Source: Facebook

AN EXAMPLE OF SHAMING AND THE REFUTATION OF IT

(useful) (anti-feminism) (pro-familialism)

—“Bullshit, what a load of utter tripe that waffle was! masculine violence to institute change is for thugs. this is thuggery.”—Rebecca Berriton

That is a perfect example of feminine gossip, rallying and shaming. Free of content, intellectually vacuous, a mere expression of disapproval, a raspberry, in order to rally women and betas to maintain control over alphas. It’s monkey-talk. and now that we know it’s monkey-talk, we can dismiss it as monkey talk.

But why do women and betas engage in monkey talk?

Men vote red, and have never not voted red. (as an aside, the colors of the map should not be red and blue, but pink(female color bias) and green(male color bias)).

OUR DIFFERENT REPRODUCTIVE INTERESTS

Women destroyed western civilization and started to within one generation of obtaining the vote. Women used the issue of slavery to create justification for their own enfranchisement, thereby justifying the male concern for transfer of power from northern industrial to southern agrarian because of the westward expansion – then once they obtained enfranchisement, sought privilege instead of equality, and within a century had voted to destroy the family, property rights, intergenerational lending, and the natural eugenics of the west. And when they were unsuccessful they took to overwhelming us through immigration. Women have been useful idiots of our conquerors. The destroyers of the only men who have ever granted them equality. And by doing so demonstrated that they never again may possess it.

Women care nothing for the tribe. They care only for their own stability. They are practical creatures. They are just as happy to be ruled by invaders as ruled by their relations, as long as they do not lose status. Males by contrast must preserve a stock of females in order to persist their genes. So women care not for the interests of males, and are blind to them, seeking only the highest status, not the preservation of race, tribe, clan and family. They are drug dealers selling affection, sex, and nesting in exchange for defense of their nest, and whatever resources they can gather from the tribe.

The family is a male creation to control female dysgenic reproduction, parasitism, gossip, lying, and sexual manipulation. The family was made possible by the dependence upon tools (property), animals (property), and territory (property), which was held by violence – preventing others from consuming it so that capital could be accumulated.

***All of human civilization is built by man, with the first cause being the use of violence to accumulate long term capital, and to prevent parasitism, and to limit consumption to that which does not diminish capital.***

Women are locusts: destroyers of ultimate consumption. Absent reason and accountability, doing nothing but nesting, preening, bearing and raising as many offspring as they can get away with.

That is how we translate your empty words. As yet another female lie, pronounced by an unconscious creature, who survives through gossip, lying, manipulation, betrayal, and parasitism.

That is an articulate and truthful response to your ‘shaming’. Truth defeats you. You are done. The century of lies paid for by women, advanced by women, elected by women, for the purpose of women’s restoration of parasitism, is ended.

That is the uncomfortable truth. Women are not only not our equals, they are in politics, our enemies.

THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY

I agree with giving women property rights – that is rational. I am also ok with giving women a house, just as we gave the middle class a house and should have given the proletarians a house. Because houses are necessary to concentrate competing interests such that they conduct mutually beneficial exchanges, rather than fall prey to majority tyranny of the underclasses of which women who are single represent the minority.

We are not equal because we are competitors. If we are competitors, then we can ONLY compete via a market of voluntary exchanges and NOT through majority rule.

My criticism is not that women should be or can be different, but that democracy is a tragic institution by which the worst possible ambitions of our majority underclasses can be brought to suicidal fruition.

We invented government to reduce male predation by violence. We must now invent new government to reduce female predation through parasitism.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

PS: Just as there are bata males there are alpha women. When I use the terms men/male/males women/female/females, I refer to the difference in distributions. Attractive married women vote red, and single, unattractive and unmarried women vote left. Thats the data. And here is another example of ‘women’s logic’: men will intuit that ‘by and large this is true’ women will find the exceptional case and say ‘that isn’t universally true’. But ‘by and large’ does not mean that it is universally true, and an outlier does not determine a general case. But you will find in almost every case some women in the group saying such a profoundly stupid thing. Why? Because they evolved to think about children being left behind because they are betas, or women being left behind because they are pregnant, or groups being left behind because they are too young or weak to travel – and that is against their strategy.

When you want to understand human beings, then you look to evolutionary biology. Our minds act on behalf of our genes without any greater knowledge of why or how than we have knowledge of how to move our arms and legs – we just do. Our words justify the intuitions of our minds. Our reason evolved to negotiate cooperation on behalf of our genes. Our genetic differences divide us in to an intertemporal distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge labor and advocacy, and voluntary cooperation is the equals=sign that assists us in finding an average of everyone’s interests.

Words are mostly nonsense even when we don’t ourselves know they are nonsense. That is why truth matters so significantly. Unlike Kant, I do not claim we cannot know the world. I claim that we must cleans error from our knowledge so we know the difference between what our genes evolved to specialize in seeing, and the entire picture we can see without those specializations.

You may not realize in reading this that it is a profound innovation in philosophical thought, but it is and it will change your life if you grasp it.