There are three types of thing: physical, logical, and emotional.
There are three types of stuff: power, truth, and reasons.
There are three rule-sets: differentiation, interaction, and sequence.
There are three essences: What, How, and Why.
Nothing else can even be imagined by humans. Everything is constructed from these three.
I've always been fascinated with logic. I still remember reading about Boolean logic in a childrens' science encyclopedia, and thinking it was the most sublime thing ever. In high school, learning Pascal, and then C++, allowed me to interact with logic on a far deeper level than ever before. It was the perfect thing, the gorgeous and spiritual thing, the unsullied thing. I wanted everything to be as perfect as logic. But the people around me were illogical, and it turned out even I was illogical, ending up writing stories on my computer until all hours instead of doing my college classwork. It was as if my decisions had already been made for me, despite me wanting to do what was right. I fell out of college and landed a job as a dishwasher.
I applied my skills of logic to my own emotions, observing where they came from and what they made me do. I found interesting patterns, and found some solutions to my negative emotions. But one realization in late 2000 or early 2001 changed my life: logic and emotion are two entirely different types of things, in the same way the physical is completely different from logic. You can't freeze an equation into a plasma, or melt anger into a solid. They are made of different "stuff", to use a physical metaphor. And I couldn't think of any concept which didn't refer to something made of one of these three things: power, truth, or reasons.
I started applying this "three-thing" to everything I could think of, and found it was a key to understanding anything.
I applied the "three-thing" to the famous six questions of journalism, and they collapsed down to three categories:
-
"What happened?" Answered by a physical event, such as a wedding, or a car wreck.
-
"How did it happen?" This asks for the process, the logical interactions which led to the event.
-
"Why did it happen?" This asks for an emotional cause: "What was the motivation?" If it was an unmotivated event, in which something happened without someone deciding to do it, this is answered by the "how" above.
-
"When did it happen?" This is a specific place, which is a physical attribute.
-
"Where did it happen?" This is a specific time, which is also a physical attribute.
-
"Who was involved?" This asks for which person, answered by the physical fact of a specific person
-
"Who would do such a thing?" This is a completely different question which asks for an emotional answer, a variant of "Why?"
I could now logically determine what kind of answer is requested by any question.
I applied the "three-thing" to the cultural dichotomy of Man, and found a trichotomy instead:
-
Men are from Mars: men instinctively think in terms of concrete actions and choices, and see other people as physical beings. For men, the physical reality is the basic foundation of all.
-
Women are from Venus: women think in terms of changing impressions and reactions, and see other people as emotional beings. For women, the emotional reality is foundational, and the physical is an expression of that.
-
Aspies are from Vulcan: People on the autism spectrum, like me, instinctively reach for logic when we don't understand something or want to solve a problem. I yearned to meet more people like me, people focused on logic and thought, and I found them on the Internet. (Oh, how the times have changed...) For me, logic and truth are the foundation.
I now had a basic map for dealing with people.
I applied the "three-thing" to ontology, the study of what types of things exist.
I asked myself what the difference was between being "right" in the sense of having the correct answer and being "right" as in choosing morally. I realized I already had a built-in map in my mind of the opposites of things: right/wrong, correct/incorrect, and so on, but I had simply not sought to articulate or formalize it before:
-
Moral: right/wrong
-
Logical: true/false
-
Philosophical: wise/foolish
-
Physical: changing/static
-
Scientific: accurate/inaccurate
-
Emotional: good/bad
-
Psychological: thriving/perishing
I have since applied this to other philosophies, to value systems and economics, to psychology and the editing of the subconscious, to physics, to political tribalism and the Libertarian view of taxation, to Trinitarian theology, to music theory, and even (after watching Pixar's Ratatouille) to food theory. In each case, I've found answers readily available through Triessential analysis. I've seen rhetorical triads in anything about which people speak rhetorically, and they're usually Triessential. I have come to believe that this three-way categorization is how the human brain recognizes and categorizes the world, subconsciously or consciously.
I've seen books written with Triessential underpinnings, such as Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics" focusing on their differences and reconciliation, and Simon Sinek's "Start With Why" focusing on the sequential nature of motivation. I've seen how Triessentialism is the answer to Objectivism's missteps, and accounts for postmodernism's criticisms of modernism in meaningful ways. I've even seen it explain the rise of drag queen story hour at libraries.
Now I want to start producing content based on Triessentialism. I want to write a book, start a podcast, generate a wiki, do something to get this worldview out there and being talked about. I also want to talk about these concepts in a place I can refer back to, and analyze new things I haven't yet applied it to. So I finally made this post, partly to organize my own thoughts and brainstorm, but also to get reactions from smart and interesting people.
Ask me to elaborate on anything, or to analyze anything. Ask me to react to something. I'll do my best to apply Triessentialism so you can see how it functions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's fine, but I'm definitely still in the "Who cares?" camp. It's transparently and quite simply a valid ontology for the most part (though perhaps not universally, as I will probe below), but to my intuition in such a simple fashion that it's also meaningless. Perhaps it's more fundamental and thus more accurate, but I'm just not seeing the actual benefits of applying it as a framework over categorizing things by shape, color, or any other obvious characteristic.
What you need to answer is this: What extra can an individual, a group, or society actually achieve by applying Triessentialism (kind of annoyed it's not just "Trissentialism" btw, much catchier, t. coiner of term "pedofascism") to any given matter? What gains can we achieve in the realms of personal fulfillment, social organization, public policy, etc.?
I don't need Triessentialism to know that men are more physically oriented than women, that women are more emotional than men, that autists like to imagine themselves as beings of pure logic, that "true and "false" are the fundamental values of classical logic (after all, that's kind of just automatically baked into the concept), or any other "insight" your post provides.
You're basically doing a variation of affirming the consequent: highlighting obvious and well-understood but fundamental knowledge, showing that this knowledge does not contradict a Triessentialist framework (or can even be explained using it), and then consequently retroactively assigning the insight of that fundamental knowledge to Triessentialism even though it was never actually needed to understand it in the first place.
So again: What can I find out with Triessentialism that I don't already know or can't already figure out (or at least can't figure out nearly as easily) with anything else? Philosophies and ontologies are maps attempting to describe and categorize the territory of all conceivable configurations of all that is or could be. But you don't need a map to point out that a huge mountain in the distance exists, which is all you've done so far. What about this territory can Triessentialism's map tell me that other maps and/or basic observation can't?
Other than that crucial question, I have a few more (and one about a subject I'm sure you never imagined you'd get asked, making it a good test of your philosophy's flexibility):
1. How is the emotional not, as at least the explanation with the most empirical grounding would suggest, contained by the physical and the logical as opposed to constituting its own independent pole? The neurology that produces emotions (as far as we can observe) is physical. The operation of that neurology is (again as far as we can tell) essentially logical (mostly chemical and electrical "computation"). (If you subscribe to certain philosophical leanings (and I am undecided about the question myself to be clear), you of course entirely reject the notion that subjective sensations, qualia, are fully reducible to their physical/logical substrates, but that just leads into my next question.)
2. Where do (particularly emotionally neutral) qualia fit into this ontology? Let's imagine, for example, the purely subjective, qualic sensation of me rubbing the pants I'm wearing right now. Though my hands, the pants, the nerves feeling them, and the brain interpreting them are all physical, the subjective sensation of my doing so is not (or is at least not provably so, again undecided), as it is not (at least as far as we know for now, see: hard problem of consciousness) properly defined or specified by even the most detailed (again, as far as we know for now) accounting of these interactions.
Further, it's not logical, because it has no algorithmic structure or antecedent or truth value, even a fuzzy one (though some fuzziness is involved), and it's not emotional, because it's an essentially entirely neutral sensation with no real emotional valence. (It's not some nice velvety fabric that's enjoyable to stroke, nor a prickly one, just there doing its job of keeping my balls contained. And if that's still not a neutral enough qualia for you, then we can just focus on the background qualia of existing itself, which I think is valence-neutral for most people for the vast majority of their life.) Changing "emotional" to "subjective" in your triad would pretty much entirely address this criticism however.
3. In Triessentialism, what is a purely informational (in the sense of "non-physical" (as technically that which is purely random isn't informational at all), which your ontology implicitly allows for by having categories wholly outside of it) and purely random (not even just pseudorandom) and unalgorithmic interaction/event/value classified as? It can't be physical, because it's purely informational (which we defined as non-physical, which is again allowable by having "physical" be only pole of a tripole), it can't be logical (in that it is again unalgorithmic and, as a purely random output, has no truth value, not even a fuzzy one, nor any informational/descriptive value, because it is again fully random, with each bit of it necessarily not containing nor contributing any statistical implication or logical imputation whatsoever), and emotion seems to have no relevance to it. (The practical plausibility of such a thing actually existing/happening in the real world can be debated, but you said it yourself: "Nothing else [outside of Triessentialism] can even be imagined by humans." I'm pretty sure I just did.)
I think, at least terminologically speaking, you may have fallen into the trap of equating the informational (again in the sense of the non-physical and non-subjective, that is the purely mathematical or descriptive) with the logical, assuming that all that exists in such a category can be described logically, even though it has been known for quite some time that this isn't the case (see: non-computable functions, hypercomputation, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Chaitin's constant, etc.). (To fix this, I think I my last description of "informational" may have the best word to replace "logical" with along with the best explanation of what non-physical randomness is fundamentally: mathematical. The mathematical necessarily encompasses all that is logical, but, at least if academic categorization is considered valid, also seems to cover areas like non-computable functions and pure randomness which are illogical at their core (though you might retort that the manner in which they are reasoned about in mathematical discourse surrounds them with a logical scaffolding that belies this).)
And for my final question which I'm sure you never thought you'd be asked:
4. I am a dedicated pedofascist and absolute androsupremacist. I want the entire world to be united under pedofascism (though not necessarily the exact same polity implementing it, as I am a libertAryan as well), for pedofascism to be considered as obvious and universal of a political commandment as "murdering other members of society in good standing, fellow in-group members, should be illegal and highly taboo/considered inarguably wrong" (though absent that I will settle for converting as many as possible). What can a Triessentialist analysis of the subject do to enhance the probability of pedofascism achieving as productive, efficient, and victorious of an outcome as possible (or at least enhancing its understanding)? (Or if you really hate it, perhaps you might use Triessentialism to do the opposite. Maybe Triessentialism could even convince me to alter the fundamental tenets of pedofascism, reinterpret them in a different fashion, or even not be a pedofascist at all anymore! Point is, what can Triessentialism actually uniquely do or reveal in relation to pedofascism? Where's the beef?)
(Brief primer on pedofascism to help you answer: Under pedofascism, as per the "absolute androsupremacy" part, the feminine is entirely subservient to the masculine, which is what we believe is wholly natural and just, with females having a permanent social status that is somewhere between wards/children, pets, and chattel slaves. As the maximal expression of this principle and entire rejection of what we consider to be current gynocentric and gynosupremacist norms, there is of course no "age of consent" (for females at least) under this system, as the right of consent lies only with the female's masculine possessor.
With this artificial (so we declare, based on historical, biological, evolutionary, etc. evidence) limitation on masculine sexuality lifted, men inevitably (so we say) return to the full affirmation and appreciation of the beauty, sensuality, and sexuality of youth and neoteny (extending even to the prepubescent, as it's pedofascism, not just hebefascism), which we believe is also in their inherent nature. This is then combined with a fascist political lens, in which all classes unite through an organismic and homeostatic conception of social relations to maximize the strength, vitality, vigor, dominance, nobility, beauty, vivaciousness, etc. of society and the (Aryan, at least in my particular branch of pedofascism) individual. So what's Triessentialism got to help with or at least understand this?)
I appreciate your in-depth elaboration on what your ideal society would look like, but can you explain to me why this would be good, other than because men would return to 'appreciating and affirming youth' ? Is that goal the only reason you advocate said conception of masculine-feminine relations? If so, what is particularly desirable about that goal to justify what seems to me like the significant cost to the well-being of women to achieving it? To clarify, I am honestly interested in learning more about your beliefs and am not here to annoy you, shame you, or attempt to defeat you in debate. If you care to do so, could you do your best to try and convince me that returning to this full affirmation of youth would be a significant good? To me, it seems like most women probably wouldn't want to be treated as children/pets/slaves. Is your contention that they would actually be happier in this arrangement, or that their wishes aren't morally relevant, or that their wishes are relevant but less relevant than the good that would be done by allowing men to return to this lost appreciation and affirmation of youth?
Thanks in advance.
You're quite welcome sir. I will try to answer your questions as best as possible though it may require a bit of back and forth as there tends to be an inferential gap.
Androsupremacism:
According to most if not all known and verified history, men have always constituted the vast majority of worthwhile thinkers, doers, creators, inventors, entrepreneurs, producers, scientists, artists, writers, philosophers, athletes, warriors, philanthropists, craftsmen, pilots, explorers, adventurers, leaders, etc. (And this isn't just because they oppressed women into being unable to compete. If men weren't simply inherently superior, then how would they have taken over in the first place in essentially every society? If men and women were truly inherently equal, then it would have been a coin flip at the dawn of society which sex subjugated the other to determine the initial state of the society's sexual relations, and you would have had a 50/50 split between societies that were matriarchal from the beginning and the opposite. Didn't happen. For the most part all matriarchal societies stayed primitive tribes.)
So by any accounting, any amount of men's empowerment in your society is going to give you a far greater boost on basically all metrics (and non-metrics) than any amount of women's "empowerment" (and as I will discuss, any amount of men's "disempowerment" is going to cause far worse consequences than any amount of women's disempowerment). (And it is worth noting that simply due to the mathematical nature of finite resources, of which authority is one, this is necessarily a zero-sum game to a large degree. Women's "empowerment" equals men's disempowerment and vice-versa.) Empowered men gave us the Agricultural Revolution, every great empire (especially the Greek and Roman foundations of knowledge), the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Age of Enlightenment, the First and Second Industrial Revolutions, the Digital Revolution/Third Industrial Revolution, the Space Age, the modern Internet, etc. (Sure, these changes all came with trade-offs, but every one of them was also still an objective increase in the power, capability, knowledge, convenience, and, at least in significantly measurable material terms, quality of life of the human species.)
"Empowered" (in quotes because it's debatable whether they are even really empowered or just another tool wielded by the high to divide and conquer/disrupt the low) women gave us... DEI/wokeism? Bra burning? Two simple questions: 1. Have empowered women en masse ever changed anything about society in a way that primarily benefits everyone (or was intended to primarily benefit everyone in a purely neutral sense, not like when feminists say "Women receiving these advantages will technically help men out too via helping to dismantle 'toxic masculinity' blah blah blah.", but like when men invented computers or trigonometry) as opposed to only them (and even this is arguable)? 2. Have empowered women en masse ever brought about any revolution or innovation comparable to the male-led ones listed prior, any revolution or innovation that drastically transformed human life/society/culture in a way that is to a significant degree, pretty much in the majority, objectively positive (or at least again significantly empowering of the entire human species, enhancing of its capabilities, etc.)?
I can think of two big movements/changes in recent history primarily led (or at least supported) by women (though even with these they generally required significant male help or at least acquiescence to bring them about). The first, Prohibition, was a massive folly that mostly failed to curtail its targeted vice while also causing immense and unjustifiable increases in crime, disorder, and other human costs. Its quick repeal characterizes it accurately. The second is of course feminism, and while I will be charitable enough to recognize that quite a few people consider many of the changes it resulted in to be positives (a perspective which I do not share as I will elaborate upon), its merit is at least objectively far more debatable than any of the male-led movements listed prior.
In particular, it does not objectively and unquestionably empower or enhance the general capability of society in any way. It is an objective fact that almost any significantly industrialized society will outcompete (economically, culturally, martially) one that isn't. The same is true of any digitized society in regards to the opposite. Is the same true of a feminist society versus a non-feminist society? The jury is still out given its historical recentness, but the answer hardly seems to be yes. (In particular, the Taliban's recent humiliation of the US despite its economic and technological inferiority sure makes it seem like feminism is actually a major handicap, that you can still lose despite theoretically greater capabilities due to the spiritual and social weakness it induces in you.)
Overall, the message of history seems clear: Empowered men will bring about for society that which is better, faster, harder, stronger, smarter, more powerful, more productive, more enlightened, and in general overall closer to God. Empowered women will get you... less restrictions on their behavior, with dubious/debatable consequences, and the occasional moral hysteria about this or that which probably won't achieve anything positive. Which we should prefer seems obvious under this consideration.
If you could empower one organ in your body, which would you pick? Maybe your heart or lungs to enhance your cardio or your brain to turbocharge your cognitive abilities? Or would you choose your tonsils or appendix or colon? Would you let them run the show? Would you rather be driven in behavior by your simple pancreas instead of your complex brain or have your physical capabilities limited by your integumentary system instead of your muscular system? Why should society work any differently in determining which of its organs has control? (And it is worth noting that none of this questioning demeans kidneys or colons or pancreases; they all absolutely have their worthwhile parts to play as anyone who has ever lost one will tell you... it is simply not in the captain's chair. There they would do more harm than good, which actually would be demeaning to the useful natural function they could otherwise serve.)
Anyway, it is now that I will address the matter of disempowerment, as I previously addressed the matter of empowerment, that is what the costs of the disempowerment of each sex are. "Disempowered" (in quotes again since it is arguable if the natural/historical domestic/subservient station of women can truly be considered meaningful disempowerment in the first place, since, after all, is a domesticated dog disempowered by resting on its owner's lap or simply empowered exactly to the rightful degree: as a companion to its natural steward?) women gets you... hundreds of generations of successful homemakers, mothers, and nurturers who, maybe, at times, might have been slightly dissatisfied with their role or wanted to do some of the things reserved for men (though we hardly have much proof that these sentiments were very widespread at all, given that they are almost always related to us through the lens of modernity and even nowadays, when they are strongly encouraged to do anything else and even shamed over it, a significant portion of women still enjoy many aspects of their traditional domestic roles, with more and more increasingly rebelling against modern social expectations to retreat into them)... and that's about it. No, really, I'm not saying there are no negative consequences at all. You might have an occasional genuinely naturally Ayn Rand-esque woman who would be legitimately more miserable under such a system (the type that pushed for feminism in the first place). Any severe and widespread consequences though? The successful history of thousands of years the patriarchal world belies them.
Traditional women raised and supported the men who built the modern world up until around the 60s or so. If they were really so interminably miserable, could they actually have helped nurture babies and children into the men who won wars, created empires, mastered the sciences, traversed the world, and invented revolutionary new technology after revolutionary new technology? Would the patriarchies of the past have put up with a bunch of constantly biter hags harshing everyone's vibe? I doubt it. On balance, they must have been relatively satisfied, in a visible sense that uplifted the men around them with their feminine presence, nurturing, and support, or the arrangement wouldn't have lasted as long as it did (with its disappearance coinciding with the rise of greater social disorganization/disintegration in general, suggesting it is not one step towards the further optimization of society but rather simply a sign of decline) because the societies with the strongest men would have changed it (since, again, why would the most male-dominated societies have tolerated the annoyance of constantly and perceptibly upset women?).
To be continued in next post
Continued from the last post
Meanwhile, disempowered men gets you... plummeting birth rates, foreign invasions by every variety of refugee and illegal immigrant, incels, mass shooters, bizarre sexual and social behavior (like women making thousands of dollars selling their pee, which I think most would agree is objectively bizarre), nihilism, narcissism, crises of confidence, malaise, stagnation, decline (sure, technology is still progressing by allowing isolated pockets of men to continue riding the trajectories created in a past male-dominated era, but we can't keep our trains on their tracks in many cases nor most of our cities safe to walk at night), spiritual deprivation, increasing economic inequality (How is your average man supposed to respectfully and assertively advocate for himself against the world's robber barons when he can't even advocate for himself to control a mere household as his grandfather did?), declining social trust, increasing crime and disorder, declining sexual relations (you did not, I believe, in the past much have whole large, visible swathes of each sex who essentially truly hated the other), declining physical health, increasing anti-intellectualism and lack of attention span, increasing rates of mental illness, etc. (Certainly, not all of these trends if any of them are likely wholly reducible to sexual relations, and yet it would be foolish to discount the notion that they are all at least significantly contingent on the disempowerment of the demographic which has historically prevented/fixed all of them or maintained all of them in a proper state. That is, if you disempower plumbers, well, that may not end up being the only reason that the state of society's plumbing ends up being worse, but it surely didn't help.)
When viewed through this lens, it again seems obvious to me which should be prevented at all costs and which might not actually even be a negative at all.
Would it be? On one hand, modern women have gotten almost everything a vanguard of them oriented towards occupying a more masculine station claimed they wanted, the "equality" they supposedly always desired (and in many cases, more beyond that, such as affirmative action and "equity" measures that served to actually give them extra, more than men, with unmarried young women having higher incomes on average than unmarried young men). On the other hand, they are more convinced than ever (or at least more preoccupied with the notion that) society is a masculinist, patriarchal conspiracy to oppress, rape, murder, and destroy them and everything they value.
They don't seem to like men or even themselves more (consider the common anxiety of women about how they measure up to the top-tier of Instagram models or whoever, a situation they created themselves by convincing men to eliminate modesty/chastity rules that limited their internal competition). They don't seem to like society or their lives more or be happier with either, as the increasing mental health medicalization of society proves. They are frequently more paranoid (having made "War on Women" a political slogan in a time period where men are almost certainly more afraid to even look at a woman the wrong way than they've ever been in history), irascible (only in this time period would you get some of the videos on /r/PublicFreakout), bitter ("Where have all the good men gone?" You feminized them away!), vapid (it's not only women, but it was not primarily men for example who led the transition of the Internet from a text-based medium defined mostly by what you could read to the realm of TikTok and Instagram Reels), and dissatisfied.
Sure, there are still moments of satisfaction embedded in this paradigm. There are times when a 37 year old childless #GirlBoss wakes up at 11 AM on a Sunday after a wild night at the club mostly voluntarily engaging in what, in more tribal times, would have been acts reserved for the forceful sexual humiliation of the conquered (with increasingly less attractive men as she ages, and certainly none committed to anything more than using her as a temporary onahole), orders a ridiculously overpriced Starbucks drink from Uber Eats to soothe her shame (if she has any left) with ungodly amounts of sugar (another sign of decline, and conveniently which sex made Starbucks into a fast food goliath?), and mostly happily sips it while scrolling through social media or continuing her latest Netflix binge, grateful that she didn't have to be up at 6 AM to cook breakfast and sift through her latest baby's poop as anyone would be, but the same is true of a heroin addict shooting up. In the moment, we would all rather take a break than lay a brick (and certainly there is nothing wrong with doing so occasionally), from our social, familial, intellectual, personal, and other obligations as people as much as literally, but 1000 breaks as opposed to 1000 bricks will not build so much as a small shanty.
Is it a kindness to give a drug addict his next fix or to crucify a schizophrenic who thinks he's Jesus? When giving people what they supposedly desire (and, again, it is worth noting how much feminism as an alleged desire is mediated through a small number of women (and, especially and perhaps even to an even greater degree in many cases, a lot of men and their cultural/norm propagating institutions too, who, as I previously alluded to, have quite the incentive to make it more difficult for your Average Joe to have even basically productive relations with women, as this thins the field of men who could devote their time/energy to competing with them and possibly usurping their status instead) who set the tone/expectations as opposed to any sort of mass participatory vote) often leads to more apparently disordered/negative consequences for them than positive ones, isn't it perhaps time to reconsider if you're actually doing them a favor?
So to summarize, we have a lot of evidence that men's empowerment is good for society/everyone, a lot of evidence that men's disempowerment is especially terrible for them but also still pretty bad for society/everyone, a decent amount of evidence that women's "empowerment" isn't even that great for them despite how much it costs in men's disempowerment (which we've established is bad), and not much evidence that women's "disempowerment" was ever even bad enough to warrant such a dramatic correction in the first place.
Let's say you run a game development studio, necessarily employing primarily artists (we'll assume you haven't/can't replace them with StableDiffusion yet) and programmers along with designers and producers. Your company is successful. At some point your artists and programmers start spreading rebellious notions: they're tired of simply implementing or realizing what the designers and producers dictate. They want more control over the direction of the company's games. They want to help decide on mechanics or themes or features, not simply make them according to others' specifications. Gradually and then suddenly you give in, because tumultuous and shifting economic times have left you weak, distracted, and unable to put up as much of a proper fight as you normally would.
Plus, they promise you all sorts of advantages and appeal to all sorts of vaunted principles. Think of how much the company's designs could improve with new, diverse perspectives contributing to them! Think of how much more equal everyone will be! Think of how much more democratic it will be, with everyone getting a say into whether your company abandons its current progress to jump on the latest genre trend like battle royales instead of merely those who had made such decisions before in a provably economically viable fashion. After all, you're not some mean old tyrant who wants to tell everyone what to do and opposes self-determination right? (This is why the "cooler" designers, at least at first, also support the initiative, declaring that their offices are wide open. The more the merrier!)
Does it work? Not really. Sure, at times the party line of the artists and programmers is that things are so much better now that they've been freed from the shackles of merely being ordered to draw this or fix that, and yet they're often severely frustrated that their design ideas aren't actually as good as they thought they'd be (which they often try to blame on the existing designers who are supposedly sabotaging them due being "too entitled to share their privilege", unable to accept new faces and competitors in their traditional realms of responsibility, etc.) and distracted from their natural faculties in art and programming, which, when they do still engage in them (which they refuse to do nearly as much, wanting to prioritize their new "responsibilities", meaning your art and code output are crawling along at a snail's pace and are vastly lower quality), often yet seem to be a much more natural fit and make them happier (or at least more productive and skillful). Your designers, whether they'll admit it or not, are of course miserable, as anyone would be having their field invaded and usurped by chattering kibitzers.
Conclusion in the next post
Continued from prior post
Thinking back, you also realize that nothing was really that bad objectively before. Then, you made great games, whereas now all you seem to make is conflict and alleged "progress" that doesn't really seem to progress anything. So do you keep things as they are or change them back? Keep in mind, none of the supposed moral principles behind why you embraced this "progress" in the first place have changed. You'll still be attacking diversity and agency and freedom and self-determination and blah blah blah. You'll be putting all of your company's poor artists and programmers back into the servitude of merely obeying another's whim.
But... maybe that's a good thing? Maybe the situation on the ground, how good or bad the games your game studio is making are, is more important than abstract principles that mostly get weaponized into endorsing absurdities anyway? And if human culture were a game studio, then isn't the "good game" it should be producing human flourishing, life satisfaction, and true progress along objective axes of advancement (in the way that we are objectively more advanced than cavemen)? Is women's empowerment contributing to that? Sure, the principles are all perfectly correct, just, and moral, at least in theory, but is the product and therefore the world really better? I for one (though not only one), based on all of my prior reasoning, don't think so (and increasingly many more are agreeing). But isn't that an important if not the most important concern? What is principle in a worse world? What is a fancier sandwich that tastes worse?
And that's why I endorse androsupremacism. The principle that everyone should just be 100% free and equal and not at all constrained by their demographic circumstances or biological configuration is nice... but it doesn't work. Nature made one sex on average bigger, taller, stronger, smarter (in terms of number of high IQ individuals), more tolerant of risk (and therefore more apt for conquest and success), more dominant, etc. Nature very obviously made one sex to lead and one sex to follow. It is literally written in our DNA and obvious just from a simple visual perusal of our respective phenotypes.
Maybe a screwdriver occasionally looks enviously at a hammer, wishes it too were big and strong and could hammer in nails instead of just always screwing and twisting, which is so much less powerful and exciting... but it's still a screwdriver. And the house still has to built and maintained, ideally as optimally as possible if we're all to have the nicest house possible to live in. That means screwdrivers screw and hammers hammer. Back to work.
Anyway, since I wrote around 2.25 posts worth of words about this one subject already, I will post this now and maybe reply in the future to separately address the pedo and fascist aspects of my ideology. Hopefully you appreciate this initial explanation regardless. (I apologize if it is to any degree unnecessarily lengthy; as a variation of the old saying goes, they don't pay me enough to spend the extra time to write something shorter.)
Further, some quick addenda which don't really easily fit in anywhere else with what I wrote:
1. You seem to have ended up convinced by my original explanation of my ideology (my fault, though it was only ever intended to be a quick summary to facilitate the asking of my question) that the primary/main purpose of androsupremacism is to encourage/allow/promote pedophilia. Hopefully the above has disabused you of this false impression (which is again my communicative deficit). As I will explain if I ever address it separately, pedophilia to some degree (to which degree is uncertain, but in any case it's down to the individual man's choice mostly so it's not super important) is an inevitable consequence of androsupremacism, but not its goal. (Androsupremacism and pedofascism are related paradigms, in that they go together like butter and jelly, but are also still fundamentally independent. This is not to say that I am not a rabid supporter of pedophilia and pedofascism and would like to see a society in which men have fully embraced what I believe is the objectively spiritually, morally, and vigorously uplifting (and wholly natural and psychologically normal/healthy/vital to acknowledge) sexuality, sensuality, and beauty of the loli, because I am, but if androsupremacism were to come knocking on my door by itself tomorrow I wouldn't tell it to go away until it brought company along!)
2. As I realize I went off on a tangent and stopped referring back to your post directly at some point, allow me to address the following:
a. I disagree.
b. Mostly the first answer (you can make very good arguments for the second two answers but those arguments are mostly irrelevant given that the first answer is mostly true anyway).
Thank you for your thorough explanation. I don't think the lengths of your posts were inappropriate (I at least read them all without becoming bored, if that means anything to you.) I'm also not sure there needs to be much back-and-forth here, either, as you consider there might need to be at the very beginning of your writing: it seems as though you have been sufficiently thorough in your explanation of your idealized conception of sex relations to the extent that I have no further questions to ask you, at least on that topic. However, I have some further questions about your other beliefs.
You mention a belief in God. Although I appreciated the lengths of your earlier posts, can you explain somewhat briefly how you justify a belief in God in the first place, and how your spirituality plays into your beliefs? I suppose I can imagine how traditional Christian doctrines would actually quite firmly support what you are mostly already saying here but if you could be specific that would be very interesting. I'm not exactly interested in having a theological discussion and if you believe in God I doubt either of our points regarding its existence or lack-thereof will be particularly convincing to one another, so I wouldn't mind if you kept your response to this point relative short and more explanatory rather than persuasive. I enjoyed the persuasive nature of your other posts though just to be clear, so I would not be opposed to you continuing that persuasive approach when addressing my points/questions beyond this one.
In your bio you mention an endorsement of anti-semitism and also being a (libert)Aryan. Can you explain how your conception of race relations relates to your beliefs? Similar to the previous point, I can assume how Aryan supremacism based on HBD might quite naturally play into your beliefs. But if having the most socially productive organ of society sit in the captain's chair is how you are orienting your idealized conception of society, how do you approach the fact that most IQ studies list east asian and jewish IQs as superior to those possessed by the traditionally 'Aryan' races? Should east asian and/or at least ethnically jewish men, assuming they are religiously Christian, be the ones we try and promote to the highest decision making positions in our society?
Also in your bio you mention 'natural femininity replacement.' By this do you just mean 'replacing' the set of currently acceptable female gender roles with those that existed before the 1960s? Or is this some other thing that perhaps you think I might be interested in hearing about from you more in depth, considering I've been very interested in hearing about your elaborations on your other beliefs?
You mention a lot of theory as to why it would be better if men and women reverted back to some more traditional conception of gender roles/sexual relations, but do you have any proposed praxis as to go about achieving (and preserving) this reversion? For example, if women came to wrongfully desire equality in our present world, and they hold some meaningful measure of political power now, is there really any feasible way they could be convinced they are wrong about this? Are women too far gone as a demographic, and it would be more-so a task of red-pilling all men and then having them seize back what is rightfully theirs? If, as you say in your posts, more and more people are beginning to have thoughts such as yours regarding the 'proper' conception of gender roles, is it just a matter of waiting until society self-corrects?
Perhaps most importantly out of any of these five points/questions: Indeed, as you mention toward the end of your post, I would like to hear your best attempt at a defense/endorsement of pedophilia as you might be so inclined to write. I'm less interested in hearing your defense of fascism as I have heard steel-manned arguments for fascism by nominally intelligent people many times before, and in the typical way for most political ideologies, the argument was somewhat convincing and somewhat not. If you really think you'd have something new to bring to the table regarding an argument for fascism feel free to describe it, but if your beliefs are more or less the steel-manned position already held by most neofascists, then feel free to skip that particular elaboration.
Rarely, though, if ever, have I heard a defense of pedophilia from an intelligent and well-spoken person. At least, I haven't heard such a defense of the type of pedophilia that wasn't pederasty. So more than anything I'm fascinated by the prospect of hearing what you have to say about that in general, 'why it would be good,' how it would be justified, how it would be spiritually and morally uplifting -- and how it plays into any conception of a political program beyond the premise that i.e. it would be spiritually or morally uplifting, which even if true seems like insufficient basis for any sort of political program beyond the scope of 'social movement.' Thanks again in advance for taking the time to thoughtfully share your perspectives.
Sorry, I've been busy, but here are at least some partial answers so far to your questions:
Actually, I did not, or at least I did not intend to. "Closer to God" is poetic language about man attaining capabilities closer to that of an idealized God, that is, omnipotence and perfection. About the subject of religion itself, I am undecided. (I do not really believe in any religion "deep in my bones" and likely never will barring some dramatic psychological experience, having been an atheist since a young age for that reason, but given that I conceive of religion primarily as a psychosocial-spiritual technology in any case, I do not wholly discount the utility of adopting it, hence my indecision.)
In any case, as it is a Jewish creation, no pedofascism of mine will ever promote as the ideal any sort of vanilla or non-Aryanized Christianity. Aryanized Christianity, preferably incorporating a mix of traditional European paganism for racial hygiene's sake (Shall the traditional Germanic or Anglo Gods be archangels of an Aryanized Christian God? Perhaps.) might be an option, though again I'm undecided. (Obviously such Aryanization would be to a degree a fiction (whether it would be any more than the original or any other religion is for your judgment), but the same is true of for example the Mormons and they seem to be doing just fine. Plus, it only takes one generation to go from self-conscious promotion to genuine belief. (And of course should that ever happen this paragraph is obviously then a complete fabrication by our enemies. ;) Don't lose faith!))
(And for the record I do think the modern overall rather nihilistic ideological milieu of society is what created my faithlessness, given that I was only 5-10 years ahead of most young people also converting to atheism or at least vague agnosticism or whatever, that this is a social deficit that can be corrected, and that I would have much preferred being born in a more spiritually invigorated time in which even I could have accessed the technology of faith through greater social support.)
This is complex and the main solid point I can offer is that any truly Aryan reich must interact with other races only from a standpoint of complete and absolute dignity, honor, and pride. There must be no guilt, no apologies, no cucking, no saviorism nor defeatism, no negative valence directed or allowed towards the Aryan race ever. The self-hatred must end and assertive self-advocacy must be the default.
Other than that, it is a complex issue and would have to be negotiated according to the unique and ever-changing circumstances of the present. Perhaps some races (particularly Yamato Japanese, who are, per Hitler among others, designated Honoraryans) would be our allies with their own racial reichs and perhaps some would be our conquest (and though none should ever accept it voluntarily, there is always the possibility of ending up as their conquest, which is already far too realized of a reality for many Aryans). Relationships between races, when allowed to develop organically, are much like relationships between people in that way.
I will say that the possession by Aryans of non-Aryan feminine property should by no means be prohibited (of course inbreeding is a matter to be policed separately). How this will be acquired depends. However, any Aryan reich must have a primarily Aryan residency, like 99%+ (non-Aryan feminine property not being counted here though as feminine properties would not have citizenship status separate from their owners), with some non-Aryan guests perhaps being allowed at times for various reasons to various degrees, for diplomacy's sake or perhaps just because they've earned it through honorable conduct.
Anyway sorry for the short post. I will answer more including more from #2 when I have time. Thank you for your understanding.
Looking forward to your further answers and elaborations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link