by Al Freeman
Mom’s say “be careful” 1000 times a day.
Boys need men to know it’s OK to take risks at all.
Boys need men to say:
– Get on the roof
– Climb that tree
– Yes, you can jump from there.
– Punch the bastard.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:18:00 UTC
—“Boys need Men so they know how to calculate which risks are worth taking, and which come with the death penalty.”— Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 10:50:00 UTC
STOICISM FOR ALL.
The constant thread between the women in my life has been each woman’s informal take on stoicism, and the presence of either a lot of brothers, or a participatory and strong masculine father, or hardship beyond which their feminine tendencies were not allowed to survive.
Women need men so that they aren’t crazy (hormonally self indulgent).
Women need children so that they don’t misapply
Children need men so that they feel safe taking risks.
Boys need women so that we have something to care for.
Men need women so that we aren’t pervasively dangerous.
DEFLATIONARY RELIGION
1 – Myths (Political Philosophy);
2 – Markets: Holiday Festivals, Feast Rituals, Commercial ‘festivals’ (Markets), Families;
3 – Stoicism (Personal Philosophy)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 08:30:00 UTC
Every libertarian wants to say ‘its my body, and I choose’ like a woman does. Except that unlike a woman he doesn’t have a vagina, and lacks her intrinsic value. Ergo, extra males are dead weight.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 17:41:00 UTC
(In response to trash talking white boys and trash talking black girls: …There is a general perception that black women are stupid, easier to seduce, and more consistently sexually accessible, with less inter-gender compromise. In other words, it’s demonstration of a general disdain for black people. Or put differently, it’s compensating for inadequacy among fellow white people by disrespecting black people who they deem of lower status. In other words, you just ignore white people’s nonsense just as white people ignore black people’s nonsense. It’s all status signaling to compensate for the reality of our relative market value in sexual, social, economic, and political markets. People are ridiculous in every group. We all want to feel better about ourselves than the markets demonstrate our real value to be: near-zero. we all seek to comfort in imagining there is someone below us in the layer cake.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:15:00 UTC
THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM
It’s interesting since the imbalance is caused by the vast number of women taking nonsense courses, and being awarded nonsense-degrees. Whereas men do not pay money to take nonsense degrees.
–“42 percent of women have more than $30,000 in college debt, compared with 27 percent of men. Women are two times more likely than men to think it will take more than 20 years to pay off their loans, “–
—“Women currently hold two-thirds of the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student-loan debt in the U.S., “—
In other words, women are more likely to (a) finance the anti-western propaganda (b) take nonsense gut courses and majors (c) create vast student debt.
This is despite the fact that (a) it’s demonstrable that women learn nothing in college of workplace value (b) women more easily fit into diverse social orders in the work place (c) women are better clerical workers at an earlier age (d) women are given defference in social interaction assisting communications and collaboration in the workplace.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:05:00 UTC
(archived from Adam’s page)
Well, there are examples of GROUPS adopting the female strategy. There are examples of MEN adopting the female strategy. The consequence of pedomorphism could continue to soften the male strategy (at high costs). But women prefer men who demonstrate the male strategy. Meanwhile we are doing what women SAY they want (feminising men) but DEMONSTRATING that they want something different in mates: the male strategy. So either we stop listening to what women SAY and watch what they do, and change men ourselves, or we are defeated by men who do because that is what women actually want.
There are only two genders. If we try to achieve one, we will end up with none.
Bonobo’s only exist because they aren’t worth EATING by anyone yet. Or put another way, bonobos MAY exist because they were too expensive to eat and not enough of a threat to any male dominance hierarchy to kill off. IN other words, bonobos are soft because others forced them to be. We all tend to model evolution in a vacuum rather than as a competition. When the ‘age of apes’ saw a lot of experimentation within the great ape family, and *almost all variations ended up dead*.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:48:00 UTC
—“Male cooperation is based on voluntary hierarchy, so the fact that someone is better than you in some way means it is better for men to be friends. Female cooperation is not hierarchical, because caring for children does not require leadership in the same way that hunting and warfare do.”— Adam Voight
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:41:00 UTC
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFEMINACY AND ROTHBARDIANISM
What libertarians hold to is that each is the judge of morality rather than external conditions that determine it regardless of what they think.
What they are doing and what is appealing to ‘libertarians’ (whether it is a genetic, developmental, or cognitive deficiency – I assume that like in my case it is an erroneous dependence on introspection) is to ***apply the feminine strategy of demanding her approval rather than preventing the conflict between men.***
It took me a long time to understand this was the cause. And I didn’t like it because it is my intuition as well, but once I understood that ***we care about women’s cooperation so that we buy opportunities for sex and affection, and to prevent their gossip. But no one gives a damn about the approval of beta males, and their gossip, so it just doesn’t matter what beta males think. Men don’t seek approval of other men, they seek to avoid the retaliation of other men.***
I could write a book on this subject. Haidt has the data. The data is obvious. All we would need to do is some genetic testing on self identified libertarians. And we would find very consistent results.
There is a very great difference between granting one another sovereignty and reciprocal defense out of loyalty, and running around virtue signaling that one is unwilling to cooperate except on x terms without providing reciprocal insurance (loyalty).
From this perspective it’s extremely easy to understand the evolutionary biology at work.
I have avoided this particular line of investigation and argument because I feel it is destructive to common interests. So I prefer to deny libertarians the fantasy that they can possess liberty without fighting and reciprocal insurance via loyalty.
I had hoped to merely end libertarianism by demonstrating the fallacies of mises, rothbard and hoppe as mere word games, and that the dreams of a property-commune were just as absurd as the dreams of a commons-commune.
But the science is sitting out there. And the evidence is everywhere. So if I have to go out and emasculate the libertarian movement further I will.
At present I prefer to just say “look guys, I understand, its impossible so support the warrior class and understand that you are gonna have to either operate at their grace, or at least stay out of their way. Because they will create sovereignty under which you can have your liberty. But without them creating sovereignty, you cannot possible ever again have your liberty. because there are no borderlands left.”
There is only one source of liberty: a universal, armed, organized, militiia demanding it from a sovereign in exchange for compensation.
There is only one source of sovereignty, and that is a universal, armed, organized, militia, imposing rule of law, under natural law, universal standing, and universal application, producing markets for reproduction(marriage), production(goods, services, and information), commons, and polities, wherein each man fully insures each other man and his property in toto from imposition of costs.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 20:09:00 UTC
By William L. Benge
Your ordering:
individual action —- cooperative action
industriousness —- pro-sociality
private property —- common property
Suggests:
eugenia — dysgenia
Which is repaired by the duality of reciprocity:
negativa — positiva
This repairing may be volunteered instantly or gradually, and by or for a village, town, city, entire regions and continents of persons, a single household, or, in the remotest ultimate possibility, by the entire civilized world.
The scope is limited by an unmeasured and therefore uncertain liquidity. Only with data can we deny the potential of short-order international breadth, a new worldwide ethos.
(well done!)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 16:04:00 UTC