American Neuroses - A Cultural Analysis

[Philosophaster]

Look, if historians tried to legitimize some socialist Dr. Humperdink's theories by drawing his intellectual lineage to Einstein (who was a brilliant man and a socialist, but not a brilliant socialist theorist), we would rightly see this as an attempt as hagiography, right?..

Right.

Honestly, I haven't read that much Marx. But I intend to rectify that soon.

[daybrown]

Had Marx empowered women to run his socialist system, it would've worked, locally, nationally, and across ethnic boundaries. He failed to understand the habit of alpha males like Lenin, Stalin & Mao to use the system to feed their egos rather than their people.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One of the problems with a free, egalitarian society where most of the inhabitants have more or less the same living standard available to them is that where social sameness exists, the smallest of differences stand out. People don't envy those from a bygone era, however wealthy they may have been - they envy their neighbours, those with whom they can compare themselves here and now

Dan, how would you reconcile this idea with the problem of povery in the US which seems higher than elsewhere in the developed world? Wouldn't this imply the US is less egalitarian than the average 'West'?

The neighbor envy problem might arise in specific neighborhoods where income differences are small but when looking over a whole city or region the differences seem unusual large. Not as much the amount of poverty seems the problem but the differences between middle class and low-incomes. Or are you focusing on American middle class only in your analysis with them being the 'prime mover' of the countries economy?

From a research paper Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States

The remaining inequality in society is heavily influenced by the lack of work at the bottom. If working-age adults in the lower quintiles worked as much as their higher-income counterparts, the income disparity of the top to the bottom quintiles would fall to $2.91 to $1.00.

Still, the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes

I'd say the main problem of this "free, egalitarian society" is that it always was more dream than reality, like so much in the Wild Wild West. And to keep the dream alive, certain prices have to be paid. A strong military-industrial complex together with several dozens of initiated conflicts the last decades only. Employing and importing immigrants to keep wages low, outsourcing industry, negative trade-balance, sky high national debt, inflation, insane consumer credit system, dangerous mortgage market, and so on, and so on. Not all of these are necessarily bad but they have to be seen as linked to the dream, the daring as some would say.

Victors 'analysis' that the article is written for the perspective of "extreme risk-aversion" is extreme in itself. There are many examples of civilizations burning themselves up because of lack of restrain. And the current economical model just doesn't support restrain right now unless expensive complexity is added to administer all the restrains. Which will only drain resources further until some radical innovation would save this spiral. Such revolutionary and as such instable developments will most likely be shunned - even when so desperately needed - by the rather conservative managers of the world-economy and global markets.

[daybrown]

<Victors 'analysis' that the article is written for the perspective of "extreme risk-aversion" is extreme in itself. There are many examples of civilizations burning themselves up because of lack of restrain. And the current economical model just doesn't support restrain right now unless expensive complexity is added to administer all the restrains. Which will only drain resources further until some radical innovation would save this spiral. Such revolutionary and as such instable developments will most likely be shunned - even when so desperately needed - by the rather conservative managers of the world-economy and global markets.>

There are markets, and there are markers. Whether we like it or not, there simply are not enuf global resources to lift all the poor people out of poverty, even if you shot all the rich and seized all their assets. The carbon footprint of the American nuclear family home is just too large.

As for markers, the hominids evolved in small gene pools with the instinctive liberality of witches, shamen, and elders in the tribe raising the kids of the incompetent parents to maximize genetic diversity. Their descendents are not now, nor were they ever, nor will they ever be, self sufficient sentient beings. But the welfare system and Christian charity has been breeding them to the point that there no longer are enuf case workers, teachers, nurses, & therapists to deal with it.

Unless we are willing to use genetics to promote the breeding of more supporters of the social safety net, the whole thing will collapse, and the problem of the poor on this planet will be deal with the old fashioned way: with famine.

[vicdan]

There are markets, and there are markers. Whether we like it or not, there simply are not enuf global resources to lift all the poor people out of poverty,

Sez who? You and the miniature economist in your pocket?

Malthus had predicted that the world would run out of resources at 1bn population. We are going towards 7bn, and not running out any time soon. Sure, peak oil is here; but oil is fungible -- there are many other energy sources. As oil goes up in price, shale and tar oil gets developed, new nuclear station get built, more fuel-efficient technologies are introduced, etc. it will be painful, but it will not be catastrophic -- and we will come out better off on the other end.

here is a little clue for you. Read up on Simon-Ehrlich Wager. Twop guys made a bet, on the price of five different commodities changing over the duration of a decade. Simon bet their prices would go down in inflation-adjusted dollars. Ehrlich bet their prices would go up. Simon won -- and not only that, four out of five went down even in nominal dollars.

Stark example: copper used to be much more expensive, largely because it was used for wires. Today, much of copper wire is getting replaced by the optic fiber, which is made from fucking sand with a touch of germanium.

People who know nothing of economics, should shut up about economic questions. Like you, Malthus saw humanity as a sea of hungry mouths; but he forgot that with hungry mouths come thinking brains and working hands. Today, we are further away from malthusian armageddon than we ever were.

Unless we are willing to use genetics to promote the breeding of more supporters of the social safety net, the whole thing will collapse, and the problem of the poor on this planet will be deal with the old fashioned way: with famine.

Ah yes, what nice, humanist guy you are !

I had you pegged right. You are a fucking human stain.

[daybrown]

Reliance on ad hominum and needless sarcasm weakens a case because it distracts from it.
you clipped "the carbon footprint of the American nuclear family home is just too large." which is the model that people have when they think of lifting the poor out of poverty.

The question really is who getsta define poverty. In the US, I simply we assume we are using that standard. I do not recommend it. A lotta cultures live communally, in part because of the lower cost/capita, but also because so many man lack the self control it takes to abstain from domestic and sexual abuse. Living in a large house with the elders watching works for them. If the sperm donor hits the road cause he thinks he will get laid, it dont leave the mothers and children destitute.

Of course, if the women had access to the genealogical data, then they could avoid sperm donation from lines of men that present the greatest risk of rape, sexual, and domestic abuse. Every gene pool has honorable men, but as birth control came in, and their wives gave them no sons, they are out of the gene pool, while the charming philanderes have sired bastards all over the region. And now men who can stay faithful to wives are in very short supply.

[vicdan]

In short, you have no evidence to support your contention that we are running out of resources, that there aren't enough resources to allow developing countries to develop.

You seem to have turned making shit up into an art form -- and then you present your own alternative of course, that being eugenics, the breeding of a new man; a more compliant, more pliable underclass.

You are an evil asshole.

[daybrown]

I dont think anybody cares what I am Vic. Much less you think I am. wasted bandwidth.

But people do care about the crime rate, the health of the economy and their families. And in that case, eugenics run by the *women* is a nobrainer. I can see how, since you obviously would not make cut based on your comments here, you will not be considered for sperm donation. Much less to sire a family. But that is so common among young men these days, that it is driving young women to consider other social models.

IIRC, it was the NY Times that reported that young women, age 21-30, now make more money than young men. They are getting more degrees in college, more graduate degrees, and will be making even more money relatively to the average male salary as time goes on.

There's a lotta neurotic denial going on. You attitude, in this case, is very typical. But dig it Vic; it does not matter what I think, I'm just telling you what theyl- who are in a position to do something think, and what *they* will decide to do. Its not upta us. get over it.

You cant take just about any dog, I've even seen a poodle, and make a farm dog out of it. But if you want a sheepdog, then you better start with a border collie. Hominids are the same way. If what you want are competent nurses, teachers, social workers, & therapists, you need to start with girls who have an intuitive sense of how to read the body language. Equal opportunity and head start are going to work in some few cases, but not nearly enuf to meet the coming demand.

The nurses, who are more up on the effects of DNA and epigenetics are quietly admitting that if they want more competent nurses, they need to start with eggs from nurses.

[Philosophaster]

The sky isn't falling.

Crime has been declining since the early 1990s.

See U.S. DOJ data: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

[vicdan]

Crime has been declining for half a century by now IIRC, though not monotonically.

[Philosophaster]

I've heard that, but I don't have any data on it.

I've heard that violent crime has decreased in the very long term (i.e. since the end of the Middle Ages) as well, and I actually have some support for that: see this paper.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that getting away with violent crime used to be a lot easier. As things become centralized and organized, killing or seriously injuring someone gets riskier.

People who lionize the old rural lifestyle seem to forget about all the highwaymen. :-)

[daybrown]

I've heard that, but I don't have any data on it.

I've heard that violent crime has decreased in the very long term (i.e. since the end of the Middle Ages) as well, and I actually have some support for that: see this paper.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that getting away with violent crime used to be a lot easier. As things become centralized and organized, killing or seriously injuring someone gets riskier.

People who lionize the old rural lifestyle seem to forget about all the highwaymen. :-)

In my neck of Ozarks, when stuff started to get ripped off, it got people's attention. just like boots, tires leave tracks on dirt roads, and it didnt take too long to recognize which pickup truck had the right tires. That's not a problem in LA where the grandsons who moved in with granpa came from.

But someone wrote a 'return to sender' notice in 30-30 holes in the pickup, with the tacit knowledge, that next time, they would not wait for it to be parked. End of problem. This has to do with my questions about the crop circles, in that you just cant have a buncha guys mucking about in a rural area without the local folks figuring out something is going on. That this could happen for scores of times in various rural areas without any locals ever looking into just stretches credulity.

I know what everyone on my road drives, and when a strange vehicle goes by, I notice it. I've also seen a local man stop a rig to ask who they hell they were, and what they were doing there. "Highwaymen" today use vehicles. Mostly its flatland hunters, often at night, shining deer, which I dont mind. There are way too many deer hitting on crops and gardens like long legged faster rats.

As for the crime rate, I can see a decline in Europe as perpetrators move to America. Thus, the decline in Italy, didnt really kick off til the late 19th century. The relatively high crime rate in Italy also explains why it was the American/Italian crime families that got the most organized. There *are* genetic markers. And, along with crime, goes higher rates of other pathologies like neurosis. Thus, the European sense that America is violent and crazy, has some genealogical basis.

[Rhett]

Had Marx empowered women to run his socialist system, it would've worked, locally, nationally, and across ethnic boundaries. He failed to understand the habit of alpha males like Lenin, Stalin & Mao to use the system to feed their egos rather than their people.

As a proportion of their being, alpha males feed their ego's less than women do. A woman in this kind of role would be saturated with "I am feeding the people", though she won't let this show. At the same time her inward self would be looking for ways to gain personal security and material wealth. She would be comparatively lazy, far less dedicated than an alpha male. She will need support and flattery from her husband and/or family, friends, associates, etc, or she will not continue. When it comes to crux issues, she will err towards inaction, or ill-considered reaction. She will avoid long-term thinking and problem prevention, aversion to thinking is her key disqualifier for serious roles. Systems need to be created, and situations are always changing that need to be adapted to. When she fails, men will immediately step in and solve problems, and most if not all will think nothing of this. But they sure would if things happenned the other way round.

Alpha males have leadership, innovation, givingness, intelligence, persistence, etc, which are key traits for achieving anything.

Socialism as a model unintelligently inflicts rigidity upon complex scenario's, squashing important dynamics, perhaps most importantly that of effort -> reward.

[Dan Rowden]

Crime has been declining for half a century by now IIRC, though not monotonically.

Can you explain what "monotonically" means in lay terms? The definition I saw didn't help me understand it. And in what way does the data on crime take into account the fluidity of what is statutory?

[daybrown]

Had Marx empowered women to run his socialist system, it would've worked, locally, nationally, and across ethnic boundaries. He failed to understand the habit of alpha males like Lenin, Stalin & Mao to use the system to feed their egos rather than their people.

As a proportion of their being, alpha males feed their ego's less than women do. A woman in this kind of role would be saturated with "I am feeding the people", though she won't let this show. At the same time her inward self would be looking for ways to gain personal security and material wealth. She would be comparatively lazy, far less dedicated than an alpha male. She will need support and flattery from her husband and/or family, friends, associates, etc, or she will not continue. When it comes to crux issues, she will err towards inaction, or ill-considered reaction. She will avoid long-term thinking and problem prevention, aversion to thinking is her key disqualifier for serious roles. Systems need to be created, and situations are always changing that need to be adapted to. When she fails, men will immediately step in and solve problems, and most if not all will think nothing of this. But they sure would if things happenned the other way round.

Alpha males have leadership, innovation, givingness, intelligence, persistence, etc, which are key traits for achieving anything.

Socialism as a model unintelligently inflicts rigidity upon complex scenario's, squashing important dynamics, perhaps most importantly that of effort -> reward.

Alphas have all than when combined with intelligence. But lacking that, what you get are streetgangs, the Jihadim, warlords, and mediocre minded miltitary elites. Had the alphas been able to just keep it in their pants and not screw airheads, the world would be as you wish.

But alas. And while the history is obscure, when we look at those few cultures which were run by women, the smart women were empowered to mate with only the smartest men. In Kucha, the most illustrious example of this, the queens drafted the airheads into brothels rather than breeding them. No welfare queens. No slums.

Their problem was that the oasis could only support 30,000. In time they were wiped out by hordes of Mongols on the way to conquering much of the rest of Asia. Course, nowadays, the problem the alphas have, is that the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer cuts it.

And in time, smart women will figure out that Smith & Wesson guarantees equal rights for women, and those who are both smart and aggressive will take over. Already I see they use their vaginal cavities to get support and resources in ways that alpha men cannot. Might make right Rhett. Always has, always will. They will have the might by offering sexual services to those men they find useful. Its a no brainer. They dont need husbands because they are not romantic fools. Not that there are not plenty of women who are as you describe. But they are not the ones that will be at the top of the power elites.

[daybrown]

Crime has been declining for half a century by now IIRC, though not monotonically.

Can you explain what "monotonically" means in lay terms? The definition I saw didn't help me understand it. And in what way does the data on crime take into account the fluidity of what is statutory?

I hate .pdf, but what I could stand to read suggested to me lots of effects, including the statuatory changes. I note that we are looking at the era of the rise of firearms.

The great equalizer. For instance, I know of a 13 year old Hillbilly girl who got to the 12 gauge by the back door ahead of her uncle. Otherwise, she would've been raped. I'm sure that the violent criminal types very early chose to own firearms, and were shot by their own guns by the women they were abusing, and then their bodies were discretely disposed of. They were not the kind of men who would have been missed at work or the family, so no effort would've been made to find them.

This kind of thing tends to remove them from the gene pool. Another oddity about Northern Europe as opposed to the south has to do with the ecosystem which had many herbs that caused miscarriage. ie, abortions. Women who learned the character of a sperm donor, wanted or not, were far more likely to have access to a witch who would solve their problem for them than in the Mediterranean area.

Different effects like these kick in at different times with differential results on the curve. Conversely, rape has remained an effective method of keeping violent men in the African gene pool, and we see the result.

[DHodges]

Can you explain what "monotonically" means in lay terms?

Monotonically decreasing would mean that it was never increasing. He's saying that crime rates have gone over as a trend over the long term, but there have been periods where the rate increased.

[vicdan]

Can you explain what "monotonically" means in lay terms?

A monotonic decline would mean that the crime never moved back up, even temporarily. A non-monotonic decline means that there may have been temporary spikes, but the overall trend is decline nonetheless.

The definition I saw didn't help me understand it. And in what way does the data on crime take into account the fluidity of what is statutory?

it doesn't matter. Since the number of criminal states increases over time, if that has any effect on crime rates, it would be the increase in crime (since more things are considered criminal). So, since we are looking at a crime decrease anyway, the changes in statute could not be used to argue that the crime-reduction trend isn't real.

[vicdan]

Can you explain what "monotonically" means in lay terms?

Monotonically decreasing would mean that it was never increasing. He's saying that crime rates have gone over as a trend over the long term, but there have been periods where the rate increased.

Ahaha, nice to know that not the whole board is dedicated to nothing but ignorant navel-gazing! :)

[Leyla Shen]

There is a bigger Marx, bigger than the Marxs you have here - so big, it doesn't even need Marx and his dialectical materialism. This bigger Marx understood existence as a concrete matter of things-in-exchange - the real living things we mine and sow and harvest; the real nature of the beds we lay upon mating with the quality of our sleep; His is existentially grounded cause-and-effect, and he yanks the essence of things down from the workings of Hegel's Absolute Mind to our work, and the direct, intimate exchange we are in with the other materials around us. material one and all. in constant dialectical transformation which in turn, will produce the attitudes that form around our relative access to and value placed upon these things.

Firstly, thanks for that remarkable post.

Secondly, this bigger Marx to whom you refer seems to be the same Marx I'm reading, at this stage. Wherefore, my articulate friend, do you make this distinction?

[Rhett]

Alphas have all than when combined with intelligence. But lacking that, what you get are streetgangs, the Jihadim, warlords, and mediocre minded miltitary elites. Had the alphas been able to just keep it in their pants and not screw airheads, the world would be as you wish.

Women are in damaging gangs too, like schoolyard bitching over males, and it can fairly be said that all women are ganged up against males. The many ways they almost ceaselessly encourage them out to work, rather than develop their mind, it's criminal, and destructive to society. It's no wonder men choose an airhead.

Daybrown: But alas. And while the history is obscure, when we look at those few cultures which were run by women, the smart women were empowered to mate with only the smartest men. In Kucha, the most illustrious example of this, the queens drafted the airheads into brothels rather than breeding them. No welfare queens. No slums. Their problem was that the oasis could only support 30,000. In time they were wiped out by hordes of Mongols on the way to conquering much of the rest of Asia.

Smart cultures can achieve more with less people. I wonder if they had any alpha males and what they did with them, or whether they crippled them psychologically into beta-males.

Course, nowadays, the problem the alphas have, is that the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer cuts it.

Yes, but these traits can more easily be shaped to excel in the intellectual realm, than weak, accepting types.

And in time, smart women will figure out that Smith & Wesson guarantees equal rights for women, and those who are both smart and aggressive will take over. Already I see they use their vaginal cavities to get support and resources in ways that alpha men cannot. Might make right Rhett. Always has, always will. They will have the might by offering sexual services to those men they find useful. Its a no brainer. They dont need husbands because they are not romantic fools. Not that there are not plenty of women who are as you describe. But they are not the ones that will be at the top of the power elites.

If women gain power they will give it away immediately from the stress of it. They would otherwise lose it in time as everything collapses and men are needed again. They could try to co-opt males to do the thinking, but through this the males will naturally gain power. Women always trade on masculine constructiveness. In particular, women won't properly maintain the invisible structures such as law, politics, trade agreements, constitutions, etc.

And yet, who is to say that women don't already have the greater power? The european tourists i've seen of late see the male walking five steps behind the female, like a lap-dog, both with glassy-eyes, but glossy clothes and accessories.

[daybrown]

I dont disagree with your characterization with the mass of women Rhett, but it only takes a few Uberwench to run everything. And while the Kuchi were notorious for wearing silk, Kucha became a magnet for all kinds of men. Given the brothels, which were owned by the city, and the number of wanton women, they got whatever kind they wanted.

For a thousand or more years, it was like a college town, with documents found there in 20 different languages, shrines to 22 different religions, and scholars in Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Manichean, Zoroastrian, Tibetan, and even Nestorian Christian texts. When the Chinese emperor, Tang Tiazong sent Xuan Zang in the early 7th century to retreive original Buddhist texts, Zang went first to Kucha, spending 6 months there.

Chinese texts refer to the "Ma-ag", the masters of magic, mystery, and wisdom as being from "the West". Everyone here knows about the "Magi from the East". Well, Kucha is *that* East. Everyone knows about how the Chinese loved green Jade. The Silk Road ends at the "Jade Gate", not the "Silk Gate". The jade came from mines north of Kucha. If you figure how rich China got off silk, then consider how rich Kucha got selling China green jade. So- Kucha attracted lots of capitalist merchants.

Naturally, they attracted musicians, acrobats, various kinds of performers whose craft was mobile enough to get there. The land around was irrigated by a small river so extensively that there was no further flow. They used it *all* up. And they still grow the grapes there. Kuchan wine is still favored in China, as are Kuchan musicians, dancers, and performers. Like saying you come from Nashville.

Kuchan dancing girls have so much DNA from the west, that they, with their green eyes, could pass on the streets of any European city as native hotties. But I dont think they have much use for the kind of lapdog men you refer to. The women I know in the Ozarks dont either, but this is a unique subculture with rural values in a nation that is 95% urban.

The feminazis wont become the Uberwench, despite how much they'd like to. Their idea is the flip side of patriarchy replacing men in the power structures. But the Uberwench dont work like that. The steep pyramidal power structures alpha males built will be flattened, turned into peer-to-peer networks. The Uberwench wont need the ego feed like the alpha males and feminazis do.

Kucha, for instance, was run by queens, but nobody's found a palace. Course, the queen dont need a harem, so she dont need a palace to keep them in, nor does she need a castle to protect the palace. So of course, she dont havta tax the shit out of everyone to pay for it. The result is an entirely middle class culture. Which we see in the graveyards, where there are no poor, nor are there any lavish graves of kings, warriors, or clerics.

The other thing I've noted about the skulls, is that everyone still has their teeth. Brawling cultures have lotsa folks running around with their teeth knocked out. Look at the video of people who live with lotsa aggressive alpha males among them. Watch local TV, and you see the police reports from the local knife and gun club activities. The cost to the community and employers of lost work hours and emergency room services is just enormous, cutting deeply into the ROI to investors. But I've not seen a Kuchan skull that shows any evidence of a hard right cross.

A peaceful, non violent culture is very good for business. The sons of the beta males show up for work on time monday morning cause they havent spent the whole weekend drunk. Which is one of the effects of the rancor of impotence that alphas lacking the intelligence to dominate have. Booze, and now meth, makes them think they are supermen... for a while.

[Rhett]

I dont disagree with your characterization with the mass of women Rhett, but it only takes a few Uberwench to run everything.

The problem for your argument is that we already have compelling evidence that uberwench can't run everything; they aren't. And they don't want to because they couldn't handle it.

The land around was irrigated by a small river so extensively that there was no further flow. They used it *all* up.

Just like a modern woman's credit card.

The feminazis wont become the Uberwench, despite how much they'd like to. Their idea is the flip side of patriarchy replacing men in the power structures. But the Uberwench dont work like that. The steep pyramidal power structures alpha males built will be flattened, turned into peer-to-peer networks. The Uberwench wont need the ego feed like the alpha males and feminazis do.

Peer-to-peer networks are too bound up in infighting and lack of direction to deal with the bigger picture. Without masculine direction women either fall in a heap, or don't adapt to change.

Kucha, for instance, was run by queens, but nobody's found a palace. Course, the queen dont need a harem, so she dont need a palace to keep them in, nor does she need a castle to protect the palace. So of course, she dont havta tax the shit out of everyone to pay for it. The result is an entirely middle class culture. Which we see in the graveyards, where there are no poor, nor are there any lavish graves of kings, warriors, or clerics.

Kucha didn't last. Not such a problem as it sounds mediocre to me, everyone middle class and all.

The other thing I've noted about the skulls, is that everyone still has their teeth. Brawling cultures have lotsa folks running around with their teeth knocked out. Look at the video of people who live with lotsa aggressive alpha males among them. Watch local TV, and you see the police reports from the local knife and gun club activities. The cost to the community and employers of lost work hours and emergency room services is just enormous, cutting deeply into the ROI to investors. But I've not seen a Kuchan skull that shows any evidence of a hard right cross.

My interest here is wisdom. While a reduction in physical violence is a good thing, it's a far cry from issues of most importance to wisdom.

A peaceful, non violent culture is very good for business. The sons of the beta males show up for work on time monday morning cause they havent spent the whole weekend drunk. Which is one of the effects of the rancor of impotence that alphas lacking the intelligence to dominate have. Booze, and now meth, makes them think they are supermen... for a while.

The development of wisdom is principally dependent on consciousness. So while consciousness can go wrong, it is nevertheless what is valued here.

[Rhett]

Daybrown: The other thing I've noted about the skulls, is that everyone still has their teeth. Brawling cultures have lotsa folks running around with their teeth knocked out. Look at the video of people who live with lotsa aggressive alpha males among them. Watch local TV, and you see the police reports from the local knife and gun club activities. The cost to the community and employers of lost work hours and emergency room services is just enormous, cutting deeply into the ROI to investors. But I've not seen a Kuchan skull that shows any evidence of a hard right cross.


Rhett: My interest here is wisdom. While a reduction in physical violence is a good thing, it's a far cry from issues of most importance to wisdom.

I'd just like to pick up on this point.

When men are only in the company of other men everything is peaceful. There is intellectual debate, but not violence, particularly if the men aren't thinking about women and getting drunk. What is there to stir the emotions, or cause confusion? Nothing much. Men can look after themselves and enjoy each other's company just fine. These situations leave an indelible mark on a man, showing him how things could be in broader society.

But as soon as you introduce a woman, even on the periphery, all shit breaks loose. It is for this reason the golden rule of many boarding houses is "no women allowed". Once you introduce a woman she will either play the men off against each other, causing a full ruckus, or she will bond to one of them and the friction between both of them will spill out into the lives of the others. The more womanly a woman is, the more destructive she is.

It is also the very pressure of meeting women's needs and men's exhorbitant dedication to doing so that leads to a lot of inter-male conflict. If women were more physically and mentally capable, more sensible, less demanding, steadfastly refusing to manipulate men emotionally, then there would be far fewer issues.

[daybrown]

There is a kind of global eugenics program going on because women are taking power, and violent men are increasingly identified, locked up, and taken out of the gene pool. One problem the city state system had was that they generally just banished, which benefited themselves in the near term, and spread disruptive DNA among others.

But now, its getting easier for women to track a man's record before using him to sire a son. Rape, which has always been a successful means of propagation, dont work any more either. Moreover, the romantic media sets up a standard for women that few men can meet. One of the results- for the smarter, but less sexy women, is for them to use fertility clinics, and then use another woman as mate to help raise their common kids.

We also see those few talented men, after their first litter of kids is raised, take a younger wife, and have a 2nd litter. Women of this generation dont like it, but the next generation will have more men of more talent and character to choose from. And contrarily, a lot of neurotic men are not siring any kids at all.