Afaics, we don't choose. I observe we are indoctrinated into it as a child and afaics the reason it works for repressing women and keeping their fertility high is because of the groupwise social coercion inertia aspect of it.

I'm sure you know how difficult it is to go entirely against ALL of your own relatives (and nearly impossible for a woman solo!). We do that now to some extent because the State has become our guardian, but to go complete off on your own PERMANENTLY abandoning all of your relatives and having nothing else is only something a very few people (such as perhaps Jesus and myself) have done.

We seem to want to convince ourselves that we don't do slavery and mind control, because we want to think ourselves as not bound to certain damned facts. It as if we humans can't accept our human nature. I think we are embarrassed by what we are. We want to be something we are not, some march to noble virtues. I guess we don't want to think of ourselves as animals with primitive instincts.


Well adapted to what? What metrics are you measuring adaption to? The unknown future?

Maybe you mean they aren't infected with a monolithic mayonnaise of being subjected to the cultural torture of SJW-infested State schools.


My idea is the State exists to manage power structure between those who are not relatives and exceed our Dunbar limit. The State was necessary to optimize Stage #3 and #4, but now heading for Stage #6 it appears to be losing its raison d'être. Religion and local culture exist to organize the relatives and tribe that fit within the Dunbar limit. In short, top-down versus bottom-up organization.

Religion can thus spread like a virus P2P; whereas, a State spreads only by top-down conquest. However, religion and culture boundaries can provide natural boundaries for States, because States function as cohesive entities (and attempts to organize States which straddle these natural bottom-up boundaries are not stable and require much force to sustain, e.g. Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Middle East).

Our discussion is now starting to dovetail with the discussions in the Economics Devastation thread and other threads CoinCube has started.


Note how all the Stages on CoinCube's table (as edited as I proposed) all have a form of slavery.

My thought is that women can't change their hormones and thus can't change their nature. Many women may already understand these damned facts. It doesn't mean they can change their nature, just because they understand it. Remember women are found of saying "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". We men may understand our own nature, but it doesn't mean we want to or even could or should change our nature. I am not trying to change my nature, but rather understand how to harmonize my nature with maximum adaption.

Men only seem to learn how to handle themselves with age and experience (certainly in my case!), which is apparently well matched to the fact that older men are a better procreation and stability marriage match for younger women (I didn't write romantic match since that Hollywood nonsense is apparently a source of maladaption in our society now). Also violence/risk taking in youth probably (statistically) filters out the strongest/best adapted men.

Note my observation is women don't learn to handle themselves as they age. They lose the reproduction drivers, but in my observations (which may not be a representative sample) they retain the need for drama all the way through their lives. Men don't lose their underlying nature, but their experience and thoughts overpower their declining testosterone.

These damned facts we are discussing here, have apparently been known for 1000s of years. I strongly doubt young men are going to become wiser than they were in the past. Some cultures may become better adapted to the teaching and maximizing the rate of acquisition of wisdom and/or minimizing the defection/failure rate.


Why does a man need to submit to an authority to have both empathy and the experience of what is necessary for cultural evolutionary success?

I submit that I have never submitted to an authority (I might have faked it or temporarily acceded but that isn't submission). And I hope by now, I am learning to understand very well women and their situation and what I need to do to maximize their success (as I perceive it per my writings herein).

I wonder if a man who thinks he needs an authority to control him, hasn't really admitted the evil he has done? When I got in touch with my own evil, it horrifies me. For example, I have been harsh on CoinCube, and I think part of the reason is I want him to get in touch with his own evil instead of thinking that he has avoided it because he submitted to an authority. Submitting to an authority can be horrifically evil. I think if we aren't horrified with our own evil, then we are probably not close to seeking wisdom.

The Stepford Wives thought everything was hunky dory.

Hey but I would caution readers to remember I might be insane and my kalfkaesque life and mental state might resemble a Franz Kafka hallucination. Seems he and I shared an ailment:



Edit: I don't think I agree with this concept that we need to rescue or protect the women and children which are not our own wives or own offspring. It is none of my business what other people are doing. If I for example want to take over, I can go conquer and take those women and children as my own and then take responsibility. But I don't agree with using the State as my proxy to do a personal responsibility that I am unable and/or unwilling to do. That is Frankenstein outcomes chickenshit cucking. Family and gender relations are a personal or tribal matter. I say to Eric Raymond, that if you don't like Islam, then you go over there with your gun and do something, but don't advocate using my tax dollars (i.e. USA military) to fight for your bleeding heart. I have no business fucking with those other people and their system. They have their culture of slavery and we have ours. Eric appears to want the defection, infanticide society-wide brothel form of slavery to be enforced everywhere. Hypocrite.