Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Remember, a person can only see what they are predisposed to see…”

And what do you see . . .

“When your car breaks down on the highway…do you blame the car or do you blame the manufacturer?”

. . . with your eyes wide shut.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

Think of the horrible manipulation of Job…tortured in two separate and distinct phases so Jehovah could prove a point to Satan. So much of his life and family destroyed…but its ok say the apologists…everything is restored twofold after the torture is complete! Lol. Members of his family are DEAD. He has endured financial ruin and amazing physical torture including leprosy and boils. But its ok; the point has been made! I always tell people that the last thing you want to let Jehovah see is your happiness…because there is nothing in this universe Jehovah hates more than a happy person.… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

KFG writes:

>And what do you see . . .

I am not an atheist; I am a misotheist towards Jehovah.

However, there are other Gods that I have great affection for…it is unlikely that Their Names would be known to you.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

“How can genuine love be born of a command? No one can be commanded to love anyone…you can be commanded to behave in an obedient fashion…but no command in the world or the celestial sphere will elicit genuine love & emotional affection. Things are often not what they seem…but ingrained attitudes that have been fed to you since birth are not easily tossed aside 20 to 30 years later.” Yeah, that’s why red pill awareness is a praxeology, not an ideology. And why you don’t understand the tenets of this blog. That’s why Rollo lectures on red pill awareness. “Remember,… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

>So, Karen , save your bullshits. All your adolescent thoughts are in Google search.
>

Clean your tongue male.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

>And generates indifference to her comments.

Lolz.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

yawn

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“I am not an atheist; I am a misotheist towards Jehovah.”

You are also non sequitur.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

SJFf writes:
>yawn

If that constitutes a general physiological reaction that you are currently experiencing…I have no need to be made cognizant of it.

If, however that constitutes some type of vehicle for conveying the distress you are experiencing by my revelation of reality to you…but you are too proud to admit it and need to fashion a condescending one word dismissal of my thought; well, then I have even less need to know of it.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

KFG writes

>You are also non sequitur.

That can be applied as an adjective when describing the nature of a point or series of points and arguments…I have never heard of it being applied to a person.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“…I have never heard of it . . .”

Q.E.D.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

Keister says:

So, Karen , save your bullshits. All your adolescent thoughts are in Google search.
>

I do my own reading and my own research. I formulate my own opinions…from a brief review of your oeuvre I can quickly determine that I had more intelligence in utero than you had at the apex of your existence.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

KFG writes:

>Q.E.D.

Give me a citation from an reputable online repository of language and make your case…if I am in error…I will be the wiser thereafter.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

“I have no need to be made cognizant of it.

….well, then I have even less need to know of it.”

Yes. You do.

A non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it. A non sequitur joke has no explanation, but it reflects the idiosyncrasies, mental frames and alternative world of the particular comic persona.

I prefer to think of non sequiturs as nouns.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

It is both a noun and an adjective.

However the crux of the matter is not whether or not it is one or the other…but whether it can be appropriately used to describe a person.

You might say a person’s writing style is “non sequitur”…but the person themselves would never fall under the ambit of such castigation.

Thus your attempt to inveigh against me has fallen flat…as have all attempts by all Your Brothers.

keyser Soze
Guest
keyser Soze
Offline

@Karen.
I’d be VERY worried had you told me I was intelligent.

Softek
Guest
Softek
Offline

@ Rollo

Seems that way. Pretty bizarre.

My brain is still trying to recover from skimming over all those comments and not being able to make rational sense out of any of them.

“I had more intelligence in utero than you had at the apex of your existence”

Fucking lol. Reminds me of that “You haven’t seen my final form” drugged out chick who broke a window at a McDonald’s because they ran out of Chicken McNuggets.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Rollo:

In the last go round I alluded to the fact that I was testing that very hypothesis by inviting her/it to play the game outside those parameters, at a level that requires both understanding and creativity.

She/it failed.

This go round she/it made a statement that prima facie displayed a lack of understanding. It could have been a stereotypical female lack of understanding however (chics may dig the car, but they know squat all about it), so I extended the invitation again.

And it’s like trying to hold a conversation with a deck of flash cards.

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Karen – your comments on the Abrahamic religions – there was this French guy – Rene Girard (died just recently) who had some interesting ideas about what original religious systems were actually for – an organized system to deal with the social consequences of the human addiction to “mimetic desire”, and that Judaism was a response to the social consequences of the “scapegoat sacrifice” so-sponsored by the earlier religious systems, and that Christianity was a response to the social consequences of the monotheism so-sponsored by Judaism (the social consequences stemming from the type of difficulties you have alluded to above),… Read more »

Radium
Guest
Radium
Offline

@ Rollo “I’m beginning to wonder if “Karen” isn’t some kind of experimental AI bot programmed to post replies it thinks are relevant from related meta terms and algorithms it finds on a test site or discussion thread.” Karen’s posts remind me of the Deepak Chopra random quote generator linked below. She uses big words and seemingly complex ideas, but there is nothing there when you look at what she’s saying. It’s a combination of female sophism and attention whoring with a some male shaming thrown in for good measure. She flutters around changing topics before anyone can call her… Read more »

Radium
Guest
Radium
Offline

@ Rollo “I’m beginning to wonder if “Karen” isn’t some kind of experimental AI bot programmed to post replies it thinks are relevant from related meta terms and algorithms it finds on a test site or discussion thread.” Karen’s posts remind me of the Deepak Chopra random quote generator linked below. She uses big words and seemingly complex ideas, but there is nothing there when you look at what she’s saying. It’s a combination of female sophism and attention whoring with a some male shaming thrown in for good measure. She flutters around changing topics before anyone can call her… Read more »

Yollo Comanche
Guest
Yollo Comanche
Offline

@EC

“Which Studies?”

Women’s Studies.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

TOP. Women’s. Studies.

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline
LeeLee
Guest
LeeLee
Offline

@EC: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154685/stay-home-moms-report-depression-sadness-anger.aspx

It does say that 55% of SAHMs would describe themselves as “thriving”, so it’s hardly some kind of expose of how awful staying at home is. However, a higher number of working mom’s describe themselves that way.

Depression was 28% for the SAHMs, 17% for the working moms, and the same for working women without children.

A Definite Beta Guy
Guest

My impression of the SAHMs around here is that they rarely get out and rarely interact with other adults. This is a problem when so many women go back to work, which means the remaining SAHMs have a lot less community.

In the old days, you’d have SAHMs up and down the street and I imagine they’d socialize quite a bit.

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

@Lee Lee
This may help.
A wise man once said ;it is as if depressed people have royal blood.

http://www.healthcentral.com/depression/c/84292/117554/bad-depressed/

Ludiam0ndz
Guest
Ludiam0ndz
Offline

Re: politics, I agree it’s often pointless to discuss but I don’t hold anyone’s views against em. There’s some real gold on these threads, even from Miss Sentient once In a while and I enjoy the debate. Truth is I’m perplexed by Trumps popularity.

Karen is a great foil rollo don’t ban her! Maybe limit her to 10 comments per article?

Bachelorcles
Guest
Bachelorcles
Offline

@Radium I am a huge F-ing fan of the Great Depression / WW-II generation. My father was from tail end of that generation as were many of my aunts and uncles. When I was scoring chicks in high school, my father told me something like: “your generation isn’t special. We were having as much casual sex back in the 1940s and 1950s.” “Not only does religion attempt to restrict female sexuality, it also competes with the cult of woman as an ideology.” Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts? @LeeLee Of course SAHMs describe themselves as… Read more »

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

Crazy! Now it is never argue with a chatbot.

https://youtu.be/CORnrcUHrKw

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts?” There’s Christianity and then there’s Christianity. The Christianity of today bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the Middle Ages, which bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the 4th century, which bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the 2nd Century. What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism. That there is some absolute standard against which all humans are equal. Nobody is born high, all are fallen. Nobody is restricted from Heaven, all have access and can be exalted. In its early… Read more »

Bachelorcles
Guest
Bachelorcles
Offline

@kfg

“What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism.”

I disagree. Jesus never denounced slavery. Slavery was the norm in his day. Here’s what Peter wrote: “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” 1 Peter 2:18.

To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“. . . she blew back on here with a flurry of posts that no human would think to.”

It was the Uncanny Valley that first caught my attention.

“Karen hasn’t stopped making comments even though she is and was banned.”

That is rather suggestive.

@Bachelorcles: “Of course SAHMs describe themselves as depressed.”

And it was a frickin’ phone survey.

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Hey kfg- “What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism”

You do get it then?

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters . . .” . . . and by so doing earn your ticket to Heaven right alongside the master. It is in the soul where equality resides, not the body. “To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.” Who all came out of cultures that had been Christian for circa 1500 years. There is no objective, natural evidence for egalitarianism. Indeed everything you can observe speaks against it. Therefore the equality that… Read more »

Radium
Guest
Radium
Offline

@Bachelorcles “Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts?” A Christian coworker is having trouble with his marriage sex life. I think what has happened is Christian men are craving self sacrifice to prove their worth to God while Christian women have Christian girl power. We see this in such movements as the promise keepers. Men sacrifice. Women receive. This would be no different than what happened on the Savannas of Africa. Men sacrifice and women receive protection and resources. What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Wild Man: “You do get it then?”

We established that long ago, and long ago I asked that you to “show me.”

Pluck out our souls and place them on the balance so that I may see that they weigh the same.

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”? Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her ideas about Jehovah… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Rollo: “. . . she blew back on here with a flurry of posts that no human would think to.”

It was the Uncanny Valley that first caught my attention and prompted me to see if it could play the allusion game, rather than just cranking out stock allusions.

“Karen hasn’t stopped making comments even though she is and was banned.”

That is rather suggestive.

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

“To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.” It is quite hasty to casually refer to Locke and Jefferson as “atheist”, both would seem to have been Deists of some sort or other, as opposed to the out and out atheists of the French revo and later iterations (Bolshevik) who were pure materialists. Who all came out of cultures that had been Christian for circa 1500 years. Mm-hmm, but also all those cultures arose in the same region, west of the Hajnal line.… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”? Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her ideas about Jehovah… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Rollo – why you blocking my comments – what wrong with you?

Bachelorcles
Guest
Bachelorcles
Offline

@kfg We’ve stumbled into a very old debate that we will not resolve. Egalitarianism means equality of soul, moral equality of body, and equality under the law. Yes, the Enlightenment philosophers grew out of cultures in which the people were steeped in Christianity. But those cultures never acknowledged equality under the law. Those cultures were steeped in aristocracy, peasantry, and slavery. As I said, Jesus never condemned slavery (inequality under the law) and the Torah or Old Testament actually approves of slavery. In other words, Christianity and Judaism are perfectly compatible with inequality under the law, slavery, and aristocracy. In… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Alright trying again Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”? Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“what if the world view that leads to egalitarianism has some genetic component?”

See Watership Down and the remarkably rabbity culture of the rabbits.

See also the phenomenon known as a “Bait Ball.”

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Rollo – idea censorship! – open discussion my eye – invitation to speak your mind – bollocks – you misrepresent yourself man (this being the second time I gotta speak out about this now – hey and dismissing my commenting as spam would be idiotic, as it was the first time – don’t be an idiot).

Sentient
Guest
Sentient
Offline

Radium

Tell you friend to view xtianity via a name change – cuckstianity… It will all make so much more sense…

Bachelorcles
Guest
Bachelorcles
Offline

@Radium Great post and great points!! “What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife is the problem.” My girlfriend started nagging me this morning. So I gave her the argument she wanted, I got passionate, yelled a little, and I was a little nasty. I’m getting laid tonight!!!! @Anonymous Reader “It is quite hasty to casually refer to Locke and Jefferson as “atheist”, both would seem to have been Deists of some sort or other, as opposed to the out and out atheists of the French revo and later iterations (Bolshevik)… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“What modern equality means is equality under he law . . .”

Ergo, Loretta has the right to have a baby.

” . . . are you assuming the Creator Jefferson refers to in the Declaration is the God of the Bible?”

No. I am claiming that it did not need to be.

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

kfg, rabbits are not mice are not bluejays are not foxes, and “bait ball” appears to be universal among certain classes of fish. But egalitarianism? Originates west of the Hajnal line, not in China nor Japan, not in meso-America, not in caste-run India.

Lactose tolerance is genetic, without a doubt. What if…?

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

“What modern equality means is equality under he law . . .”

Or, in the case of Target, “equality” in the ladies bathroom…

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

Ergo, Loretta has the right to have a baby.

Yes, but what about “Caitlyn”, huh? What about her rights to have a baby?

Not trolling but pointing out the cul de sac we are heading into thanks to unlimited “rights”.

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

Radium What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife is the problem. He wants to prove how good he is, and he believes she will respond sexually to that goodness. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I tried to explain that he doesn’t have to mean to her. He just needs to start by nipping the shit tests in the bud. She’s constantly shit testing him, and he’s trying to respond rationally to her arguments. His problem most likely is that whole “Servant Leader” concept that has grown… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@AR:

Rabbits and mice are most definitely not blue jays or foxes.

““bait ball” appears to be universal among certain classes of fish.”

Which are not sharks or bass.

“But egalitarianism?”

Where is the individual in a bait ball? Your question was about a possible genetic component in egalitarianism, and I have referred to species with pronounced collectivism, as a species.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Not trolling but pointing out the cul de sac we are heading into thanks to unlimited “rights”.” With the right hand they proclaim a sheaf of rights. With the left they deny rights exist, as they are a mere social construct. And some of them put up sufficiently cogent arguments for the latter that I had to give it some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that while many of their examples are indeed mere social constructs, that does not disqualify all rights as mere social constructs. I identify exactly one, true natural right. A right that is… Read more »

Radium
Guest
Radium
Offline

The rise of equalitarianism is an interesting topic. I’ve been wondering if it has something to do with our expanding in-group size. EO Wilson’s “multi-level selection” theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans compete as both groups and individuals. Technology and perhaps capitalism has expanded the size of the in-group from perhaps a few hundred individuals to the size of entire nations. Does equalitarianism rise naturally out of an in-group with millions of individuals? Is it the same impulse that smaller groups have? I don’t have any definite ideas yet. This is just something I’ve been thinking… Read more »

Sentient
Guest
Sentient
Offline

Little reminder that everything game is not sunshine and roses… At a diner yesterday, at the counter near the register. Cute little young single mom standing there. Has a kid about 5, so figure she was preggers at 18 or so. She has tight cut offs a thigh tattoo (natch) and a ripped Nirvana t shirt. So i peg her as a tough cookie, but worth some eye game. She looks over in my direction and I hold her gaze, looking for her to break contact. And she does the thing like tilts her head forward and bugs out her… Read more »

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

It is apparent that the genetic component isn’t in egalitarianism,but rather excluded from it from the start,as egalitarianism is a philosophy not a science.

From Ambrose Undaunted Courage;”Jefferson’s attitude toward Indians was the exact opposite of his attitude toward Negroes. He thought of Indians to be noble savages-in body and mind equalto the white man.-When Jefferson or Young Virginians- looked at a Negro,they saw something less than human,something more than an animal.”

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Radium – “EO Wilson’s “multi-level selection” theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans compete as both groups and individuals. Technology and perhaps capitalism has expanded the size of the in-group from perhaps a few hundred individuals to the size of entire nations.” Yuval Harari, historian at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has some very interesting ideas about that, especially wrt to female strengths wrt to traits that favor female in-group collective power for groups smaller than 150 individuals, but for cultural organization at mach larger scales, male strengths wrt to traits the favor male in-group collective power instead… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Rollo – still wondering precisely why your filters blocked my other comments. If you don’t tell us what the filter settings are – I’m not sure how you can cogently advertise this space as “speak your mind”. Still waiting for your reply.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

” . . . egalitarianism is a philosophy . . .”

A rabbit could never conceive the philosophy of a fox.

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

Egalitarianism is a philosophy.
A philosophy can be scientifically proven or disproven.
A science cannot be philosophically proven or disproven.

having a bad day
Guest
having a bad day
Offline

@Sentient at 10:23 am

and what were the subcomms aimed at you when she started bitching at the staff?… bitch shields are just hard candy coatings wrapped around a soft juicy treat…lol

good luck!

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

stuffinbox

A philosophy can be scientifically proven or disproven.

What do you mean by “scientifically proven”?

Radium – that co worker needs to see Dalrock’s site.

Sentient
Guest
Sentient
Offline

HABD…

Semmed prettty bitchy! LOL

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

AR

In order to prove a hypothesis, first eliminate all theories that disprove it then show the formula that proves it.

Everyone knew the world was flat until it was proven to be round.

Egalitarianism has yet to be proven.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Egalitarianism has yet to be proven.”

I believe what has been proven is that for egalitarianism to be true, the individual must be fungible.

Yollo Comanche
Guest
Yollo Comanche
Offline

@Stuffinbox Might people be confusing their ability to take action, with their guts to take a given action? People DO have different circumstances, but, with the right amount of will and understanding their problems, they could improve their circumstances. I think people get mad when they consider that, like potential to change does not equal like potential to gain like rewards(the “real” difference). Lack of life-threatening circumstances can keep people in thrall indefinitely, and they never have to change if they’re really good at getting someone else to pay their bills. Being spoiled and learning all the wrong things myself,… Read more »

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

If and yet are in the same line with in order for,the biggest short words line.

You can definitely prove that the individual is not fungible,leaving us at the conclusion that egalitarianism is a philosophy that has little if any support from scientific proof.

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

@Yollo

Certainly you are correct.People also confuse the romance attached to a given action with the action itself,while they consider said action to be a simple task they overlook the years of training and experience that goes into effectiveness.

Sounds to me like you are making good progress.

having a bad day
Guest
having a bad day
Offline

@Sentient all I saw was a rollodex being cycled through…lol. you passed the first two shit tests then missed that 3rd one where she “stopped interacting” with you and bitched at someone else… lol. if you were a thug you wouldn’t put up with being ignored, right ? you’d just push back on her trying to ignore your frame. plus interrupting a girl bitching at someone takes some balls, bc she might end up venting on you… which is good if you can handle it bc then it just becomes part of the emo roller coaster… lol… she’s just a… Read more »

Softek
Guest
Softek
Offline

@ YaReally re: Chaturbate Never heard of it before. Checked it out just now for 10-15 minutes. It’s pretty telling that it made me uncomfortable. Not used to seeing anything live online, although I have before. Never watched regularly enough for it to seem normal (also way less stimulating than pre-recorded videos). I wasn’t even watching it as porn (i.e. furiously whacking off to it and flipping thru vid to vid). Just checking it out and facing my discomfort. Like there are people doing this, having sex right now, lol. I went so long without sex that I just wrote… Read more »

ludiam0ndz
Guest
ludiam0ndz
Offline

@all This is kinda late, but RE: politics, I agree arguing with folks is mostly pointless, but I don’t hold folks political or even social/religious views against them to each his own. I find the comments here useful and informative, there’s some real gold nuggets in these threads and even Mrs Sentient has dropped some knowledge on my head in previous comments. I’ve never been the guy to argue back and forth in internet comments, but truly I’m perplexed by da Don’s popularity. @Rollo.. rather than ban Karen outright (lol @ her being an ai super bot of some kind)… Read more »

Sentient
Guest
Sentient
Offline

HABD

That makes perfect sense… Lightbulb emoji.

Pellaeon
Guest
Pellaeon
Offline

Complete tangent here. @Scray I know YaReally said before that he prioritizes his anonymity, but I was wondering if you would be open to meeting up sometime? I’m trying to get out and meet more guys who are good at this stuff that I think I would get along with. I’m not talking about anything in the near future – judging by my current finances I would be thinking more along lines of six months to a year from now. But I wanted to bring it up now to see if you would be open to the idea. My email… Read more »

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

@ Sentient ” Little reminder that everything game is not sunshine and roses… At a diner yesterday, at the counter near the register. Cute little young single mom standing there. Has a kid about 5, so figure she was preggers at 18 or so. She has tight cut offs a thigh tattoo (natch) and a ripped Nirvana t shirt. So i peg her as a tough cookie, but worth some eye game. She looks over in my direction and I hold her gaze, looking for her to break contact. And she does the thing like tilts her head forward and… Read more »

ludiam0ndz
Guest
ludiam0ndz
Offline

Hey, that’s fine if you want to ban my comments, Fuck it..not as open a forum as you’ve previously proclaimed. I’m not even mad though.. good luck!

ludiam0ndz
Guest
ludiam0ndz
Offline

Hmm guess not lol, can you take the last one out of moderation then?

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

@ludiam0ndz

Good afternoon my man.

Rollo doesn’t ban comments normally, except for spam and abusive trollery. If your comments aren’t showing up, it’s most likely WordPress fucking up in some manner. It’s happened to me before.

ludiam0ndz
Guest
ludiam0ndz
Offline

@Blax, thanks man. Basically short version was I respect yawls opinions on shit even if i don’t agree with folks politics. that includes you Sentient.

Carry on!

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline
stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

Verr~y inter~esting
E.M.I.L.P is Karen’s mother..

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

Third comment lost in space for me.

stuffinbox
Guest
stuffinbox
Offline

E.M.I.L.P is Karen’s mother

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

” … to his magic power crystals and egalitarianism discussions.”

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/81/81d6ad4726f5062ca6a28df79ec8766dac9e755a111056e43b6a8ca2da12832f.jpg

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

@ Rollo

Ok fine. Take that babbling nutjob out of mod. Lmao. I have become a master of the scroll wheel thanks to her.

http://img.memecdn.com/glorious-memecenter-master-race-we-are-the-best_o_4610587.jpg

She might just prove to be some kind of bot or sockpuppet for real though. No worries. I’m down for pyramid sets of scroll work.

…. where’s muh protein shake???

xsplat
Guest
xsplat
Offline

Why I don’t hire teachers. And why you should not study from teachers. I’m bootstrapping a small startup, and so interview for new hires every few days. Every day I spend an hour or two going through applications. I sometimes come across people who don’t know how to be career oriented. They might stay too long in a job that does not advance their skills, or jump around between unrelated fields, or work at jobs that don’t match their potential. They work at places because they need a job, not in order to advance their career. I used to be… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

RT says: >I’m not convinced Karen isn’t a bot or she isn’t Wild Man’s sockpuppet so he can have conversations with himself since all he ever does is default to steering the comments to his magic power crystals and egalitarianism discussions. > In childhood some classmates referred to me as an “encyclopedia”…but I’m my wildest imagination it never occurred to me that I would deemed artificial intelligence…that is beyond creative…and in a way…quite the compliment. If I am a robot, I’m perhaps the only one with an SS card, a driver’s license & a birth certificate. I also have health… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Hey – Rollo it seemed maybe you filtered and blocked some comments (not just mine) that contained the name K….

Why?

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Hey Blax – the Spiderman pic – pretty good – you got me pegged pretty well, except it’s “with great need to understand ….comes something….?”.

I be cursed that way, but ….. I can’t stop fucking asking questions … we all have our individual burdens to bear I guess.

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

Rollo – yes … of course I see that now (that’s how I know) … because you have now unblocked everybody’s comments that contained “Karen”, so not hard to figure out.

But you still didn’t answer the question … why did you set your filter that way in the first place?

SJB
Guest
SJB
Offline

Having specialized industry skill in one area is not transferable to another.
.
I agree: self-identified entrepreneurs do not necessarily make lucid analogies.

xsplat
Guest
xsplat
Offline

You aren’t full of shit. And the shit you are full of is not because you are married.

Read for comprehension.

You confuse some of your shit with the rest of your insights because you are not seducing and fucking young ass.

Or because you are too whipped to admit you are fucking young ass.

Take your choice.

Karen
Guest
Karen
Offline

RT says: None of your comments are blocked. And all the ones that were had “Karen” in them. >> I’m a perfectly decent tax paying American citizen Mr. T…I’ll readily concede that some of my views are a little outside the mainstream of American political thought; but it is what it is. At work some of colleagues consider me a little eccentric…and I’ve also been characterized as a savant by several people. I do have pretty close to a photographic memory…but the quick retort stuff that I have a bit of a flair for has its roots in an administrative… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: