Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Paul Joseph Watson"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Women are naturally attracted to what they inherently lack: confidence and physical power. Confident men don't act, in public, like they NEED...anything. That projects the power of confidence, and fascinates women. If you can manage, additionally, to be genuinely kind, you'll have every one of them eating out of your hand, so to speak. The idea they get that you can control the degree of your sensitivity renders you a veritable god to their hearts, because that is the one thing they CANNOT do (i.e. detach emotionally). The nature of femininity does not allow for that possibility. Women attach emotionally as a mode of being; men resist attachment in order to learn about the object, keeping it at arm's length as it were in order to study it from a safe perspective. Emotional attachment is how women appreciate being alive. Men detach emotionally in order to activate the mental perspective, and appreciate being alive by cultivating a deserved pride in their ability to understand and operate in the world (i.e. competence). A man without vision is a...woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If they think men are, in large numbers, going to be cowed by SJW BS, they've got another think comin'. Let me tell them how it works: after a period of time proportional to the existing reserve of masculine tolerance, men will see women more and more negatively, as the incompetent harpies they tend to be, and, accordingly, disregard them. "Disregard" is the right word, here. The result, eventually, will be the diminution of female life experience (i.e. slavery).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're missing the important point: you can do to yourself, through manipulations of your psyche, what actual addictive drugs can do! The placebo effect is still unexplained scientifically, though widely and broadly dismissed. So...Morgan Freeman, for instance, may be addicted, in his brain, to his "sense" of being a great actor. Maybe he's likewise addicted, in his brain, to the psycho-physiological experience of his favorite breakfast, its anticipation, preparation, consumption, and aftereffect. Maybe that's how all our brains work...we're all addiction machines. On the other hand, the problem may lie in our conceptualization: "craving" is simply "desire"; "addiction" is simply "dependence". The use of special terms creates a special class which appears to be distinct from its parent class, leading to the distinct impression that the special class is a different order of thing than its parent. This is a necessary prerequisite to suppressing the special class whilst buoying the parent class. IOW, the illusion-making system needed a way to demonize extreme desire as "craving", and extreme dependence as "addiction" in order to attack it WITHOUT attacking desire and dependence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1