May 24, 2020, 1:45 PM by Tim Beckley I would say that the degree of agency needed to perform well in the traditionally feminine domain is significantly lower than in the masculine, and to the extent that its development detracts a woman’s attention from the development of empathy, it’s a disadvantage. The role of agent, or one who acts and exerts power, is already filled in a properly functioning home and society by man. At best, a woman’s assumption of that responsibility is redundant, and based on the present state of our women as you describe it, it’s probably too great a burden for most to bear. I don’t think we fully appreciate how excessive our demand for agency in women already has been for the last 100 years, or how destructive their attempts to meet it likely have been. Based on the biases of a vocal minority of women, the whole sex has been thrown into the field of masculine political concerns, duped into believing that voting was a right withheld rather than a liability which, for most of our history at least, we’ve had the good sense to spare them. Even more callously and deviously, we’ve since required that they enter the dog-eat-dog world of business and soul-deadening rat-race. That some of us are surprised that they’re miserable and seemingly incapable of doing what they evolved to do given these enormous and short-sighted impositions seems laughable. That some don’t recognize the need to correct the problem in the next system we construct by freeing them to serve their proper function seems even worse. Women evolved to rely on empathy as their primary virtue. They rely on it to meet the incessant and nearly insatiable demands of our children, and couldn’t do without it. They rely on it to satisfy us, so that we can function properly, free of unnecessary distraction. And they apply it at the broadest appropriate scale in their communities, unifying them through the maintenance of individual relationships with other mothers, children, friends, neighbors, and family. The net effect of their collective contribution is individual fulfillment and group coherence. So I don’t think it’s coincidental that the rapid disintegration of our group and the existential threat we face as a people also accompanied these early signs of gender confusion and conflation. My understanding is that Europeans show pronounced sexual dimorphism relative to other groups, which should imply that sexual specialization has been an advantage for us. I think it also goes far to explain why we seem more prone to defection and other forms of dysfunction between the sexes- differentiation and specialization come at the cost of ease of communication. To me that speaks to the importance of our arts as a compensatory means of mediation. In the end, I think the question is if we’ve organized our society such that our women can no longer cohere the group, who will?
Theme: Sex Differences
-
Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange
May 26, 2020, 11:28 PM —“Curt sees everything in the context sexual gratification. It’s an interesting theory, but doesn’t explain why countless martyrs in the ancient world were voluntarily flayed alive, burned alive, eaten alive, etc., in the name of Christ. It doesn’t explain why children voluntarily died for Christ. It doesn’t explain why the barbarians, in a very short timeframe, put down their weapons and picked up crosses and scripture. Presumably, they didn’t have any problems with women. It simply doesn’t provide an adequate explanation for the dramatic shift in the world resulting from Christ.”—Emil Suric
—“Curt Doolittle what’s your take on that?”—Skye Stewart
I think that’s silly. (Actually i think it’s a rationalization to defend a prior. And Emil is not a foolish person. He is a product of his culture. And like most, even some of the best, he cannot overcome it.) I see everything: 1 – In context of acquisition. 2 – I understand how limited our agency (free will). 3 – I understand that the bias in our cognition has only three axis of variation, of which the physical differences in brain structure and chemical signaling between the sexes is most significant. (the others being developmental hierarchy and developmental degree). 4 – I understand that civilizations use strategies, myths, and grammars to defend them. 5 – And that people are largely ‘bots’ running that software on hardware with different biases. 6 – And it takes both a less biased brain and mind, and a tremendous amount of effort to free ourselves of those inheritances. Most of my work if not all of it provides a uniform system of measurement to circumvent those biases, which producing the first complete language of science: testimony. RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.
-
Women Creating a Market for Male Virtues
Women Creating a Market for Male Virtues https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/women-creating-a-market-for-male-virtues/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 02:59:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265839982532591616
-
Women Creating a Market for Male Virtues
May 26, 2020, 11:29 PM by Michael Churchill Been thinking more about the concept that Christianity created a market for male virtue that was administered by women.
As Christianity became the dominant religion, men were bent into women’s moral frame. This became more pronounced with universal suffrage — and took another step-function higher with universal wealth beginning in the 1960s and 70s.
Thus today in wealthy countries the moral frame is almost completely dictated by women. Is that natural? It doesn’t seem so. Clearly it is un-competitive civilizationally, as reflected in plunging European birthrates (compared to Africa and Middle East in particular).
What REALLY was the moral frame in pre-Christian times. Women must have had a fair amount of moral sway in Rome, for instance. It was a very sophisticated place and women are the glue that holds communities together.
And … how “cool” was it to act psychopathically toward other people back in Roman times? Do we really know? If the man of the house was boinking the slave girl would his wife really have no say in the matter?
-
Women Creating a Market for Male Virtues
May 26, 2020, 11:29 PM by Michael Churchill Been thinking more about the concept that Christianity created a market for male virtue that was administered by women.
As Christianity became the dominant religion, men were bent into women’s moral frame. This became more pronounced with universal suffrage — and took another step-function higher with universal wealth beginning in the 1960s and 70s.
Thus today in wealthy countries the moral frame is almost completely dictated by women. Is that natural? It doesn’t seem so. Clearly it is un-competitive civilizationally, as reflected in plunging European birthrates (compared to Africa and Middle East in particular).
What REALLY was the moral frame in pre-Christian times. Women must have had a fair amount of moral sway in Rome, for instance. It was a very sophisticated place and women are the glue that holds communities together.
And … how “cool” was it to act psychopathically toward other people back in Roman times? Do we really know? If the man of the house was boinking the slave girl would his wife really have no say in the matter?
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/masculine-gsrrm-versus-female-gsrrm/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:02:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265705024254095367
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
-
Jesus He Didn’t Bring Down Judaism, He Advanced It.
Oct 8, 2019, 1:39 PM Jesus he didn’t bring down judaism, he advanced it.
- Judaism to undermine the masculine aristocracy.
- Christianity to feminize the population into submission
- Islam to raid, conquer, destroy and consume all capital.
The three stages of abrahamic warfare against the indo european peoples. The restoration of the dysgenic feminine equalitarian strategy against the invention of eugenic, masculine egalitarian hierarchy.
-
Jesus He Didn’t Bring Down Judaism, He Advanced It.
Oct 8, 2019, 1:39 PM Jesus he didn’t bring down judaism, he advanced it.
- Judaism to undermine the masculine aristocracy.
- Christianity to feminize the population into submission
- Islam to raid, conquer, destroy and consume all capital.
The three stages of abrahamic warfare against the indo european peoples. The restoration of the dysgenic feminine equalitarian strategy against the invention of eugenic, masculine egalitarian hierarchy.