The word objectify can mean some different things. Here, I use it as to mean to think of and treat a human like a non-living object that it is not immoral to lie to and that can be bent in any way to suit yourself.
Women and Jews tend to over objectify the other humans. They see then no fault in lying to, manipulating or sacrificing any other humans as they treat them like objects by instinct, objects that can harm them but most often are used by them. A man impersonating a talmudic jew once said that it is not more or less moral to lie to a goy than to a cow or a dead object.
Men of culture tend to under objectify other humans. When a man gives up on finding a nawalt after having such hopes for years, it is a sign of that he has realised how object-like women are despite the projecting of fully accomplished sentience and humanity that he has naturally had as a starting point.
Most humans lack a literal voice in their heads and thus cannot have an inner dialogue. There exists also among humans great thinkers, virtually exclusively male who are the antithesis of non sentient object as they by nature use their sentience to expand it even further. The most realistic way to see humans is thus not to project sentience and traits of nawalts or high standing men into them without discriminating nor to by nature not humanise them at all. The realistic way is to view humanity as a group of castes and different archetypes even if the mind by nature may ascribe the same level of sentience to all not closely known people.
Humanising could be used as a polar opposite to the here used definition of objectify but it would be misleading as many humans act not just institutionally but reflexively while many animals can be informed and misinformed about the world by intentional actions.
Women treat men like objects and would not blame one of their own for sacrificing 1000 men who did not directly aid women to save the life of a single female. Exceptions may be found but this is the natural way most women view men. Women a rarely have opinions not shared by their fellow females which would be a nawalt trait.
I have had a spiritual search for nawalts before giving up on it; I had imaginary conversations with them as with imaginary men even if the real females of my surrounding could not be spoken to as if they had a deep sense of reason and often acted as a group with a leader who may speak for all women on her group while none of them even see a reason to take responsibility for their own words, let alone the actions of the group.
Human females have smaller brains and smaller frontal lobes than their male counterparts; the difference in brain volume among humans is about one magnitude bigger between the genders than among the contemporary races. The frontal lobe is responsible for things like logic, discipline, self inhibition and as an extension morals.
The pursuit of nawalts should be given up as it is a result of unrealistic under objectifying of women.
I should have included this stuff about over objectifying by Jews and women in part 7 of my long master post.
Women and Jews tend to over objectify the other humans. They see then no fault in lying to, manipulating or sacrificing any other humans as they treat them like objects by instinct, objects that can harm them but most often are used by them. A man impersonating a talmudic jew once said that it is not more or less moral to lie to a goy than to a cow or a dead object.
Men of culture tend to under objectify other humans. When a man gives up on finding a nawalt after having such hopes for years, it is a sign of that he has realised how object-like women are despite the projecting of fully accomplished sentience and humanity that he has naturally had as a starting point.
Most humans lack a literal voice in their heads and thus cannot have an inner dialogue. There exists also among humans great thinkers, virtually exclusively male who are the antithesis of non sentient object as they by nature use their sentience to expand it even further. The most realistic way to see humans is thus not to project sentience and traits of nawalts or high standing men into them without discriminating nor to by nature not humanise them at all. The realistic way is to view humanity as a group of castes and different archetypes even if the mind by nature may ascribe the same level of sentience to all not closely known people.
Humanising could be used as a polar opposite to the here used definition of objectify but it would be misleading as many humans act not just institutionally but reflexively while many animals can be informed and misinformed about the world by intentional actions.
Women treat men like objects and would not blame one of their own for sacrificing 1000 men who did not directly aid women to save the life of a single female. Exceptions may be found but this is the natural way most women view men. Women a rarely have opinions not shared by their fellow females which would be a nawalt trait.
I have had a spiritual search for nawalts before giving up on it; I had imaginary conversations with them as with imaginary men even if the real females of my surrounding could not be spoken to as if they had a deep sense of reason and often acted as a group with a leader who may speak for all women on her group while none of them even see a reason to take responsibility for their own words, let alone the actions of the group.
Human females have smaller brains and smaller frontal lobes than their male counterparts; the difference in brain volume among humans is about one magnitude bigger between the genders than among the contemporary races. The frontal lobe is responsible for things like logic, discipline, self inhibition and as an extension morals.
The pursuit of nawalts should be given up as it is a result of unrealistic under objectifying of women.
I should have included this stuff about over objectifying by Jews and women in part 7 of my long master post.
Last edited:
