Dunbar Feminism

I think I should stop selling "behaviorism". By which I mean, I should stop calling what I sell "behaviorism". I shall call it "immediatism".

Basic points are: all politics are local. All cognition is local. Nothing is abstract. People behave so as to immediate conditions. Here's an example. Sweden.

http://www.government.se/government-policy/a-feminist-government/

Let me quote:

Sweden has the first feminist government in the world. This means that gender equality is central to the Government’s priorities – in decision-making and resource allocation. A feminist government ensures that a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making on a broad front, both nationally and internationally. Women and men must have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This is a human right and a matter of democracy and justice. Gender equality is also part of the solution to society’s challenges and a matter of course in a modern welfare state – for justice and economic development. The Government’s most important tool for implementing feminist policy is gender mainstreaming, of which gender-responsive budgeting is an important component.

Feminism gender gender feminism power gender feminism. And first. You get the gist. They also had this sort of battle picture:

1486134179161

So you'd think these people will be very consistent feminists, and make a lot of policies to further the movement. And indeed, they are wreaking havoc in Sweden by doing retarded stuff like "feminist snow plowing", collapsing the whole transport system in the process. But then these feminists do things like this:

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/830579268027576321

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/830568651652730880

And so people start howling: you can't do this! What kind of feminist are you if put on a veil to pander to Muslims. Which is true of course, and this bunch of evil hags should be shamed as much as possible. But if you want to understand what is really going on, you gotta understand immediatism.

See, these Swedish middle aged women aren't feminist in the abstract. They are feminist in their local environment. Which means that there are in a power struggle against their men. Not men in the abstract. But Swedish men. Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers. It is them who they want to spite. And to spite them they adopt "feminism", i.e. they parrot feminist rhetoric, mostly imported from the USA. And the policies they adopt are tailored to fuck with Swedish men: like taking the snow out of the driveways that women walk, instead of the big roads that their men use to drive to work and transport stuff.

Iranian men just don't compute in whatever drives these people's behavior. Even the Muslim men who are slowly invading their country don't count for much. For all they care they aren't real people. They're just some abstraction you read about. Only the people in your Dunbar circle are real. So their "feminism" is about fucking with the men in their Dunbar circle. Anything else isn't actually there. It is often said that progressive rhetoric assumes that minorities don't really have agency. Everything is the fault of white men. Same thing. Progressives are in a power struggle against fellow white people: nobody else matters. "Agency" only exists in so far as progressives find it useful in order to achieve more power for themselves against their Dunbar-rivals.

And so when a Swedish prime minister goes to Iran, she puts the veil. Not because she's not a feminist: but because her feminism is an immediate concern, not an abstract principle. Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women. They actually enjoy this, obviously. But they will never admit so to their fellow men. There's two reasons for that. Often people say that is because their fellow men are beta, feminism is a shit test, the local people don't pass the shit test so women end up despising the men for it. But I don't think that's all the story. Point is, in the local environment, white women and men are rivals in a power struggle, and no quarter is given. No amount of alpha can solve that. Only alphas who are not part of the local power struggle can influence women. Of course the question is how to stop white women from being in a state of war against their men. But that isn't as easy as it sounds: Asian women give plenty of shit to Asian men, and even Muslim women are a pain in the ass in their own way. I guess only Afghans got that solved for good.

War in Byzantine's time was based on morale and manpower. Manpower because the larger army won, and morale because defeats weren't material defeats for whatever reason. Malthusian considerations perhaps - death is a virtue? Winning was simply a matter of not giving up first. Rome expanded largely because when they lost an army, they would go home and raise another until the other side gave up. Islam had tons of manpower because they allow polygamy. Lots of unchained young men who aren't getting their dicks wet unless they find an infidel to rape. Hence, when they raised armies, they were enormous. My first guess at the morale would be the delta between very humane Islam and inhumane Christianity. Islam expects a few empty rituals and then you can more or less indulge all your impulses. Christianity expects literally impossible things from you, and even says so. In any case, Christians weren't willing to carry out West Roman style genocides which are required to make Islam sit down and shut up. So the Mohammedans would simply raise another army and zerg rush the thing again. In modern times, manpower is almost useless. Technology and technique are all important, especially together. Imagine what it must be like to think "We are the chosen of Allah," but simultaneously to know that Mecca's continued existence depends on the grace and mercy of the Great Satan, America. Among other, minor powers. Cognitive dissonance? Honey, you don't know anything about it.

[…] Penis Envy […]

Icons are teaching devices for times when literacy rates were infinitesimal. They are intentionally rendered in an unrealistic style to avoid moving the passions rather than the rational mind. This is in contradistinction to the Western Church's later attempts to actively move the passions. An icon uses inverted perspective, things farther away get larger, because the infinite vanishing point is understood to be in the viewer's own heart. Your comments about the style of Byzantine icons is ill informed.

Are you absolutely sure that manpower is useless now? ISIS appears to be doing remarkably well despite their lack of technology, and on the political field, the side that can gather the numbers to yell is remarkably effective.

Guilty as charged. Not a fan.

The side that's being funded by America isn't doing so bad? Weird. I'll have to have a think about that one.

I was going to say that because I have read books about Russian culture. The problem of the Internet is that everybody can say anything about an area that he doesn't know anything. See the ignorant commentary of Alrenous above, for an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

It's certainly a fancy excuse. "I can't draw for shit. What am I gonna say?" "Let's say we're not trying to excite the passions!" "Oh damn, nice one."

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

I still don't like icons and think my explanation is plausible.

Lol

Islam is the solution we do not want, but will probably get. Maybe we can invent a Christianity that steals the best of Islam, while decorating it with some norse stuff in place of that middle eastern stuff.

If the Druse could I don't see why we can't.

We have the weaponry to wipe out the most muslims in days and mop up the rest within a year if we applied ourselves. But we lack the will to destroy our enemies and preserve our own people.

That’s an actual like by Yongzheng emperor when been asked by a Chinese minister about Muslim misbehavior, by the way.

Did they have Facebook in ancient China?

My hands are so fast my typos jump 2 keys at once.

"The icon-painter guild was *very* stubborn." Funnily enough, the Byzantine Empire is dead, while icon-painters in the traditional mode (complete with ritual purification before and after, use only of materials and modes approved by timeless Tradition, etc.) are still around. Proving that the Byzantines were wrong; God likes icons. More than he liked Byzantium. Apropos of your point, it is entirely correct. Western civilization will become healthy again if and only if men begin directing women in manly fashion. Which is why our current milieu spends so much time emasculating men, starting before they're born.

And if all our women rejected feminism, we would largely not be in this situation. It helps, I think, to be realistic about such situations and try to use their social technology to our advantage.

Just to firm this up: Alrenous above said that manpower was irrelevant in current conflicts. Morale still very much isn't.

This is largely correct. I spent 10 years as an Orthodox monk (now Catholic). Huge amounts of Othodox lore and opinion have developed in the last few centuries as little more than anti-Latin revisionism and ex post facto rationalizations of the failure to understand and employ the continuing developments of Western Civilization. The Council of Florence proved that Byzantium had lost the capacity for this, and not that it was simply aloof and "too good" for this. That said, I will concede that the dawn of Modernism in the West did wreak an important impoverishment on the Western cultus: it led to an increasingly diminished sense of the supernatural, the loss of a peculiarly sacred (i.e., "set apart") form of art, and the bringing down of sacred barriers in the churches (chancel/rood screens, baldochin and tabernacle veils, etc. Similar things occurred in Othodox Churches, though aesthetical and anti-Latin animus are prompting a reversal.