Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 09, 2017, 10:05:35 PM

There is absolutely no way to protect women from everything and not destroy the natural incentives that men and women need in order to successfully maintain K strategy reproduction. The women marry the State when they marry a man, and they lose all their fear. Without fear, a woman does not need a man. She may for a while be enamoured with his status, but that will fade and she will move on to discover herself.

Any man who wants to protect all women, is a destroyer of everything. And he is not a man in my opinion. Protect you own woman and your own daughters from men you do not approve up. If you try to protect other mens women, then you have destroyed society.

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason that men should attempt to fuck around (and get stymied by men who protect their own woman and daughters) but women should have great fear when they do attempt to fuck around.

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/why-we-need-the-double-standard/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/masculinity/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-female-status-limits-fertility/
https://blog.jim.com/war/why-feminists-support-islamic-rape-jihad/
https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-enlightenment-debunked/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/

Again. If you try to protect all women instead of letting individual men protect some women (and thus all women losing fear of men), then what you get is the clusterfuck described in the above linked essays. Also women need to need men and need violent men to capture and rape them, because this how evolution maximally evolves. That is why women have a hypergamy instinct. Why do you think the emasculated men and the women of Europe are welcoming the rapefugees. The men have to compete to protect the women, but the betamales want to protect all women as a way of insuring they keep some women away from the alphamales, but that just clusterfucks the society and end up with wannabee Jeremy Meeks type of PUA fucking the women until they are old and childless and entirely wasted.

Add a new blog post to the above list:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/women-like-sexual-coercion/

And an older one:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/

Lets remember to keep some perspective:

Quote from: CornCube on November 14, 2017, 01:38:27 AM

Even in the least dysfunctional marriages where the female has for example birthed 2 or 3 children and is fulfilling her dutiful focus to nurture/raise them, she is availing of collectivized healthcare, collectivized education, and allowing indoctrination of her offspring with the pattern of increasing misallocation of resources that pervades collectivized society. Because women are biologically unmotivated to be astute long-term planners on complex analysis of the allocation of capital.

But this doesnt mean there is anything inherently wrong about women or nature. Rather men must analyse the situation and how highly-collectivized (i.e. non-tribal) society has created problems.

Collectivized systems naturally morph towards misallocation because the entire reason that collectivized society exists is to organize the center of the bell curve, i.e. because at least up until the knowledge age, fixed capital was required for production. Thus in order to attain cooperation for the agricultural and industrial age, it was necessary to have redistribution of resources (or the apparency of it via collectivized debt and the resultant boom & bust) in order to attain the participation of the society as a whole both as workers and consumers. Large economies-of-scale were paramount, especially so in the industrial age, thus collectivized demand stimulation was crucial. I have theorized that the knowledge age is ameliorating the supremacy of the collectivized society paradigm because knowledge cant be top-down transferred:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3799720#msg3799720 (c.f. the main theme of my first linked Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay which spawned the Economic Devastation thread)

Quote from: Mr.Righteous

No but it means treating females as you would have wanted to be treated if you had been born female instead of male with all the difference that come with that.

Do you deny the research on how their biology causes them to want to be treated? Would you advise fully emancipating a child and treating them the same as tribal elders or businessmen colleagues? So then why would you elevate females on such a pedestal which their hindbrain does not want. Is it because you erroneously think you can overcome nature and change the nature of female to not be ruled by her hindbrain. The links above explain that emasculated men who put women on pedestals are not respected by the subconscious, hindbrain which rules women.

Feminism is a manifestation of female hypergamy and irrationality, and emasculated men who feed that defect-defect dysfunction:

Quote from: CornCube on November 16, 2017, 01:49:47 AM

James A. Donald has the above part correct, but I think he is incorrect to characterize the root of the problem as female bad behavior.

[]

In trying to protect the women from nature, society has instead destroyed the women. We have created a society of hedonism and proliferation of low status (unsuccessful) culture. Look at one of the most popular recent movies in the USA (and note the piñata of ecstasy drugs at the end):

https://youtu.be/KJgJx05hR4M?t=128

[]

The women cant be expected to fix this, because women are not the organizers and long-term planners of civilization.

[]

James A. Donald is correct that women can be very easily overcome by their hindbrain and make choices that maximize the drama and shit testing of men in order to find the best man:

Quote from: https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/

But men are participating in this, so can we conclude only women have bad behavior, or rather that the root of the problem is an incorrect organization of society? Who would be to blame for that. I conclude men are to blame.

[]

The above makes a lot of sense. Parents spoil their daughters to insure offspring, but by doing so they finance their daughers irrational hypergamy hindbrain.

So wealth leads to a slide into leftism, because parents (and government) spoil their daughters trying to insulate them from nature. Thus causing the daughters to pursue their hindbrain instincts. Daughters then (subconsciously) fight (e.g. SJWs) to sustain privilege to finance the hedonism. This fight for privilege is obfuscated by some bullshit about equality, justice, and global village meshing with their Zionist propaganda thought leaders. This explains CoinCubes observation that most Jews (given that most Jews are wealthy) are leftists. Their women want to be conquered by Nazis. Actually I had figured this out in my 20s, that in order to remain paternalistically masculine, men must defect from wealthy society.

Quote from: hypothetical words of a Mr.Righteous Idealist

James A. Donald describes the animalistic side of human nature, but his conclusions are false and invalid because all humans should be capable of the superralitionality and attainment of the universal wisdom of Christianity and/or Judaism.

He is describing the animal nature inherent in women and men. It is not just men who need to be superrational women need to be as well.

Every human is a unique child of God deserving to be treated with honesty and dignity.

To presume that women cannot be superrational because of their biology is essentially an argument that women cannot be devout and observant Christians or Jews and strive daily to follow the commands of God despite their biolgical desire to sin.

Superrationality depends on reciprocity.

Hedonism is due to both genders rejection of superrationality in favor of the rational animal nature which abandons God for sin and pleasure.

Encouraging men to behave more like animals will not reverse but rather accelerate the decline.

I had already explained from an entropic resilience of the species perspective (and the fundamental law of physics which presumes entropy inexorably trends to maximum) that it is not superrational to deny the necessity of hypergamy.

The stereotypical idealist thinks nature is savage and beneath what they myopically perceive to be the superior ideals of the intellectual and/or righteous.

I do not feel kinship with these idealistic, emasculated men who (as explained above) feed the hindbrain of women by putting them on pedestals which enables the multi-generational slide into leftist economic failure, hedonism totalitarianism, and negative birthrate creates a clusterfucked society.

Society is sliding into hedonism because of idealists who stopped enforcing the necessary chastity on kids and females, placing them on pedestals encouraging their multi-generational slide into leftism. But nature needs these irrational idealists, so as to enable the defect-defect R stategy clusterfucked societies in order to diversify the gene pool. Every cycle has a purpose in nature.

Idealistic irrationality (obfuscated as claimed superrationality) is necessary.

Theres no universal truth. We pick a role. And every role is part of nature. And no, were never above nature nor above being an animal (as if a thinking creature is not an animal, lol)

Idealism is so dangerous like any good drug, because since theyre drugged on the happy chemicals of their idealistic delusion (lie), in exchange for swallowing the intoxicating blue pill, theyll go to any extreme irrationality to maintain the delusion, such as junk science, forced sterilization, war, etc.. They drink their own Koolaid and truly believe their irrational were making a better world. News flash: the universe is constructed on ongoing randomness. If not, nothing would nor could exist other than as a static, prescripted recording. Were not making a damn thing. The entropic reality is were finding ways to randomly destroy everything created IOW by increasing the entropic diversity diversity of knowledge thus maximizing the distribution of uncertainty.

Follows an example of the irrationality of the stereotypical idealistic, self-proclaimed intellectual, righteous zealot:

Quote from: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1

The above is a baseless tautology because it claims that superrationality or universal truth must exist, as it declares (without proof) that all life must be coherent.

IOW, Bruce Charlton presumes the universe must be totally ordered and tells us to take this as an fundamental truth. Yet we know there cant be any universal truth because if there were then spacetime could be totally ordered, the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated and thus there would be no concept of unknown future. Thus we would not exist, except as some prescripted recording from which any point in spacetime can be replayed at will (where such replaying is part of the recording which is of course insane because it means the recording cant exist because it must be unbounded thus cant be enumerated in a deterministic, prerecorded spacetime!). If there is a God who has full knowledge of our universe, has preordained what and when can be replayed in our spacetime, then that God must necessarily be a partial order (by elevating the same argument as the prior sentence to Gods existence) and thus only one of an unbounded numbers of such Gods, but then were back to the same conclusion as my prior sentence. Theologians might retort that Gods existence is beyond our comprehension; and thus why we prefer to retain a belief in a God as faith, not rationality.

In short, total orders cant exist because they must contain themselves, but then they would not be total.

So tell me who is insane?! Certainly Bruce Charlton!

Yet it seems to bother us because we cant fathom the meaning and context of our existence given reality is unbounded such that entropy trends inexorably to maximum.

Charlton fails because he attempts to use logic and rationality to argue for a faith. Faith is by definition a phenomenon that cant have a rational basis.

Human nature (as it currently is structured) apparently however does need (some of) us to have idealistic faith as it is part of the cycle of our evolution as I alluded to earlier. In between Nihilism and overt/zealous faith, theres various other philosophies such as conquest, cults, jihad, and/or preference for community good will and cooperation via some shared values or modicum of idealism.

My rejection of Nihilism is based on the irrelevance of an existence void of human (or at least other reasonably intelligent animal) interaction. In additional to the need for humans to cooperate/network for survival, competition, and resilience of the species, thinking animals have emotions which drive them to seek a connection to humanity (and other species). Its quite logical simply from the standpoint that the relevance of our existence is quite stark (and lonely) without other humans.