at least are stable while capitalist states only collapse in on themselves due to crises before rebounding by enslaving themselves in a Ponzi scheme called debt. I also talked about it in my topic on Trosky; I should make a V2 because from memory it is too shaky for my taste.

Thanks; i knew you were kidding ofc.

I know. These days it's subtle but I'm opening my heart; I experience a little more love even if it also makes me more anxious. It's like going from ADSL to VDSL or from 480p to 720p, a comparison of that kind.

What more manly than a big mustache I have to.

No; the USSR collapsed and liberalized because Boris Yeltsin basically staged a coup. That's what I said; you're paraphrasing me. If the transition to a free market is a medicine why did Ukraine have a lower GDP per capita than even Algeria just before the Russian invasion; most of the former Soviet bloc countries are still poor including Russia; Russia is overall a very poor country. The USSR had a GDP around the half to that of the United States, and now Russia, despite the opening to the global market that the end of the USSR allowed, isn't even worth a quarter of it. There has only been regression.

It was a dictature yes. I don't promote Staline No it is precisely the bourgeois who can have the privilege to be "lazy and unproductive"; the characteristic of being a bourgeois is precisely to earn excessively compared to others simply through the right to private property; because you were in the right place at the right time. And if there are people who earn a lot because they own the capital, it means that on the other side there are people who earn less even if they are productive. And it's natural for people to be productive if they're in good physical and mental health and not high on alcohol or heroin, lol; and even under any socialist system, even a lax one, you can't live on welfare alone—that's the bare minimum. There are 5% of people in France who don't work and receive welfare and France is particularly lax; the French are also still one of the most productive populations in the world in terms of wealth generated per hour on average. So you're fixated on this but it's just not true. Ceaușescu was one of many communist leaders with their own vision of communism, and he was a rather foolish dictator. Colonization means that you directly control a territory through colonists; this is not colonization. I've already explained all of this elsewhere, I'm not going to repeat myself. Western Europe was much less affected by the war and benefited greatly from the Marshall Plan particularly West Germany. After the war France implemented a semi-planned economic policy due to the Communist Party's victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_French_legislative_election)in the parliamentary elections, and this coincided with the greatest period of growth in its history. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses) You're comparing Western Europe, where there were relatively few conflicts and deaths, and which ultimately received generous aid from the United States, with Eastern Europe which was devastated, undergone tens of millions of deaths, and had to rebuild itself on its own And once again you're lying; it depends on the country. Ukraine has always been poor, but East Germany industrialized well despite the dictatorship and lack of aid. France and East Germany did recover in the west, but Spain remained quite poor. Of course they do; all factories and infrastructure in general are capital. Russia's transition to a market economy went badly and increased poverty, corruption, violence, and inequality; a large portion of that capital was simply stolen by a handful of oligarchs. Poland's transition went very well, the best transition of all ex USSR's satellite states; it's a matter of organization, and here you're admitting that the shift to a market economy tends to jeopardize living standards and institutions more than the other way around ahah; perhaps you don't realize it but that's your own deduction. Today the vast majority of poor and very poor countries are capitalist countries; capitalism doesn't systematically increase wealth it doesn't work that way; the causality is reversed, because a state industrializes it becomes more liberal by developing a bourgeois class that will in fine strive to increase its rights. The French Revolution for example was bourgeois; among the first measures taken by the Jacobins were liberal ones such as the abolition of guilds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chapelier_Law_1791) No that's not it; words have a definition.

I want a girlfriend who talks about me like that