As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal. Speech does not qualify one as human no matter how sophisticated the parrot.
Theme: Agency
-
As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law do
-
—“Why Do Women Engage in Naxalt?”—
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
-
—“Why Do Women Engage in Naxalt?”—
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
-
ON MANNERBUND I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I ex
ON MANNERBUND
I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I express it as ‘it all begins with the militia’, and the militia functions on the brotherhood of warriors. I disagree with the Social Matters / Mannerbund in that the fact that our civilization begins there, does not mean it is SUFFICIENT to defeat enemies, or that much can be made of that ‘feeling’ alone. What binds people are incentive to bind with one another.
Many of you are seeking the sense of safety and power in the pack and the restoration of our institutions of brotherhood throughout society due to the intentional destruction of them by the deconstructionists in marxism, femininsm, postmodernism, who exploit a ready willingness in our female population to defect by sh-t testing us.
But you are making the mistake of an intuitionistic bias that is VERY RARE, instead of providing MAJOR incentives (military, political, economic, personal wealth, agency, status, and a plan to get there you are searching in the dark for emotional support, rallying without resources to do so.
Those institutions of brotherhood are the last good we will achieve, not the first. They are a premium achieved for having worked to obtain military, political, economic, wealth, status benefits.
Men will REPORT affiliation for sentiments.
Men will DEMONSTRATE conviction for material rewards.
The feeling of safety of the pack comes only from the shared experience of working as a pack to produce an outcome which provides an alternative to the present, yet promises only chaos because of an ABSENCE OF VISION.
I do not operate from your perspective but work backward to achieve that emotion through demonstrated action together by the use of incentives to achieve material success.
The answer to our problem is to provide an actionable plan the end result is mannerbund.
That actionable plan is a means of altering the status quo such that POSSIBLE demands are met.
One does not defeat a fortress by direct attack, but by starving it. One does not threaten potential allies but pays them off. One does not create incentives for defenders of the fortress by promises of suffering, but promising them returns.
Once the fortress is won, the holdouts must be flayed and salted and hung from the walls for their crimes.
All revolutions are suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.
It’s time to win.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 19:16:00 UTC
-
Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I h
Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I have. And it is terribly painful. But it is how we evolve from animal lacking agency to man in possession of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:52:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035571126544592898
-
As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law do
As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal. Speech does not qualify one as human no matter how sophisticated the parrot.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:51:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035570675778576385
-
Unfortunately you might reconsider that such a statement is not an argument. As
Unfortunately you might reconsider that such a statement is not an argument. As a matter of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason science and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:50:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035570418176933890
Reply addressees: @Roo12883907
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569787164917760
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569787164917760
-
The fundamental problem is producing submission to the pack (piety) when the lea
The fundamental problem is producing submission to the pack (piety) when the leadership of the pack is just as much of a bunch of bitchy whiny egoistic a–holes as you are. Hence idealistic… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289041301692767&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:39:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035567777292185600
-
Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I h
Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I have. And it is terribly painful. But it is how we evolve from animal lacking agency to man in possession of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:52:00 UTC
-
As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law do
As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal. Speech does not qualify one as human no matter how sophisticated the parrot.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:50:00 UTC