In all of human history, up until the present, only two races, Asians and Europeans, have successfully constructed a productive society where wealth creation and transference exist, where social networks between families, towns, and larger nodes facilitate communal bonds, and where pathological dysfunction is minimized. The current state of Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East show that even
modern technology can not counteract base urges.Second, while institutions like government, police, and religion have attempted to mitigate our animalistic urges, they still exist. Our desires for sexual pleasure, individual prosperity, and violent aggression are an undeniable element of humanity. For the most part, the human psyche was forged prior to the selection pressures of agragian culture and our hunter-gatherer past largely rewarded these carnal carvings. So, how can societies attempt to "nurture" a group of people harboring characteristics corresponding to an uncivilized past?
In the downfall of civilization, we see men and women attempting to subvert mores that encourage social stability. Invariably, primal desires take precedence over actions that provide for or buttress the common good. If wealth inequality pervades a region, such as in South America, men will murder and steal to appropriate wealth for themselves. If power becomes available, men like Stalin and Pope Gregory IX will claim it, implementing ruthless strategies to sustain their rule. If social norms preclude the shaming of old maids, women, motivated by their hypergamic urges for an alpha-male hunter, will waste their fertile years and end up childless as they hold out for a higher status mate.
Through religious morality, Communism, secular constitutions, and other pseudo-religions, humans have attempted to contain ourselves. Yet, each great empire reaches a seminal shift or a complete collapse. Common themes continually arise in each situation, such as a power hungry rulership depleting its citizenship, a change in sexual norms (such as promotion of polygamy where alphas dominate breeding) leading to decreasing birth rates or dsygenic fertility, a religious organization championing violent crusades or war, a moral decay undermining family structures, or progressive social attitudes depicting having children as an unnecessary chore. In most situations, we failed to keep our primal desires in check and the populace seeking to satisfy these impulses led to societal decline.
Often, idealistic measures are thought to be sufficient for societal stability. Yet, a crack in these foundational standards can spread until the entire system is threatened. Is liberalism, with its libertine social attitudes, betrayal of the beta male, and dismissal of HBD racial truths, causing our downfall? It's possible we're seeing the modern West succumb to the same fate as all other great civilizations.
11 comments:
Europe and Asia both repeatedly went through periods of extended civilizational disruption, and cannot be said to have constructed LASTINGLY stable societies. China probably comes close to having created the most stable society on earth lasting through centuries, despite cyclical large scale disruptions (periodic civil wars), but is this desirable? Many people view China´s ability to create a stable monolithic state and culture lasting unchanged for centuries with horror and as a warning sign to the West. 19th century writers commonly cited China as a warning of the kind of hideous stagnation the West might find itself in if it wasn´t careful - the famous quote being "better a a decade of Europe than a cycle of Cathay".
Europe´s flirtation with civlization has been fitful at best - Europe seems not to have been able to dispense with long periods of violent Dark Ages. Europe has achived glorious heights, but not long range stability by any means.
If the yarstick is long range stability, the Middle East surely outperforms Europe.
But why should the yardstick be long range stability? Why should that be so desirable? Perhaps creative ferment brought about through periodic disruption is infinitely preferable.
Yes, on some levels we humans have all the savage passions and instincs of animals, but there is no need to make too much of this, which I feel is a built in tendency of the HBD movement. It is entirely possible that certain personaity types or genes (ones more able to control savage impulses and more suitable for civilization) have been selected for during the past 10,000 years, so the idea that we are almost entirely determined by our prehistoric ancestry with no selection pccuring after that, an idea beloved by the HBD people and trotted out at every opportunity, is highly questionable, much less proven.
The Middle East and South America (Peru and MExico), by the way, have created complex and stable societies, not just Asia and Europe.
so the idea that we are almost entirely determined by our prehistoric ancestry with no selection pccuring after that, an idea beloved by the HBD people and trotted out at every opportunity, is highly questionable, much less proven.
That's just one idea in the HBD community. Greg Clark and Cochran/Harpending have received a lot of attention from HBDers for theories that involve recent, even recently accelerating selection.
Onestdv, there's an ongoing debate here about race/IQ if you want to check it out.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=83874&start=675
I'd really like to know whether things are as bad for the beta male as you make out. I find Roissy a talented writer despite his obsessively narrow interests, but I've always thought the ethos he was describing was limited to the club scene, which really only interests me from a sociological standpoint. Is there any real evidence that betas can't find perfectly decent wives if they want them? Is there really cause to talk about society having betrayed the beta male? What kind of hard evidence is there that being a good provider no longer works in the mating game?
Is there any real evidence that betas can't find perfectly decent wives if they want them?
The "betas" I know are mostly in stable relationships.
I think Roissy tends to sensationalize how bad things are between the sexes though he has been great at turning young, college educated, white men towards non-PC, HBD/Sociobiolgy concepts about inbuilt human differences.
TUJ said:
"[Roissy] has been great at turning young, college educated, white men towards non-PC, HBD/Sociobiology concepts about inbuilt human differences."
My question is, shouldn't this be all of our goal? The means aren't as important as the end, which is to re-orient college-educated white men away from SWPL liberalism and toward the HBD perspective. By any means necessary in fact. What would follow from just 10% of the college educated white men with the knowledge of HBD would be anyone's guess, but it would create a sizable tremor across the political landscape I think.
Men who have had one sexual partner are the most fertile. As the number of partners increases, the number of offspring decreases. So there's not much evidence that 'alphas' are procreating faster than others. To the contrary, they're probably procreating less.
First, the current state of affairs hints at the relative difficulty of creating a productive and stable communal society.
As with the mindless Anthropogenic Global Warming wankers and their fixation on projecting an upswing portion of a cycle into the distant future as an ever continuing upswing, so too does your view disregard what is undoubtedly cyclical behavior in societies.
Of course, larges groups of people have more complex behavior because there are always people in the mix who are manipulating things to their own ends. Count on it.
I agree Roissy's advice doesn't make sense for those who are more intent on settling down in a stable, long-term relationship. He also seems have a marketing ability about him whereby he uses the 'excluded middle' technique: either you're a loser standing along sidelines watching real men dating all the women or you're one of the real men.
"I agree Roissy's advice doesn't make sense for those who are more intent on settling down in a stable, long-term relationship."
On the contrary. It is very useful for describing what sort of behavior women like - how you have to think and behave to try to keep her from turning into a frigid divorce-plotting witch.
Also, for the people expressing disbelief, I'm curious how old you all are, and how old your circle of acquaintances tends to be. My experience is that talking with men of my age, their experiences are all very similar to mine, while the older generations simply refuse to believe it could possibly be true.
Conservatives conserve. There is not enough left of western civilization to be worth conserving, nor enough to be capable of withstanding the next storm.
Most Beta guys in their forties or so are comfortably married. Most beta guys in their twenties or so are not, and are not going to be, because their potential wives have banged fifty or so alphas, rendering themselves psychologically worthless as wife material.
Further, if all betas learn game, then even assuming that game works, and that it is something that can truly be learned, which is not true for everyone, perhaps not true for most, then it is still only a temporary solution - the standard of what is required to be an alpha would rise, and we would be back to square one, due to the incorrigible female propensity to hypergamy.
All women want to marry up. In a society where women are guaranteed equal representation in status hierarchies by affirmative action, and where they are entirely free to follow their unrestrained sexual impulses without social sanction, disaster naturally ensues, since they will inevitably find themselves consciously or unconsciously attempting that which cannot be done.
Of course, if welfarism collapses, Darwinian evolution will remedy this eventually - the future will be composed of the descendants of those who *do* form families - virtuous women and protective men.
In a state of nature, males form broad male to male alliances for defense, which alliance then guarantees a decent amount of pussy and children for each male in the alliance, asserting control over women, punishing adulteresses, enforcing chastity on women subject to the alliance's authority, enforcing roughly equal sharing of pussy controlled by the alliance (monogamy, or something not far from it) and so on and so forth, which is the glue holding the alliance together, and also the framework in which family formation becomes easy and normal, where every male who works hard, plays by the rules, is reasonably healthy and competent, and is loyal to the people and principles of the alliance, winds up forming a family.
Such a male dominated, patriarchal, paternalistic family forming alliance is the muscle and skeleton of every strong dynamic culture, society, civilization, and state.
The ghost of that expired alliance is the big daddy in the sky that conservatives hope will save them.
The glue having been lost, yhe state and the society are a tattered paper tiger, which will dissolve when it rains.
The strength of western civilization has always been that it reinvents itself ever few hundred years as necessary to destroy its enemies and to seize and exploit resources, creating new institutions, and new social orders in order to do it. And that is the job at hand - which is no job for conservatives.
Post a Comment