Having a ‘Systematizing’ mind (which is a nice sounding term for an autistic and compulsive need for order in everything whether useful or not) mostly helps you find similar patterns in what were to most people are disconnected subjects.
You can however, take this method too far, as most philosophers have, by trying to carry an analogy like a hammer that is looking for nails. And so I am very cautious about doing that.
But fortunately or unfortunately, once you start to see how simple human behavior is, and how obfuscatory most of our language is – by conflating experience, action, observation and intention – it becomes clear that like most things man has discovered, the fundamental principles are quite simple.
Man acquires. Man cooperates because acquisition is dramatically superior when we cooperate. Man cheats. Because it improves his acquisition costs if he gets away with it. Man invests heavily in suppression of cheating in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at every opportunity.
Males evolved so that a group of brothers collected women and kept away competing males. Females evolved to keep the peace and to control alphas wherever possible – especially once men developed weapons such that betas could be rallied to suppress alphas.
There are three ways of coercion and man specializes in them. As such we don’t develop a single class hierarchy, but we develop three, and whatever group is more useful at the moment leads while the others compete for leadership – the first time in history that the martial class has been out of power is the USA between 1963 and the present. Which hasn’t been very good for the west.
Man justifies his negotiating position and ‘feels’ he speaks morally and justly when he does so, but this is only true if and only if cooperation with competitors is voluntarily produced so that each side must compromise.
So majority rule is dysfunctional because it makes exchanges impossible. The virtue of the anglo model was that just as the private sector formed a market for the production of goods and services, the public sector formed a market for the production of commons. And they did that by exchanges between the houses: monarchy, nobility, middle class, and clergy.
So upon enfranchising women, we did not create a separate house for them and their ‘special interests’ but because of their less diverse interests, they concentrated their forces with the minority of ‘cheating’ males, and incrementally destroyed western civilization.
We can quite easily repair this process. But it is going to be done at the point of a gun, not by the moral judgement of women and their allies in the Cathedral complex.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
One response to “We Can Restore Western Civilization. It’s Not Difficult. It’s Just Done At The Point Of A Gun.”
Lawrence Fernandes
You’re right. The current disaster began with (a) the female suffrage and (b) the notion that women should join the workforce. The first put all Western societies on an increasingly Left-wing spiral because women, due to biological reasons, given the right to vote, will naturally, more often than not, vote for enlarge the state and its powers. The latter led to the demographic winter into which not only the Western nations, but China, Japan, Korea, etc, as well, are heading into, since, as any moron could have foreseen, a society where women do not stay home to have children and to take care of them, but instead dedicate themselves to their own “careers”, is a society on the road to extinction, pure and simple.
But to be honest with you, the unwarpening/straightening of our present decayed societies will be something very difficult to do because it would involve tackling this most-deeply entrenched notion of “women’s rights” (vote, civil rights, etc.). Most White, straight men, left by themselves, would go back to the views of their ancestors. But surrounded by corrupted women with the right to vote, it is really difficult to achieve anything. Our civilization will have to be physically destroyed before something can be done, I’m afraid.
Lawrence Fernandes
—“Fortunately or unfortunately, once you start to see how simple human behavior is, and how obfuscatory most of our language is – by conflating experience, action, observation and intention – it becomes clear that like most things man has discovered, the fundamental principles are quite simple.”—
This is a profound truth. Schopenhauer also said something along these lines, when he noted that from the most simple, childish game up to the most supreme artistic creation (let us say, Dante’s The Divine Comedy), what you have is a continuum, as opposed to essentially different things.