Liberty vs. Democracy

[Speaker to Animals]

It totally explains what is happening. Losers are trying to kick over the apple cart.

Of course, liberty & Capitialism are high-order concepts. My god, Capitialism relies on the high-order concept of money derivitives like stock and insurance. Like democracy; Capitialism is simply a good fit with liberty, not the goal - the goal is liberty.

Jeffersonian liberty is limited by the liberty of others.

Where my UNIQUE philosophy comes in is in the Most Liberty to Most People context. Libertarians are Most Liberty to whoever gets there first, and Nouveau Aristocrats and Tories are Most Liberty to the King & nobles.

The problem I have with this approach is that it's oblivious to what we are as a species. You just look at ideological arguments without regard to the underlying human nature that may or may not be compatible with that ideology. In particular, women don't generally give a good damn about liberty because our species evolved separate cooperation strategies for males and females. Liberty is not even necessary for male cooperation either. It's nice. But it's not necessary. For women, it's antithetical to how they cooperate.

That's not to say there is anything wrong with arguing for liberty or trying to preserve it. The problem is that since the 1960s we mixed up the two social spheres and we cannot reconcile these two things. Before feminism was invented in the 1960s (yes, it was invented in the 1960s and not earlier), male and female spaces were totally separate. Men had their liberty in their own sphere, but men were certainly not free to say whatever they pleased in the company of women, etc. Which really didn't matter because men could still go to work with other men, serve in the armed forces with other men, go to athletic events with other men, or even just go to a bar/pub where most women were not welcome.

Indeed, the reason women campaigned against alcohol, in my estimation, was to wipe out that area as a male space no differently than they waged war on men's clubs a generation earlier. When alcohol became illegal, and speakeasies arose, women started participating because the whole thing went underground. Alcohol became legal mostly because now women had occupied what was before a male space.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the way women do things compared to our own. To claim this is "liberty nation" is utterly contemptuous of their role in its formation. It's similar to how batshit women like milspecs wage war on the patriarchy without understanding a damned thing about it.

Whatever we do has to respect our human nature. I do not know how to reconcile this without dividing up male and female spaces and gender roles again. But it's certainly not going to get fixed by waging war on one another.

[Martin Hash]

Good analysis.

I agree that liberty is not a natural state; that it is indeed a high level concept that is really only valuable to the upper quarter of a population. In fact, with our emerging aristocracy and their hoarding of opportunity, liberty may only actually be available to the top 10%, or less, at which point liberty may not even be in society's interest any longer.

Testosterone certainly gives one an advantage in Liberty Nation. Those without it are forgiven if they'd rather pursue another ideology, such as Marxism. It does seem like tyranny is the only way to maintain Liberty Nation; if tyranny is defined as thwarting the will of the majority. Had Trump not been elected, Liberty Nation would have died, which is probably why The Matriarchy sees him as a tyrant.

[heydaralon]

Speaker: what do you think about EO Wilson and Sociobiology?

Don't know yet. His book is on my reading list, though.

Just finished one audiobook and have this one in the audio library. Might give it a listen.

I read his human nature book and it was good, but I had a lot of trouble reading it. It is very jargon heavy and quite difficult to read, at least for me. I actually have his Sociobiology textbook in a box in my house, but I have not read it. He stirred up some shit when he released that book in the 70's.

Oddly enough, as time has passed, he has gone from an evolutionary realist to a sort of Utopian thinker (ie: his Conscilience book). Same thing happened with Steven Pinker. The Blank Slate has quite a few Wilsonian ideas in it, but Better Angels and his later stuff is rose colored glasses. Its like these dudes never were able to accept the implications of their own earlier ideas.

[heydaralon]

Really, what I am getting at here is that we don't help ourselves when we focus on these ideological explanations for government and social systems. It doesn't even help us explain our current political turmoil at all.

You might be right, but I think it is interesting that you hold this view while simultaneously being a devout Christian. What I mean is, the Bible kind of a gives a religious explanation for what you are describing in evolutionary terms. The Bible's "original sin" basically tells us that humans are extremely flawed and capable of cruelty and evil, and that it is a fundamental part of who we are. Slowly but surely, neuroscience, psychology, genetics, and other disciplines have revealed that many of our most repellent behaviors come from our genes and our biology. Many of our cultural practices and even our vices have an evolutionary explanation and in some cases a strong advantage. Personally, I think that the idea of original sin is one of the most compelling aspects of the Bible for this reason.

You have spoken about ideology, and why it might not be the best tool to examine ourselves and why we act as we do, but I would suggest to you that the Bible does just that. The Bible tells us that without this system of beliefs and practices, we cannot improve ourselves or our situation. To me this is an example of using abstractions in an attempt to break the cycle, or at least taking the sharper edges off of being human. I really hate the idea of defining society as a patriarchy, or using these marxist terms to explain ourselves, but I do see ideology as important. The myths of the past are alien to us now in many ways, but I think they are better than the present ones. I don't think democracy is necessarily a bad myth either. In fact, it seems like that the egalitarian hunter gatherer societies of the past may show that it is wired into us (to an extent with the right conditions) as well.

As far as democracy goes, I think it can work quite well with Judeo Christian beliefs. It is not inevitable we are democratic, nor is it the only possible way to run a functioning society. But taking the Christian belief system, it kind of makes sense doesn't it? Christ basically said that in God's eyes, we are all sinners in need of redemption. That doesn't mean we are all equally talented or intelligent or whatever, but it puts us all in a similar place morally (at least before becoming Christians), and the Bible is full of stories of the powerful and the supposedly moral being humbled by God. Christ didn't seem to care about local politics much, but he did have compassion and love for the common man, and endowed every human with reason. I could be talking out of my ass, but after Greece and the Roman Republic, democracy seemed to wither, but its almost like the New Testament re-planted the seed for this idea. We have talked about this before, but Liberalism (not SJW liberalism but the concept as a whole from Locke onward) started from Christian beliefs. Even though you don't like our current system, I feel as though it is not as antithetical to your beliefs as you are making it out to be. After all, Christianity did play a large part in making it.


I am not trying to put words in your mouth or make some kind of strawman, but these are my thoughts on ideology and biology. If I have misrepresented what you are trying to say, my bad.

[Speaker to Animals]

Really, what I am getting at here is that we don't help ourselves when we focus on these ideological explanations for government and social systems. It doesn't even help us explain our current political turmoil at all.

You might be right, but I think it is interesting that you hold this view while simultaneously being a devout Christian. What I mean is, the Bible kind of a gives a religious explanation for what you are describing in evolutionary terms. The Bible's "original sin" basically tells us that humans are extremely flawed and capable of cruelty and evil, and that it is a fundamental part of who we are. Slowly but surely, neuroscience, psychology, genetics, and other disciplines have revealed that many of our most repellent behaviors come from our genes and our biology. Many of our cultural practices and even our vices have an evolutionary explanation and in some cases a strong advantage. Personally, I think that the idea of original sin is one of the most compelling aspects of the Bible for this reason.

You have spoken about ideology, and why it might not be the best tool to examine ourselves and why we act as we do, but I would suggest to you that the Bible does just that. The Bible tells us that without this system of beliefs and practices, we cannot improve ourselves or our situation. To me this is an example of using abstractions in an attempt to break the cycle, or at least taking the sharper edges off of being human. I really hate the idea of defining society as a patriarchy, or using these marxist terms to explain ourselves, but I do see ideology as important. The myths of the past are alien to us now in many ways, but I think they are better than the present ones. I don't think democracy is necessarily a bad myth either. In fact, it seems like that the egalitarian hunter gatherer societies of the past may show that it is wired into us (to an extent with the right conditions) as well.

As far as democracy goes, I think it can work quite well with Judeo Christian beliefs. It is not inevitable we are democratic, nor is it the only possible way to run a functioning society. But taking the Christian belief system, it kind of makes sense doesn't it? Christ basically said that in God's eyes, we are all sinners in need of redemption. That doesn't mean we are all equally talented or intelligent or whatever, but it puts us all in a similar place morally (at least before becoming Christians), and the Bible is full of stories of the powerful and the supposedly moral being humbled by God. Christ didn't seem to care about local politics much, but he did have compassion and love for the common man, and endowed every human with reason. I could be talking out of my ass, but after Greece and the Roman Republic, democracy seemed to wither, but its almost like the New Testament re-planted the seed for this idea. We have talked about this before, but Liberalism (not SJW liberalism but the concept as a whole from Locke onward) started from Christian beliefs. Even though you don't like our current system, I feel as though it is not as antithetical to your beliefs as you are making it out to be. After all, Christianity did play a large part in making it.


I am not trying to put words in your mouth or make some kind of strawman, but these are my thoughts on ideology and biology. If I have misrepresented what you are trying to say, my bad.

I do not oppose discussing ideologies at all. What I am saying is that those things need to somehow comport to the reality of human nature. Further, my deeper point is the ideology is often irrelevant. People choose ideology based upon their circumstances in life, which often has biological, evolutionary, and hormonal causes.

I am not saying discussion of collectivism versus liberty should not take place. I am saying that, if you look at the average urban liberal male, you can well see why he chose his politics, and it has nothing to do with reason. It's because he is literally a weak male who would never survive in our natural environment.

Why does Steve Chives act like such a fucking cunt? Maybe it's because being a white knight is his mating strategy. Ideology for many leftist men is a mating strategy. That's all it is.

As far as religion, I think that's a deeper discussion that only derails the primary discussion here. Needless to say, as far as I can tell, the Bible affirms what I am saying about organizing human society around human nature, including the bad aspects of that nature.

[TheReal_ND]

[Speaker to Animals]

Antifa:




Proud Boys:






Just look at it. The division between those two camps has nothing to do with ideology. Not really. That's biology.

Antifa males are signaling female collectivism because that is their mating strategy. All of those males are trying to get laid. On both sides. Two different strategies in play. I can save you a lot of time here. Think about it.

[heydaralon]

explain this one to me

[TheReal_ND]

explain this one to me

The face here is a food critic that /pol/ loves, reviewbrah, shopped onto a kanye west music video about beta male orbiters. It took /pol/ a minute to figure out what Kanye was on about.

[Speaker to Animals]

Speaker: what do you think about EO Wilson and Sociobiology?

Don't know yet. His book is on my reading list, though.

Just finished one audiobook and have this one in the audio library. Might give it a listen.

I read his human nature book and it was good, but I had a lot of trouble reading it. It is very jargon heavy and quite difficult to read, at least for me. I actually have his Sociobiology textbook in a box in my house, but I have not read it. He stirred up some shit when he released that book in the 70's.

Oddly enough, as time has passed, he has gone from an evolutionary realist to a sort of Utopian thinker (ie: his Conscilience book). Same thing happened with Steven Pinker. The Blank Slate has quite a few Wilsonian ideas in it, but Better Angels and his later stuff is rose colored glasses. Its like these dudes never were able to accept the implications of their own earlier ideas.

Listened to the first few chapters. He seems to be on the same page, but I think he undermines his argument with the atheism quips. Atheists are often the worst kind of religious people with that silliness. He should have put it at the end of the book if he wanted to include a supplemental argument about atheism versus other belief systems.