Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject
Source: Original Site Post
-
New Territory Or Return To Normal
Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject
-
—“Q: What did you choose to be your personal meaning of life?”—
I had set most of my life’s goals before I was thirteen and haven’t really altered them. I’ve rebuilt myself and my life about once a decade to fulfill those goals. If your goals are clear life is much easier. 1 – “Life is short, and **We only get one chance. Do as much as you can** with it and leave your mark on history. It is the only possible immortality.” or Life is an apple, take big bites, moderation is for monks. Probably from the life of Alexander. 2 – Build a **fortune** to make it possible. (done) Probably inspired by my paternal family’s lifestyle (wealth) compared to my maternal family’s loss of it during the depression. A promise I made when probably eight or ten. 3 – **Know everything** in every book in the library (pretty much done, frighteningly.) (Whenever I imagined I had three wishes, this was always the first. Knowledge is power. Wisdom is an asset to put it into play. And wisdom provides mindfulness.) 4 – “**Build my god a church**” (Almost done, although a far different result, and much greater project than I’d imagined) From a promise I made to myself at twelve, while sitting in church. 5 – “Smile and laugh often”, “**Treat everyone you meet as a potential friend** until demonstrated otherwise” , “Be respectful and kind to the working man and the little people who are not so privileged – they are the most moral people in society”, “Do many minor goods and kindnesses for no reason at all” – big demonstrations are for your self aggrandizement and create senses of debt in others. Many small kindnesses accumulate in the change of behavior of the people around you. 6 – “**Die Well**. Put The Willingness to Die to Good Use” (Planning on it.) Promise I made to myself in my teens. The Opposite Side I did not expect to “**brook no slight**” even though it is a family motto. I found that tolerance is not a virtue but a convenience of those who take no responsibility for themselves, others, or the commons. I did not expect to **compete ruthlessly **and perhaps too much so. But that ended up being a part of my life that had mixed results for me personally, even if it created wealth. I did not expect to be a relatively **useless (absent) father** and in retrospect I should have forgone fatherhood despite my children being my greatest joy. I did not expect my **health** to be such a problem for my life but I have prevailed mostly despite it. Ill health is not something I would wish on anyone. I think I made three great mistakes, my first being not transferring when a professor asked me to join his department, so that I would have become a philosopher earlier; not staying ‘quit’ when I quit my job as CEO – loyalty was a bad idea; divorcing my wife, who was a saint, but I was too ill to understand she really did love me. I think I only really **failed** meaningfully once, and fairly recently, and I still plan on remedying that failure, so that I can depart this life not having done so.
-
—“Q: What did you choose to be your personal meaning of life?”—
I had set most of my life’s goals before I was thirteen and haven’t really altered them. I’ve rebuilt myself and my life about once a decade to fulfill those goals. If your goals are clear life is much easier. 1 – “Life is short, and **We only get one chance. Do as much as you can** with it and leave your mark on history. It is the only possible immortality.” or Life is an apple, take big bites, moderation is for monks. Probably from the life of Alexander. 2 – Build a **fortune** to make it possible. (done) Probably inspired by my paternal family’s lifestyle (wealth) compared to my maternal family’s loss of it during the depression. A promise I made when probably eight or ten. 3 – **Know everything** in every book in the library (pretty much done, frighteningly.) (Whenever I imagined I had three wishes, this was always the first. Knowledge is power. Wisdom is an asset to put it into play. And wisdom provides mindfulness.) 4 – “**Build my god a church**” (Almost done, although a far different result, and much greater project than I’d imagined) From a promise I made to myself at twelve, while sitting in church. 5 – “Smile and laugh often”, “**Treat everyone you meet as a potential friend** until demonstrated otherwise” , “Be respectful and kind to the working man and the little people who are not so privileged – they are the most moral people in society”, “Do many minor goods and kindnesses for no reason at all” – big demonstrations are for your self aggrandizement and create senses of debt in others. Many small kindnesses accumulate in the change of behavior of the people around you. 6 – “**Die Well**. Put The Willingness to Die to Good Use” (Planning on it.) Promise I made to myself in my teens. The Opposite Side I did not expect to “**brook no slight**” even though it is a family motto. I found that tolerance is not a virtue but a convenience of those who take no responsibility for themselves, others, or the commons. I did not expect to **compete ruthlessly **and perhaps too much so. But that ended up being a part of my life that had mixed results for me personally, even if it created wealth. I did not expect to be a relatively **useless (absent) father** and in retrospect I should have forgone fatherhood despite my children being my greatest joy. I did not expect my **health** to be such a problem for my life but I have prevailed mostly despite it. Ill health is not something I would wish on anyone. I think I made three great mistakes, my first being not transferring when a professor asked me to join his department, so that I would have become a philosopher earlier; not staying ‘quit’ when I quit my job as CEO – loyalty was a bad idea; divorcing my wife, who was a saint, but I was too ill to understand she really did love me. I think I only really **failed** meaningfully once, and fairly recently, and I still plan on remedying that failure, so that I can depart this life not having done so.
-
The Continent, No Longer an Island
—“The U.S. “homeland is no longer a sanctuary,” according to the four-star general in charge of both U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy”— Our island-ish continent is no longer.
-
The Continent, No Longer an Island
—“The U.S. “homeland is no longer a sanctuary,” according to the four-star general in charge of both U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy”— Our island-ish continent is no longer.
-
The Mythology that We Have Constructed to Justify Marriage as A Norm, No Longer Holds
—“Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long until you lean, mean, problem solving machines successfully master artificial wombs and then you can be rid of the dead weight of womanhood.”— Lisa Outhwaite That’s not true. Women are WONDERFUL. It’s just that the MYTHOLOGY that we have constructed to justify marriage as a norm, no longer HOLDS, and the postmodern and feminist mythology is FALSE. Ergo, given our different reproductive strategies, different moral and preferential intuitions GIVEN those different and competing strategies, and the amount of agency we have in the interpersonal and political-military spheres of cognition, then we must find a means of cooperating now that the family has been destroyed by marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the leftist (marxist-postmodernist) attack on western civilizations institutions of truth duty reciprocity, family civil society (voluntary production of commons). I mean, women have no idea that they are giving judaism and islam a foundation in this era just as they did in the ancient world, and are in the process of destroying the civilization in this era just as they did in the ancient. Men vote red. non-whites vote blue. and most white women defect blue. The only defectors are white women. Yet we have the only civilization that blues are trying to invade and be a part of.
-
The Mythology that We Have Constructed to Justify Marriage as A Norm, No Longer Holds
—“Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long until you lean, mean, problem solving machines successfully master artificial wombs and then you can be rid of the dead weight of womanhood.”— Lisa Outhwaite That’s not true. Women are WONDERFUL. It’s just that the MYTHOLOGY that we have constructed to justify marriage as a norm, no longer HOLDS, and the postmodern and feminist mythology is FALSE. Ergo, given our different reproductive strategies, different moral and preferential intuitions GIVEN those different and competing strategies, and the amount of agency we have in the interpersonal and political-military spheres of cognition, then we must find a means of cooperating now that the family has been destroyed by marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the leftist (marxist-postmodernist) attack on western civilizations institutions of truth duty reciprocity, family civil society (voluntary production of commons). I mean, women have no idea that they are giving judaism and islam a foundation in this era just as they did in the ancient world, and are in the process of destroying the civilization in this era just as they did in the ancient. Men vote red. non-whites vote blue. and most white women defect blue. The only defectors are white women. Yet we have the only civilization that blues are trying to invade and be a part of.
-
Left(F) -vs.- Right(M) Behavioral Differences
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.
-
Left(F) -vs.- Right(M) Behavioral Differences
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.