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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Furthermore, let us examine the case of Nikola tesla. Nikola tesla was a case of a man who’s intelligence dominated and neglected his animal desires. Thus, he ultimately failed to reproduce.
I must clarify, that by intelligence I don’t mean consciousness. A wolf has intelligence, and isn’t necessarily conscious, although wolves probably are conscious. For instance, a robot could have intelligence with no consciousness. By intelligence I mean intelligent systems. Depending on the specie, these systems can interfere and disrupt the reproductive capacity.
There is a heirarchy of alpha, beta normal and omega.
The bankers are the higher alpha, politicians, lawmakers etc are the lower alpha. Football players, actors, celebrities, police officers are Beta males. Normal is the slave population, subjugate to the betas of the alphas. We are the omega’s, since noone takes philosophy seriously.
Betas, typically have the highest testosterone, amongst humans, since human alphas need to have a subjugated sex-drive in order to master human social systems. An example of alphas are bankers, politicians, lawmakers. But amongst other species, such as lions, the highest testosterone males are the alpha, usually.
Fixed is too busy living off Quebec’s public social welfare with his Somalian baby mama, I also suspect he lives off of an inheritance. The guy is too drugged out daily to hold an actual day job.
More like enforce their order (civilization) onto nature (human beings sporadically and randomly controlling their own destiny)which you call chaos. Yes everybody is people but there are differences between a minority and majority where a majority of people have no influence in government whatsoever. You seem to be unable to grasp this.
In your analogy the governor is all too human which I find it strange you interpreting things for me without asking. No, my problem is that I don’t want to be ruled by anybody outside of myself where I would like to shoot the governor and anybody else that would try to rule over me.
I think that you might be lost in textual translation of the word criminal here causing all of the confusion. To understand what I am saying you must understand that I am not utilizing any moral connotations here nor am I implying any kind of moral value judgements. I avoid such things when I’m talking and only utilize such things when conversing with simpletons.
No, for me a criminal is merely an individual or group of individuals that get what they want by utilizing violence, killing, and the threat of punishment all the while exploiting others. That’s my take of the word. You’ll also notice my intentional lack of moral value judgements in my description. I’m not saying it’s good, bad, right, or wrong, I’m merely describing activity.
Unless you view all voting platforms to be rigged or masturbatory public relations in sync with prevailing social propaganda themes to lull the majority asleep with the wool pulled over their faces in a thoroughly controlled fashion. raises hand
I like your iceberg analogy, indeed there are huge amounts of things going on in any given day that the majority of the public knows nothing about.
Human interaction revolves around the master and slave dynamic. Me and James differ of course, he’s a moralizing humanist, I on the other hand by comparison am a moral nihilist and skeptic.
Please don’t confuse both of our perceptions as being entirely the same, while me and him might agree on some points of the conversation it is evident that we disagree on much more.
Are you familiar with Thomas Hobbes or Niccolo Machiavelli? I am just finding it difficult with you having a hard time understanding where I’m coming from.
