( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm ยท ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.
Theme: Institution
-
“Fallacies do not curtail considerable plutocratic tendencies just because fasci
—“Fallacies do not curtail considerable plutocratic tendencies just because fascistic aristocracies fail to maintain religious hegemony. Hierarchies are only plausible when there is a presence of theocratic organic infrastructure to support the underlying anti-dialogist systems.”—
—“Take everything Curt says with a grain of salt. Better yet, an entire saltlick.”—Eugene Ix
You will need the salt – for eating your straw man.
I don’t say a mythology wasn’t necessary.
I didn’t say religion wasn’t necessary.
I said, one consisting of falsehoods isn’t.
๐
Hierarchies always exist always and everywhere. The question is which means of rule are used to achieve them. Force is the most expensive but most truthful method of rule. Religion of lies is cheaper than force, but more expensive than markets. So whether we are ruled by some narrative, some law, some market is a matter of demographics, productivity, cost, institutions of cooperation.
Just as people evolved to negotiate not to tell the truth, and we require the scientific method to assist us, Religions evolved to excuse or explain, but it is law that causes behavior.
One can conflate religion and law. One can deconflate them as the west has always done. I recommend we maintain deconflation, and create religion our of founding myths, and our long history of heroes.
In other words: YOU CREATE LIES IF YOU ARE WEAK. AND TRUTH IF YOU ARE STRONG. And you use truth (history, trade, law) if you want wealth. Lies are cheaper if you have ignorant people at the cost of impoverishing them. Small numbers that wish to rule, require advanced technology and professional warriors.
Hierarchies always exist everywhere and every-‘when’. All that differs is the manner in which we excuse them so that the classes can operate cooperatively. But the lesson of history is simple: truth out-competes lies. Everyone who adopted reason (truth) benefitted from it. greeks->romans->muslims->northern europeans -> much of the world today.
But each civilization fails to preserve truth because (a) they don’t know how to do otherwise, and (b)they have no institutional method of preserving it sufficiently to prevent re-institution of lies for the purpose of parasitism.
Ergo, Natural Law Fundamentalism. Heroic Literary myths.
Or to put it in terms of the western group evolutionary strategy;
Sovereignty(negative or limit). Heroism(positive or opportunity).
-Curt Doolittle
-The Philosophy of Aristocracy
-The Propertarian Institute
-Kiev, Ukraine
BTW: It’s always better to know what the f–k you’re talking about. ๐
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-10 19:46:00 UTC
-
We know the set of institution we must reform and how to reform them. We know th
We know the set of institution we must reform and how to reform them. We know the mythos that we must use to perpetuate it
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 16:17:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805808294946361346
Reply addressees: @MartialSociety
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805807561517633537
IN REPLY TO:
@MartialSociety
@curtdoolittle you hit the nail on the head with natural law fundamentalism, exactly where I was going with this
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805807561517633537
-
Hayek identified all the pieces: Information and the Law. But he couldn’t put it
Hayek identified all the pieces: Information and the Law. But he couldn’t put it all together.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 00:54:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805576013497376768
Reply addressees: @BarisBayram2045 @FriedrichHayek @JohnDanaher
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805567494211694593
IN REPLY TO:
@BarisBayram2045
“Understanding Hayek’s Knowledge Argument (1):
Prices as Signals”
by @JohnDanaher
https://t.co/cmuFnec7x1
@FriedrichHayek
(good-read)Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805567494211694593
-
1/3 We don’t need institutionalize positive beliefs if we have sufficient negati
1/3 We don’t need institutionalize positive beliefs if we have sufficient negative prohibitions. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 00:32:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805208084838838272
-
2/3 Natural Law Nomocracy Provides Sufficient Prohibitions to replace the need f
2/3 Natural Law Nomocracy Provides Sufficient Prohibitions to replace the need for institutionalized positive beliefs. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 00:31:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805207906765381632
-
You see, in my view, we keep the church but we expand its portfolio of content d
You see, in my view, we keep the church but we expand its portfolio of content dramatically. We don’t even need to work hard. People who want church any kind of knowledge or social experience for the family will come. The other churches will continue to either die off or adapt.
I want to defeat the state with the church.
But my concept of the church is a very different one.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 20:18:00 UTC
-
1/3 We don’t need institutionalize positive beliefs if we have sufficient negati
1/3 We don’t need institutionalize positive beliefs if we have sufficient negative prohibitions. #NewRight
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 19:32:00 UTC
-
RESTORING FAMILY REQUIRES RESTORING CLAN Tria nomina Typical Roman names of the
RESTORING FAMILY REQUIRES RESTORING CLAN
Tria nomina
Typical Roman names of the late Republic had three parts (the “tria nomina”). Example: Gaius Iulius Caesar where:
– Gaius is a praenomen (“given name”, plural praenomina),
– Julius is a nomen (“gens or clan name”, plural nomina), and
– Caesar is a cognomen (“family name within a gens”, plural cognomina).
Some names had no cognomen, but in other cases a second cognomen, (called an agnomen), was added. Female names could follow similar conventions, with a few differences. Additional elements such as tribal affiliation and “filiation” (parentage), were also sometimes used.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 16:54:00 UTC
-
I ran my consulting company as a kind of university (which is the primary reason
I ran my consulting company as a kind of university (which is the primary reason for its success). I run my think tank as a university (which i think is a reason for our success). I think the ‘continuous university’ model is an exceptional business model. I just think that the organizational structure does not yet exist for it. Which is one of the reasons we need Oversing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:49:00 UTC