Author: Curt Doolittle

WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY?

APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE

I’m sorry to intrude on your poetic speech with my painful, oft turgid, analytic, alternative, but I thought this might provide you and others with another way of looking at the issue as if there are two sides.

EXPLANATION

In all multi polar systems, just as in all majority democracies, we see a major party (dominant alliance of interests) and a contesting party (resistance to the dominant alliance of interests) and all other parties(alliances) are statistically irrelevant.

There is nowhere in life that this is not true. (I think there is a term for this effect, but it escapes me at the moment.)

In most of history the military (aristocracy) as been the primary influence, and various religious organizations constitute the opposing force.

But once we developed industry the economic power of business, industry and finance produced greater influence than the church and state could muster.

Once the church was eliminated by Darwin, Science, The Academy, long subservient to the church, took over the church’s role as myth-maker. (Unfortunately just as the cosmopolitans and women were freed from cultural constraints under universal suffrage, ).

The craftsmen (labor) attempted to ally with the Academy and State but Industry rebelled taking jobs away. But for some time the academy controlled the state via labor.

The socialists and feminists were successful in forming an alliance with the academy to take over the government and push the military aristocracy from power. They were able to do this mostly because of the combination of media and postwar consumption, combined with the geographic expansion of the united states western territories as nearly free land. Plus the cost of fighting communism gave the academy and their desire as a vehicle for expansion of their power.

In all these organizations oligarchies do form. But there always will exist four organizations: craft (without power), priesthood/academy(gossip as a moral weapon of power – especially in the west where altruism is the high chivalric virtue), the organization of production (remunerative incentives), and the martial aristocracy.

What we see is a conflict between the four powers to control institutions.

We live in a malevolent theocracy of academy and state reliant mostly on numerological pseudoscience to justify selling off consumption of the commons, in exchange for dysgenic expansion that increases their supporters.

Theocracies, like corporations do not care about families, they are about power.

Aristocracy is a family business.

Families matter.

SO WHAT?

So there are always four dominant forces (alliances) reflecting the four possible means of coercion (none, gossip, trade, and force), and these forces battle over whatever institutions exist in any civilization in order to expand their power. But as always, because each follows the best use of power, the end result is always a dominant and resistance group, with the reset nearly invisible because they are immaterial.

I think what I try to bring to the table is the fact that these four strategies (if the first ‘none’ can be considered a strategy), reflect reproductive strategies, and that the masculine (tribal) feminine (universal) and the commercial (selfish or neutral), battle for control of institutions that give preference to their methods and biases, and therefore their genetic preferences.

So Red has evolved into the aristocratic meritocratic, slowly reproducing, high investment, nuclear and absolute nuclear family of the northern europeans that reflects the male reproductive strategy where insurance is denied in order to force productivity: a eugenic tribe. And Blue has evolved into the equalitarian, rapid reproduction, low investment, traditional and single parent family, where insurance is provided by the state, in order to ensure as many offspring survive as possible. And each has collected the allies available to pursue it’s ends. This is why women dtermine elections: they are the only gruop that is not balanced. women and minorities vote for dysgenia, and men and married women vote for eugenia (keeping their own production.) And really there isn’t more to it than that.

Democracy failed the moment it changed from one FAMILY ONE VOTE to one INDIVIDUAL one vote. Because the familiy – particular the nuclar family – is by virtue of mate selection under monogamy, a compromise of reproductive strategies within which the majorty of us are relatively equal. But by converting to an individualist society rather than familial, we removed our compromise between competing reproductive strategies from the family, and elevated it into the state, where it is just a competition between the male eugenic and the female dysgenic and nothing else. There is no reason to be had since the only possible compromise can be constructed outside of government.

I could write volumes more on this but it’s enough to get the point across:L

1) Judicial Law must apply to individuals because individuals act.

2) Governmental “Law” (contracts for the production of commons) must represent families or insufficient common interests exists for any such institution to choose solutions that satisfy a common interest.

For these reasons universal democracy must always end in socialist tyranny where women can bear their offspring and place the burden of their upkeep on the state (men). This has to do with simple numbers, and simple genetic interests. A minority of males and a majority of females are better off constructing the greatest rents possible to feed dysgenic reproduction and the minority of productive people who they (and evolution) would prefer to choose eugenic (meritocratic) reproduction are merely farmed by the unproductive.

Uncomfortable truth but truth none the less.

(Note: I don’t mean that ALL our behavior is entirely in our genes as much as our class (reproductive value) is evidenced by in our genes and we gravitate to the strategies that suit our genes. )

Curt Doolittle

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/#comment-1283725