WHAT DO MEN WANT FROM WOMEN —“CURT: What do men want from women?”— Emotional rewards, friendship, play, sex, affection, nesting-caretaking (feeding especially), family(his own tribe), long term security – since we accumulate much more damage in life. Men have no care except sex until they marry you, and after that they have many many cares more than they evolved to care for. Women can track 1000 little things nearby and in the present. Men track a few things at a distance, and in the future. This is the difference between men and women. We specialize and women generalize. We think in drawers, one open at a time. Women think in a world of nearly uncontrollable interruptions. You consider your emotional care for a man as ‘work’ or ‘cost’ but a man sees everything he does other than live with a few men in a cave, hunting, and playing with tools as a cost in order to obtain affection, care, sex, and the social status that his fellow men demand of him in exchange for trusting him. Men are aware that the vast majority are evolutionarily disposable and the vast majority of women are not. We are aware that we conduct experiments against reality and women select us for sex affection and reproduction depending upon our success as individuals and members of a team (pack). We are also aware of our real chances – and that for the majority of us they are not that good. We are aware that the cost of specialization means men vary more in ability and desirability than women. And that means that many of us must take extraordinary risks and accumulate cellular damage in order to obtain access to any women and any reproduction and any care at all. The testosterone that makes us different will eventually kill all men. It is a magical poison. A faustian bargain with the devil. We mature more slowly, we peak later, we accumulate more damage, and we die sooner. We know this. We are often very careful after 40 for this reason. For these reasons men will seek to produce a diverse meritocratic order with as many opportunities to demonstrate success in climbing the dominance hierarchy as possible. This is why diversity increases crime, violence, and political tension: groups are demonstrably better and worse at climbing dominance hierarchies in the modern world. While we are wealthier, it is increasingly difficult for a man to earn enough of a living to support a woman and her children in exchange for sex and affection. Explaining the world of emotions to us. Explaining the concerns of others to us. Giving us ideas of where and where not to apply our various kinds of ‘force’. Acknowledgement that men’s need for sex is physical, on the scale of women’s need for security. Understanding that ‘reminding’ is nagging, and nagging evolved so that women could train children. But every time you remind a man, it is the equivalent of him telling you that you’re ass is too fat to wear that dress. Every single time. We just suffer the insult more easily than you. But it is an insult and destructive every time. Men are not trained by reminding. They are trained by rewards. It’s not that we don’t care it’s that we are color blind to the categories that you see, just as you are (and you can’t admit it or even recognize it) blind to what we see: politics as a proxy for violence with other men, so that our genes survive into the future in a condition better than they are in the present. Think of many small ways to make your man successful. We are like dogs who will fetch a ball until we drop dead. But like wolves we respond (violently) to commands or guilt. We are not substitutes for girlfriends, nesting helpers, older daughters, your mother or your sisters. We are men. We compete with other men to obtain the status necessary to make us attractive to women, who then care for us in exchange for provision and labor. Limit your nesting urges to that which is productive not consumptive. Consumerism is just a different form of alcoholism. Limit your men’s play to that which provides returns for him and the family. Everything else is extending childhood. Do the same for your boys. Men need fire gazing(daydreaming), watching the horizon for prey(watching sports), or chipping flints (playing with tools) the way women need to chat about nonsense with other women. We can’t function without them, but both can become addictions. Making boys sit and be quiet like girls causes them brain damage that they will never recover from. Making them timit and non-aggressive does the same. Men compete in dominance hierarchies. By making life easy for you by creating a docile boy, you are crippling him for life. You want a man that sits around the house watching video games and television? blame his mother. His wife will blame you for the same. And after four generations your genes will be dispersed and gone. Why? Strong men defeat weak men, and weak men are made by weak women. Demands upon men that are good: If you are slept, fed, dressed, and fucked you need to be getting enough exercise, competing with and cooperating with other men, and producing long term assets for the family. End of story. Women have taken over the ‘easy’ jobs in society pushing men into higher competition roles, where it is harder to ‘integrate’ into the team, and it is harder for males who evolved to specialize, to integrate into teams. This means that there are decreasing chances for many men to find success. We no longer work in groups where we insure one another as we did as laborers, craftsmen, in villages, in guilds, and in armies. every man is more vulnerable now than he has been in the past and is less ‘insured’ by his fellow men. His emotional stress is high but he doesn’t understand why. So what these two things mean, is that men must feel that they can at least not fall down in the dominance hierarchy and therefore loose their ability to obtain sex, affection, and caretaking. Generally speaking, whenever there is a surplus of men who feel this way a civilization will go through a civil war or collapse. Because it takes a very small percentage of males willint to disrupt the current order in order to overthrow it. Men evolved to climb a dominance hierarchy, and women evolved to be attracted to the highest point on that hierarchy that they can obtain control over their reproduction and provision, and entertainment from. Men are absurdly simple creatures. We just can’t see, hear, smell, intuit, feel or think all the subtleties about humans that women can, and so we have more time to devote to learning how the physical world works, and specializing in it, and competing by our understanding and use of it. Curt Doolittle
Form: Mini Essay
-
Hegel was right but that isn’t enough.
Well, you can get a kant, a hegel, schopenhauer, a marx, a hayek, and a heidegger out of german civilization. And that’s the problem. You can get a Kant and a Hegel AND a marx and a heidegger. So while I can sit here and state that Hegel is mostly right, and was mostly right first, and I must acknowledge that it is much harder to defeat an intuitionistically programmed order than it is to defeat a legalistic order, both are defeatable without the other. Jews build an immoral society and wealth and persecution results from it. Germans build a moral society and wealth and success results from it. Anglos build a wealthy society and immorality and decline results from it. Americans build a legal and meritocratic society, and wealth and morality result from it. People must not be able to choose the good and the true, only the wanted and the possible. This is the secret of natural law. People can only chose the desirable, the reciprocal, and the possible by reciprocity. Truth is enough.
-
Hegel was right but that isn’t enough.
Well, you can get a kant, a hegel, schopenhauer, a marx, a hayek, and a heidegger out of german civilization. And that’s the problem. You can get a Kant and a Hegel AND a marx and a heidegger. So while I can sit here and state that Hegel is mostly right, and was mostly right first, and I must acknowledge that it is much harder to defeat an intuitionistically programmed order than it is to defeat a legalistic order, both are defeatable without the other. Jews build an immoral society and wealth and persecution results from it. Germans build a moral society and wealth and success results from it. Anglos build a wealthy society and immorality and decline results from it. Americans build a legal and meritocratic society, and wealth and morality result from it. People must not be able to choose the good and the true, only the wanted and the possible. This is the secret of natural law. People can only chose the desirable, the reciprocal, and the possible by reciprocity. Truth is enough.
-
WHAT DO MEN WANT FROM WOMEN —“CURT: What do men want from women?”— Emotional
WHAT DO MEN WANT FROM WOMEN
—“CURT: What do men want from women?”—
Emotional rewards, friendship, play, sex, affection, nesting-caretaking (feeding especially), family(his own tribe), long term security – since we accumulate much more damage in life.
Men have no care except sex until they marry you, and after that they have many many cares more than they evolved to care for. Women can track 1000 little things nearby and in the present. Men track a few things at a distance, and in the future. This is the difference between men and women. We specialize and women generalize. We think in drawers, one open at a time. Women think in a world of nearly uncontrollable interruptions.
You consider your emotional care for a man as ‘work’ or ‘cost’ but a man sees everything he does other than live with a few men in a cave, hunting, and playing with tools as a cost in order to obtain affection, care, sex, and the social status that his fellow men demand of him in exchange for trusting him.
Men are aware that the vast majority are evolutionarily disposable and the vast majority of women are not. We are aware that we conduct experiments against reality and women select us for sex affection and reproduction depending upon our success as individuals and members of a team (pack). We are also aware of our real chances – and that for the majority of us they are not that good. We are aware that the cost of specialization means men vary more in ability and desirability than women. And that means that many of us must take extraordinary risks and accumulate cellular damage in order to obtain access to any women and any reproduction and any care at all.
The testosterone that makes us different will eventually kill all men. It is a magical poison. A faustian bargain with the devil. We mature more slowly, we peak later, we accumulate more damage, and we die sooner. We know this. We are often very careful after 40 for this reason.
For these reasons men will seek to produce a diverse meritocratic order with as many opportunities to demonstrate success in climbing the dominance hierarchy as possible. This is why diversity increases crime, violence, and political tension: groups are demonstrably better and worse at climbing dominance hierarchies in the modern world. While we are wealthier, it is increasingly difficult for a man to earn enough of a living to support a woman and her children in exchange for sex and affection.
Explaining the world of emotions to us. Explaining the concerns of others to us. Giving us ideas of where and where not to apply our various kinds of ‘force’.
Acknowledgement that men’s need for sex is physical, on the scale of women’s need for security.
Understanding that ‘reminding’ is nagging, and nagging evolved so that women could train children. But every time you remind a man, it is the equivalent of him telling you that you’re ass is too fat to wear that dress. Every single time. We just suffer the insult more easily than you. But it is an insult and destructive every time. Men are not trained by reminding. They are trained by rewards.
It’s not that we don’t care it’s that we are color blind to the categories that you see, just as you are (and you can’t admit it or even recognize it) blind to what we see: politics as a proxy for violence with other men, so that our genes survive into the future in a condition better than they are in the present.
Think of many small ways to make your man successful. We are like dogs who will fetch a ball until we drop dead. But like wolves we respond (violently) to commands or guilt.
We are not substitutes for girlfriends, nesting helpers, older daughters, your mother or your sisters. We are men. We compete with other men to obtain the status necessary to make us attractive to women, who then care for us in exchange for provision and labor.
Limit your nesting urges to that which is productive not consumptive. Consumerism is just a different form of alcoholism. Limit your men’s play to that which provides returns for him and the family. Everything else is extending childhood. Do the same for your boys.
Men need fire gazing(daydreaming), watching the horizon for prey(watching sports), or chipping flints (playing with tools) the way women need to chat about nonsense with other women. We can’t function without them, but both can become addictions.
Making boys sit and be quiet like girls causes them brain damage that they will never recover from. Making them timit and non-aggressive does the same. Men compete in dominance hierarchies. By making life easy for you by creating a docile boy, you are crippling him for life. You want a man that sits around the house watching video games and television? blame his mother. His wife will blame you for the same. And after four generations your genes will be dispersed and gone. Why? Strong men defeat weak men, and weak men are made by weak women.
Demands upon men that are good: If you are slept, fed, dressed, and fucked you need to be getting enough exercise, competing with and cooperating with other men, and producing long term assets for the family. End of story.
Women have taken over the ‘easy’ jobs in society pushing men into higher competition roles, where it is harder to ‘integrate’ into the team, and it is harder for males who evolved to specialize, to integrate into teams. This means that there are decreasing chances for many men to find success.
We no longer work in groups where we insure one another as we did as laborers, craftsmen, in villages, in guilds, and in armies. every man is more vulnerable now than he has been in the past and is less ‘insured’ by his fellow men. His emotional stress is high but he doesn’t understand why.
So what these two things mean, is that men must feel that they can at least not fall down in the dominance hierarchy and therefore loose their ability to obtain sex, affection, and caretaking.
Generally speaking, whenever there is a surplus of men who feel this way a civilization will go through a civil war or collapse. Because it takes a very small percentage of males willint to disrupt the current order in order to overthrow it.
Men evolved to climb a dominance hierarchy, and women evolved to be attracted to the highest point on that hierarchy that they can obtain control over their reproduction and provision, and entertainment from.
Men are absurdly simple creatures. We just can’t see, hear, smell, intuit, feel or think all the subtleties about humans that women can, and so we have more time to devote to learning how the physical world works, and specializing in it, and competing by our understanding and use of it.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-01 12:14:00 UTC
-
LET ME HELP YOU: BITCOIN —“Is the bitcoin a sustainable form of currency, in a
LET ME HELP YOU: BITCOIN
—“Is the bitcoin a sustainable form of currency, in accord to propertarianism?”–
It is not a form of currency. Demand for a currency is warrantied by a state treasury through the combination of law and taxes.
A bitcoin (or equivalent) is a fractional share in the bitcoin (or equivalent) network, liquid within that network, and only within that network.
The difference between these money substitutes, as between all money substitutes, is the degree of INSURANCE, or what is called ‘backing’ that
Think of tickets you buy at a carnival. A bitcoin is a ticket. Tickets can only be spent at the carnival. No one else will trade with you for them. You can buy a ticket and spend it on a ride, or sell it to someone else to do the same. The difference is that the carnival can issue as many tickets as it wants, and fractional shares are issued by the profitable carnival rider operators.
However, as we have seen, (a) bitcoin operators are generally even more incompetent than banks, and (b) often more dishonest than bankers. And those investments are uninsured.
Commodity money (hard money) is insured by demand for the commodity. The fact that we break it into countable units and trademark them guaranteeing their weight and measure, serves to increase the value of that commodity.
So commodity money is insured by demand for the commodity independent of any institution or technology, and independent of time and space.
Everything else we use as money is a money substitute, and as a money substitute, requires insurance by weaker and weaker means.
Fiat money (“currency”) is insured by a government treasury. As we have seen governments can lose the ability to insure a currency.
Banks and other asset holders issue “notes” (promises) that are redeemable for money at a face value.
Some banks and treasuries issue “fractional reserve notes”, meaning that under normal circumstances, these notes are redeemable for money – but as we have seen, when ‘runs’ occur, very little of a bank’s assets are liquid and very little of its assets can be made liquid.
Companies issue stocks. Stocks can be traded but only within a network or through the company.
Bitcoins different from stock companies in that they only issue stocks in payment for validation of transactions, and because shares in the bitcoin network can be divided at will by their owner, these each bitcoin is a ‘fractional’ share of the network, backed only by demand for these fractional shares, hosted on a fragile voluntary network lacking all insurance.
Bitcoins are technically, fractional shares of token money substitutes, in a token money substitute network, and the least insurable and insured form of money substitute that man has yet invented.
The material benefits are that they (should be) reasonably hard to steal, (should have) near zero carrying and transaction costs, and if achieve sufficient scale (trillions) might provide some limited market demand – until there is a power failure.
BTW: the primary means of war has evolved from military to economic. The primary future means of war will be deprivation of electricity and communication lines. We are currently more dependent upon electricity than water.
So, what propertarianism would say is that unless an individual consumer of bitcoins has been informed of these facts, he has been the victim of deception. But if he is informed of these facts then it constitutes a productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange, limited to positive externalities.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-01 09:43:00 UTC
-
WORSHIP OF THE LAW VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL; FULL ACCOUNTING VIA POSITIVA, VIA NEGA
WORSHIP OF THE LAW VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL; FULL ACCOUNTING VIA POSITIVA, VIA NEGATIVA.
Let me help you: by worship of the commercial we violate natural law and consume our previously accumulated capital. By the worship of natural law we cannot exist by other than the commercial but we are limited in that we cannot consume our previously accumulated capital. Worshipping the commercial is to love the consequence that kills you, rather than the cause that transcends you.
Natural Law of Reciprocity creates wealth. It’s the property that results from reciprocity that causes the common law of torts.
The grammar of experiences, the grammar of intentions, the grammar of goods, and the grammar of morality, are all via positiva. The grammar of causality requires the grammar of operations.
The adage that property is the result of the law of torts is only a half truth. Property results from reciprocity, results from the preservation of the incentive to cooperate, which results from the suppression of parasitism that violates cooperation – in all its forms.
Half truths are deadly. If you cannot describe via negativa as well as via positiva you are failing to construct a full accounting and creating a moral hazard, and as such you are a danger to us all.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-30 09:16:00 UTC
-
RELIGION VIA NEGATIVA So, when you say ‘religion’, we all need the services prov
RELIGION VIA NEGATIVA
So, when you say ‘religion’, we all need the services provided by ‘religion’ whether or not we consume them directly or indirectly through others.
The question is whether we need supernaturalism, fictionalism, and outright falsehood. The answer is demonstrably no.
On the other hand – more precisely – it means those of us with a great deal of agency do not need it, but desire it’s consequences.
It means that those with the pretense of agency – the ‘atheists’ need a substitute for it, and have chosen pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience.
It means that some of us mouth pretense to it because we understand the value of religion but find the superstition, supernaturalism, fictionalism, and outright falsehood merely an absurd cost of obtaining the good produced by the rituals and discipline.
And it means that those without the ability to trust those with more agency than they, need the superstition to sate their emotions, the supernaturalism to grant authority to the fictionalism, and the outright falsehood as a means of insulating themselves from suggestion by those who would sway them from the strategies embodied in all of the above.
There is no reason we cannot cause the production of truthful religion by the suppression of fictional religion. History replaces myth. Fiction fictionalism. Science superstition. And the natural law of men, resistance against suggestion, deception, and predation.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 18:51:00 UTC
-
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ART, LITERATURE AND MYTH. (My formal training is in art
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ART, LITERATURE AND MYTH.
(My formal training is in art criticism, and my first philosophical work was on aesthetics – and I can criticize all art from all cultures at every single period in human history in detail that is so painful you can’t imagine. If you think I’m annoyingly precise about economics, law, and logic do you think I am less so about Aesthetics?
To say one cannot obtain value from something, or one can obtain value from something, is very different from saying that all values one obtains are good, or that objectively better art and literature objectively contain better collections of objects, relations, and values. And that is to say that the consumption of inferior art, literature, and myth, represents a loss of opportunity to consume superior art, literature, and myth, and therefore superior objects, relations, and values.
Chinese art demonstrates a hatred of man and the human form. Japanese are attempts to circumvent the effeminacy of asian forms. All thier costuming is an attempt to make excuses for their lack and depth of masculine maturity. I mean their is a reason we use half naked super warriors and they use giant robot armor, or dolled-up clothing to make themselves look more substantive.
Compare it to German art where everyone has a bloody wound in him, or greek, roman, and european art that lionize the human form, the human mind, and human achievements.
The fact that we no longer produce a Howard (who was gay), a Heinlein, Johnny Quest or the first year of Star Trek, or even very good science fiction, is in fact because of the Jewish censorship in hollywood. Sure. (Whether Intentional or cultural or genetic).
We still seem to be able to get away with horror although the jewish cultural mafia is working against that also.
But the answer is what it is. I do not err. I am not ignorant. And I consider all but the certain portions of Akira and GITM unwatchable. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 12:35:00 UTC
-
WESTERN POLYTHEISM AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSES While truths must exist univ
WESTERN POLYTHEISM AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSES
While truths must exist universally but are invariant (the meaning of a truth), there are also some universal goods (like truth), but many variable and often competing goods (wants and needs).
And as such we require narratives to explain both the universal truth, the universal good, and the particular goods that are used by each class.
That said, the strong rule and decide, the burghers organize, produce, distribute, and exchange, and the poor and weak gossip and complain.
And each tells the story of his class by attributing virtue to his utterances.
We learn to speak the law of the strong, the philosophy of the utilitarian, and the religion of the weak.
These are not complicated concepts to master.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 12:10:00 UTC
-
CIMMERIANS, SCYTHIANS, AND SLAVS The Cimmerians (also Kimmerians, Greek Κιμμέριο
CIMMERIANS, SCYTHIANS, AND SLAVS
The Cimmerians (also Kimmerians, Greek Κιμμέριοι Kimmerioi) are an ancient people, first mentioned in the late 8th century BC in Assyrian records.
Likely originating in the Pontic steppe and invading by means of the Caucasus, they probably assaulted Urartu, a state in north eastern Anatolia subject to the Neo-Assyrian Empire, in c. 714 BC. They were defeated by Assyrian forces under Sargon II in 705 and turned towards Anatolia, conquering Phrygia in 696/5.
They reached the height of their power in 652 after taking Sardis, the capital of Lydia; however an invasion of Assyrian controlled Anshan (Persia) was thwarted by the Assyrians. Soon after 619, Alyattes of Lydia defeated them. There are no further mentions of them in historical sources, but it is likely that they settled in Cappadocia.
They may have been related to either Iranian or Thracian speaking groups which migrated under pressure of the Scythian expansion of the 9th to 8th century BC.
According to Herodotus, the Cimmerians inhabited the region north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea during the 8th and 7th centuries BC (i.e. what is now Ukraine and Southern Russia), although it isn’t possible to identify the Cimmerians as the bearers of any specific archaeological culture in the region.
The Scythians were among the earliest peoples to master mounted warfare.
In the 8th century BC they possibly raided Zhou China. Soon after they expanded westwards and dislodged the Cimmerians from power on the Pontic Steppe. At their peak, Scythians came to dominate the entire steppe zone, stretching from the Carpathian Mountains in the west to central China (Ordos culture) and the south Siberia (Tagar culture) in the east, creating what has been referred to as the first Central Asian nomadic empire.
They kept herds of horses, cattle, and sheep, lived in tent-covered wagons, and fought with bows and arrows on horseback. They developed a rich culture characterized by opulent tombs, fine metalwork, and a brilliant art style.
Based in what is modern-day Ukraine, Southern European Russia, and Crimea, the western Scythians were ruled by a wealthy class known as the Royal Scyths.
The Scythians established and controlled a vast trade network connecting Greece, Persia, India and China, perhaps contributing to the contemporary flourishing of those civilizations.[19] Settled metalworkers made portable decorative objects for the Scythians. These objects survive mainly in metal, forming a distinctive Scythian art.
In the 7th century BC the Scythians crossed the Caucasus and frequently raided the Middle East along with the Cimmerians, playing an important role in the political developments of the region. Around 650–630 BC, Scythians briefly dominated the Medes of the western Iranian Plateau, stretching their power all the way to the borders of Egypt.
After losing control over Media the Scythians continued intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, playing a leading role in the destruction of the Assyrian Empire in the Sack of Nineveh in 612 BC. The Scythians subsequently engaged in frequent conflicts with the Achaemenid Empire. The western Scythians suffered a major defeat against Macedonia in the 4th century BC, and were subsequently gradually conquered by the Sarmatians, a related Iranian people from Central Asia.
The Eastern Scythians of the Asian Steppe (Saka) were attacked by the Yuezhi, Wusun and Xiongnu in the 2nd century BC, prompting many of them to migrate into South Asia, where they became known as Indo-Scythians.
At some point, perhaps as late as the 3rd century AD after the demise of the Han dynasty and the Xiongnu, Eastern Scythians crossed the Pamir Mountains and settled in the western Tarim Basin, where the Scythian Khotanese and Tumshuqese languages are attested in Brahmi scripture from the 10th and 11th centuries AD.
In Eastern Europe, by the early Medieval Ages, the Scythians and their closely related Sarmatians were eventually assimilated and absorbed (e.g. Slavicisation) by the Proto-Slavic population of the region.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 11:58:00 UTC