[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)
Form: Mini Essay
-
We Are All Turning to The Masculine Defense of Our Peoples and Cultures
Just as french write informal universalist secular theology of the feminine, and germans write formal universalist philosophy that is secular theology of harmony, the russians write masculine very informal nationalist propaganda as a secular theology of the masculine. These are the result of geographic location and cultural history. While yes my implementation of rule of law is pretty intolerant, and I jokingly refer to my work as either rule of law fascism or market fascism, and while I advocate for nationalism, and restoration of the anglosphere – remains of the british empire – to create the scale necessary for preservation of the defense of the sea trade between our continents – my work is also in large part dispassionate. So where duggin has his ambitions, writes, speaks, and argues passionately and romantically in what I consider nonsense-propaganda, I write in pretty rigorous analytic argument dispassionately and unromantically. And this lack of romance and passion – my anglo empiricism – is not what the passionate market wants me wo write. What the young passionate male mind wants is an heroic and often esoteric secular-religious vision. Yet I’m just updating the founding fathers, with their formality and martial reserve. So in that sense whether french feminine passive aggressive essay, german rational inspirational harmony, russian low trust machismo, and anglo high trust empirical, and chinese face-before-truth authoritarian, or jewish feminine undermining using magical thinking to bait into hazard, we are all arguing for our futures in a world returning to normal after a century of jewish intellectual pseudoscience and sophistry in marxism, syndicalism, postmodernism, feminism, libertarianism, neoconservatism – a sequence of attempts by the jewish counter-revolution against the empirical revolution and it’s darwinian consequences. They sought to capture europa for their ends just as the french, germans, and russians sought to capture it for their ends. They have failed. Or it will be evident shortly that they failed. So I see the world differently, that we are all turning to the masculine defense of our peoples and cultures after the undermining and destruction of the leftist feminine attempts to use european wealth, and christian tolerance, to turn the world into another middle eastern equalitarian desert under totalitarian feminine presumption that knitting-circle consensus and harmony is possible, or that continued knitting circle gossip and undermining among usurers of our civilization is possible. It isn’t. It’s Magical thinking.
-
We Are All Turning to The Masculine Defense of Our Peoples and Cultures
Just as french write informal universalist secular theology of the feminine, and germans write formal universalist philosophy that is secular theology of harmony, the russians write masculine very informal nationalist propaganda as a secular theology of the masculine. These are the result of geographic location and cultural history. While yes my implementation of rule of law is pretty intolerant, and I jokingly refer to my work as either rule of law fascism or market fascism, and while I advocate for nationalism, and restoration of the anglosphere – remains of the british empire – to create the scale necessary for preservation of the defense of the sea trade between our continents – my work is also in large part dispassionate. So where duggin has his ambitions, writes, speaks, and argues passionately and romantically in what I consider nonsense-propaganda, I write in pretty rigorous analytic argument dispassionately and unromantically. And this lack of romance and passion – my anglo empiricism – is not what the passionate market wants me wo write. What the young passionate male mind wants is an heroic and often esoteric secular-religious vision. Yet I’m just updating the founding fathers, with their formality and martial reserve. So in that sense whether french feminine passive aggressive essay, german rational inspirational harmony, russian low trust machismo, and anglo high trust empirical, and chinese face-before-truth authoritarian, or jewish feminine undermining using magical thinking to bait into hazard, we are all arguing for our futures in a world returning to normal after a century of jewish intellectual pseudoscience and sophistry in marxism, syndicalism, postmodernism, feminism, libertarianism, neoconservatism – a sequence of attempts by the jewish counter-revolution against the empirical revolution and it’s darwinian consequences. They sought to capture europa for their ends just as the french, germans, and russians sought to capture it for their ends. They have failed. Or it will be evident shortly that they failed. So I see the world differently, that we are all turning to the masculine defense of our peoples and cultures after the undermining and destruction of the leftist feminine attempts to use european wealth, and christian tolerance, to turn the world into another middle eastern equalitarian desert under totalitarian feminine presumption that knitting-circle consensus and harmony is possible, or that continued knitting circle gossip and undermining among usurers of our civilization is possible. It isn’t. It’s Magical thinking.
-
Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
-
Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
-
The Big Lie Is Ultimately Just Social Constructivism?
THE INCENTIVE FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
—Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—
IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Pretty much. Social construction is how the big lies are created. But let’s go a little deeper and understand why.
—-“Among the most intriguing ideas for improving fairness in our economy–and creating capitalism that earns popular support–is “universal basic capital.” Spread the equity, give all a stake. “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
https://berggruen.org/the-worldpost/articles/sharing-the-wealth-as-we-recover-health/ Consensus, getting heads together, leadership, these are all village-thinking. The female intuition doesn’t scale. We have institutions and rule of law of tort for a reason – it scales, at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, keeping natural selection. It wasn’t europeans that developed global religion, global marxism, global socialism, global cosmopolitanism, global postmodernism, global hbd-denialism, or europeans that undermined rule of law. It was feminine intuition, and people of it, that cannot scale.
—” is the big lie ultimately just social constructivism? So they try to do social engineering that achieves nothing except psychologically abusing people.”—
Social construction yes. Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard. Female social construction > ((())) > The Left. Female Social Construction to Manage behavioral growth of children, using her seduction > The ((())) group strategy (undermining host peoples, while riding on their commons) > The Anti Evolutionary (domestication) Canon: Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Trotsky-Kristol. So if ((())) war on western-sensemaking, our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics. We don’t need to increase ‘fairness’ or ‘social justice’ neither of which are either definable or measureable, but we need to return to suppression of the reproduction of those that cannot compete in the suite of market tests at whatever level of development that we’re in.
-
The Big Lie Is Ultimately Just Social Constructivism?
THE INCENTIVE FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
—Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—
IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Pretty much. Social construction is how the big lies are created. But let’s go a little deeper and understand why.
—-“Among the most intriguing ideas for improving fairness in our economy–and creating capitalism that earns popular support–is “universal basic capital.” Spread the equity, give all a stake. “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
https://berggruen.org/the-worldpost/articles/sharing-the-wealth-as-we-recover-health/ Consensus, getting heads together, leadership, these are all village-thinking. The female intuition doesn’t scale. We have institutions and rule of law of tort for a reason – it scales, at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, keeping natural selection. It wasn’t europeans that developed global religion, global marxism, global socialism, global cosmopolitanism, global postmodernism, global hbd-denialism, or europeans that undermined rule of law. It was feminine intuition, and people of it, that cannot scale.
—” is the big lie ultimately just social constructivism? So they try to do social engineering that achieves nothing except psychologically abusing people.”—
Social construction yes. Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard. Female social construction > ((())) > The Left. Female Social Construction to Manage behavioral growth of children, using her seduction > The ((())) group strategy (undermining host peoples, while riding on their commons) > The Anti Evolutionary (domestication) Canon: Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Trotsky-Kristol. So if ((())) war on western-sensemaking, our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics. We don’t need to increase ‘fairness’ or ‘social justice’ neither of which are either definable or measureable, but we need to return to suppression of the reproduction of those that cannot compete in the suite of market tests at whatever level of development that we’re in.
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people.
Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been.
P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity.
Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace.
The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation.
Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets.
We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:00:00 UTC