(Manosphere) I just don’t get it. Relationships are simple. Women are not complicated. Men are not complicated. Social media, dating apps, woke, desocialization are a catastrophe for the lower middle and down classes. Because neither sex has been ‘cultured’ enough to marry.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-21 03:29:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451027765721972736
Cheating is a fault. So you pay a price. What is the opportunity cost of a marriage partner? It’s the most expensive investment you make in your life. In other words, cheating would be devastating.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-21 03:21:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451025728489807879
Reply addressees: @bryanbrey
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451019356461223939
: Thought this might be an interesting addition to your inventory. It’s an excellent empirical test of the sex and cultural differences in morality exposed by the trolley problem.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 19:27:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450906436913991686
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450845358645514246
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Excellent example from millions of people, showing how French favor female irresponsibility, protection of women and children and germans favor male responsibility for your actions.
(Cultural bias in autonomous vehicle AI ‘trolley problems’.) https://t.co/y0MwoOO7L6
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1450845358645514246
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)
1. The historical reason for pairing off. (Hunter-Gatherer)
2. The historical reason for Marriage (agrarianism and property)
3. The Invention of Romanic Love (The Plague). Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
4. The invention of Chivalry ( trade restoration, viking age, pre-state formation, )
5. The Invention of Female-On-A-Pedestal (Industrial Revolution)
6. Evolution of marriage relations and the value of the sexes and an Illustration of why the separation of church, law, and state are so important
7. The pre and postware capture of the church by the Jewish invasion of the academy, converting it from Christian cooperation to Jewish conflict and undermining
8. So we are stuck with the future where debt, economy, geostrategy, political systems, … and without a reformation that cannot be produced by an authority like the church, but must include the science, law, economics, AND moral narrative that makes us survive. Marriage is the first corporation, developed under agrarianism, which began the possibility of the accumulation of capital or what we call complex ‘property’, and the resulting far more complex common property that was then possible – the institutions of cultural production of cooperation destpie sex, class, age, family, clan, tribe and national differences. And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites. Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge. It’s just physics. Sorry. This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep. We have a lot of relationship mythology to unlearn – and most of it was developed during the victorian era, but not practiced until later, just like the chivalric nonsense wasn’t practiced until far later. These are class mythos sold to uplifted lower classes.
THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)
1. The historical reason for pairing off. (Hunter-Gatherer)
2. The historical reason for Marriage (agrarianism and property)
3. The Invention of Romanic Love (The Plague). Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.
4. The invention of Chivalry ( trade restoration, viking age, pre-state formation, )
5. The Invention of Female-On-A-Pedestal (Industrial Revolution)
6. Evolution of marriage relations and the value of the sexes and an Illustration of why the separation of church, law, and state are so important
7. The pre and postware capture of the church by the Jewish invasion of the academy, converting it from Christian cooperation to Jewish conflict and undermining
8. So we are stuck with the future where debt, economy, geostrategy, political systems, … and without a reformation that cannot be produced by an authority like the church, but must include the science, law, economics, AND moral narrative that makes us survive. Marriage is the first corporation, developed under agrarianism, which began the possibility of the accumulation of capital or what we call complex ‘property’, and the resulting far more complex common property that was then possible – the institutions of cultural production of cooperation destpie sex, class, age, family, clan, tribe and national differences. And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites. Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge. It’s just physics. Sorry. This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep. We have a lot of relationship mythology to unlearn – and most of it was developed during the victorian era, but not practiced until later, just like the chivalric nonsense wasn’t practiced until far later. These are class mythos sold to uplifted lower classes.
The European Market for Neural Regulation, by Elites, Elite Institutions, and Elite Mythology, Rules, Rituals, and Oaths.
MODEL: Trifunctionalism: A triangle of the three possible means of coercion(Force, Trade, Seduction) with the population in the center of that triangle. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450860986802520064
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:28:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450861416710344712
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450860986802520064
Our Trifunctionalism uses Masculine War (Force), Neutral Law (Cooperation), and Feminine Religion (Seduction).
These are all neural regulators. So we bias toward elites that provide us with the neural regulation we need. The only problem is maintaining that 3-way equilibriuem.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:26:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450860986802520064
Reply addressees: @hoeberian
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450857648539176962
It’s a lot easier to follow the herd. It generates less uncertainty, less responsibility, less conflict, less blame, less guilt, especially if submissive and neurotic. And so in sum it’s a HUGE savings of neural labor which is ten times as expensive as there rest of your body.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:10:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450856877194203136
Reply addressees: @hoeberian
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450855382897807360
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.