The Future of Marriage Will Return to Historical Norm – and That’s Not Monogamy https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/the-future-of-marriage-will-return-to-historical-norm-and-thats-not-monogamy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:00:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253413391114223617
[D]uring most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)
[D]uring most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)
People Are *Very* Different from Each Other https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/people-are-very-different-from-each-other/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:58:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412974632431616
by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.
Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”
The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.
by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.
Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”
The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.
Define: Cellular Damage https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/define-cellular-damage/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:57:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412695111421954
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
THE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBILITIES PREVENTS ERROR By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers. FREEDOM – ALL Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom. LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.