I read that strange theory of yours. I disagree. There is no need for sexual feelings in order for a man to form a strong bond with another man.
Otto Weinerger discovered this in the 1900’s. He was a genius, a german genius and he commited at age 24 because people didn’t buy enough copies of his book to his liking.
I discovered it as well. There are rumors that you are a basement dweller who does not go outside much. I do not say this to insult. What I mean by this, is in order to gain this understanding, you have to be to the point where you have talked to thousands of people, and can see the human species as the organism it is.
Deep friendships have a sexual component, it is vital to their functioning. However you don’t see two dude soldiers going at it because, they are both attracted to the female form and disgusted by each other’s pheromones. But if they magically turned into girls they would go at like no tommorow. Male lions function in the same manner, but are not as repulsed by other males so male lion homosexuality is more frequent.
It’s very sad that you have to study people as if they were lab rats in order to understand human nature. You have yourself, your genes, to study, and yet, instead of tuning into your instincts in order to understand how human nature works you are studying others.
What can you possibly learn in this manner especially in the age of decadence? Nothing but perverted/distorted way of life.
All of which is understandable considering how much you hate yourself.
I do look inwards, I also look at history books and documentaries. Modern humans are just an extension of the stupid of past generations.
You are a tranny ffs. How can you be so bold so as to claim that you are looking inward when you are a goddamn tranny insisting that you have to interact with at least thousand of people in order to understand human nature? What’s next? You have to read at least 100 books? Prismatic style?
I am beyond the common tranny. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I am 7th gender.
Anarchism is the direct opposite of permanence as in a permanent state [Although even the state is impermanent despite brandishing the illusion that it isn’t]. Anarchism is perpetual in that in order to exist for a long period of time it must re-perpetuate itself constantly into being. If it doesn’t re-perpetuate itself into existence it ceases to be. Is anarchy impermanent? Maybe, but it still can last a long time even in temporal transition. They say in order to challenge the state from exasperating or engulfing itself a perpetual revolution is needed every twenty five years for renewal of social or individual independence.
The roots of independence must constantly be renewed or otherwise central tyranny takes hold.
Even in the absence of anarchism the state destroying itself through corruption and its own excessive expansion naturally redirects towards anarchism existentially under its own collapse. There never has been any kind of centralized social order that lasts forever. It is a sort of cyclical equilibrium of centralization and decentralization always returning back. The destructive nature of the state always naturally leads back to anarchy. Anarchy is the spontaneous default existence of nature absent of social or human impositions. Existential entropy seems to favor anarchy along with chaos. Both entropy and chaos are absolutes of the universe where anarchism is always an inevitability. That’s what anarchism is, a kind of human existence that finds refuge within entropy or chaos.
The inevitability of anarchism is the inevitability of the collapse of all forms of social order or organization. Anarchism is the inevitable reality of social order’s lack of existential immortal longevity.