(FB 1543674852 Timestamp) WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES? (important explanations) —“…what kind of evolutionary pressure would create a desire to undermine the ingroup. All the plausible explanations I’ve seen had to do with abusing female impulses that have evolved for entirely different purposes….”—Martin Å tÄpán Females undermine the concentration of power in alphas in order to preserve some control over their reproductive choice and access to resources and male-provisioned resources, including defense. ie: females can barter attention, effort, care, and sex if they have control of the attention economy. Which is why females are so conscious (and gay men evidencing it) of attention and approval and agreeableness. So just as females operate on a status and attention economy, they fight within that economy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, moralizing, undermining, and reputation destruction. And decreasing the number of females is not necessarily in their disinterest – so literally killing off other females increases remaining female market value, so that his the strategy females pursue: that of Hens. Undermining the males (‘sh-t testing’) is useful both at the level of insuring the ‘fitness’ of males in defending them, preserving their ability to choose, assisting them in outing ‘cheaters’ (which women are terrible at, and men excel at), maximizing cost of (returns on) their attention, care, and sex. The only problem here is that women still sexually select for males as if we are under those conditions of hunter gatherers. And this explains the attraction of women to more primitive (less domesticated) groups of males with lower agency despite that the female condition is dependent upon those of us with higher agency, innovation, and adaptivity. Hence the necessity of more domesticated (higher agency) males of defending the ingroup females from conquest or even exposure to, lower agency, higher aggression, males. (FWIW:Delayed marriage provides women with greater reproductive certainty, and therefore greater sortition, and greater formation of genetic castes, and therefore greater speciation – hence white people.) Males conversely, operate on the physical equivalent of the warfare economy, and so losses of males weakens the pack, and dilution of the ingroup male genes weakens male reproductive (evolutionary) persistence, as well as reverses domestication (evolution of agency). I could write on this subject for hours by just weaving through male and female behavior at all levels. And doing so only further demonstrates Acquisitionism and the need for Testimonialism and Natural Law to preserve the Western Advantage given the destructive influences of women.
Theme: Institution
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544289574 Timestamp) IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION? Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education. The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy). The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts. That abrahamism and the abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math. The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544289574 Timestamp) IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION? Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education. The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy). The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts. That abrahamism and the abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math. The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544381737 Timestamp) Let me help you. In the ancient and medieval world, you were EITHER trained in the church OR trained in traditional law and warfare. In that model separation of church and state survives. When we ended aristocracy we made it possible for people of a church, including the marxist-postmodernist-feminist church, to be raised in the church (the MPF academy) without learning and demonstrating fitness in war.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544381737 Timestamp) Let me help you. In the ancient and medieval world, you were EITHER trained in the church OR trained in traditional law and warfare. In that model separation of church and state survives. When we ended aristocracy we made it possible for people of a church, including the marxist-postmodernist-feminist church, to be raised in the church (the MPF academy) without learning and demonstrating fitness in war.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544709447 Timestamp) INCARCERATION RATES IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND PLACE There is a reason we are {a high trust society, a prosperous society, a ‘diverse’ society, a rule of law society, and a high incarceration society}. While we might question the utility of imprisoning people over some drug use, we do not have levels of petty crime endemic to european countries, as well as the pervasive crime that troubles the rest of the world. And the violent crime we have is {drug related, race-restricted, and race-location-restricted} because proximity creates hostility. So, in other words, the cost of preservation of our relatively superior condition is high rates of incarceration, and the subsequent increased risk those who have been incarcerated face, and the subsequent grouping-together, and monitoring of those what have been incarcerated with those who are at risk, into areas that can be monitored. If we were to secede into racially exclusive and racially heterogeneous polities, then we would, as a consequence, also secede into high trust, high income, high commons, low crime polities, and lower trust, poorer, low commons, lower crime polities. Because groups would produce appropriate signals, behavior, manners, ethics, morals, commons, policies, and laws – and only enforce those laws suitable for their populations. White crime in america is not dissimilar from white europe. Although white under, lower, and working class intermixture with the non-white underclasses is causing defection from the middle class values we have spent 1500 years developing, and degeneration of those whites is accelerating. The data is what it is: we have lower testosterone in white groups, and greater neoteny (we mature more slowly), and higher IQ distributions, and testosterone and rapid maturity and lower IQ distributions create demand for more criminal behavior. East asians have lower demand for stimulation and lower demand for identity expression (greater conformity). This is because we have selected for heroism and identity, and they for harmony and conformity for all of known history. So we see as good or better performance from east asians as we do from our own. Strangely, Latinos have similar levels of testosterone, slightly lower neoteny, but still lower distributions of IQ, so their excessive criminality is due to only one of the biological factors, while africans to three factors of developmental differences. Given sufficient IQ, neoteny and testosterone can somewhat be ameliorated. But that is not possible without positive eugenics in the short term or negative eugenics in the long. Incarceration is visible but the smallest consequence of forced integration. We have lost so much of our civil society, our commons, our manners, ethics and morals, due to attempts at heterogeneous polities. You have to go to norway today to experience the difference. Finns are ‘different’, so they are an unfair comparison. But the germanic peoples all together from italy to norway were a very special people before forced integration. And this century has been a curse for us for reasons some of us fully understand. The freed slaves precisely the damage the protestants warned against. The catholics were precisely the political damage the protestants warned against. The jews were ten times the damage the protestants warned against. The opening of immigration by the left in 65, as ten times the damage the protestants and catholics warned against. The experiment has failed. Democracy failed. Globalism failed. The belief that people were oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated like all other animals failed. We debate whether we domesticated the dog, or it domesticated itself. We do not face the rather obvious genetic evidence, that we domesticated ourselves. And that we did so by some groups being more domesticated and therefore better organized and cooperative than others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544709447 Timestamp) INCARCERATION RATES IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND PLACE There is a reason we are {a high trust society, a prosperous society, a ‘diverse’ society, a rule of law society, and a high incarceration society}. While we might question the utility of imprisoning people over some drug use, we do not have levels of petty crime endemic to european countries, as well as the pervasive crime that troubles the rest of the world. And the violent crime we have is {drug related, race-restricted, and race-location-restricted} because proximity creates hostility. So, in other words, the cost of preservation of our relatively superior condition is high rates of incarceration, and the subsequent increased risk those who have been incarcerated face, and the subsequent grouping-together, and monitoring of those what have been incarcerated with those who are at risk, into areas that can be monitored. If we were to secede into racially exclusive and racially heterogeneous polities, then we would, as a consequence, also secede into high trust, high income, high commons, low crime polities, and lower trust, poorer, low commons, lower crime polities. Because groups would produce appropriate signals, behavior, manners, ethics, morals, commons, policies, and laws – and only enforce those laws suitable for their populations. White crime in america is not dissimilar from white europe. Although white under, lower, and working class intermixture with the non-white underclasses is causing defection from the middle class values we have spent 1500 years developing, and degeneration of those whites is accelerating. The data is what it is: we have lower testosterone in white groups, and greater neoteny (we mature more slowly), and higher IQ distributions, and testosterone and rapid maturity and lower IQ distributions create demand for more criminal behavior. East asians have lower demand for stimulation and lower demand for identity expression (greater conformity). This is because we have selected for heroism and identity, and they for harmony and conformity for all of known history. So we see as good or better performance from east asians as we do from our own. Strangely, Latinos have similar levels of testosterone, slightly lower neoteny, but still lower distributions of IQ, so their excessive criminality is due to only one of the biological factors, while africans to three factors of developmental differences. Given sufficient IQ, neoteny and testosterone can somewhat be ameliorated. But that is not possible without positive eugenics in the short term or negative eugenics in the long. Incarceration is visible but the smallest consequence of forced integration. We have lost so much of our civil society, our commons, our manners, ethics and morals, due to attempts at heterogeneous polities. You have to go to norway today to experience the difference. Finns are ‘different’, so they are an unfair comparison. But the germanic peoples all together from italy to norway were a very special people before forced integration. And this century has been a curse for us for reasons some of us fully understand. The freed slaves precisely the damage the protestants warned against. The catholics were precisely the political damage the protestants warned against. The jews were ten times the damage the protestants warned against. The opening of immigration by the left in 65, as ten times the damage the protestants and catholics warned against. The experiment has failed. Democracy failed. Globalism failed. The belief that people were oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated like all other animals failed. We debate whether we domesticated the dog, or it domesticated itself. We do not face the rather obvious genetic evidence, that we domesticated ourselves. And that we did so by some groups being more domesticated and therefore better organized and cooperative than others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544760019 Timestamp) THE IRRELEVANCE OF DOGMAS, AND THE RELEVANCE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, RITUAL, AND ADMINISTRATION —“the Germanic peoples did not bother to object to individual dogmas, because dogmatic orthodoxy was not central to their notion of religion. The second reason that the Germanization of Christianity is seldom acknowledged may be that now, when syncretic developments are usually associated with “developing nations,” there may exist at least a sub-conscious reluctance by Western Christians to accept the notion that their mainstream religious tradition is itself the result of a syncretic development which eventually became normative.”— I mean, having literate folk around to mediate between the aristocracy and the people, and to organize feast, festivals, and to educate each other, is not But we have to understand that people in the medieval period treated the church very much like we treat politicians.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544758945 Timestamp) CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF ITS ORIGINS, BUT OF ITS TRANSFORMATION INTO GERMANICIZED FOLK RELIGION – RE-INSTITUTIONALIZED UNDER COLONIALISM. —-…”a concept is not best understood in light of its origins, but rather in light of the direction in which the tradition is moving. To take Christianity as a notorious example: I do not believe that the truth of Christianity will best be elucidated by a search for its origins, but rather by an observation of its development in tradition. This approach is a reversal of the assumption that has dominated Christian and much other religious scholarship for a very long time, an assumption characterized by the genetic fallacy: that the true meaning of a wordâor of an ideaâlies in its pristine state.48″—-
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544760019 Timestamp) THE IRRELEVANCE OF DOGMAS, AND THE RELEVANCE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, RITUAL, AND ADMINISTRATION —“the Germanic peoples did not bother to object to individual dogmas, because dogmatic orthodoxy was not central to their notion of religion. The second reason that the Germanization of Christianity is seldom acknowledged may be that now, when syncretic developments are usually associated with “developing nations,” there may exist at least a sub-conscious reluctance by Western Christians to accept the notion that their mainstream religious tradition is itself the result of a syncretic development which eventually became normative.”— I mean, having literate folk around to mediate between the aristocracy and the people, and to organize feast, festivals, and to educate each other, is not But we have to understand that people in the medieval period treated the church very much like we treat politicians.