ARE WE NOT MULES . . . WE ARE DEVO

[MemeFan]

My question isn't intended to lead toward any discussion centered around what kind of political system we could design for the future.

I'm specifically asking for you to do the following, @MemeFan: using the present tense as reflected in my use of the word 'is' (as opposed to what would or could be the ideal political system, identify the current (or even past) political system that is (or has been) ideal -- and tell us where it has been successfully implemented. That is, what and where?

No far nowhere.

Political theories didn't exist in Europe before 15-16th century. And march was toward centralization and democracy.

Problem is that without proper theory we can't know what is ideal. But I already shared few situation where is has come close.

This book is best:

Democracy: The God That Failed - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Only think missing is how to exactly create good rules for things not related directly with property and violence. His ideas will cause finding them after trial and error. I would like to speed things up.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm actually surprised at how vehemently you're defending prioritizing defending women and claiming innate status for it.

I'm not vehemently defending this. I appreciate your perspective and you've made me think. I'm just pointing out a qualifying detail that you appear to be dismissing too quickly in my opinion.

My point is not that any of this is right, it is a psychological one - we have an innate desire on some level to protect our own women. I just broaden this to mean "the women in our tribe", and point out that even if that means we personally die and our brother is the one to perpetuate the genetic line, the tribe is still preserved. This is why men are willing to do risky things like fight wars, and don't expect their womenfolk to be the ones to take up the guns. Following your logic to the extreme, we would fight by training and arming our women and sending them out as our own private army, instead of learning to fight as men and take the risk on ourselves. That is not how normal men's brains work.

If our natural inclination is to be the ones that do the fighting, how would that gell with your affirmation that the ideal system is for the man to be preserved at all costs? I think you're hypothesising in fantasyland and are ignoring critical realities.

Nevertheless, your thinking has prompted my thinking, and shifted my viewpoint to a degree, just not to the extreme position you are at.

 

[MemeFan]

I'm not vehemently defending this. I appreciate your perspective and you've made me think. I'm just pointing out a qualifying detail that you appear to be dismissing too quickly in my opinion.

My point is not that any of this is right, it is a psychological one - we have an innate desire on some level to protect our own women. I just broaden this to mean "the women in our tribe", and point out that even if that means we personally die and our brother is the one to perpetuate the genetic line, the tribe is still preserved. This is why men are willing to do risky things like fight wars, and don't expect their womenfolk to be the ones to take up the guns. Following your logic to the extreme, we would fight by training and arming our women and sending them out as our own private army, instead of learning to fight as men and take the risk on ourselves. That is not how normal men's brains work.

If our natural inclination is to be the ones that do the fighting, how would that gell with your affirmation that the ideal system is for the man to be preserved at all costs? I think you're hypothesising in fantasyland and are ignoring critical realities.

Nevertheless, your thinking has prompted my thinking, and shifted my viewpoint to a degree, just not to the extreme position you are at.

But @Keith Martin has right.

In Ancient Greece colonization was always done by men. They would marry local girls.

And even if polis was destroyed, it matters which sex survived. If men are killed, women are absorbed into another polis. If women are killed, polis identity can be preserved by men taking new wives (voluntary or not).

So it's men who matter more for preservation of group identity. And women more for numbers.

 

[Keith Martin]

A facebook post went something like Men spoil women and then complain about the spoiled women
(Feminists being the spoiled women)

This, to me, is a crushing critique, because it points back to the fact that men (men who design the culture to subjugate other men, and men who reward women for the very things those men complain about) are responsible for the bulk of women's misbehavior -- and men are thus predominantly responsible for the dysfunction of individual cultures for one reason: failure to implement the mandate of headship.

Some women will, over time, learn the balance. The rest aren’t my problem.

My reply was that men would prefer that they didn’t become spoiled.

To fail to become part of the solution is to remain part of the problem.

Preferring that women don't become spoiled is private thought -- and thus lacking all power other than to the extent that it has the potential to inspire the thinker to call himself to action at a later time. In the interim, it reinforces impotence.

Another way to put this is to offer up the following dilemma: we can ask men if they want women to be spoiled or want women to not be spoiled. The poll would be heavily weighed toward men saying they want women not to be spoiled. But the respondents would, on the whole, be lying. Why? Because words about wants are meaningless as compared to actions about wants, and actions indicate desire for the spoiling. The only true way to measure what a human being wants is to identify what things, conditions and relationships that human being already possesses, combined with whatever tangible evidence exists that that human being is dedicatedly striving to acquire those material, philosophical and relational possessions. What one says s/he wants is vacuous.

What we men possess is a culture in which women are not only spoiled; they are rapidly decaying to the point of being rotten -- and it's predominantly not their fault. It is the fault of men. The evidence is that, as men, we actually prefer our women to be spoiled, and the evidence underlying that very reasonable conclusion is that men continue to provide women with reinforcement for being spoiled rotten, and, perhaps even more insidiously, men continue to excuse other men who reward women for misbehavior.

Chivalry -- especially unearned chivalry -- is part of that reward system. Chivalry is an excellent method of virtue signaling. Chivalry is also an excellent tactic of invalidating competing men in the eyes of potential rival lovers. But chivalry reinforces a system in which women are treated as idols, men are treated as subservient and expendable, and our ruling class overlords keep all of us right where they want us: gratefully begging for scraps.

 

[Keith Martin]

we have an innate desire on some level to protect our own women. I just broaden this to mean "the women in our tribe

As long as you add this caveat -- and 'tribe' is used in its historical meaning as a decentralized cohesive unit with clear codes of ownership and hierarchy -- then I would agree that that is to a large extent innate. Protecting women and children writ large is almost entirely a taught behavior -- and is one that benefits women at the expense of both men and the children. It's the definition of gynocentrism.

Following your logic to the extreme, we would fight by training and arming our women and sending them out as our own private army, instead of learning to fight as men and take the risk on ourselves.

You'll have to demonstrate the logic chain that would validate your assertion that my logic led to such a conclusion, because I see no way that I could ever assert something such as that.

how would that gell with your affirmation that the ideal system is for the man to be preserved at all costs?

Complex (i.e., unanswerable) question, because this is a non sequiter, given that I never asserted that men should be preserved at all costs. Your straw man assumes that, because I don't believe women and children should be preserved at all costs that I believe men should be preserved at all costs.

 

[Keith Martin]

But @Keith Martin has right.

In Ancient Greece colonization was always done by men. They would marry local girls.

And even if polis was destroyed, it matters which sex survived. If men are killed, women are absorbed into another polis. If women are killed, polis identity can be preserved by men taking new wives (voluntary or not).

So it's men who matter more for preservation of group identity. And women more for numbers.

Amen -- and, given their general inability to be independent (which includes everything from inability to pioneer or innovate to inability to resist the desire to seek approval) -- prioritizing women over men leads to devolution of culture.

Look around, right?

 

[MemeFan]

This, to me, is a crushing critique, because it points back to the fact that men (men who design the culture to subjugate other men, and men who reward women for the very things those men complain about) are responsible for the bulk of women's misbehavior -- and men are thus predominantly responsible for the dysfunction of individual cultures for one reason: failure to implement the mandate of headship.

You made error here. Culture isn't designed. Nobody is planning from above for our interactions are supposed to go.

Culture is created through interactions, not imposed.

 

[Keith Martin]

You made error here. Culture isn't designed. Nobody is planning from above for our interactions are supposed to go.

Culture is created through interactions, not imposed.

You are one of my favorite writers here, @MemeFan, because you challenge one to think whether you're enlightened or just speculating, but I believe you are naïve in this regard if you really believe this.

Culture is, yes, to a certain extent, simply a collective reflection of the net interactions of everyone within a group, but that is only one dynamic -- and not the most determinative.

It is impossible to divorce the existence of a culture from the degree to which differential levels of power among a culture's members affect the full nature of the culture. If this weren't true, no such thing as an empire or a dominant and/or stable culture could ever come into existence, because the culture would be subject to willy-nilly democratic shifting based on the whims of the moment. There is always a complex social contract, and no amount of utopianism has ever produced a set of circumstances within which everyone gets an equal vote.

That is why simple Ideas (such as the collections of ideas produced by the Ancient Greek philosophers) could eventually come to dominate our modern Western cultures. What were first just ideas were combined with the limited power to dominate others to purposefully amass incrementally-greater power through shifting authority from decentralized patriarchal tribes to centralized family-fracturing local, national and even global governments. This was cemented in place in the 5th century AD when Constantine, various Bishops and the Early Church Fathers conspired to refashion both government and the religion centered around the Gospels of Christ and Paul into something that made Constantine the Holy Emperor of Eurasia, as well as ensuring that citizens could escape neither subjugation by State nor subjugation by Church.

We remain under that double-bitted yoke.

[It is why Christendom remains fractured and dominated by warring factions of Condemnation Churchianity that has most 'Christians' hypnotized to believe that we're just Doing What Jesus Would Do when it's actually the case that a great deal of the manner in which the early, decentralized Body of believers conducted business was suppressed by Constantine's Conquest, to be replaced by what Christendom has ever since predominantly perpetuated: an unholy brew of 1/3 Christianity and 2/3 paganism -- dominated by re-elevating works over faith.]

The manner in which members of a culture form and conduct relationships does have a great impact on that culture, but the existence of any coercive governmental or organized-religion structure within that culture will always trump just what types of relationships members of the culture will be permitted to engage in without fear of punishment -- because the vast number of women and a significant minority of men will always tend towards exhibiting the characteristics of sheep.

 

[frederick]

Chivalry is also an excellent tactic of invalidating competing men in the eyes of potential rival lovers. But chivalry reinforces a system in which women are treated as idols, men are treated as subservient and expendable, and our ruling class overlords keep all of us right where they want us: gratefully begging for scraps.

If by chivalry you mean the courteous behaviour of a man toward a woman, then I would disagree. In 1 Peter 3:7 we read, Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. For the man who fails to treat his woman as someone precious to him, a delicate object, there are serious consequences in his own prayerful relationship with God. My wives have not become idols to me because I open doors for them and carry the heavy stuff when we leave the supermarket. On the contrary, I am obeying the Word of God and have enjoyed His favour (c.f. Proverbs 18:22). Shalom brother.

 

[Keith Martin]

If by chivalry you mean the courteous behaviour of a man toward a woman

Unfortunately, chivalry comprehensively means far more than just courtesy. Chivalry requires elevating females to a position superior to males, requiring, for example, getting on one's knee to beg for acceptance of a wedding proposal, sealing the deal/subservience with the purchase of a gemstone ring a woman can display to demonstrate her value, and basically ensuring that a wife be treated with at least mutual submission but preferably full deference. Chivalry is a self-contradictory arrangement that requires men to protect women from the natural consequences of their inferiorities while giving them equality of status as if they bring equal value to all circumstances. Chivalry also demands that women be free from criticism, because holding women accountable is consistently treated as ill-conceived bad manners. Chivalry perpetuates the dysfunctional dynamic combining (a) women having full authority with little responsibility, with (b) men having full responsibility with only partial authority.

Also, please remember that my thoughts in this thread are only directed to:

• Single women who suffer from Female Independence Delusion and behave as if they're entitled to free services from Partial Husbands.
• Married women who behave as Partial Wives while feeling entitled to expecting their men to function as Full Husbands.
• The men who reward women for falling into either of the above two categories.
• Those men who design and perpetuate systems that promote any of the previous three.

In my viewpoint, it is entirely appropriate to do heavy lifting for one's women -- but only if they can be trusted to demonstrate reciprocity in regard to behaving appropriately as women, respecting and demonstrating gratitude for their men's headship.

 

[frederick]

Unfortunately, chivalry comprehensively means far more than just courtesy. Chivalry requires elevating females to a position superior to males, requiring, for example, getting on one's knee to beg for acceptance of a wedding proposal, sealing the deal/subservience with the purchase of a gemstone ring a woman can display to demonstrate her value, and basically ensuring that a wife be treated with at least mutual submission but preferably full deference. Chivalry is a self-contradictory arrangement that requires men to protect women from the natural consequences of their inferiorities while giving them equality of status as if they bring equal value to all circumstances. Chivalry also demands that women be free from criticism, because holding women accountable is consistently treated as ill-conceived bad manners. Chivalry perpetuates the dysfunctional dynamic combining (a) women having full authority with little responsibility, with (b) men having full responsibility with only partial authority.

Also, please remember that my thoughts in this thread are only directed to:

• Single women who suffer from Female Independence Delusion and behave as if they're entitled to free services from Partial Husbands.
• Married women who behave as Partial Wives while feeling entitled to expecting their men to function as Full Husbands.
• The men who reward women for falling into either of the above two categories.
• Those men who design and perpetuate systems that promote any of the previous three.

In my viewpoint, it is entirely appropriate to do heavy lifting for one's women -- but only if they can be trusted to demonstrate reciprocity in regard to behaving appropriately as women, respecting and demonstrating gratitude for their men's headship.

We understand the use of the word differently. Cheers

 

[MemeFan]

You are one of my favorite writers here, @MemeFan, because you challenge one to think whether you're enlightened or just speculating, but I believe you are naïve in this regard if you really believe this.

Culture is, yes, to a certain extent, simply a collective reflection of the net interactions of everyone within a group, but that is only one dynamic -- and not the most determinative.

It is impossible to divorce the existence of a culture from the degree to which differential levels of power among a culture's members affect the full nature of the culture. If this weren't true, no such thing as an empire or a dominant and/or stable culture could ever come into existence, because the culture would be subject to willy-nilly democratic shifting based on the whims of the moment. There is always a complex social contract, and no amount of utopianism has ever produced a set of circumstances within which everyone gets an equal vote.

That is why simple Ideas (such as the collections of ideas produced by the Ancient Greek philosophers) could eventually come to dominate our modern Western cultures. What were first just ideas were combined with the limited power to dominate others to purposefully amass incrementally-greater power through shifting authority from decentralized patriarchal tribes to centralized family-fracturing local, national and even global governments. This was cemented in place in the 5th century AD when Constantine, various Bishops and the Early Church Fathers conspired to refashion both government and the religion centered around the Gospels of Christ and Paul into something that made Constantine the Holy Emperor of Eurasia, as well as ensuring that citizens could escape neither subjugation by State nor subjugation by Church.

We remain under that double-bitted yoke.

[It is why Christendom remains fractured and dominated by warring factions of Condemnation Churchianity that has most 'Christians' hypnotized to believe that we're just Doing What Jesus Would Do when it's actually the case that a great deal of the manner in which the early, decentralized Body of believers conducted business was suppressed by Constantine's Conquest, to be replaced by what Christendom has ever since predominantly perpetuated: an unholy brew of 1/3 Christianity and 2/3 paganism -- dominated by re-elevating works over faith.]

The manner in which members of a culture form and conduct relationships does have a great impact on that culture, but the existence of any coercive governmental or organized-religion structure within that culture will always trump just what types of relationships members of the culture will be permitted to engage in without fear of punishment -- because the vast number of women and a significant minority of men will always tend towards exhibiting the characteristics of sheep.

I'm aware that power massively influences culture. Some changes are imposed by above.

I just don't believe that state is more powerful than market. Markets being move powerful than state is implicit belief of libertaniasm, otherwise state could reorder and shape human society as per it's will.

 

[FollowingHim]

So it's men who matter more for preservation of group identity. And women more for numbers.

Excellent observation.

So which matters more?

To throw a cat in with the pigeons - does group identity even matter at all? Does humanity gain much if anything from retaining multiple group identities, or gain more from having more people?

 

[Keith Martin]

We understand the use of the word differently. Cheers

Which I take to mean we generally agree on philosophy, etc. To the extent that we use the word chivalrous to indicate that women need our protection, you and I are on the same page.

 

[Keith Martin]

Excellent observation.

So which matters more?

To throw a cat in with the pigeons - does group identity even matter at all? Does humanity gain much if anything from retaining multiple group identities, or gain more from having more people?

False choice, unfortunately.

But I think you're pointing in the right direction, Samuel. The answer to what you may be driving at, though, may be reflected by learning which particular human being on Earth post Noah's offspring has the most descendants.

 

[MemeFan]

Excellent observation.

So which matters more?

To throw a cat in with the pigeons - does group identity even matter at all? Does humanity gain much if anything from retaining multiple group identities, or gain more from having more people?

You need both.

Numbers, or bigger neighbors will eliminate us. And more numbers are needed for spreading over planet and space.

Identity, because we are in-group beings and are only willing to sacrifice for in-group.

And more groups does weaken any tyranny. World government would need to homogenize all humanity for easier management.

This looks to be to be optimization problem. Here exist no exact answer what is better, but there areas which are too bad.

 

[Keith Martin]

Related:

Mariolatry and Gyneolatry

The following quotes deal directly with lay Christian culture’s slow descent into the gyneolatry as exemplified in many modern Churches. In a nutshell, the historical focus of Christendom evo…

gynocentrism.com

 

[Keith Martin]

Also related:

 

[Keith Martin]

Rollo Tomassi on Sunday describing the difference in expectations for men and women, boys and girls, that explain why egalitarianism is nonsense: "Men have to become; women just are."

I recommend watching at least until the part during which Tomassi discusses the movie Whiplash -- and also highly recommend watching the movie itself. It will test your commitment to the concept of relentlessness.

 

[steve]

Rollo Tomassi on Sunday describing the difference in expectations for men and women, boys and girls, that explain why egalitarianism is nonsense: "Men have to become; women just are."

I recommend watching at least until the part during which Tomassi discusses the movie Whiplash -- and also highly recommend watching the movie itself. It will test your commitment to the concept of relentlessness.

“Responsibility without authority is slavery.”

Yup

Add: Now I see why video games are so important to impotent young males.
It’s the only way that they have to be in fights.
It’s obvious once you see it, I just hadn’t.