I highly recommend the counterpart article to this, Imitation Triangles.
Note from the editor:
This article comes from my observations of the behaviors of many types of people. It may not be fully comprehensive, nor may it apply to every individual, but there is enough of a kernel of truth that I think the motivations, behaviors, and outcomes are fairly representative of what has happened today. To some, it may be considered offensive, but I believe writing this is in the general interest to inform people, for I feel it closer to the truth and rationale of things.
Names and Meaning
The precise English word for this concept still eludes me. Perhaps it lies in the nature of English as a language itself, somehow tending more toward the tendency of women and suggestion than reality and solidity. This was something I found through reading the writers of old such as Adam Smith and Keynes. They did not give the conclusions; often only the long and winding premises. By all accounts it is not wholly bad, only that we lose the suggestion of art and beauty in transformation from obliqueness to directness.
I can easily grasp for German and Chinese words that feel right. Weltanschauung, or 想法世界。Welt, as in world. Schauen to see. Anschauung as in perception, view, or opinion, but some more all-encompassing in that it sees reality itself as something you can feel. 想法 as in thoughts but also to call to mind, to anticipate, to imagine and conceive of, and a method of doing so. I think of 思想 as well. 世界 (world) but also 世纪 (century).
The “idea” or “thinking” part of the word is deeper than the “world” part. Yet whatever English word I might reach for: idea, intuition, insight, paradigm, or contemplation, they seem to fall flat.
I do not feel English pertains well to the mashing-together of words. In cadence and balance a World of Ideas or World of Ideology feels softer like saying The World of Yesterday (Die Welt von Gestern). Feminine versus masculine communication norms: we will talk of them later. But the FT vs RT is a good comparison.
In its most simple form language is NOUN-VERB. SEE ROCK. ROCK SMASH. Adjectives come next. Distinguish nouns.
Simple language NOUN-VERB. SEE ROCK. ROCK SMASH. Adjectives next. Distinguish nouns. GREEN ROCK. BLUE ROCK.
I had written IDEA WORLD for a while as a placeholder. But now I have grown attached to it, so that even if I should offend the English language itself, let all witness the puncturing of reality with IDEAS.
Introduction
You live in the abstractions of others
By producing an IDEA WORLD, you create the conditions and existence that other people live under. When Apple designs abstractions and puts them into reality, these abstractions are what other people must use if they want to sell their apps. They can only use Apple APIs, pay certain fees, and are at the mercy of Apple itself. You adhere to the norms and standard of Apple Design and Communication. Cuius regio, eius religio.
All your app designs imitate that of Apple. The logos, the icons, the website design. Unlike how Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah said the defeated imitates the victor in form, this imitation is different due to necessity. When you construct the world that other people live in, they simply must live in the patterns and norms that you set. Think of the Reconstruction in Europe done by the USA post WW2.
To use the ideas of Apple, you have to use the words that they have created. ScreenCaptureKit. Core Audio APIs. To use specific words to designate permissible actions is common to programming and law. Engineering uses diagrams. When you live in the United States, you must use the US Dollar.
Conflict in software often involves building. You cannot use different words within their world, you can only build your own that is better. Conflict in law and politics often involves precise phrasing of words. You can support a world in software or business by choosing to use their product, you can support a world of ideas through repeating their words.
Some abstractions are extremely hard to get out of. How do we get out of the abstraction of cars and roads? How can we rearrange societies around trust versus money? Certain abstractions can do great harm to people, for abstractions and ideas are the basis for action and the material world.
Education is about climbing the abstract creations, ideas, patterns, and words of others. In social sciences fields such as economics, some of these may be imperfect compared to hard sciences. Like Soros’ ideas on reflexivity, or Popper on Science as Falsification, you can never exactly know the truth.
Levels of IDEA WORLDS
Organizations exist on different levels. Bing and Google may compete for market share: but they don’t contradict the existing IDEA WORLD that exists: search for Trump military parade or Kanye Heil Hitler and you will only find secondary sources telling you what to think about these things.
They change the presentation of an object to obscure its underlying reality. Ideas are regurgitated en-mass to the population through a variety of media channels. By doing this you can control the masses to hold back the few who recognize the truth.
As a general rule, the masses have difficulty quickly changing their thinking except when someone they see as prestigious says it, and they’ve been pre-programmed by a constant barrage of media, so when you say something that contradicts their original idea, they feel angry. So their behavior effectively constrains anyone who would think some other way of doing things regardless of whether it is the right action or not, yet they feel as if their decisions are independently made from observation.
This is separate from those who understand the laws but can choose not to follow them if it serves a good purpose (such as the Chiune Sugihara story, which I read in Sam Zell’s autobiography).
When a company pays you a salary, it creates this sort of pseudo-world. A father who is head of the household creates the world for his family. Society naturally has been composed of worlds upon worlds: Aristotle said that in the beginning there is man and woman, from this creates a family, families united create a village, from villages together comes the State.
When States fight, it is the battle between worlds, a fight between patterns of life and ideas that humans are but the visage of. For no matter how many Taliban were killed in Afghanistan, the Taliban idea world was not destroyed. It would prop up more bodies and rebel. If you can imagine a 3D sea of orbs, each representing a person, each being connected to other orbs, you may see a “core” in some places holding together a world. As people are born on the map, they get pulled and pushed toward different worlds.
It is intrinsic to man to not be controlled. Hence if we are to live in peace, we cannot infringe upon the rights of others to self-determination.
The grand majority of people are a population rather than a people. This is a distinction in the French language—I learned it from the book A Woman in Berlin. The lumpenproletariat, the fence-sitters, the people to be governed.
But this is too critical a view. If we did not have these majority who existed as they are, society at its very basic could not function. Each man would have his own idea, create his own world, and fight against others. You can only have a certain percentage of disagreeable people in a society; they are its driving motive. Lev Gumilyov would say there are people with passion who drive forth change, those who are harmonious and maintain things, and the subpassionaries who are a drain.
Whether these worlds are created by specific people or find themselves in certain people based on circumstance: it is certain that in each generation the ideas of old no longer apply their relevance to the conditions of today.
Society and change
Society has to be changed from both the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down method is something like: we through our ideas, materials, and abstractions create a world that others live in. The bottom-up method involves changing the minds and hearts of individuals. The latter involves education, outreach, and training videos while the former involves physical solidification of abstractions whether through engineering or law propagated through the administrative unit.
A big contradiction is that organizations start bottom-up, reach the top, and then the ideas at the bottom have already changed. If we define a State as not the administrative zone but simply as a pattern of ideas, how can we make a pattern of ideas that doesn’t die out?
You must remind people at every instance. The Stolpersteine in Germany, the Lincoln memorial, holidays in Calendars: each serves as a reminder of certain ideas and ways of being, a pendant in the physical world for our spiritual realm.
A company with check-gates reminds its employees each day that they are but cattle. What if it was a gate that only opened upon speaking of a certain phrase that represented the values of the group?
Something I find surprising is that the state doesn’t utilize labour nearly as well as it could. It just provides electricity and infrastructure to its members for free and hopes that it’ll get something back in the future.
My question is: how can more people feel a part of the government? How can more people feel that they are a part of the country? My answer: trust. People will work for others who have their interests at heart, consider their requests, are spendthrift rather than wasteful, and engage with equanimity.
We will see, perhaps one day, a State that has the full loyalty of its people. To mobilize billions for its cause, to be interconnected and moving as one, so that the idea world and people resides not just in the government but among the masses themselves.
An Indirect Statement
Because Apple is a technological company existing within the United States but also any other jurisdiction it does business in, all businesses are subordinate to States where “laws” are a legal pretext for violence.
But not in the sense that the monarch does things at will but that multiple peoples coalesence around the idea of “law enforcement” (to them I do not think they actually consider it violence or even use these terms even though in practice that is the simplest way of describing it). It is a social programming, though some are aware of the necessity of it.
For some reason certain people seem to not consider that the root of all laws is violence. And by certain people I generally mean: women and men who are followers in an idea-world rather than the leaders of one. Because in my experience a woman will almost never admit something directly about the “social world” nor will certain men who are followers rather than leaders.
Whether this is intentional to confuse the inhabitants of a country from rebelling or that they actually don’t understand it, I don’t know. In the case of men they seem to just not understand or it is extremely uncomfortable for them to admit, and for women they simply want to keep existing in comfiness and not have their world disturbed so they don’t want anyone to change the world too much or even admit that is a possibility.
This corporate weakness in the face of determined state action should not be surprising. In any ultimate battle, the state will prevail over a corporation for the simple reason that a corporation as a legal person only has legal existence and entitlements to the extent set out by legislation. Those who control the law can, if they want, control and tame any corporate in their jurisdiction.
The above means: we will raid your offices and seize your equipment and employees and make our internet companies censor you.
The only things the State can’t seem to destroy easily are decentralized networks such as finance or parts of the internet such as torrenting.
Men and Women
When certain male children are born, he already punches an existence into the world. He goes around, digs holes in gardens, chases animals, and upsets the women who exist in an existing IDEA WORLD and have an idea of what it is supposed to be. The men who are parents see little issue, it seems like normal behavior.
Female children will also dig holes and draw on the walls and destroy things, and some male children sit still and vie in an existing IDEA WORLD. By no means is it absolute.
Women have two distinct speaking features I’ve noticed so far: the first is the repetition of a man’s thoughts if she likes him, the second is distraction or moral equivocating. It’s not something that like we do, is active speech. It seems to be a unique circuit in their brains.
The latter means saying something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (because people who tend to do so know that they are in the wrong in terms of morality, fairness, equanimity, etc.)
Why did you leave things a jumbled mess?
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to damage anything (even though it is not damaged and the issue was about leaving things a mess)
Basically, many women are spending most of her mental energy thinking of lies to escape culpability.
The latter is supposed to be used when a violent man comes in and might kill a woman, and this will confuse him enough for her to get away, but they are misusing it when faced with any responsibility: doing paperwork, administrative tasks, or even things as basic as cleaning the house. This is my personal experience, and what you may see differs.
If you have never experienced the repetition of thoughts by a woman, maybe women have not identified you as the creator of an idea-world or as a leader. Or maybe you aren’t perceptive enough and hold people accountable. You merely were an acceptable man existing within her idea-world and society that she could pair with.
The “Red Pill” crowd also notes a “hypergamy” term, which I think originated in the book SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER by Roger Devlin. I saw this perusing Sven Schnieders’ bookshelf.
They have also coined the term “shit test,” as a series of things women make men go through. But that doesn’t seem right either. It feels to me that many women constantly push the boundaries of what’s acceptable regardless of whether it’s in a dating situation or not.
I haven’t fully worked through the theoretical work of Gender Studies (in its original form, not whatever they teach in modern society today) such as Simone de Beauvoir or The Feminine Mystique. I much prefer the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft though. But I feel confident in saying if you understand and try to observe the following:
- Repetition of thoughts
- Moral equivocating/distracting the conversation
- Boundary pushing
- Fear of failure
- Omission of information
- Indirect speaking
- Idea Worlds
You will understand this feminine “mystique.” Like how some people are consistently consistent, you can also be consistently inconsistent. There is, in fact, a boundary and limit to people’s self-presentations and abilities. There are no physical shapeshifters and no mental shapeshifter is impossible to understand.
What’s hilarious to me is that people who go into this guru crowd thinking it’ll help them get better at dating actually do the opposite. They end up repeating stupid ideas and words not representative of reality. Their usage of words others have created indicates them as followers rather than leaders.
“Hypergamy” and society
I haven’t worked out the nuance of “hypergamy” term, and it would be uncouth of me to repeat the dialogue around it, so I will rephrase my understanding of it like this: women identify men who live and create their own idea-worlds. There is this upward motion because men who are just followers or socially unaware are not really in society.
Due to increased transportation creating one giant superstructure, many men who by no means are natural slaves are pushed into this “repeating” role such as restaurants, supermarkets, or other work while only a few create the world we all live under, but as they get closer to the top the education system filters them out to get the more compliant to work the worlds that those in their 50s, 60s, and 70s have created.
If a woman has fewer of the perceptive and cognitive functions of high metabolism, she tends toward emotional-social rather than abstract-material worlds. The former might include word games, flirting, bars and clubs. The latter might be finance, law, technology, politics.
Women at the highest level of development have cognitive ability and morality greater than most men, such as Sarah Paine or Mary Wollstonecraft. But they are so infrequent and rare, proportional in society probably in numbers close to the proportion of women in engineering and high level politics.
What I view as more “normal” of women in civilized societies is avoidance of strange men with their own ideas. I saw this in Amsterdam, Seattle, and the American Midwest.
Women don’t just propagate genes, they also seem to propagate a pattern of ideas, which people have remarked upon represents their greater conservatism.
Men come together, create gangs. They are bound together by strong group feeling. From this they create certain ideas and worlds for others to live in as they accumulate resources and followers. This is the driving motive force of history. But change isn’t just the base level—the changing of guard in different organizations also represents a political coup.
And what I find myself most fond of are people who understand the ideas and world that they live in. (That is, closest and willing to get to the natural truth of things.) If article this makes you angry then you are probably young and have taken your ideas for granted.
The Case of Donald Trump
If you consider why Washington DC and the Democratic party is full of women, they live in the idea-world of the functionaries of the American Post-WW2 order. They gave us our present financial system, the system of controls and visas and specialization and certain applications of science and roads and cars, and it was one of the most powerful idea-worlds to ever exist.
Washington DC is the capital city of the Democratic party because those in the capital are partisans of the ruling dynasty. According to Ibn Khaldun, if you wanted to change a country, you should move the capital city somewhere else.
Most of the inhabitants of a capital city are partisans of the (ruling) dynasty. They belong either to the militia who settled there at the beginning of the dynasty, or they are the dignitaries of the city. All their various classes and types have, as a rule, some contact with the dynasty. Most of them have grown up in the dynasty and are partisans of it. Even though they may not be (connected with the dynasty) through power and group feelings, they are (connected with it) through inclination, love, and faith. It is the nature of a new dynasty to wipe out all the traces of the previous dynasty. Therefore, it transfers (the population) from the capital city (of the old dynasty) to its own home, which is firmly in its possession. Some are brought there as exiles and prisoners, others as honored and well-treated guests, so that no antagonism can arise. Eventually, the capital city (of the previous dynasty) holds only salesmen, itinerant farm workers, hoodlums, and the great mass of common people. The place of the (transferred population) is taken by the militia and partisans of (the new dynasty). They will be sufficient to fill the city. When the various classes of dignitaries have left the city, its inhabitants decrease. This is what is meant by disintegration of the civilization of (the capital city).
This Trumpian Idea-World seeks to demolish it; it has not proved beneficial for its people. Women and men seek to maintain their world against it, like all idea-worlds they live in, but those who once built and charted it are gone, and it unknown how strong a world is without one who can actively maintain it.
Donald Trump has returned to the old age of strongmen who set the world using violence. He legislates against law firms if they oppose. The Constitution was set so a certain social programming would exist in the minds of regular citizens, and they would prevent the emergence of anyone who should change things outside of the IDEA WORLD set by it.
He punches a hole in the global thinking. He renames at will: The Gulf of America and the Arabian Sea. Of course nobody has the strength to slap him in the face and stop him. But since his ideas do not infringe upon others’ ideas: that of other countries, thus unnecessitating war, businesses will adapt to whatever locale they are in.
Fake worlds
Almost everybody in developed countries in this day and age. Even city parks are more of an existing world than wild nature where one can tame it. To really feel the nature of man creating worlds, go to a wild forest and start digging holes and using a pickaxe. In a city, world-creation is limited to a few with wealth.
The educational system is in many ways a giant system of distribution within the World, now delineated I think by country boundaries.
Movies, TV shows, sporting events. In some ways all competing as rats in a cage. Many people live in the emotional derivative runoff from those who create culture, just like supermarkets are fake layers upon layers of vegetable oil and processed wheat flour.
I look to find the natural reality of things: alligator meat, antelope meat, bird meat, wild plants growing around. These are the base reality of foods !
When two people get together and date, it often is because they are matching each other inside an idea world.
The most powerful man doesn’t leave a statue or a monument. He leaves an impression on the people itself across time. We see the pyramids, but their world is dead. It is a fossil, not a living thing.
Idea worlds are set by violence, strategy, and evolution. This is a risky business.
Women hate the idea of an IDEA WORLD changing because it means a strong man has come in and changes all the patterns of life and she may be at risk of coming out worse for it. It is those closest to the ruling dynasty who suffer most in the reversal.
Women’s behaviors and hobbies can in some way be seen as a matching process of finding an idea-world they find appealing. (Not all behaviors, but many.)
If by nature you cannot perceive the world you live in fully, you will struggle to lead.
Since everyone is dependent upon the centralizations today: colleges require federal accreditation, people are many levels in a large company, technology and transportation allows companies to keep expanding, leadership doesn’t listen to people below, we live in a world that is increasingly less independent.
How can a man maintain his self-respect much less raise a family properly when forced to compromise at every moment? (You can, but you get weak children and unhappy/overbearing wives).
Solidification of Ideas
Physical Divisions:
- Merely passing ideas and thoughts (like pushing someone off a bridge)
- Intangible, but affects people’s behaviors (“capitalism”)
- Physically present (chairs)
Social Divisions:
- Imagination (Only an idea)
- Hallucination (An idea that feels real to the person thinking it but not to anyone else)
- Social Hallucination (An idea that feels real to a small group)
- Shared Thinking/Thought (Acceptable thought, not just hallucination)
- IDEA WORLD (A way and thought of living present everywhere)
Ideas come and die all the time. Only the best ideas can survive contact with reality. But wrong ideas can persist for decades before they collapse.
In primitive society, the strongest man sets the ideas using violence. When others fail to fall in line of what reality is, he may get angry and smack them even if originally well-meaning and trying to convince others with words.
For why women are underrepresented in engineering, I have a few potential ideas: language itself is not solidifed and tends toward emotional-social patterns rather than abstract-material, dislike of the world changing makes them not want to engineer, truth-seeking and rough environmental settings do not appeal to sensibilities.
Stories of Rome and Greece
I understand it now. There was a story about minor Gods who were sustained only by prayer and belief, and without it they would die. We need something to believe in as a way of coordinating people. First God was seen as no more, and now I feel even the US Constitution may not hold (any time new ideas spread virulently, the old guard can be slow to react, and I would defend the country and values I grew up in rather than subversive new ideologies). The detachment from Latin and Greek was a great tragedy for the ideas of past can ground us.
People were taught from textbooks, they were not taught the original texts.
Oedipus is not about fate. It’s about the exile coming back to burn the town, or the son taking over the world of the father. Marrying his mother is not about incest, but how women often take the idea world of whoever is strong and comes in. Though I write this and it may not make sense to a reader, it is something I’ve intuitively felt and know to be true.
The Siren’s Song is about how some women will imitate what she thinks a man wants to hear. This leads to his destruction.
The biblical story of God creating the world is an analogy to how Man creates worlds. The Towel of Babel being destroyed and people being split into different language groups shows the necessity of common language to create material abstractions, and the sin of creating abstractions untethered to material reality.
There were also warnings not to place mirrors everywhere through Narcissus dying by looking at his reflection in a puddle.
JD Vance is not a natural leader or “right-winger”
Behold!!! The true face of JD Vance! Look how his wife claws at him!!! Who is the puppet-master here!?!?
Note: like we said before how media may obscure the presentation to hide the underlying reality, the first image being a wedding picture shows that he likely had no problem with how he was portrayed. If he did have a problem he wouldn’t have let this image be released.
The Plan
I’m pretty sure I’ve worked it out, or at least one dimension of something I’m sure some have realized. I saw one or two of these high-level older women in DC and the general pattern tracks.
It’s something that has hold in most major American cities, at the high level universities, and in the bureaucratic-administrative structures. It’s not everywhere, but pops up enough as a pattern that I notice it. There are probably some guys who are unaware it’s a thing.
The features are:
- Speaking in a gay voice (Note: not everybody who speaks like this is doing it for these intentions, if you are discerning you can figure out the actual evil people from the innocent followers)
- Lack of accountability and truth
- Inability to handle upfront criticism or discussion due to being in the wrong
- Malign and hidden intentions
- Large-scale social network that tries to punish whoever disagrees through social manipulation
- (General) lack of ability
- Belief in promoting women at all instances
Whenever someone like Hillary Clinton speaks, a quote about “women’s rights” is somehow always inserted. This narrative makes little sense: most men are extremely hesitant to harm women, even letting women make their way into the companies, political field, and other places of society.
Above is from MIT Press. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-business-of-betting-on-catastrophe/
These ideas lead to the death of once-respectable science outlets such as Scientific American. Women with certain ideas move into an organization, reconvert it for feelings and having fun from the original purpose and quality, people who understand it don’t want to offend them or look bad by admonishing them, so they leave and things decay.
Their headlines (and the NYT too) feel like YouTube clickbait or a tabloid.
At some point the American system of Democracy against Soviet Malign (I grew up in this system, and I hope for the restoration to this type of democracy because it had greater degrees of tolerance and truth) became Democracy for War to Control Media, Men, and Women. Restraint from violence is a male trait, not a female trait, because women are not measured in the nature of conflict and expect men to sacrifice themselves for her, which tracks with general US policymaking and strategy post Soviet Union.
History and what things mean evolve.
The new plan behind things such as mass direct democracy I believe was a plan to freeze all idea worlds and independent thought. UN SDG 5 (Gender Equality) sounds good but in practice has lots of downsides that we’ll explore later.
Also note that Sarah Paine’s interviewer speaks in this gay voice.
Japanese are thinking is “Well, the Americans are going to leave. So we’ll go along with this constitution but once the Americans are out, we’re going to do whatever.” And what the first post-war Prime Minister Yoshida said, “Well, we thought we could change it back.” But he realized because of universal suffrage, allowing women to vote, and there had been a certain amount of land reform, he said there wasn’t any going back. It permanently changed the balance of power in Japan.
The wording “balance of power” still obscures it a bit more than it should be. Let’s say you wanted to steal a house. If you try to occupy it by force, that’s possible in the short-term.
However, it sets off the following alarms:
- Under a natural law circumstance/without a state, such violence would lead to reprisal
- Under a social construction of laws, property rights, deeds, and so on that have been accumulated over time, violating the social construction would lead to mental triggers in enforcers to destroy the offenders
- Side note: this is why leaders try to remove bureaucracy. Accumulated social constructions may restrict actual progress.
In the Japanese case they were constrained on both sides: one, they didn’t have actual military sovereignty. Two, because of lacking the former, their ideas of militarism weren’t compatible with the women’s vote, so they could not get around that social construction to enforce their ideas.
Since Beijing has military and ideological sovereignty over its jurisdiction, a repeat of the Japanese case was unlikely.
Furthermore, constructing an IDEA WORLD lets you set the terms of it (see prev. example on Apple). Agriculture, manufactures, people, society. Cannot have the upper level without the base. Of what use is innovation in medical techniques when lacking basic medical supplies? Of what use is technology when starving?
Why are AI providers ahead? Because they constructed something in demand. If you had the strength to do the following: we can heal you from sickness, prolong your life, provide company and a sense of being a people, make the most wonderful creations—you would certainly be able to direct the labours of others. The hard part: in the beginning you are just one. Nobody knows of your ideas or whether they’d work. You have no strength.
So if you have mass direct democracy, you can easily control a society from the bottom by emotionally manipulating women and the media. If you do that, in the short term it seem like things become stable and history has ended.
But in the long term society develops to a point where women are put into a place of power, and there aren’t enough women with moral or abstract-material temperament to maintain society as things become configured for socialization and feelings. See Finland’s Sanna Marin.
Dressing in a way that exemplies decorum is different from dressing in a way that focuses attention toward yourself. The leader is meant to serve the country, so the latter cannot ever be appropriate. This is why Kamala Harris is not taken as seriously by some as Angela Merkel or Hillary Clinton.
There’s some statistic about how most North Korean defectors are women. Patriotism, loyalty to the group, politics (arbitration of human wills), understanding of history, creation of abstractions and idea worlds, equanimity for the sake of distribution—these do not tend to be female traits, which is why they defect because they see the South Korean world as better.
Whereas history used to involve capturing women and them quickly repeating the ideas of the new men that had come in, society now due to transportation involves women pattern-matching to an idea-world they find acceptable based on apperances.
For a geopolitical strategy it also makes sense: position your country as the best for immigration, living, freedom, etc., cause wars in other places to kill men, and have an inflow of women.
It tempted me, briefly, seeing these women working in the airports of major cities like SF or BOS from all over (Ukraine, Ethiopia, South America, etc.) and wondering should my life work out one day to participate in such things how I would feel to play a part in such a system. Despite Trump, this “system” is still working. Of course, what the people don’t know is that they may not succeed and have to settle in the degraded interior, rather than the major port cities and innovative areas which form the entrance and advertisement to this country.
But I don’t think this system was designed for someone of my motivations; it would be for certain men to have their wife and consider it enough.
My sense of compassion and egalitarianism means I could not do so: to leave women behind when it seemed like I cared at first even though I knew it couldn’t be forever, to take calls the next day where she says she misses me, to think of numerous men working slave-like jobs just to support a certain system, the farewells at taxis, train stations, and airports.
And I didn’t want to exist as a superset of my spouse, living together without deeper meaning. I wanted an equal and a partner, capable of mutual understanding.
A way forward
So what is this society we live in today and what future do we have? I hope to soon write a vision for the future that is compelling to everybody.
I think if you consider people as generally following the values and trends of those with control of the communications infrastructure, a “body” rather than a mind—most people are relatively free of blame. Most men and women are clueless.
There’s probably a small group of people near the top who do know.
How many people write the federal regulations for a country? No way more than 4 digits, I think, and consider that most of them have some boss somewhere.
American society is now full of women speaking in weird voices to annoy people on purpose (see the thing I said about boundary pushing), microaggressions, inability to see expertise and quality apart from social channels (think about why every college asks for a letter of recommendation and asks for media coverage to get into top universities). Think about why OpenAI blathers for paragraphs if you ask it to do something while Deepseek says No—feminine coded communication norms! This is also why media and education has shifted from quality (Darwin, Maxwell, etc. were all solo authors) to quantity of words or surveys, statistical features, and citation rather than observation.
They speak in these weird voices to try and get your compliance for this system. Sometimes they try to raise their pitch while speaking to you to see if you get affected. It’s a society that tries to exert influence rather than decisions, which is why Putin’s Tucker Carlson video had him so confused about the inconsistency of American policy making. He was asking: who is in charge?
The men who actually can maintain society decide that they don’t care anymore. So everything rots.
This is why anger is the most demonized emotion in modern American society. It makes women and gays drop their fake voices (see the previous vocal fry video). Anger and violence (reasonable people don’t resort to violence unless they feel the rules are unfair, but they have their limits) are a threat to abstract social power by parasitic peoples.
Source: https://jackson.yale.edu/video/cynthia-sutanto-brady-johnson-program-in-grand-strategy/
The words are very coded. Let me explain the morality behind it: many women now in modern times innately don’t care about what happens to their husband, morality, justice, fairness, history, sense of being a group. The instincts they are acting out represent a time closer to animals: forced, brutal, and emotional like the corpulation of ducks.
Life is about propagation of internal states that are faster and more adaptive than others. DNA is an internal state, ideas are an internal state. Random mutation and asexual selection has lower variation than sexual reproduction: males with high variance become more successful, passing down variance to many females. Ideas are higher variance than sexual reproduction.
Since these women have brain states that represent the past due to incomplete metabolic development, their natural reaction is to suppress males due to an instinctive feeling for the vicariousness of these older times. In personality they are more emotional than thinking.
Because of modern environmental pollution and destruction of our natural food system through infant formula and vegetable oils, humanity exists in a semi-regressed state. Like how the human embryo looks like a fish, we live through our past levels of evolution as we gestate, but some have paused before reaching the highest level of humanity.
(Note: as metabolic factors increase, monogamy, men, women, ethnicities actually do become more similar and able to exist together rather than in conflict)
There are constant idea attempts in the media to pacify the populace: “our ancestors were vegetarian,” “red meat is unhealthy,” “vegetable oils are good for you” etc.
For historical and evolutionary reasons it is understandable why. They want to accumulate resources by saying things in nice manners without the morality responsible for it because the goal for women was to survive. Fairness, equal distribution, restraint from waste, justice: these are values that actually inspire peace among men.
Another possible reason is that they simply don’t have any clear picture of what’s going on, and these are misguided goals but they sound good. Or the ones who actually do connect all the dots are keeping it secret.
What men do they hate the most? Men who call them out on this bad behavior and hold them responsible. (If the man was strong, they would listen, but the strongest men who built the post WW2 society are gone).
Younger men are more susceptible to this gay-voice brainwashing. The first person had disconnect in speaking due to the influence of those around him, but the second guy is older and uses a more normal voice.
- https://jackson.yale.edu/video/andrew-deweese-brady-johnson-program-in-grand-strategy/
- https://jackson.yale.edu/video/bobby-atkinson-brady-johnson-program-in-grand-strategy/
The women at the top try to make the men speak in gay voices (see Google’s AI Studio streaming voice) and their pets, so they are not really getting the most excellent but rather the most conformist.
I don’t know if there are great options for quality. It’s either: tell the truth and upset women in certain circles by not taking their ideas seriously or ignore it and just let it be known in the whisper network. Pointing out some examples below: if you can’t see it, you can’t see it.
Trait of women: seeking consensus in decisions and its application to foreign affairs. I can’t exactly place it but the writing by Mearsheimer seems to take wider strides compared to Yarhi-Milo, which I feel like circles scribbling and overlapping other circles.
Michael Levin is very clear here while Anna Ciaunica seems to speak in generalizations:
I didn’t think this was a terrible article. There are emotional motivations for doing things. But the FT commenters disagree.
Maybe it could’ve been possible to arbitrage the post WW2 American hard power to enforce mass direct democracy upon other countries after the breakup of the Soviet Union. And then there could’ve been an unchanging idea-world where women reign. But it’s too late now.
Having a hostile posture isn’t good because it unifies the resolve of others. Napoleon created Germany, Putin created Ukraine, Japan and the USA created China. Rather than the “balancing” act of Naval Powers, a good alternative is to do nothing and let them sleep, unaware of any sense of national consciousness or organized State.
Either you invade and take over completely, or you don’t do anything at all.
The grouping of “Russia, China, North Korea, Iran” together is probably not a logical or sensible grouping because each country has tenuous relations with all others.
My best guess is that it comes from the idea of “good versus bad,” where the United States is seen as (good, naturally, because all people usually see themselves as righteous) and a magical weapon (AI or orbital bombardment) comes to save the day like the nuclear bomb. This itself comes from a study of history primarily focused on the WW2 era, not of continued history. There are some echoes of similar groupings in history: Axis powers, Axis of Evil (Bush 2002) w. Iraq, Iran, North Korea—that likely lend to today.
But another reason could be a dislike for countries using systems that are not mass direct democracy simply for the reason of it being out of media control. (but the Gulf states would contradict this theory).
Long-term view
In the long-term, societies with specialization (men for abstract material construction—basically the equivalent of war these days considering how slow-paced and at a distance high-tech fighting is as India-Pakistan dogfight seemed to just be them lobbing missiles at each other combined with AWACS/radar/whatever sort of detection system, and also because it’s immensely dull to do) and women for maintenance of other things like setting up social events or whatever they might enjoy.
It’s not that housework or cooking is specifically a woman’s task—the men of previous generations probably just trained their wives to do so, as the leading innovators of ideas usually tend to be men.
And not to deny a woman’s agency either as plant-like creatures. I think setting up these single-family homes and trapping the woman in the suburbs could not be advantageous to the mind.
But these societies with specialization should create IDEA WORLDS at a faster rate than the maintenance of existing IDEA WORLDs by women and the enslavement of men in the society.
Even dissidents like Trump or Elon or UATX might find themselves bound to this system due to material realities. The latter requires federal funding and accreditation, and maybe Trump (if he did actually care about the people of the country rather than enriching himself, gold plated phone and crypto coin suggest otherwise) wanted to do something about it but couldn’t.
The country is dependent upon gasoline for transportation due to the automotive infrastructure; it may be that the United States has to be bound to Israel for these purposes of continuing the flow of oil uninterrupted or that there’s some other reason.
Many people need a purpose and rationale for action—the lack of explanation from the government or conscious deception breeds mistrust. Maybe I am too realist and other people can’t handle non-emotional explanations, so there is an unwillingness to give it to the population. Or maybe the interests of the government and those in power go against the general wellbeing of Americans at large, which is why they must keep their actions secret.
As a general rule you need the following to run the country:
- Control over the communications infrastructure (search engine results, television, default news sites, basically basic pattern of life people regulate themselves in)
- If you control how people think and communicate you generally control the military already
- Control over the military (ALL IDEA WORLDs are threatened by use of force. It is not the best way to do things and other ways of resolving disputes are preferable.)
- Control over the financial system, what projects get funded, who is entrusted to do things
- Control over the laws (federal laws for food fortification, construction of cities, structures that allow society to look a certain way)
- Allegiance of the body of the country with the mind (outreach and attitude necessary, just control over money and communications system isn’t enough—people will stop working and even sabotage the system)
And you need to do it at a higher quality rate and faster than smaller or other groups to have a chance or you will bleed people to other worlds.
Conclusion
I think that there has been enough discussion about the nature of men and women for me to put the entire picture of things together.
- Understanding the nature of an IDEA WORLD, levels of worlds, why the entire country is emotional runoff from the leading cities and areas
- The nature of men and women
- Ancient stories explaining the nature of reality
- The current feminine tyranny in the United States (do we have a way out?) and the rationale for its existence
What should we do about it?
- Decline weakness and poisoning by vegetable oils, processed flour
- Do not engage in mental distractions such as news, music, mirrors, pornography, social media, video gaming, alcohol, partying, smoking, tattoos, kissing (spreads candida fungi), makeup, surgery and the medical system, too many types of clothing*, dance parties
- Leave environments of slave-like suburban slums of cars and highways
- Build your own strength so you can escape this fake world
- Find others who agree so you can build a new society
*note: this is a pattern I see in enough countries and places to recognize as a problem to long-term survival. We can call it “globalism” or “liberalism.” Theoretically it should die out on its own, but I’d like to not have everything collapse because of it.