Government

That doesn’t make sense.
Before patriarchy, men and women roamed around naked, men were usually stronger than the females and could easily overpower them sexually, and could usually have whatever women they pleased, their only hinderance was other men, mates of the women, protecting their female from other men.

Let’s cut to the chase, what is your conception and abstraction of “The Government”? What does “TG” mean to you, personally and specifically?

We already have Otto’s definition, which I find lackluster, shallow, and imprecise. It doesn’t say much of anything. It doesn’t necessarily describe reality or the way things are occurring right now.

Study animals in nature.

Before humans became “civilized” (domesticated), men and women primarily acted directly in accord with instinct. Males become aroused and ready to mate based on testosterone levels, competition, and reduction of external threats. Mammals don’t mate when stressed or fearing of immediate predators. They mate, generally in spring or summer time, hibernate in winter, and mate after males compete physically, violently, and form dominance hierarchies.

The most violent, feared, respectable male gets top choice, first pick of females. The lesser, subordinate males get the left overs (average and ugly women).

The demonic activities of witchcraft, poisoning, tricking, teasing, and the like were keeping homosapien from making progress. That arena was most predominately female, the “wo-man” constantly falling to temptation to do just whatever appealed at the time. Patriarchy put a huge block against such excessive, frivolous, and criminal lack of discipline.

The female did not rule over the male in an orderly sense, but rather in an entropy sense merely preventing the male from any order at all. And that is why feminisation is being so extremely promoted today. Feminism in the masses is weakness and chaos of the masses so that “higher” agents can rule without resistance.

What about that contradicts anything I said?
Also, patriarchy exists in nature, apes have rules and prevent rapists from other tribes raping their females.

Is that your answer on “The Government”? I don’t know if you’re participating in this thread.

However, regarding your point, females mostly control hedonism (sex), which could be deemed chaotic. Males, specifically beta-males, cater to female desires and comforts. Average men (beta males) offer trades and exchanges, or directly prostitution, money for sex. Like most males offer to take a woman on a date, paying for dinner, paying for drinks, responsible for driving her around, etc.

This has been the case forever, not just modern times. When males fail in physical competition, violence, over the alpha-male position, then beta-males and lower on the hierarchy compensate with many other alternatives, such as those examples. Women are not really attracted to beta-male, but, “settle for less”. The vast majority of women “settle for less(er men)” in life. The vast majority of women do not have access to the upper echelon of society. Just as the vast majority of men do not have access to beautiful, super-model women.

People innately recognize ‘superior’ humanity, in terms of beauty, intelligence, wealth, physical strength, athletic ability, artistic talent, etc.

I said that you’re looking at it backward.

Patriarchy appears in nature, mammals, apes, etc. as a response to innate female sexual value. So, technically, women are born into life “holding all the chips”. Males must work for chips. Eventually when a male matures, gains some success in life, has a few sexual conquests, he gains chips (“Confidence”) while women lose chips with age. Women age, lose their youthfulness and beauty, reproductive value.

When men gain enough chips, and women lose enough chips, then gender is said to be “equal” and that’s when the mating occurs. Men and women both hate and despise the idea of “settling for less”, or mating with inferiority (less chips).

I disagree that Otto’s was quite that ambiguous, but I agree that it was not definitionally precise. I don’t think he was going for a definition as much as a description of the norm.

I seldom use the term “government” unless speaking of laws. I usually, and prefer, speaking of “governance”, referring to all that governs the actions of people; educational norms, teachers, preachers, politicians, religions, philosophies, the weather, or whatever. The issue is one of “what is governing/limiting your behavior”. And what limits, both limiting too much and too little, is a combination of many affectors.

The absolute total governance at all times is actually what the religions call “God” - your actual situation whether good, bad, or indifferent. And the aspiration of the most predominate governing people is to be the highest affectance of all life, to control the entire situation, to be God All Mighty. Yes, they are perverted and sick. But it is via their sickness that at least a very slow progress can be made. Thus homosapian survives Man, or at least until the android era wherein Man becomes nothing but machine.

Depends what specie.

The default, animal response is to lust after women, and take whatever woman you feel like.
But different species have different social norms and intelligences.
Thus it is a case of intelligence, conflicting with the pure animal brain of desire.

For example, in wolves, only the alpha has any sex at all, and 99% of the male wolves live in chastity. Wolves, tend to have extremely low sex-drives.
This is different from lion society. In lions, the alpha viciously hordes all of the females to himself, overpowering the other lions with his brute strength, like I said. The other males, leave the tribe and seek a tribe to hijack of their own. They are high testosterone and have high sex-drive, so they often engage in homosexual behavoir.

Also, there are more subtypes besides alpha and beta, there are alpha, beta, normal, and omega. Betas are the most likely to replace the alpha if something happens, and are second in command.
We can deduce that human sexual dynamics are not natural, because humans seem to have a too high sex-drive to be complacent with chastity, they are different from wolves.
Further more we can analyze that beta males are frequent masterbators, and probably have more testosterone than an alpha male, since an alpha male needs to prioritize intelligence over his emotional desires. We can further investigate and observe that some gay males have double the testosterone than heterosexual human males. I have confirmed this because one time I went on a roid rage, I had extremely high testosterone and I started lusting after guys for no reason, it just popped in my head for no reason. Furthermore I would also deduce that testosterone converts to estrogen, which is why beta males have very feminine qualities.

So your abstraction of “The Government” is more religiously and spiritually motivated, “gods” and divinities?

I understand how and why people abstract ‘Government’ with order, laws, regulations, and whatnot. That implication is rather obvious and clear.

I appreciate your definition regardless.

I would not characterize it like that, no. I look at the logic involved. And I find that people have called certain things by certain names. I don’t care what they call what. I look at what must be taking place regardless of what anyone has ever said or done. And what must be taking place is that every person is limited by their situation. Thus whatever describes their actual situation, describes their governance. And that partly includes the legal-Government of social laws.

Those laws are very largely based upon what the other influences are at the time. People do not form laws against what other people do not do. And what they do or do not do is more affected by matters that are not of a legal issue. So the government of laws is, in effect, the offspring of the marriage of the other affectants (religions, environmental demands, language,…)

Whatever people call “The Government” maybe more or less realistic and historically accurate. Realistically, “The Government” has a long history, reflecting human history. “Rome was not built in a day”. People inherit these systems and status quos. Lies and indoctrination can pass along many generations, repeated from one parent to child, indefinitely. People do not break out of such cycles and loops. A slave is not merely a slave within one life time, but can be a lineage of slaves, for many generations.

In this sense, the ‘power’ implied by government, to impose the will of few (Governors) over or against the many (Masses), is to the favor of the few, and detriment of the many.

Governments (social order) take many forms. And that’s what I emphasized in the OP. A western-democracy government is not the same as Russia, China, a tribe of Amazons out in the rain forest. Although, perhaps, governments share the generality in common, subservience to the “higher order” of things.

Government is a will of a minority and has never been the will of a majority ever even when it claims to be that. Name any kind of government in present or past history that isn’t operated like a criminal organization, I’ll play along if you indulge me. You have my full attention.

Shut up idiot, adults are speaking here. Go back to preaching the great mystical power of Chandalas where you belong, stick with what you know.

Governments can’t be “criminal” because they are literally above the law.

They impose the rules. They don’t necessarily need to follow the rules they impose.

Laws exist to restrict the majority, the mass, the lesser and inferior. The definition of freedom is the abolition of all such laws, order, and imposition. For example, “liberal” ideology necessarily implies an anti-government sentiment. Liberals hate being told what to do, what they can or cannot do. Liberal-leftists apply this sentiment to sexuality, “you can’t tell me what to do with my life”, hence why they support homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

I wouldn’t disagree with that either.

There is a technical issue with that. In a constitutional government, there are no people “above the law”, so yes, they can in fact be “criminal” (and quite often are).

The Constitution was created with the presupposition in mind that all governments are flawed, and subject to revision, hence all laws can be overturned.

That is “Classical Western Liberal” governance/government. “The Government” (Republic) of the u.s.

So what, criminal organizations have rules also, some even have councils, your point being what exactly? Not following their own rules which they dictate to everybody else by gunpoint is quite telling of what exactly I’m talking about here. Also, the weak tend to insulate themselves behind the framework of rules, prevailing norms, or laws as a form of power because outside the protection of authority and government institutions they tend to be quite powerless. They only find empowerment through such government conventional institutions. It usually isn’t any kind of meaningful self empowerment either. Your whole weak and inferior rant is laughable considering that a superior person would not have any need of rules or laws to demonstrate their own strength and power but then again the weak constantly need to latch onto something outside of themselves to give their lives meaning. I find it strange that you find strength, meaning, and solace within the confinements of government bureaucracy.

Just as there are a variety of politics and groups of people there is also a variety of criminal government syndicates. Each group of people want to inflict their views, ideologies, and perceptions onto everybody else where there is this whole competition of acquiring power to do so. Those that control a military or police structure win in enforcing their viewpoints by gunpoint on the population at large. Liberals, conservatives, fascists, or monarchs makes little difference, it’s all implemented the same.

It’s an interesting paradox of human society isn’t it that people in general wouldn’t normally interact or work together without the forever threat of violence and punishment hanging over their heads, is it not James? I wonder, what does that say for human morality, ethics, and value judgements as a whole? What does that say about human nature itself? :sunglasses:

I think you’re already familiar with my disdain for concepts like harmony or general good.

You get an A+ for speaking on the powerlessness of the majority of the population at a government’s disposal, we can at least agree upon that.

They cannot be legally overturned except by due process. The laws were not changed by that process, but by deception. Once illegally changed, being made legal afterwards does not remove the criminality involved. They remain criminals, even though no longer acting against the new laws.