I had to check if you were in Lackawanna county, Hypatia,I think you are not, so I have no idea why they would be celebrating the 19th amendment.
( a lot of strange things go on in Lackawanna county.)
3 Likes
Monroe County, y’know: your “world next door”……
1 Like
There are fates worse than death.
While I can quite understand the attitude of those for whom technological civilization (aka “civilization as we know it”) pays off there are others for whom its absence would be incomparably better.
There is “white fragility” and then there is “orangutan fragility”.
If only those for whom technological civilization is more valuable than sex in its fullness, including masculinity and death, would read “The Social Conquest of Earth” in combination with “The High Frontier”. Maybe they could understand that they DID start the fire and that hey ARE the fire. They ARE technological civilization! They don’t need Earth’s biosphere – indeed, they really prefer artificial biospheres.
So, of course you don’t understand me! You don’t even understand yourselves.
Maybe if you understood that vertical transmission evolves symbiosis and horizontal transmission evolves virulence, you could begin to understand the difference between us.
I don’t know. I don’t really care. I don’t hate you. I just want to help you get what you are after so I can stop the torment.
PS: Meet the queen bee of technological civilization and her sterile workers:
1 Like
I have not looked very deeply at the field of anthropology, but in a few encounters with some of the claims of “experts”, I have encountered a number of similarities with the modern “science” of sociology. Like the Reform Judaism in which I was raised, it seems the only articles of faith are found in the democrat (sic) or socialist party platforms. (The good works of these faiths, we have just learned, are to be found in the machinations of USAID!)
Is anthropology like sociology, where there seems to be a received wisdom, from which certain pieties are regularly and dogmatically recited? I seem to recall pronouncements that “There is no such thing as human nature. It’s all social constructs”. Me, I strongly believe there is human nature and it is well fixed. What do you think?
5 Likes
@civilwestman , sadly you’re right about Anthro. I majored in it at Bryn Mawr, and my professors were the luminaries Frederica DeLaguna (the go-to gal on American Indians) and Jane Goodale ( no, not the ape lady.) And of course at that time the University of Pennsylvania was a giant in the discipline too.
But by the time my daughter graduated Penn in 2016, a double major (magna) in Religion and Amthropology, anthro was no more than sociology.
There are two aspects to this which bother me.
First, we should recognize the tremendous achievement of anthropologists of the Kroeber and Frazier era, and the later era of Mead, Fortune, DeLaguna, Malinowski. If they hadn’t done the fieldwork they did, we would have no idea, really, about the cultures they studied. And so what, you may say? But I don’t think so. We are enriched, and my own life, my intellectual life, has been broadened and enlightened by what I learned as an anthro major. The great fieldworkers of that era chronicled portions of humanity which otherwise, we never would have even known about—never known about the vast imaginative capacity of our species. With regard to this kind of fieldwork, of meticulous chronicling, I think the discipline may have creditably finished its course. The “global village” of instantaneous communication has put paid to that. But, I bless their memories and I have never regretted majoring in anthropology.
The second aspect is the “presentism” of what passes for anthro today. Yes, contrary to what you hear now, the great fieldworkers WERE aware that their very presence in the tribal enclave changed things. They weren’t naive or ethnocentric about that. But they tried, through the technique of “participant observation” to learn as much as they could about the culture without influencing it. My daughter’s anthro courses seemed to concentrate mostly on the deplorable, contaminative effect the anthropologists must necessarily have had just by being there at all. And this at Penn! I was very disappointed. She knows NONE of the stuff I know.
6 Likes
If young men have not, by the age of 18, built a debt-free homestead capable of supporting a wife and at least one child, we, as a society, have sacrificed human nature, and future generations, on the altar of Mammon. Castrating animals is not consistent with animal nature. Depriving a young man of the resources he could gain in a state of nature to attract a mate and become a father is not consistent with human nature.
That’s what I think.
4 Likes
Yes, I’ve never been sure what happened over the past 40 years. I used to represent juveniles pro bono. Young people used to regard adulthood as desirable. They saw marriage and parenthood as independence. “I dare a man to say I’m too young/ ‘Cause I’m gonna try for the sun!”. They didnt even wanna wait till 18. (Golly I hope it all worked out well for my former clients!) Now, people react with revulsion at the thought of a person getting married at 20. At what point DO we call someone a grownup?
2 Likes
It’s more than just 40 years.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020322214638/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/dotbbg.html
And there’s a reason Elizabeth Warren was lobotomized. Look at her work before she got suckered into being a politician.
People have given up. Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me thrice…
Fuck it.
2 Likes
There is that rule of thumb that successful negotiations are more likely when each party is able to explain the other party’s position to the satisfaction of the other party. I don’t think I could do that on your perspective, Mr. Bowery. To help me understand, could I throw a few questions in your direction?
-
At what point & place in history has the human race come closest to your desired end state?
-
What would be the implications of reaching that desired end state today? For example, would it require a substantial limitation on the size of the human population, or practical limits on the level of supportable technology?
1 Like
Tragically, the answer to that question has been sabotaged by John Tooby and his wife Leda Cosmides as they tried to overcome the even worse sabotage inflicted by Lewontin and Gould – which was in service of Franz Boas – all of which was an attempt to stuff Darwin toothpaste back in the tube so that people couldn’t behave as adults with regard to civilization’s consequences on the genepool hence human nature. The basic strategy of all that sabotage of science was to convince young women that their most important function in life – determining which genes make into the next generation – was irrelevant. Why? Becauase they wanted to fuck the farmer’s daughters. That’s why. That’s all it boils down to in the final analysis.
I got to watch this up close and personal during the boomer erocide.
But, OK, having prepared you for the horror of what I’m about to say:
There is this term that Tooby and Cosmides popularized:
“The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness” aka “EEA”
But, see, here’s the problem with with the “EEA” as they set forth:
It de facto denied human biodiversity.
That, in combination with the “let’s all freak out about Hitler until the biosphere is toast” religion of Holocaustianity makes me into a wannabe-Hitler Nordic-Supremacist to point out there may be something genetic about the following:
Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity
So what’s up with all those interesting ecological correlations there Tooby???
I’ll tell you what that Nordic-Supremacist Bowery says :
Up to the advent of MacDonald’s thesis in “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition”, the primary driver of the most valuable characteristic of humanity was the coevolution with wolves that permitted individual heads of households to re-emerge for the first time since the chimpanzee human last common ancestor submerged it in gang warfare. Indeed, MacDonald’s thesis is fatally flawed by failing to recognize that the Yamnaya’s comitatus gangs (ie: “Aryans” aka “IndoEuropeans”) were the start of the decline of the culture of individual integrity back into the gangster swamp from which the northern hunter gatherers had been escaping for over 10,000 years.
Agriculture came along and almost wiped out the Western Hunter Gatherers (mainly y-haplogroup I). The Yamnaya permitted a reemergence of WHG individuality primarily because, in stark contrast to what Andreessen has been led to believe by Curtis Yarvin et al, hence the entire Trump Pirate Ship, the Yamnaya (as KMac describes) were a market-based gangster enterprise wherein individuals could and did vote with their feet rather than being held captive by their warlords. So there was still a great deal of respect for individuality that I’ve tried to reflect in sortocracy.org as an alternative to another 30 Years War escape slavery.
This might appear to be “too much information” but it is essential to understand just how valuable AND FRAGILE the Nation of Settlers is to the world, since, in a recent conversation here it has emerged that Hypatia declares “individualism is the problem”. This is the same argument I have with white nationalists and even to some extent KMac regarding the attitude toward individuality.
But there is one final nail in the coffin to anyone hoping to argue for castrating young men on behalf of “civilization”:
E. O. Wilson, arguing against interest, set forth before he died a radical new theory of the evolution of eusociality:
It triggers when reproductively mature offspring fail to leave the nest and instead start contributing to their mothers’ fertility. From that point, it is all downhill into The Hive.
Don’t let civilization do that to our young. SACRIFICE ANY INSTITUTIONS THAT YOU MUST TO AVOID THAT.
I’ve addressed this in a number of ways, the most obvious one being militia.money as the foundation for civil society.
What militia money does is privatize government by turning the positive network externalities of civilization over to the young men – rather than letting them be trickled down through the banking system and government, and/or simply piling up in the coffers of monopolies like the network effect monopolies that are so attractive to the most virulent aspects of humanity.
2 Likes
Since we cannot define a woman, it seems a good lawyer should be able to argue the 19th is meaningless.
4 Likes
I’m not sure if I fully understand @jabowery, but what I think he’s getting at is that voting is essentially another way of asking, “Who gets to decide?” He has expressed the idea that those who put their blood and bone between civilization and chaos are the ones who ultimately have the power to make demands. Or maybe he is referring to his comments about men dueling which is another method of deciding.
One way to view patriarchy is as men using their physical strength to dominate women. However, historically, it’s more likely that men were the ones who risked their lives to protect the group, and in return, they were the ones who got to decide.
I completely understand why you would resent that. If someone told me I shouldn’t be allowed to vote, my first reaction would be frustration. I’d think, I’ve worked hard, paid my taxes, followed the law, contributed to society, and have decent cognitive skills—who are they to say I shouldn’t have a vote?
But shouldn’t I ask why before resenting it? Suppose they told me, “Voting is serious business, and when things get truly bad, you’re too old to contribute in a meaningful way. You don’t really have skin in the game.” Would I still feel the same way?
Again, I’m not sure if I fully understand @jabowery’s argument, and I am not saying I agree with it. However, I do think that the success of modern society has distanced us from certain fundamental realities. One example is when we send mostly young men off to war while the rest of us sit on the couch, eat Cheetos, and watch the Super Bowl. That is a detachment from reality.
We rely on institutions that provide us with a sense of security—but what ultimately sustains them? What supports the civilization? What happens when the young men whom liberal women mock as incels decide they’ve had enough? Does anyone really think we’ll all just walk into a warm building and vote on whether they should take power by force?
When Senator Warren is screaming at me or people like me do you think she ever asks what allows her to do that? How about the black woman rep that called us mediocre white boys? What ultimately allows them to do that?
If enough men ask themselves why exactly are we not getting what we deserve, what will be the answer? That fifty percent of us agreed it should be this way. And the men should care because …? What happens if men decide they don’t really give a woot about whatever reasons … democracy, decency, whatever?
Ultimately things are decided by force and the use of force is not something where all people are NOT equal.
edited in the NOT.
5 Likes
And libertarians have to also stop kidding themselves about “fraud” as “a form of force”.
You place fraud on the same level as force and what you have just done is turn words into mere weapons which, in turn, sacrifices the human capacity for communicating.
And what is left to us then but force?
3 Likes
The SportsBall fans booed Taylor Swift because they realize how close they were to having to kill tens of millions of people in a rhyme with a 30 years war if Harris had won. The 19th amendment unleashed a “let’s you and he fight” feminine shade that is virtually guaranteed to eventually result in that Holocaust.
The fact that even someone as intelligent and informed as Hypatia is oblivious to the catastrophe of the 19th Amendment is a testament to the nature of this feminine shade which, in Jungian terms, is as utterly incompatible with conscious awareness of the feminine mind as it would be abhorrent to that same conscious awareness.
Just know, Hypatia, that men see it even though you not only don’t, but won’t. Denial of the monstrous aspect of yourself is something you can afford. Men can’t afford to be that out of touch with the monstrous aspect of ourselves. We’re the ones who will have to fight.
1 Like
Who said I deny the monstrous aspect of myself? Lo, I’m not loath to admit I’m a whited sepulcher!
Is a woman’s monstrous side more, or less, monstrous than a man’s?
What does that mean, in the context of the 19th amendment?
And please answer, if you can, don’t tell me to read about the Peace of Westphalia.
This isn’t intended to be defensive or hostile to you. But much of the time, “intelligent and informed” as you concede I am, 
it seems to me you talk like the people on that planet in Star Trek, where people could only express themselves by referencing mythological events.
1 Like
Yeah….guns do a lot to equalize that.
1 Like
In the context of the 19th, the feminine dark side/sub/unconscious is worse because votes are a proxy for force. This becomes overt force via the government’s monopoly on force as determined votes. The primary overt force available to women is in relation to children (mothers or in loco parentis of school marms and nannies). This is where the phrase “a woman’s place is in the home” comes from.
However inaccurate that may be in general, the word “place” may be replaced by “turf” or “territory” with better accuracy – where those words imply enforcement thereof.
Don’t mess with mama bear.
We may also speak of “domestic affairs” in the sense of both “dominion” and also in the sense of “domicile”, but these are very different “domains” with very different notions of “force”.
Women simply don’t have to be as concerned about the consequences of their votes as men, upon whose flesh blood and bone civil society’s property rights are founded. Therefore, in general, they won’t be as concerned about the consequences of their votes. They’ll just keep voting the way they feel until the men are killing each other. (And that includes wealthy and powerful men if they make too many incels of the other men.)
1 Like
I’d think if women’s primary sphere is motherhood, we hav3 a greater stake in the future and we’d be MORE concerned with the consequences of our votes.
3 Likes
Women can be made to become outraged by images of child abuse half way around the globe – and vote for whatever the press tells them some grifters are going to do to stop it. This includes women with out children most of all because of their having been traumatized by a society that suckered them into giving up their power – their REAL power.
2 Likes