When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro and con. Everywhere, wherever life is actual, reigns an inward organic logic, an "it," a drive, that is utterly independent of waking-being, with its causal linkages, and indeed not even observed by it. The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births. In the Classical world the practice was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece, and yet even at his date it had long been established in great cities; in subsequent Roman times it became appallingly general. At first explained by the economic misery of the times, very soon it ceased to explain itself at all. And at that point, too, in Buddhist India as in Babylon, in Rome as in our own cities, a man's choice of the woman who is to be, not mother of his children as amongst peasants and primitives, but his own "companion for life," becomes a problem of mentalities.
It's calling you a deracinated bugman who revels in the ruinous materialistic hedonism of western civilization instead of assuming the role of Man. It's not "do it for the party"; it's do it because this is what Men do, and, if done properly, women will happily submit because they want to be dominated, as demonstrated by their willing submission to the corporate state.
Simply accepting the situation and merely trying to mitigate the risks is what women do when the barbarians pillage and rape their town. You've adopted the position of a woman.
-Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
This is a lot of words to say very little.
It's calling you a deracinated bugman who revels in the ruinous materialistic hedonism of western civilization instead of assuming the role of Man. It's not "do it for the party"; it's do it because this is what Men do, and, if done properly, women will happily submit because they want to be dominated, as demonstrated by their willing submission to the corporate state.
Simply accepting the situation and merely trying to mitigate the risks is what women do when the barbarians pillage and rape their town. You've adopted the position of a woman.
And yet there isn't a single person in the West, maybe even on this Earth, who can say their marriage was beneficial to them in a tangible way.
I want to fight back against the situation, but as you know, my perception of who the enemy is, is very different to that of others.
I gotta ask man, do you realize when your argument falls apart and you subsequently make a retarded follow up?
Or is your head so far up your own ass you can't even recognize it or care?
You're not an idiot.
You know that you just said something retarded.
Why?