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 third party proxies, OR monarchies. My preference is monarchies backed by judges and warriors. They’re not false. And they tend to subsidize the arts and letters.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:39:00 UTC
—“Invention of mass media led to explosion of sophism. Add in social media so you can see what everybody is thinking, and it becomes clear – most people are just operating on instinct. Even most right-wingers. (What Haidt points out is readily observable. People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it. Point is, this modern explosion of sophism (leftists overloading the discourse via mass media) hasn’t actually changed the underlying dynamic, which is the same as in the previous battles between the two instincts.”— —John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:06:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXgWE CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE
by Brandon Hayes
[Stop making justificatory arguments about feelings]
The convergence points of the brightest minds are obvious to anyone that is looking (an example below):
—“It’s the women who are going to stand-up to the women who are just trying to destroy conversation; and I think that that is something where, Jordan has talked about it; none of the men want to make this argument, it would be better optically if it were women saying “Hey, some of us are out of line! this is too much and it’s too aggressive and you can’t say “mansplaining” about EVERYTHING.” — Eric Weinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXg
———–
“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?”— A Friend
It’s not complicated:
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 benefitting from the division of labor between the genders.
The question is, 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).
To men, everything is a distribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
– Curt Doolittle
—-
We ought not destroy competing packs to benefit the herds. Herds can’t respond efficiently to rapidly changing environments; what you get instead of problem solving is panic.
Panic among animals shortens their time horizons (they make quicker decisions less thought through) for shorter term gains. This mistake accumulates until the day of reckoning comes about. The day all of your “not planning for the future” comes back to haunt you.
Strong feelings are not the equivalent to being correct. There isn’t a feel good substitute for truth; no matter how much we’d like there to be!
https://www.facebook.com/brandon.hayes.5851/posts/10103416983160261Updated Aug 31, 2018, 9:56 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:56:00 UTC
WHat you really mean is ‘To abandon their human mind, and return to their animal intuitions free of the burden of reason’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 01:26:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035338003810590720
Reply addressees: @Roo12883907
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033730107255480321
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/1033730107255480321
I am not sure I understand this question. People act in their interests along different time lines from short (high time preference) to long (low time preference), and they do so because they are able to do so (agency) have the means (intelligence) and resources (training).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 00:43:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035327271127658496
Reply addressees: @SmashMarxCult @jboschredux @BlackDawning
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035029105387941888
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/1035029105387941888
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.
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
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
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.