This is the slamdunk, homerun post for this discussion about females and species resilience.
A very important insight into decentralization and also the need remove the female monopoly on reproduction is near the end of this post.Someone sent this Redditard link, so I thought it contained some eloquent explanations which could be helpful here.
My assertion is that women do not vote to do what is best for society, civilization, and for children but rather they exercise power over society to try to create a society that is best for themselves in the very short term. I assert that women will vote for socialism and communism every time.
This occurs because women have inherent biological value. Meanwhile men must create all of their value. This is sometimes called male disposability. It manifests itself in the pussy pass, white knighting behavior, women (and children) first, etc... If you have two homeless transients, a man and a woman, the woman is worth more then the man. The woman will be assisted more. She has more value because she has a womb.
Men do not have any value. Men must create all of their value and once they are not creating any value they are basically worthless. Nothing is going to change this biological reality. We can paper over it artificially.
Over time in history men have worked together under patriarchal structures to create an excess of value in order to pass this on to their children. Women have given birth to the children and raised them. Eventually a society reaches a point where there is such an excess of value created by our parents and grandparents that we can create a safety net.
This is when women strike. Women, in general, do not understand that men do not have inherent value. Women grow up and see that they have inherent value and, in their solipsistic nature, they believe, falsely, that men also have inherent value. Women have no understanding of life as a man.
The truly dangerous ones are the ones who recognize that men are disposable and believe that this can be changed. Currently the people who subscribe to that theory are the men's rights activists. I have yet to see any coherent argument, or even intelligent discussion, about how we are going to give men inherent value outside of a patriarchal structure to use social mores, norms, and enforceable laws, to grant them value artificially. This is typically called misogyny.
Here is one way I think about it. I was watching Big Hero 6 with my children last night. In chapter 15 the little boy is flying on the robots back. The robot is acting as the boys patriarchal figure (father, in this case) and protecting the boy while flying him through a field of debris. The boy trusts the robot and can just go along for the ride and have fun. He closes his eyes and trusts the robot. The robot has to maneuver the debris and keep them safe. This is how civilization evolved. The women clings to her patriarch (husband) and the man navigates the mine field. Eventually men produce enough to create a safety net below them. They also start to remove the debris. Pretty soon the woman is wondering why she needs the man at all because there isn't any more debris to run into and there is a safety net below her.
Women want to fly on their own. Flying on their own is what is best for them in their lives, so long as the sky is free of debris and there is a safety net underneath them. They get to fly around and not get burned. It is best for them right then. In their selfish nature women will always vote to fly on their own.
This, of course, may be fun for those women but it leads to communism. Someone realizes that the only reason that the debris is gone is because men cleared it and the only reason the safety net is below them is because men created it. If the men are left alone, if they don't have a woman clinging to them, then they have no incentive to keep the sky free of debris and to keep that safety net in place.
Civilization begins to crumble. Debris starts to show back up. The net begins to fray....
Well women can vote now. So they vote to force the men to clear the debris and to keep that safety net in place. Taxes. Child support quotas. Bachelor taxes. etc...
But women can't do this alone. So they use the "best for the children" argument and play up on chivalry to get men to enter captain save a ho mode. They cry out to men and activate the man's white knighting behavior and say, "save me and my children!". So men vote for the taxes. For the child support quotas. For imprisoning men who do not meet their quotas. For bachelor taxes. For more government to force men to clear the debris and force men to keep that safety net in place.
They vote for communism. We all know that communism does not work. It creates perverse incentives for men to not work hard so that they do not get assigned a high quota to fill. Because if they don't fill that quota they will be put into prison. Men also do not need to work hard to clear the debris and fix that safety net, to invest into the future and to build civilization. The government does that, right? Through taxation and quotas. Through wealth redistribution. Through creating perverse incentives. Through communism.
Women fool themselves into believing various things. That women will be able to clear the debris and fix the safety net, while they give birth to children, and that men, since they have no inherent value, have no value at all. Women can do the work of the men instead. Or perhaps they believe that men will be happy being slaves to the government and fulfilling their quotas. We call these women feminists. Women, once freed to fly alone, something they only want when the sky is clear of debris and the net is below them, do not fly around and keep the sky clear of debris. They do not fly down into the sewers and keep that net strong. No they flitter from cloud to cloud living in paradise fucking the hottest alpha men they can find.
And it works for a generation or two. Then men catch on and stop working hard. Why should they? The government goes deep into debt to continue financing the clearing of debris and the safety net. We all know where this leads. That is why we post here. Just as we all know that we are already deeply into this situation and that things are not going to be corrected. Rather we can not even get the majority of the population to pull their heads out of the cathedral's ass long enough to realize that there is a problem. They are too busy worshiping their new Gods. They are too busy trying to get their statistics to tell them that blacks and women are equal by forcing white men out of school and good jobs.
Meanwhile the men start to go their own way. There are no longer women clinging to them so they care far less if they happen to run into any debris. They optimize their lives to avoid the debris as much as possible and to survive running into it. Not in clearing the debris and preventing any from building up. They optimize their lives to not fly very high because the net below them is a net to catch women, who have value even when they fall. Men who fall have lost all their value. No one cares about them. Besides who are they flying high for? There is no woman clinging to them. They will fly high enough for themselves and themselves alone.
The bond between men and women produces more men & women. The bond among men has produced civilization, science, society and everything else we now know and rely on. The bond among women? It has produced nothing - because there can be no such bond between instinctually Machiavellian people, the vast majority of which lack the capacity for anything beyond deception and manipulation.
These traits are exacerbated in the workplace. Men talk about and identify themselves through their work & achievements. Women talk about and identify their work through themselves & their feelings. This is why EO, "diversity" or quotas will never make women earn as much as men. This is not a post bashing or putting down women, it is simply about reality. Men use discipline to make the most of their intellect and physical capacity while women use deception and manipulation to make the most of their fertility - for it is the only asset they posses.
Then I would argue that due to women having such a massively higher inherent biological value over men that they are (almost) always going to be extracting more benefits from society then they pay in taxes and that they will have an easy time getting men to support wealth redistribution to them.
Sure, while that's true, we shouldn't forget that the world has changed.
...for now.
Reality has not changed, our fundamental biology has not changed, social breakdown happens, civilizations rise and fall, this is not The End of History etc etc.
Occasionally things happen that remind us of that. I remember watching footage of the sinking of the Costa Concordia, in particular a man with his terrified wife and small children on one of the evacuation decks. The man sees an old women fall down maybe 15 feet away from him, and he goes to help... Just as he starts to move his wife's hand shoots out and grabs his, I've never seen a look or tone with as much venom as when his wife says,
"don't you dare leave us."
No doubt she was one of these enlightened career woman egalitarian liberal types, but the second the chips were down she reverted to damsel in distress mode, all pretences of equality disappeared.
The curious thing about most progressive ideas is how so many of us actually fell for them when we were younger, only to then begin to suspect them, finally realizing that at the very beginning these ideas were wrong. We were wrong to accept them in the first place; there must have been something wrong with the idea itself to begin with. A curious thing to think about, this phenomenon.
In response to your first paragraph women (and wombs/vaginas) clearly are living capital for any society and no matter what any intention anyone has a market is going to form around that capital.
The sex market will form. Intelligent societies will use their influence to alter this market into a relationship/marriage market and use it to increase productivity of the members of that society.
No matter how loudly anyone complains and no matter what anyone does as a sexually dimorphic species with women being the limiting factor in reproduction a sexual market place is going to form. The fact that almost no one is even capable of having anything resembling an intelligent discussion about this massive economic market is shameful.
It's like we believe that if we just ignore the sexual market then we can pretend like women are not "bought and sold" every day.Some good insights in this post, but you lost me when mentioning MGTOW - basically just radical MRAs who have some laughable John Galt fantasy.
Regarding the last comment above:
I’m trying to influence you to be a bit jaded, but not totally so.
There’s still virtue (i.e. method in the madness) in the process which will fleece so many. Remember the big fish don’t control the climate or what we eat for breakfast (i.e.
the minions matter but only decentralized, they’re never organized).
Here’s
one philosophical stance:
[…]
Apparently nature needs the localized failure so evolution is antifragile (constantly annealing to avoid commitment to top-down error). Perhaps rather than be disappointed, we should just see it for what it is and adapt accordingly within the limitations of our personal time horizons and such.
COMMENT: Within 24 hours, German companies are demanding tax cuts to compete with the Trump tax cuts. They realize what you have been saying. The USA will suck in all the business with a low corporate tax rate and they cannot compete.
KL from Germany
REPLY: Following the approval in the US Senate for the Trump tax reform, alarm bells are blaring from the German economy. The industry association BDI has come out and already warned on Sunday no less that there will be massive disadvantages for European companies. It is fundamental. The more you raise taxes, the higher the unemployment, and the lower the economic growth. But if you are a politician, it puts more money in your pocket. So they act only in self-interest.
Those countries which do not engage in structural reforms in corporate taxation will watch their economies implode over time. It will be a very hard time ahead into 2021.
And females vote for the rich to steal from society because they’re just
selfishly interested in being deluded into have their playing “field cleared of debris” (aka financing their hypergamy):
Obama took the budget in his first year from a $459 billion deficit to $1,413 billion and that was OK. His deficits dramatically increased the national debt in his first four years 400% times greater than the Trump tax cut. So why do these people hate tax cuts and constantly point to the rich?
As long as the socialists are taking bribes from the rich and the money goes out the back-door, that is OK because it is not in your face. As soon as we talk about giving the people a DIRECT tax break, then the socialists just cannot stand letting the people actually benefit directly just for once.
That’s not to say weak men can’t also be deluded into voting for socialism, but the strong men can cull the weak men efficiently when the State doesn’t have a monopoly on the use of violence/force (re-read this post, the men are disposable, so entirely natural for nature to cull weak men and ill-fit species):
Men are far more likely than women to identify as Independent, Libertarian, or Republican. The 27% of voting US men that identify as "Democrat" are most likely on welfare, are blacks, gays, or lifetime communists. Obviously, nobody who is on welfare should be allowed to vote, because they will just vote for more of it. This is common sense, just as we do not allow prisoners to vote.
Species do become stagnant, yet man is evolving faster with culture+technology so discussions about culture are extremely important:
"The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.
"Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer. The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago, when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. Cultural evolution is not Darwinian. Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, as Homo sapiens domesticates the new biotechnology, we are reviving the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.
Dear Richard Dawkins,
Thank you for the E-mail that you sent to John Brockman, saying that I had made a "school-boy howler" when I said that Darwinian evolution was a competition between species rather than between individuals. You also said I obviously had not read The Selfish Gene. In fact I did read your book and disagreed with it for the following reasons.
Here are two replies to your E-mail. The first was a verbal response made immediately when Brockman read your E-mail aloud at a meeting of biologists at his farm. The second was written the following day after thinking more carefully about the question.
First response. What I wrote is not a howler and Dawkins is wrong. Species once established evolve very little, and the big steps in evolution mostly occur at speciation events when new species appear with new adaptations. The reason for this is that the rate of evolution of a population is roughly proportional to the inverse square root of the population size. So big steps are most likely when populations are small, giving rise to the ``punctuated equilibrium'' that is seen in the fossil record. The competition is between the new species with a small population adapting fast to new conditions and the old species with a big population adapting slowly.
Second response. It is absurd to think that group selection is less important than individual selection. Consider for example Dodo A and Dodo B, competing for mates and progeny in the dodo population on Mauritius. Dodo A competes much better and has greater fitness, as measured by individual selection. Dodo A mates more often and has many more grandchildren than Dodo B. A hundred years later, the species is extinct and the fitness of A and B are both reduced to zero. Selection operating at the species level trumps selection at the individual level. Selection at the species level wiped out both A and B because the species neglected to maintain the ability to fly, which was essential to survival when human predators appeared on the island. This situation is not peculiar to dodos. It arises throughout the course of evolution, whenever environmental changes cause species to become extinct.
In my opinion, both these responses are valid, but the second one goes more directly to the issue that divides us. Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson.
The quote above is the 180 IQ Freeman Dyson dismantling Richard Dawkins. Dawkins got into the
same debate with EO Wilson.
The female of any species is there to preserve the [Darwinian] genetic mutations that take place in the male of the species.
So thus we can clearly see the emancipated females are the antithesis of human post-Darwinian evolution! Fuck! Why hasn’t anyone else pointed this out!
This is an amazing biological/evolutionary insight into why women can’t be allowed to be emancipated, unless they can be devalued (i.e. unless we can replace their monopoly on reproduction such as with artificial wombs)! Wow.
Female monopoly on reproduction + State monopoly on violence = male productivity decimated to emulating
Jeremy Meeks and Ivy League Cathedral Corrupt Junk Science
With artificial wombs (or any strategy with the same effect which are strategies I had been giving much thought lately), the value equation changes. Women become more disposable too. So then men are no longer competing for a scarce resource of pussy. I need to think out how this would change everything. Forcing women to compete in a meritocracy of cultural change and removing the incentive for men to compete for pussy, would unleash the genetic stability of the species whilst also enabling a faster and move diverse rate of cultural evolution. It would annihilate the concept of a State and help foster decentralization. But without any scarce genetic resource, are men still motivated to compete and be productive? As long as we still have the scarce resource of eggs (i.e. if we can’t manufacture babies without eggs), then women are still more valuable then men, but less valuable than they are now where they are tied up for 9+ months with each child. Women would extract less from society per egg born to a baby. Given the power-law distribution of the productivity of men, some men could pay much more for eggs than other men, and presumably they would choose to annihilate the State, thus women would be in a free market where they want to sell their eggs to the highest bidder because the weak males and the State can’t match the bid. So presumably women would refuse to mate with nor sell eggs to the beta males. Females would still have the ancestral hindbrain evolutionary desire to have their eggs matched with their perception of the most alpha genetics, but the amount of money paid per egg would be an indicator of alpha. The alpha males would need to collect semen from the beta males and use it to keep the genetic diversity of the species high. Women would presumably also take jobs as nannies for children. IOW, everything about reproduction moves towards overt capitalism. Men with the most wealth will control the rearing of offspring. Wow! I like this! Beta males have to compete in a meritocracy. Women have to compete. Everything becomes market based. The sick cycle of socialism is defeated? Note though that once sufficiently well funded, females are then likely to revert to hindbrain driven impregnation by PUAs, yet at least they’re paying for it with what they had to first earn from the meritocracy of true alphamales!
In the meantime, however, as I have pointed out, if my government actually represented me, heritage white Americans, then our immigration policy would be simple:
All white women under 35 may come and get immediate permanent status.
No men may come.
Period.
We can “conquer” the other tribes and take their women without trying."
He is incorrect. He has a very myopic and simplistic analysis.
If our government actually represented the people, then there would be no USA. I mean he does not even get the foundational concepts right.
The entire rest of the world would be different also if the power vacuum of democracy had actually been avoidable. I do not like listening to such losers who fail to grasp reality. Total waste of time.
There’s no glory in presuming the 1950s were sustainable in any way. We have to live in the reality of our time and what is. That sort of thinking is a trap.
I think you’re still hoping to build a patriarchal white society on the scale of a country, that is not subjugated to the will of the Zionists. I say that’s impossible.
Our strength is decentralization technology and not some large political-economics morass. My last post in the DE thread is about for example how decentralized reproductive technology may enable us to side-step the current entitlement of females which is destroying us.
I want to think of viable strategies, not just wax nostalgia run off to Armenia while it all burns down then eventually catches up to Armenia also. We need a paradigm shift. Nostalgia about what did not work will not work.
I pasted it here as an interesting approach to changing the balance of power between men and women. What would the US look like with such an immigration policy? It's a thought experiment.
The USA could never have such an immigration policy.
I’m not trying to criticize you per se. That is not my focus. My focus is on not wasting time on thought experiments which are silly.
I want to read about real plans and thought experiments which are implementable. Unrealistic theory is not going to make me wealthy and immortal. Offspring = immortality.
I’m just more aggressive than you about actually being ready to try some outlandish solution. You’re more interested in enjoying the time you have even if it’s not really going to win in the long run. But I might also throw in the towel and just enjoy some years of my remaining life.
Poll
