Any civilization that allows women to have authority over men is on its way out. Period.

You gotta love pants guy, hes really learned how to hook you in a couple posts before he uh, drops his pants.

Keep doing what you do.

Or perhaps women fantasize about being dominated by Chad because that's their inherent place and energy?

Simpin ain't easy.

So I guess I'll wait for you to put your big girl skirt, dress, er, pants on?

I'm a man broham

Just speaking the truth


Just want results. Dont care the source

Kthnx

Men contribute far more value to society as a whole, and that's great for conquest, globalization, and the progress of science and technology in a collective.

However, merit is too diverse to be institutionalized successfully, and even in an ethnically uniform society there will be competing bloodlines using corruption to acquire power.

The idea of universal morality ignores the fact that immoral practices can be successful life strategies, and it is not the right of any one culture to impose its strategy on all other related creatures. Nature likes to diversify its portfolio, and for good reason.

Imposing moral conformity within a culture is a different matter. However, this can only ever be superficial, as there will always be subcultures competing and manipulating for their own benefit.

The institutions that allow us to organize and progress society as a whole, that buy in to the illusion of universal morality and pure meritocracy, are the very structures of power that the competing subcultures will seek to monopolize and control. There is no one more prone to brainwashing and manipulation then a man who values himself on his merit to society and its institutions.

The women who values herself with solipsism is less prone to such manipulation. She needs no reason to treasure herself, and therefore feels less compelled to become a slave to institutions of power to acquire regard.

Both ways of thinking are valuable. Without valuing merit, there would be no progress. Without innate value, there is no freedom for adjustment. Nature created a wonderful balance with both women and men, but it is difficult for our language to give credit to the feminine way of thinking. Instead, our culture says women are equal to men in masculine value systems, and this just isn't true.

Cultures that are hyper focused on conquest and globalization accentuate the masculine to the point where they segregate the genders and engage in homo-eroticism and pederasty. We've seen this before in other cultures, ancient Greece, muslim tribes, and some african tribes. Hyper masculine cultures keep women hidden and veiled and focus on social bonds between men, which eventually become homoerotic.

If nature has a plan - which is likely, whether you believe in God or the gradual acquisition of strategy through millennia of evolution - it is likely that these hyper-masculine cultures arise to accelerate global order and cooperation. Now that we have proven we can organize remotely, share information freely, and have open-source institutions, there is a chance that the pendulum will swing the other way - towards becoming less collectivized, and therefore increasing the resilience of humanity through decentralization. This would be a swing towards a feminine way of thinking, devaluing contribution to society as society is acknowledged as corrupt and controlling. Both men and women will participate, just as feminism was a swing towards unified masculinity. Men will still feel compelled to contribute and value their contributions, but without institutions playing gatekeeper. Women will still be compelled to value themselves without reason, but with more stable communities this goodwill will be shared consistently.

Thats my hope for how things are going, anyway.

He’s a failure with the opposite sex and it’s not his fault...

let's not throw out put the baby merit with the bathwater of moral decline

Even one that "successfully" employs immoral strategies is still a subset of moral decline.

Successful is subjective. Does the means justify the ends?

I say f all that other crap and let's just give a ruthless meritocracy a chance.

I dont mean ruthless as violent but I mean committed truly to meritocracy no holds barred

Capitalism is a subset of meritocracy

We can have a proper blind meritocracy that still has a safety net for the poorest of the poor. Thst is the moral element.

Feminism is guaranteed to fail just as our Boy's Club society is collapsing on itself.

What exactly is so fucking great about having men in charge?

Any civilization that loves and cherishes and glorifies it's conflict between the very genders themselves, instead of working together like any intelligent beings would do, is fundamentally suicidal.

Allows is the lie.

Look everybody a pig without respect .

It's difficult discussing the subjectivity of morality. Morality is upheld as objective, just as philosophies are, and this becomes the point of contention that allows for debate and evolution. Morality evolves because it is upheld as objective, but by its very nature of evolving it is subjective. This debate and attention is vital to resist moral decline. This attention and discussion can instill traditional morality, and opens it up for deeper interpretation and understanding.

There is little attention to morality in current times, those who debate morality reject the wisdom of tradition and degenerate the issue to impracticality, trying to reinvent the wheel. Those who accept tradition do nothing to further their understanding of it, in order to avoid leaving it open to interpretation that would justify the first groups instincts for reinvention.

Meritocracies do not work because there is an incentive, and will always be an incentive, for certain groups to organize and monopolize structures of power. Even with a single ethnicity or religion, subgroups will form. The more conformist a culture is, the more incentive there is for subcultures to monopolize power through corruption and censorship. Even with a culture that tolerates diversity, cultures that have adapted strategies as a response to historical conditions will continue to rationalize their power-monopolizing behavior. Moreover, it is idealistic to think you can root out all of these subcultures by religious or ethnic identity, as they've already adapted into different organizational structures, such as secret societies.

Capitalism is excellent, but so too is a republic democracy, a constitution, and decentralized power. In the success of this model, we see a mimicry of natures strategy of diversifying, allowing different groups to go their own way and implement their own strategies.

Our nation has become far more centralized, and this has a great deal to do with the emphasis on merit. Merit, as a general concept, is ambiguous and can be purely good. However, in application and cultural discussion it almost always has to do with ones contribution to structures of power. When these structures are corrupt, merit is a poor value system to use.

I don't mean to argue against merit as a value system entirely. I brought this up in a thread about men and women because I see a balance in the genders. Women, who are less capable then men in most conditions where merit can be easily ascertained, find ways to value themselves regardless of merit. This mind state is important to have, just as valuing merit is important. Two genders with a proclivity towards different mind sets that balance each other out.

As for people successfully implementing immoral behaviors, you're really going to need to take that up with nature. As far as I can tell, morality is a luxury. Nature is filled with murder, cannibalism, and pedophilia and while these things are unpleasant, they do serve a function. You may say this is just nature, and humans are different, but I would point out that every evil behavior has negative consequences on the species involved. Species that could gain an advantage by cooperating have to deal with their fellows eating them. Species that could raise their young have to instead focus on proliferating constantly. Its stressful, its violent, its detrimental to individual growth, yet its what nature has had to do to survive.

So I think immoral behaviors serve a function, and moral behavior is simply an upgrade in function. I'm not saying immoral behaviors are great, I'd love to get rid of them, but they exist and I don't think you can - not with free will in play.

As for safety nets for the poorest of the poor, I'd say get the government out of it. Let communities look after their own, mutual accountability more healthy dependency. The impoverished will know who to pay back and feel compelled to do so, the community will know better what support the impoverished need than a bureaucratic decree.

That's always been the way when economics are low. When wealth is the surprise of the day then women are suddenly elevated.

those are men pretending to be women Lol...
[link to imgur.com (secure)]
Thread: A Doctor from Lytton BC broke his gag order and spoke out then a heat Wave of 50c / 122f hit the town and burned it down...

Don't be pussy whipped, whip that pussy!

My Dad had a married Asian couple (Chinese) living next door to him. His office (my old room) had a window that faced directly into their kitchen window. Night after night, this woman would follow/chase this poor man around his own house, screaming Cantonese at the top of her lungs and throwing tantrums about who-knows-what, we didn't understand the language (my Dad talked to the husband periodically, and he would mention that she was trying to bring her parents over from China). The look on this poor man's face night after night, just getting screamed at as he tried his best to ignore it, was heartbreaking.

So imagine the inner glee my Dad and I shared as my Dad informed me one night that the husband had finally snapped. My Dad had looked out the window of his office just in time to see the woman screaming and throwing a tantrum/throwing things as usual, and the husband just finally turned around and beat the living shit out of her. No cops. No arrest. No ambulance.

Best part? Not one God-damned outburst from that abusive bitch EVER AGAIN.

Women crossdressing. Gynocentrism culture praising their degeneracy.

Kek

Women are for fucking and raising children.

And men are for shit to us women. We don't need you. Women can do everything men can and grow babies. We can do it all, men can't.

Then the power goes out and women get a cosmic reality check. Venezuelan women went from being queens in the 80s to whores in the 2010s.

And why the world is in the state that's in in.

I appreciate the insightful comments.
You raise some really good points.

I do agree that merit can be corrupted such as redefining merit as merely contributing to a centralized power structure

If I step back and abstract a bit there isnt much on the board outside of Merit and Identity

So I was pushing for Merit. A Meriticocacy that is agnostic about the Identity of the source of the Merit.

Whereas there are those pushing for Identity. They want the Men for example to be entitled/elevated/valued. Or people that want only Women to be entitled/elevated/valued
Then of course there are other Identities vying for elevation/value/privilege. LGBT', various religions, but what all these things have in common are Identity.
Its about who these people are that in their mind should grant them entitlement/value/privilege. It's not what they "do" it is about who they "are"

Well I just totally reject that entire Identity based system that ignores the quality and quantity of what you "do"

On Merit you have raises legitimate issues with how to avoid the corruption of Merit. I dont have a panacea for that. But I so still think there is more going for Merit than Identity even with the challenges of stopping corruption in a meritocracy.
I would not relegate Meritocracy to the "never can work" bin that Communism has already been thrown in.

Now beyond Identity and Merit....Identity is who you are (presumed good) and Merit is what you "do" (again presumed good)

What else is there to base a system on other than "who you are" and "what you do"?

You're kind of missing the point there. Women aren't the problem.

Women never hold authority, not even when they are put in a position of authority. Women always follow rules laid down by someone else. A woman in charge simply means someone else is really the one in charge, he is just hiding behind her.

Ask a woman 200 years ago about something, and she would give you her husband's opinion. He was her authority, and she never questioned his judgment.

Ask a "liberated" woman today about something, and she will instead repeat the opinion of other authority figures, like the media and the government. These are now her authority, a surrogate for a husband, and she never questions their judgment.

In other words, the only thing that happened, is that the most powerful men seized more firm control over other men, by putting easily ruled women in mid management positions, thereby denying non-elite men access to the lower rungs on the power ladder. If other men can't climb the ladder, the ruling elites can't be challenged.

"Emancipation of women" = disempowerment of non-elite men, to secure the power of the psychopathic elite.

And that's the reason the psychopathic elite "supports women".

Except drive or operate machines in general.

Women are 'Conflict Avoiders' by nature.

Mainly because this is their 'natural' defense mechanism which is mainly due to their physically smaller size. It's also a family structure stabilization function.

The problem with this is that the general population is convinced that 'Conflict Avoidance' is the solution to problems that arise in society, when actually conflict is what crushes those that violate socially acceptable norms and keeps society functionally moral.

So what happens is that the minds of men become weak and they are told to 'accept and avoid' things/people that violate moral and ethical norms in order to 'Avoid Conflict' because conflict is 'the old uncivilized way' which allows those that are morally corrupt to continue to operate without any external pressure of forced course correction.

Men are generally busy working to protect their families by earning wages and are therefore fully occupied and uninterested in other pursuits such as ruling over others lives. That's leaves openings in local and state governments for women to fill and they do fill out of their natural desire to 'mother' over others through direct influence/involvement.

With no male in the decision making process, women are free to make decisions which allow morally corrupt entities and processes to grow in abundance, just to avoid any 'conflict', which eventually causes a breakdown of society.

Which is where we are now.



.

Op is 100% verified correct.

Women are great at raising children which is why they have to be communists at heart. Please share your crackers honey.

But when it comes to managing nations women destroy shit quickly. That’s not an insult. It’s just the way it is. Women’s biological propensities are the exact opposite of what’s needed to manage nations.

It is why traditionally women have not been permitted to vote throughout history. This show has been played out many times.

:ohboy:

Another limpwrist that's obsessed with Chad

Remember what I said, women only have half, that's a right a fraction of a brain compared to men.

WOMEN'S BRAINS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED TO BE SMALLER THAN MEN.

That's why we see the stupidity from they today.

Eve should also be held accountable since it IS her fault for the downfall of women in society.

They really are obsessed with this mythical guy. I've had relationships with several different men and none fit this description. I'm now older with a slightly younger lover and I'm a single mom so these same myopic-brained Chad obsessed guys would call him a beta cuck. It's just ridiculous this labeling and judging.