MAN IS A CREATURE OF INCENTIVES. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Building a nice pretty world is great for impressing the females. But too many of them take it for granted. They don’t seem to grasp that if we don’t have the incentives we can create any world we want and they’re just along for the ride.
Feminism killed our incentives to produce that world.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:06:00 UTC
http://www.kaotic.com/video/W9uGMoI4_2016108121857I see this kind of thing every day, and I just cant understand it. motherhood still in the horse and cart era.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 17:13:00 UTC
BEHOLD IMPULSIVE WOMAN, THE PANDORA: DESTROYER OF CIVILIZATION
Men developed the many prohibitions and regulations of male impulses, biases and intuitions for no less than ten thousand years.
And yet we handed women equal political power without equal prohibitions and regulations on female impulses, biases, and intuitions.
Men used civilization to prolong consumption in favor of capital accumulation. Women used the voting booth to pull forward consumption in favor of unbounded reproduction. Women undid in just over one century thousands of years of civilization.
Unlike ‘conservatives’ I do not seek to withdraw women’s participation, but to limit the damage done by female impulses, biases and intuitions just as we limited the damage that can be done by male impulses, biases and intuitions.
Unfortunately for the Feminist movement, it has become clear that it was the impulses of in-group women that we controlled throughout the process of civilization, and the impulses of out-group men we controlled through the process of civilization.
So the evolution of property accomplished both the regulation of women’s impulsive reproduction at the expense of capital accumulation. Or put more simply: it was as equally important to regulate women as it was men.
But our institutions and laws regulated men, while our norms regulated women. Given access to the ballot box, and thereby to political power, women destroyed civilization in pursuit of their impulses.
Houses for competing group evolutionary strategies.
Houses like the senate and jury, hear appeals.
Contracts for commons must pass dissent by involuntary transfer, not assent.
It is hard for us to grasp that there is not much that is a knowable good goal, only knowable good process for achieving goals. Yet that there are knowable bad goals and knowable bad processes, and knowable bad actions.
That which is bad can be known: they are truths.
That which is good is that which is not bad.
That which is better is a matter of preference not truth.
We can enfranchise anyone under the prevention of the bad.
And we can return Pandora to the box.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 05:19:00 UTC
WOMEN UNLEASHED THE GHOULS OF SOCIETY
—“Here’s the dirty secret of women working — they can do what they want but here ya go — when they started entering the work force in mass, the ghouls of society took over raising the kids and installing Mental Malware into their mush brains. Stress was raised in the house, since both partners were dead ass tired at the end of the day, oh and with all that extra income, they first just spent more of it, then the government figured out they could just tax the surplus — and now we went from it being a choice for women to work to being a requirement — and collectively have the same purchasing power they did before when only the husband worked.”— James Santagata
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:01:00 UTC
WOMEN NEED THEIR OWN KITCHEN (SOVIETS DEMONSTRATED IT)
OK. So if “In the kitchen, cooking, barefoot, and pregnant” is such a bad thing, how come whenever women are in the kitchen together, in slippers, and at least one is pregnant, they are so damned happy?
Never listen to what people say. Watch what they do and how they behave when doing it.
I think, most men, if they could build brick and stone buildings, and sew fields, and hunt a bit, in ‘crews’, and not do so at risk, would be much happier than they are working in isolation on abstractions without visible accomplishment.
There must be some balance (like they have in France, eastern Europe and in Russia) between having a cottage and garden in the countryside, and an apartment and work in the city.
What if we had 4-day work weeks and 3-day weekends, and our old folks were the responsibilities of offspring in villages, rather than old folks homes?
I hate the industrialization of society. The socialist and communists were a human catastrophe.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 05:47:00 UTC
CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS
Jewellery shop. Two customers. Women. 30’s, 50’s.
After much consideration, the younger woman flirts with her husband, and he buys what she wants. His expression is one of resigned helplessness.
Due to subtle communication between women invisible to me the older woman and the salesgirls smile and giggle.
The older woman says “see that is a real Ukrainian woman.”
Husband says “I cannot say no.”
Another round of giggles.
Older woman ups the compliment. “Yes. A perfect Ukrainian woman.”
In that expression of power, lies the difference between eastern and western relationships.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 02:47:00 UTC
(by Eli Harman) [T]he conventional wisdom is that women are selfless and generous and that men are selfish and acquisitive. But this conclusion is exactly backwards, because it is formed without looking at opportunity costs. Women’s socialism is in fact profoundly selfish and self-interested, given their risk-aversion and security seeking. Liberty and independence are risky and therefore costly and women are – by and large – not willing to take those risks or bear those costs, even to achieve the greater success it holds out as a possibility. Men are more willing to risk personal failure and destitution in order to obtain wealth and success, or to endure them stoically in order to create a prosperous society for all. Another common misconception is that men are practical and women sentimental. But this one, too, misses the mark. A common trope one finds in history and fiction is men going off to war and women pleading with them not to. This is held out as an example of women’s noble sentiments vs. men’s ruthless pragmatism. But the explanation is actually very nearly reversed. War, even at its most necessary and helpful, represents (with certainty) taking personal risks and bearing personal costs, in order to obtain a shared (but uncertain) benefit (victory, security, etc…) Women, as the ultimate egoistic pragmatists, are simply less likely to see this as a worthwhile bargain, even a degree removed from the most severe costs and risks. It is men’s idealism and altruism which leads them to strike it. Women *appear* more generous because they selfishly appeal to men’s generosity. They *appear* more sentimental because they make pragmatic appeals to men’s sentimentality. But the reality is otherwise.
(by Eli Harman) [T]he conventional wisdom is that women are selfless and generous and that men are selfish and acquisitive. But this conclusion is exactly backwards, because it is formed without looking at opportunity costs. Women’s socialism is in fact profoundly selfish and self-interested, given their risk-aversion and security seeking. Liberty and independence are risky and therefore costly and women are – by and large – not willing to take those risks or bear those costs, even to achieve the greater success it holds out as a possibility. Men are more willing to risk personal failure and destitution in order to obtain wealth and success, or to endure them stoically in order to create a prosperous society for all. Another common misconception is that men are practical and women sentimental. But this one, too, misses the mark. A common trope one finds in history and fiction is men going off to war and women pleading with them not to. This is held out as an example of women’s noble sentiments vs. men’s ruthless pragmatism. But the explanation is actually very nearly reversed. War, even at its most necessary and helpful, represents (with certainty) taking personal risks and bearing personal costs, in order to obtain a shared (but uncertain) benefit (victory, security, etc…) Women, as the ultimate egoistic pragmatists, are simply less likely to see this as a worthwhile bargain, even a degree removed from the most severe costs and risks. It is men’s idealism and altruism which leads them to strike it. Women *appear* more generous because they selfishly appeal to men’s generosity. They *appear* more sentimental because they make pragmatic appeals to men’s sentimentality. But the reality is otherwise.
POST 1970’S RELATIONSHIP
I dunno. It sure looks like marrying each other because you share the same recreational interests (friendship) is ok, but marrying each other because you want to build a family as your ‘recreation’ is a better idea.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 05:39:00 UTC
MALE – FEMALE BRAIN DIFFERENCES
F: Solipsistic <—-> Autistic : M
F: Experience <—-> Model : M
So the ultimate female expression is unfiltered experience, and the ultimate male expression is unfiltered modeling.
I think that’s the non-diagnostic version of the spectrum.
I suspect that these are two different axis such that compensate for one another, rather than a single developmental spectrum:
the intelligence spectrum and solipsistic-autistic spectrum.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 05:36:00 UTC