( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
Globalism Enables our Worst.
(by Bill Joslin December 18 at 2:30am )· Violence occurs at the boundary between in-group and out-group. Globalism attempts to create world peace by dissolving national sovereignty and thus dissolving the in-group out-group boundary on the global scale. By doing so, violence is transferred to non-state actors(rioting, ISIS etc). By destroying formal institutions (the state) the worst of our behavior finds new life in the social sphere (on the street at human scale).
-
Globalism Enables our Worst.
(by Bill Joslin December 18 at 2:30am )· Violence occurs at the boundary between in-group and out-group. Globalism attempts to create world peace by dissolving national sovereignty and thus dissolving the in-group out-group boundary on the global scale. By doing so, violence is transferred to non-state actors(rioting, ISIS etc). By destroying formal institutions (the state) the worst of our behavior finds new life in the social sphere (on the street at human scale).
-
The Game Theory of Sovereignty
Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
-
The Game Theory of Sovereignty
Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
-
don’t dis the house of Windsor. Dis monarchy for ambitions. Kings like judges mu
don’t dis the house of Windsor. Dis monarchy for ambitions. Kings like judges must have no ambitions. Rule don’t lead.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 16:03:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812327857150193664
Reply addressees: @bobbrad6 @AnnCoulter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015363298881537
IN REPLY TO:
@bobbrad6
@AnnCoulter that would be leap forward for Charles as his family system is still in 1800’s
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015363298881537
-
Monarchies have a better record than republics, and republics better than democr
Monarchies have a better record than republics, and republics better than democracies. Secret is no-monopoly: combine all three.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 16:01:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812327207750303744
Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680
IN REPLY TO:
@AnnCoulter
Prince Charles warns we’re returning to dark days of 1930s. Listening to genetically retarded “royalty” is a return to the dark ages.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680
-
Perfect Govt: Monarchy/veto:long-term, +republic/economy:mid-term, +democracy/sp
Perfect Govt: Monarchy/veto:long-term, +republic/economy:mid-term, +democracy/spending:short-term, +Rule of Natural Law:always.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 15:59:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812326804186923008
Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680
IN REPLY TO:
@AnnCoulter
Prince Charles warns we’re returning to dark days of 1930s. Listening to genetically retarded “royalty” is a return to the dark ages.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812015041377607680
-
Dump the f35. Fail
Dump the f35. Fail.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-21 22:38:00 UTC
-
Um. Dear muslims. You kill westerners, well, we’re just assuming you’re undomest
Um. Dear muslims. You kill westerners, well, we’re just assuming you’re undomesticated animals but that we will keep trying.
But when you assassinate Russians you’re dealing with people that stole an empire from the mongols. They’re waaaay scarier than muslims.
You have no idea what you clowns just did.
Russians are not ‘hopeful’ like the west.
They understand you.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 21:42:00 UTC