On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 28 Mar 2015, at 9:12 pm, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 26 Mar 2015, at 2:21 pm, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/?p=857 >> >> >> So most of these women are Brits? WTF! Makes your blood run cold. People >> are turning into zombies left right and centre. There is absolutely nothing >> whatsoever in organised religion for women. This whole conflict is a boys' >> club tribal thing. Women are necessary to the tribe because a good metric >> of any tribe's success is the number of willing female participants. Just >> ask Ghengis Kahn. Just ask the Christians; they have women dress in >> form-obscuring vetements as well; they are called "nuns" and presumably >> they lie around all day having erotic fantasies about being loved >> conveniently by Jesus without all the messy boy stuff that goes with sex. >> > > I think this model of men as exploiters and women as victims is too > simplistic. If only it were that simple. > > > > The model I use is the tribalism model. The tribalism model involves > exploiters and victims, yes, but this is not necessarily a gender > distinction thing. > I think tribal cultures come in a huge diversity. I would say that some of these cultures are anti-exploitative. One of the mechanisms that some anthropologist friends told me about is a common belief in Amazonian tribes that women can be impregnated by several men, and that the child acquires the best characteristics of each father. While male-oriented, this leads to a peaceful environment because there is no motivation for alpha-maleness, and there is a lot of loyalty to the group. Some researchers claim that members of these tribes express romantic feelings towards the tribe itself. Some tribes, e.g in Tibete are matriarchal. The environmental switch to matriarchy appears to be a small territory for farming, where polyandry prevents further fragmentation of farms. > Some people obtain real power in the world for a reason that some others > too can have a purchase on, so a cooperative group forms which then exists > to make others do what the group wants and it is quite as simple as that, > initially. Group psychology aids survival so it has immense selection value > in terms of evolution. I imagine social amoebas get together for much the > same reasons. The plurality of selves somehow projects or reverts to a > "group self" or, in today's terms: a corporation. > Agreed. > > A person is a corporation; an immense number of cooperating entities that > all answer to the name "Freddy". > Agreed. > > > > I've been trying to understand the horror of ISIS, and more specifically > what could lead women living in the west to join the movement. One of the > dynamics that seems to emerge from analyzing recruitment strategies and > interviewing people that defect the movement is this: hard as it may be to > believe, the jihadist fighter archetype seems to be a powerful sex symbol > for certain women. Many women are victims in this situation, but so are > many man. And other women collaborate in the vicitimization and are > responsible for encouraging men to become jihadist fighters. > > > > Of course. I merely claim that the majority of the all-powerful tribes on > Earth are boys' clubs, but women have sometimes refused to be accessories > to this as in the case of feminism. > I feel this is a bit too judgemental towards tribes, which are just blindly following an evolved survival strategy. Feminism is a product of civilization. It became possible post-tribalism, and it's a sophisticated correction of old norms that no longer serve the group but are simply a source of unfairness. It is also a very heterogeneous label, ranging from benevolent suffragettes who demanded equal rights, to hate groups who call for the extermination of all men. > > Briefly, from the gender angle: > > The female perspective: as hunter-gatherers (we have never stopped being > this) it makes sense to mate with the blokes who command the most > resources! This is the motivating factor. Bad boy behaviour is sexy because > it promises powerfully well for a woman's protection. A good boy will don a > suit and get on life's treadmill to work steadily toward some shared dream > perhaps but an unshaven bad boy will realise that dream a lot sooner, the > good boy having died of a stress-related coronary well before realising his > dream. > What is missing here is that there is some evidence for a common strategy on the women's side of being impregnated by the bad boy while marrying the nice guy, thus obtaining both the desirable genes and the resources. The biological games are rather brutal, and both sides employ nasty strategies. > > From the male perspective: the more women we co-opt into our tribe, the > more sex we get and the bigger and more powerful the tribe will become. We > need baby factories. The baby factories don't have to believe in our dogma > but it helps. They don't have any choice, really because if we need them we > will simply abduct them. > Yes, this is a common old nasty strategy from the male side, that has more access to brute force and the advantage of not becoming vulnerable and dependent during pregnancy. My point being: men and women belong to the same species and have the same average inclinations (or not) towards ethical behavior, arising from an evolved balance of cooperation vs. competition. But men and women have significant physiological differences, and thus each plays the cards they were dealt with. Correcting social norms so that these differences don't lead to unfairness is good, pretending that one of the genders is nicer than the other perhaps not so much. > > > The psyche of both women and men is not as simple as mainstream culture > likes to paint it. Why do you think 50 shades of grey was so popular? > > > > > Haven't seen it so cannot comment. Tell me. Why was it so popular? I > thought if people wanted to watch porn these days they can simply look at > oceans of it for nothing online at home. Why pay eighteen bucks to watch it > in a dark cinema with the raincoat brigade? > > I guess it has a lot to do with peoples' prurient fascination with the > possibility that pain might be erotically interesting and what that says > about us as a species? Am I getting warm? > I meant the popularity of the books. Synopsis: an attractive young woman agrees to enter into a contract of sexual slavery / BDSM stuff with an alpha-male billionaire. This book was so popular with women that it made the author very rich. I've seen countless women reading it in the subway while commuting to their jobs. I am not saying that these women would want to actually be in such a situation, or that this excuses anything. What I am saying is that many clearly want to safely read about it. This suggests to me that the "boy's club" dynamics is possibly an outcome of both male and female evolved instinct. It is easy to see the brutal aspects of male dominance, but the female behavior that enables it is not so obvious. > > > > When the Romans first met Germanic tribes, they were surprised to see > women in the back with spears, ready to kill any man who tried to defect > from the front lines. > > > > For this reason the Teutons only placed the ugly fat ones at the back, the > slender gorgeous ones being reserved for the orgy after the battle, should > they win ( which they often did). > Ok, I didn't know about that part. Not too surprising, I admit. > The Romans, being the more successful tribe, no longer needed the ugly fat > women at the back prodding them in the bum with spears. > The Romans were no longer a tribe. I think this is an important distinction. > > > > Men and women are physiologically different, which makes them more > naturally fit for different tasks, and men make better warriors. > > > > Please! "Hunter Gatherers" - "warriors" is a boys' club term for it. > I can accept that the term "warrior" glorifies something nasty, but what term to use? "Hunter Gatherer" is not what I mean. I refer to the people who directly confront other groups in battles to the death. Men are naturally more suited for this sort of thing due to endocrine system differences, that leads to bigger bodies, more muscles and more aggression. > > > > > But biology has a more unified plan, and everyone conforms to the plans of > biology through instinct. > > > > You betcha > > > > > I think that blaming one of the genders is missing the point. > > > > This might be clearer if you could say what it is I am blaming them for. > The existence of and the continued dominance of Earth's "boys'-only clubs" > is at one and the same time our greatest success and our greatest failing > as a race of either sex. Do I need to illustrate that? The place of women > in boys' clubs is to give the boys permission to believe their own bullshit > (whatever that might be and only for however long believing and living by > this bs secures the subsistence and the prosperity of the tribe.) > Ok, we agree. Sorry for reading too much into what you were saying. > > > > The characteristics of a gender have been evolved by millions of years of > selection, and women preferences play a role in this selection process. > > > > Women want men to protect them while they are carrying babies. Is there > actually anything else to it than this? > Yes, trait selection and the trade-offs between certain desirable traits and certain protector traits. I think these trade-offs are a source of much complexity in this type of dynamics. > They need the men to conceive the babies and they then need them to slay > the mammoth and keep the people from the other side of the river under > control. Other than that, seen from this gender perspective, I don't see > any other reason women need men. Of course men need women FAR more than > women need men. Even sperm can now be synthesised apparently, so tell me, > what is a man for, now? > Perhaps in the distant future we will become a single-gender species, but when that process is complete I doubt that it will stabilise on female -- even if bootstrapped by what you describe. Evolutionary pressures will be very different. It will likely produce something that would just feel alien to us now. Male and female are functions of each other. > > I try to see persons, not genders. Take me for example. My name is "Kim" > and most assume that I am female on that account. I have intentionally > never clarified this because sure as shit as soon as people know what > gender you are, that then subtly influences how they treat you! > I remembered finding it weird when I discovered that "Kim" was usually a female name. As a Portuguese native speaker "Kim" sounds masculine. We have "Quim", which is pronounced almost exactly the same but is a male-only name. (this is just a curiosity, I have no point to make here :) > > > Many people (notably feminists) complain about the "alpha-male" > sociopathic douchebag ruining society for everyone. > > > > But there ARE a bunch of alpha-male sociopathic douchebags ruining > society for everyone. > True. > I complain about it all the time. Most of them are banksters and some of > them may be extra-terrestrials if Karen Hudes of the IMF is right. It goes > waaaaaaaay beyond the gender debate... > > > But then, if you investigate further, this archetype has a lot of success > with women. > > > > This archetype DOES have enormous success with women. See the problem? We > are locked into tribalism as never before! We have never left the fucking > cave, mate. Women still love bad boys but bad boys only love each other (ie > the group, the tribe, the clan, the secret society, the dogma, the current > bullshit - whatever) while of course all the time tipping their semen into > some likely lass because that's supposed to be the entitlement of a good > tribal corporate member. > You are more liberal with the meaning of "tribalism" than me, but otherwise we mostly agree. > > > > It is our biology itself that we have to transcend -- the parts of the > program that no longer serve us, and evolution is too slow. > > > > Yes. Transhumanism looking good. Church of the Subgenius, Extropians etc. > > Love it... > I did not mean transhumanism, but simply that technology may help reduce resource scarcity and thus facilitate the selection of nicer people. With all its faults and hiccups, I would say that modern civilization already is a product of such dynamics. It becomes more obvious when we are confronted with medieval societies like ISIS. > > > > It's not going to be an easy path. We are still sophisticated monkeys, > both men and women. I put more faith in the transformative power of > technology than in political change. > > > > > My recommendation would be more along the lines of a week somewhere in the > country every now and then, camping out under the stars with no gadgets and > listening to the sounds of nature alone and staring at the sky at night. > I don't object to this at all. > > > > >> But I do think by now that that slew of apocalyptic zombie movies that >> the world passed through recently was some kind of cultural dream or >> clairvoyant nightmare about this ISIS-led zombie apocalypse we now appear >> to be heading for. You like that? "Beheading for"...... >> > > This is an interesting point. The first wave of zombie movies was more a > criticism of consumerism: showing the horror of going to the mall and > seeing your fellow humans in a weird trance of buying irrelevant stuff and > not caring about anything else. > > > > All art is mirroring the human condition somehow. These films were to me a > snapshot of the horrors rising to the surface of the collective human > psyche at this time. > Ok. > > We now live in a world where the person sitting beside you on the bus or > the train or the plane could harbour the desire to be a mass murderer or > prepared to kill you and others in his quest to kill himself effectively. > But notice that this is the opposite of tribalism. In a tribe, everyone knows everyone else quite well. > > The German wings disaster shows that every human has a potential heart of > darkness that needs only the right triggers. > > Was Andreas Lubitz really a sick man? A defective unit, much like > Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik, with a touch of schizophrenia, > maybe? Schizophrenia is said to be amongst the most undiagnosed of all > illnesses in society, meaning their is a lot more of it around than people > care to admit. My gut-feeling is he was as "normal" as you and me but > suddenly realised the world is a video game anyway and you can always just > crash the plane to reset the game. > Which helps explain the evolutionary value of religion, as a provider of meaning that constraints human actions into parameters desirable by the collective. Religiosity is defeated by an increase in our understanding of the world, but it is perhaps naive to assume that we don't need some type of spirituality. > > > > I think the second wave became very popular with a recent break in trust > in the political systems of the west. It's not that average citizens don't > trust the government, it's that they can't even make sense of what's going > on, or if someone is really in charge. > > > > Oh, there is someone in charge, believe me. > How do you know? > > > > This leads to a fear that things could be out of control, and that social > contracts could collapse at any moment. > > > > They could and they do. Just look at The Middle East. A sinkhole of human > misery and corruption as always. > > > This is also what leads to the popularity of cartoonish ideas like the > Illuminati -- an attempt to make sense of the hyper-complex > almost-out-of-control, 7 billion people society with a simple narrative. > > > > It is out of control and the need to simplify things is real, yes. Except > the Illuminati concept of exclusive and networked secret societies is also > real, however cartoonish it sounds and looks. > Exclusive and networked secret societies are real, but there is no way for an outsider to know the extent of their power. > The apparent cartoonish nature of the Illuminati is precisely what has > protected them for so long from prying eyes. > Could be, but so many things could be... Telmo. > And it's no simple narrative either. How the world came to be under the > thumb of the boys' clubs is the blind spot of all history. > > Kim > > > > > > > Telmo. > > >> >> We had one young bloke here in Oz, disappeared recently to Syria to fight >> with IS. Anglo. Good kid with high "intelligence" apparently. Got hooked by >> the jihad thing. His mates said he had a chip on his shoulder and had >> "turned weird". What ISIS offering apparently more convincing than life in >> the burbs of Sydney as a molly-coddled youngster in middle class, white >> supremacist Australia. ISIS said "Here comes one! Stick a bomb belt on him >> and send him off to oblivion". Which they did; he detonated it and managed >> to blow up an empty car and himself. Can you be a failure as a Jihadi? This >> kid was. >> >> >> Kim >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
