Multiplicities of humans organizing via horizontally stratified rhizomes will overtake all existing centralized institutions within our lifetime

Multiplicities of humans organizing via horizontally stratified rhizomes will overtake all existing centralized institutions within our life. That’s a heck of a sentence, so let’s start by breaking it down before we get into why these rhizomes will take over.

Multiplicities are a large number of something – anything. In this case, large numbers of humans will organize into rhizomes. A rhizome is a concept based on a botanist term for an underground plant stem that extends horizontally to grow new roots and, at times, stem up to surface as a new, connected plant. The roots continue to extend horizontally, and the roots can form nodes, which send stems up to the surface. These roots and nodes can connect with other plants, or just continue to grow. This is in contrast to many plants which dig roots vertically to reach nutrition deep in the ground.

Like vertically reaching plant roots, most organizations are structured in vertical hierarchies. Institutions generally have owners and below them managers and below them workers. The workers do the actual building – the actual creating. Bosses and managers set direction and strategy for the workers.

There are many centralized institutions. Centralized institutions are any system where there is an oversight committee or gatekeeper in place to monitor and regulate the inputs or outputs. For instance, academia is centralized because there are federal and state requirements for both students and teachers dictating what must be taught and which students to allow. In banking, there are rules that dictate the flow of money and credit and interest rates charged. Even news organizations can be institutions if they have to comply with government regulation of content, or their ownership’s regulation of content.

In the next 50 years, these institutions will go away. The bosses and manager system will be replaced by less expensive and more-easily reached systems. Like the rhizomes, systems will be right under the surface, with quick access available for individuals. The future systems will be less expensive because people will be able to share their ideas directly with other people. Overhead will be eliminated. Also like rhizomes, the systems will be organized horizontally rather than vertically. This means that people will not organize themselves according to traditional hierarchies.

Traditional hierarchies will be destroyed as more people have access to more systems and more individuals. Consumers will have more options for the content they see and more choice in the source of products and services. Likewise, producers will have more options to create products and services for others. The big institutions are the current gatekeepers. Hollywood producers control the content that makes movies that people have access to, rather than it just being up to the people. News companies control content in newspapers, TV, and top news websites. Venture capital companies determine which companies get funding and, through funding, the ability to scale and reach a large audience.

While gatekeepers are incentivized to find great sources (people don’t want to watch, let alone pay for, bad movies), they aren’t as efficient as the completely free market, and they can insert their bias. The metoo movement started as a revolt against Hollywood gatekeepers that acted creepy because they held so much power over the careers of aspiring actresses. Political bias has had individuals (Gavin McInnes) and companies (Gab vs Microsoft) all but shut down by suppliers powerful enough to operate as gatekeepers.

These systems will be global in reach, and local in their availability. By eliminating these gatekeepers, more people will be able to reach an audience, regardless of their politics or gender. If no one gives them attention or money, it’s because no one thinks the individual is worthy of attention or money. Step your game up.

Technology such as Bitcoin and blockchain are making this possible. Bitcoin has the potential to eliminate banks and venture capital. This will allow more people to have access to funding and reaching customers. Not only are they means of removing institutional middle-men, but Bitcoin enables a lot of these other applications to work and to tear down institutions as well. By eliminating financial gatekeepers, individuals or companies can then bypass the corporate gatekeepers that would otherwise make them stick to their rules and boundaries in order to reach an audience. This is the case for modern movie and journalist content as well as products and services in the market.

Because of the burdensome overhead, there aren’t practical options to reach target customers. Music and movies must please the masses of they are going to make a profit. By removing the overhead and giving producers direct access to consumers, producers can profit if there are a small number of individuals that are interested in consuming their products – and those customers can be located anywhere in the world. This allows for more direct access to what consumers want, and what producers are good at creating.

In summary, multiplicities of humans organizing via horizontally stratified rhizomes will overtake all existing centralized institutions within our lifetime. This will happen because:

  • We will have more access to choices as funding becomes available. Through funding, we will be able to reach customers on a small scale, internationally.
  • As gatekeepers are eliminated, these will open up new job opportunities and business needs. These will not be filled by central institutions.
  • Technology, such as Bitcoin and blockchain, is enabling the overtaking of middlemen.

Christianity is literally true

Christianity is literally true. By that, the story of Christ in the New Testament is a story that actually happened. If a story has happened before, then it is true. Because the story of Christ happened, it is necessarily true.

Many people confuse the story of Christ with historical events. Not all the events in the New Testament necessarily happened in Jerusalem in the year zero. That doesn’t mean the story isn’t true. Every story in the New Testament is a story that happened, and continues to happen.

The story of Jesus is an archetypal story. That means that it is a typical story – one that happens frequently. Archetypal stories are told as lessons or warnings. They have happened before and are sure to happen again. If your story can end as a tragedy or a comedy, its best to align yourself with the right version. We can learn from archetypal stories because they are symbolic of what is possible, and they are easy to relate to, since we experience similar trials.

Jesus’ story is an archetypal example of the hero’s journey. The hero’s journey is the cycle of myth that Joseph Campbell documented. A man takes a risk by stepping into the unknown. He learns to make sense of the unknown, he conquers the fearful while undergoing a transformation of his spirit (becomes wiser), and returns from the unknown stronger and more prepared for the world.

Jesus ventured away from home at a young age. After his baptism, he goes into the desert and fasts for 40 days. He rejects pleasure and temptation during this fast. He then returns to the world to share his knowledge and recommend virtue to others. His teachings were rejected by many people. They didn’t just reject his teachings, they chose to silence him from preaching to those that wanted to listen. He continued to fight for what he most believed in – the spread of virtue. In the end, he was put to death in the most humiliating, extreme way possible. When he rose from the dead, he returned to the world to continue preaching virtue.

Jesus lived this journey that we all experience. We all are called to adventure at different points in our lives. We choose to accept to go into the unknown at some points, and those are the ones that change us. This could be going away to college to develop skills and gain knowledge. This could be a promotion to a new job position where we are initially unfamiliar with the requirements for success. This could be tackling an addiction.

This adventure can destroy us mentally and physically, or we can conquer that which is unknown. We can get fired from the job, fail our classes, and start drinking again. Or, we can excel in the new job and realign ourselves for the next promotion. Either way, we are changed in the process. We acquire new knowledge or skills which allow us to return to the known world better prepared for anything that can happen.

New skills or knowledge is required to return to civilization. Without it, the adventurer is unable to make sense of the unknown, and he is unable to return. If he is unable to return, the unknown either breaks him down until he is left with nothing, or he continues to try to learn and make sense of it. Like Jesus when he rises from the dead – we rise out of the struggle of an addiction or a new job where we are incompetent to a level of mastery over the known world. Our mastery could be over the known world of addiction, the new job, or virtue as a means to eternal joy.

Jesus’ story is both archetypal and significant to all of us, and it is also an extreme example. His story gives an extreme example of every major event that we all experience on our own hero’s journey. He chose the most extreme adventure – one that would seek eternal joy but kill him in the process. Likewise, we choose our adventure, and we face the same obstacles – temptation and fears, that Jesus faced.

In summary, Christianity is literally true. It is true because it happened. The story of Jesus not only happened once, but it happens all the time. It is the story we all go through as we venture into the unknown then acquire knowledge and wisdom to return stronger and more prepared for any events.

Human nature is mostly fixed, though human behavior can be modified via game theoretic incentives

Human nature is mostly fixed. This means that our likes, dislikes, and the things we show attention to are predictable. These qualities don’t vary from person to person, or group to group. Human nature evolved to be this way. Our psychology, which determines our nature, evolved just like any organ or limb in any animal. It evolved to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce.

It is in our want to survive and replicate on a genetic level that leads us to define what feels good, what doesn’t, and what deserves our attention. Basically, we are awarded, psychologically and chemically (by release of hormones that make us feel good), when we do things that move us towards more security and a better chance of survival, or closer to reproducing. The easiest example is sex. Sex feels good because it is a reward for doing what is in our biological interest – reproducing and passing on our genes.

Another example is our taste buds. We are awarded with a taste of sweetness when we bite into an apple. The sweetness tells us that the apple is an edible source of nutrition. We evolved to find apples attractive and also taste good.

Because human nature is largely fixed, we can modify behaviors by appealing to game theoretic incentives. Game theory is the study of mathematical models related to decision making by rational individuals. Game theoretic incentives are incentives that appeal to the rational decision maker.

The rational decision maker in a theoretical game model will make decisions that maximize his ability to survive and reproduce. By understanding the psychological drivers that determine how a human best secures survival and replication, human behavior can be predicted, since we are likely to act in ways that will maximize the two biological desires. Humans can also be incentivized to act in certain ways by playing off of the knowledge of how people are wont to act.

Going back to taste buds, it is possible to employ incentives that prey on our psychology and the wants we evolved to have. For example, we said apples taste good because they are sweet, which suggests that they are nutritious. Processed food companies prey on this behavior by creating very sweet foods that appeal to our taste buds. Our taste buds evolved to tell us what is safe to eat, and to award us when we choose correctly – such as in the case of an attractive and sweet apple. Our taste buds did not evolve to identify when manufactured food takes advantage of the sweet flavor and gives us good feelings without giving us nutrition. That is why people can be trained to return to a food that is extremely unhealthy for them – the chemicals being released in their body are pleasure chemicals. These pleasurable feelings suggest that what the person is doing is good, and that they should do this again.

Human psychology can be manipulated by employing tactics that appeal to our psychology. Positive feedback works better than criticizing faults because it engages pleasurable sensors.

Even sex can be manipulated. Men and women both evolved to find certain characteristics attractive in the other sex. For men, this means an attractive woman is young (fertile), healthy (not fat), and has hips and a butt (can deliver strong children). Women find a man attractive when he is wealthy (resources suggest survivability) and when he is intelligent and able to communicate that intelligence, which suggests that he is reproductively strong. Women wear makeup to make them look younger, clothes that eliminate the appearance of weight, and push the boobs up and their butts out. Men wear expensive watches and boast about their grades or employer. We seek to deceive not because we are bad people, but because we get rewarded for the behavior, which makes us feel not only like we have done no wrong, but that we are actually doing the right thing.

How do we know whether we are being manipulated by others that are preying on our deeply-ingrained nature? We must be objective about the world. We must not let our passions – whether positive or negative, blind us from what we are doing.

In summary, human nature is mostly fixed, because nature tells us what to like, dislike, and show attention to. Human behavior can be modified via game theoretic incentives because:

  • Incentives appeal to our fundamental psychology.
  • We can encourage and discourage behaviors that appeal to our psychology.

 

All humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance

All humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance. Like the positive attributes in humanity, some of this is biological, some of this is because of societal pressures.

We evolved to maximize two outcomes – our own survival and replication. In order to maximize this, we evolved to cooperate socially in order to build up a tribe – a community of people with similar interests that add to the collective strength and efficiencies of the group.

We also evolved to be competitive. We are competitive because we get energized by driving toward something – even if that thing is at the expense of others, and because we are rewarded for winning in competition. Being engaged in a task comes from this drive – this want to succeed. Being engaged in a task focuses the mind. Focus allows us to be present in the moment, which can be used to be productive and accomplish or to have fun.

We are also competitive because we are rewarded for winning in competition. This applies across all games – all opportunities to be competitive, and it applies interpersonally as well as socially. There are winners and losers in life. Some people live longer than others, one guy marries and has children with the hot chick, and one person’s company gets funded and goes on to make billions of dollars. This happens at the expense of others. One guy settles for a woman he sees as less attractive. Another dies early. Employees at one startup work hard for years but get crushed when they don’t get additional funds while a competitor does.

There are psychological rewards for success across any of these games. By “winning” we are given the satisfaction of a job well done. We reap fruits of the hard effort we put in. Accomplishment is a big motivator. It gives us meaning, and reinforces that we are valued by society when we do a good job. This allows to have confidence in what we do, which manifests in mental strength and more confident actions and decision making in the future. This is why positive reinforcement has been proven to be much more effective than negative reinforcement in order to get results.

Likewise, social rewards come in many forms. Socially, we can get public recognition for a job well done – such as our name in the newspaper, a bonus, or a pat on the back. In the sexual market, we are rewarded for being more attractive. If we are best able to communicate our ability to appeal to a woman’s want to survive and replicate, then we can be given access to sexual favors from that woman (or women). It is in this competition that we seek to be better than others. Humans will out-work and out-charm other humans at the expense of other humans.

Another aspect of competition is the jealousy and greed that emerges as a result. When people achieve and reap the rewards society has to offer, we look at them with contempt. It takes a wise man to be unfettered by the success of others. Jealousy is a very natural feeling. Jealousy emerges when we are not being rewarded by society at the rate of others. We become resentful because they pose a threat to our ability to appeal to the other sex, to money and resources, or the status of being a leader in the in-group.

Similar, greed is the obsession of the accumulation of things. This usually comes at the expense of others too. If someone controls wealth and power, they will be rewarded with sex, status, and control over others. These things feel good when they are experienced, and they reward with more material goods, which also feels good. Greed is a reinforcing loop that leads to more greed, which comes at the expense of others.

While jealousy and greed can motivate an individual to build the skills and knowledge necessary to climb a dominance hierarchy to achieve the status and wealth he set out to realize, there are downsides these traits. Jealousy and greed make us wanting of more. They reinforce that we are not good enough, or don’t have enough things, and in doing so make us want. When we want, we are necessarily not content with what we currently have.

Wars and acts of terror happen for these reasons. We feel threatened by another group, or we are greedy for resources that other people have. So, we seek destruction and dominance in order to satisfy our cravings, which can surface at an individual or a societal level.

When we aren’t content with what we currently have, we have two options. We can acquire more (status, things, etc). This is more likely to be chosen by people that are greedy and jealous, because they have been rewarded for their greed and jealousy in the past. The other option is to stop wanting. This requires psychologically detaching ourselves from the wants and needs of a given competition. Most of these competitions are externally pushed onto us. We can reject them, and learn to be happy with what we have.

Finally, human beings are inherently violent because we despise the routine. We hate being bored, and we actively seek things to interrupt what is normal. We get drunk after a good day (or bad day). We change sex positions into something more risqué. We travel somewhere we’ve never been.

If we were given a “perfect society”, where everyone was happy and received what they want and were also rewarded for their efforts, it would not take long for people to destroy the whole system. We would bring the perfect system to ashes because it’s boring. We crave adventure. We crave the disorder that keeps us interested and motivated to learn how to overcome that disorder – to create order out of chaos.

In summary, all humans have an inherent drive towards violence and dominance because:

  • We are competitive and compete for status and sexual favor.
  • We are jealous, manipulative, and greedy.
  • We despise the routine.

All humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring.

All humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring. We have a natural want to get along with other humans and to love others, and we are rewarded psychologically and socially when we do this. It makes us feel good when other people feel good, we have greater access to good things like sex, and we can be rewarded in business with more money.

Our genes evolved with distinct goals in mind. These goals shaped the psychology of humans, which manifests in our behavior. These are our primal drivers in life. There are two genetic drivers in life – survive and replicate. Genes, which do not contain the capacity for conscious thought, have a want to survive as long as they can, and to reproduce to ensure the continuity of that gene for generations. As genes work together to build a basic, non-thinking animal, those goals makeup the existence of the species. Even as consciousness develops through the growing brain, the ancient, animalistic part of our brains still have those desires hard-coded into our wiring.

All humans have a primal desire to survive and replicate. To survive means to not die. Our genes want to live as long as possible, and so do humans. We are afraid of death, even though it is natural and inevitable. We worry about the future, we have insecurities, and we get nervous because of the primal want to survive and not die.

A lot of this is biological. We evolved to get along with others. It is in our best interest for survival to be liked by others. To be liked by others is to not be excluded from the group. To be excluded means to have a smaller tribe, and to have a smaller tribe – especially in caveman times, meant to be exposed to more risks such as war by other (larger) tribes, fewer access to resources, and attacks by saber tooth tigers.

We want to replicate. To replicate, we need to have sex and multiply our genes through the production of offspring. To do this, men must have sex with a woman and she must keep his seed. The act is simple. If a man meets a girl in a bar and gets her drunk and has sex with her, his work is done. He is partly incentivized, psychologically, to do that. That’s why the act feels good. However, is also disincentivized from that have sex and never see her again behavior.

If a man leaves the woman he impregnates, he faces consequences from the law through child support payments and alimony. Even if those consequences weren’t enforced by the law, he would still face ostracization from his tribe – from his local community. To leave the woman with the responsibility is to be dishonorable on both an individual level, and on a communal level. He will not be trusted in the community and, from that, unable to participate in the local economy, unable to date or have sex with other women, and unable to maintain relationships with men. In this way, people are self-policing. One person can inflict harm, but he will be ostracized from his community and will have to establish himself somewhere else. It’s much easier and more beneficial to be a good person – and humans tend to like doing the easiest thing.

We enjoy when others are happy. Not only does companionship increase the strength of our local tribe in times of war, but we actually get a positive hormonal kick when we recognize that someone else is happy. A rising tide lifts all boats. We are rewarded, chemically, for making others feel good or, simply, by others feeling good. But, when others aren’t feeling good, we are rewarded for showing sympathy and care in order to change their mood and get them feeling good again.

This is why we have fun when we go to bars and parks to interact in a positive way with others. We enjoy when others are positive and happy, so we go to places that encourage that behavior. It’s “fun” to go to these places and see and be a part of people laughing, dancing, and sharing in common experience. Many times, the shared, common experience is reflecting on a work day where everyone hates their boss or traffic or the local football team’s rival that won the game on Sunday and beat the point spread. Even when the common experience is negative, it still brings people together to relate to each other and show sympathy for the common situation. We call it “happy hour” even when we say nothing happy at all.

Humans are rewarded in the economy when we get along and consider the care of others. This manifests in a couple ways. One, when we are trusted by others, others are more likely to do business with us and transact their goods and services for our own. In caveman days, that could be the initial segregation of duties. I’ll kill a bear for food, you build me a place to live. This economy only works if people trust each other. The economy in 2018 is built on trust also, it’s just less in-your-face. But we don’t return to businesses that we don’t trust. We don’t visit businesses with one star on Yelp, and we don’t visit businesses our best friend said stinks, because we don’t trust them.

The second economic incentive to love and care for others is that if we understand and have empathy for the wants and needs of others, then we can provide products or services to fulfill those wants and needs. We will be rewarded in the market for having empathy and the creativity to solve problems that others have. If many people share that problem, you can turn a profit. Even if only one person has the problem that you were able to solve, you did a good thing.

In summary, all humans have an inherent drive towards being loving and caring. This is because:

  • It is in our survival best interest because a tribe will defend us.
  • We feel good, physically, when others are happy.
  • We can be trusted in business transaction.

 

Kill Your White Whale

I just finished Moby Dick by Melville. This is a book report. 

 

The great sea monster haunts many dreams and many imaginative stories. Moby Dick is one of largest, darkest, great sea monsters. The cursed white whale brings his size, strength, and aggression against anyone that tries him. He lies in the remotest parts of the deep, mysterious ocean. Everything about the beast inspires fear.

The deep ocean was the source of Captain Ahab’s mission in life. Ahab was a whaler that had his leg bit off by the evil Moby Dick. This attack, and the loss of his leg, introduced chaos to Ahab’s life. He wasn’t complete with the whale out there swimming around. Then, he sought revenge. He needed to kill Moby Dick.

The imagery is powerful. Ahab needs to go to the deepest depths of the mysterious ocean to fight the mighty sea monster to restore his own order. In the Bible and other mythologies this sea monster imagery is used metaphorically. Here, literally.

One example of the whale in popular stories is its use in Pinocchio. Pinocchio becomes detached from his father and in doing so loses the order that was in his life. He must combat the scariest creature (whale!) in the scariest, most unknown deep part of the ocean. Only there is Pinocchio’s father Geppetto found so that order can be restored. Spoiler alert.

For Pinocchio, reward was restoring the wisdom and order maintained by Geppetto. Geppetto kept Pinocchio sheltered from the darkness of the world during Pinocchio’s younger years. Pinocchio wanted that shelter back – that sense of order, more than anything. He faced his fears and conquered and returned Geppetto.

For Ahab, the world is without order until the white whale is dead. It is his mission to go out, fight the winds and oceans and defeat his rival.

The greatest rewards in life are found by facing the greatest fears and uncertainties and defeating them. For Ahab, reward would have been found by ending the monster that was the source of malevolence that interrupted his career and took his leg. He felt his calling to restore order in an ocean that contains his source of chaos so that he could sail uninhibited.

To restore order to Ahab’s world, many other elements had to be in order. The Pequod, the ship, had to be in order. The individual boats that departed the Pequod to deliver the harpoons had be in order. He had to be in order. Only then could the whale be destroyed, or even an attempt made at the great whale.

The other passengers on the Pequod, the ship in pursuit of Moby Dick with Ahab at the helm, can be seen as the different voices in all of us. They are our collective conscious. There’s Starbuck, who is the voice of reason. He is calm and virtuous and speaks in facts. There is Stubbs, who is funny and skilled but reckless. The Farsi represents the evil that is within all of us. Ahab is the passion that is a part of all of us. Not a sensual passion, but one driven by meaning. He isn’t complete until he accomplishes his mission. Or, of course, dies trying.

In a more literal sense, the others on the ship make us question our mission as it relates to our social responsibility and our commitment to do good to others. Do we have a right to pursue a danger that can hurt or kill others?

Ahab asks this question to his crew. The crew consents – they will join Ahab on his death-mission. But, as we’ve seen from the #metoo movement, consent can be a funny subject. When the Pequod is finally in hot pursuit of Moby Dick, the crew changes sides and some crew members express a wish to stop the pursuit. At Ahab’s insistence, they don’t. Now, dissenting seamen could have abandoned the ship and the crew and taken one of the smaller boats, but all chose to stay.

We find meaning in serving our family and other people. Not only is there a camaraderie that was built over years traveling the seas together, but the passengers onboard the Pequod shared a commitment to the mission and to serving one another. Ahab, however reckless, united the ship against this whale that must be killed. The others on the boat had their role their job on the ship (blacksmith, harpooner, mate). All supported the mission and were a necessary piece of the Pequod puzzle. Their honor laid in their commitment to the mission.

Ahab was blinded by his passion. We see him make mistake after mistake after avoiding sensical advice from his mates. In the end, this not only kills him, but kills all his mates as well. Spoiler alert.

I have faced my deepest fears and insecurities and come out on top. For ten years from middle school through college I suffered as a virgin that wanted to have sex and didn’t. I felt weak and insignificant because I wasn’t recognized by the other sex and rewarded with intimacy and sex. I needed to have sex. My lack of it affected my confidence which affected my relationships, my draw to other vices, and my mood. I was angry. Women became my mission.

Getting good with women was the first time I killed a white whale in my life. I had to fight off every insecurity by facing the deepest fears in my psyche and in living form. I had to build the social skills to maneuver nightlife, dating, and seduction. I obsessed, and then I conquered. I had to achieve with women, and I couldn’t move on until I did.

Yes, in life we can change course. When the crew presented evidence that Ahab should change course, the new options should have been weighted. We can always change course. But that must be a fully conscious decision. The new mission, the new passion, must be greater than original.

When faced with a great problem, the best approach is the most direct route. Stand up to the most fearful aspect of the source of pain and defeat it. You don’t kill other sperm whales and take time on a windy path to your goal. This is inefficient at best, and procrastinating damnation at worst.

There was never a plan B with Ahab. Although multiple whales were killed on the way to Moby Dick, they never interrupted his mission. Other sperm whales were killed and drained of their profitable oil which, in the end, was spilled over the ocean. These supplementary whales ultimately did not aid the capture of Moby Dick and, when the ship was destroyed and the crew killed, proved unprofitable financially.

When I sought out to attract women, I faced this decision. I could have built up less direct skills in order to attract women. If I built up my career and focused on making money, maybe one day a woman would love me for the resources I could provide. I could have spent more time in the gym and tried to become more beautiful. I could have learned an instrument or become a club promoter. I chose instead to build a personality that encompassed the wit, creativity, strength, and confidence characteristic of the master of each of those activities. I became sexy – no matter what I was doing.

Ahab had to kill the white whale – the source of his pain and frustration. In the end, he failed, but he failed attacking his pain and frustration head-on, and there is great honor in that.

Question is, should he have done it? Should Ahab have continued with his drive towards this grim reaper, where he faced probable death, or would he have been more miserable at home where he was safe?

While it was a destructive ambition, I argue, that for Ahab, it was a necessary ambition. If Ahab didn’t leave home and confront the whale he never would have been content with the whale swimming around in the ocean.

To die working towards your mission is to die with honor. To die any other way is to die with regret. To die with regret is shameful. Regret means we know there is something we should be doing, and we choose not to. It means we know there’s a whale that’s a source of chaos and unknown and fear, and we know that within the chaos is great reward, and we choose not to venture and capture the reward.

I killed Moby Dick when I became an attractive man capable of receiving intimacy from women.

These days, I’m fighting a new Moby Dick. I want to build a profitable business so that I can quit my day job. That is my new white whale that I must conquer.

This time, I’m better equipped. I killed a white whale once. I’ll do it again. Hunting whales itself is a skill. So is hunting the white whales – the biggest, meanest, most challenging source of fear. It is these monsters that instill so much fear that are the source of all great things.

What is your white whale?

That didn’t explain monogamy

I watched another trash show that cloaks itself as “science” yesterday. This one, a new Netflix show called Explained: Monogamy, set out to explain how we are not meant to be monogamous and that culture instituted monogamy to suppress people’s sexual desires. 

The show goes further. They take this fact and draw the conclusion that because sex with lots of people is natural because it feels good, we should therefore do it.

The documentary is right – it is unnatural to suppress our sexual appetites. And yes, that’s exactly why marriage and monogamy came about. That’s the point of marriage and monogamy.  And that’s not a bad thing. 

Monogamy gives us meaning. It’s good for culture. This isn’t because of arbitrary rules. It’s healthy when men at the bottom have a chance of receiving intimacy. Women don’t have this problem. Dudes at the top will have sex and share intimacy with many women.

Men at the bottom aren’t afforded that luxury. Men at the bottom do things like shoot up schools and commit crimes when they have no value and don’t receive intimacy.

We don’t just have sex because it feels good. If we did we would be much more eager to fuck the new sex robots and we would be content masturbating. There wouldn’t be angry kids shooting up schools because they have an outlet of their hand and a video. But that’s not what we want. We want intimacy.

Monogamy is a recent invention. That was cited as a reason it shouldn’t exist. You know what else is a recent invention?

Democracy. Modern infrastructure. Transportation.

Society civilized when it became monogamous. No longer were people physically fighting each other to maintain a dominance hierarchy and access to the harem.

With monogamy, the average man had a chance to be with women they didn’t previously have access to. This allowed him to focus on actually being productive instead of fighting for access to pussy.

The documentary says monogamy started for property rights and alliances between families. That’s not true at all. We’ve seen kings and queens marry but kings maintain their harems. Marriage and monogamy did not start to help the one percent. It started to help the 90% that did not have access to women and resources.

90%? Yes. It was, and still is that large of gap between the attractive and unattractive. This is evident in the modern dating world. There’s published data from all the dating apps, but it’s also observable in bars – men find more women attractive than women find men attractive. We don’t date people we don’t find attractive.

Without monogamy, women wouldn’t date 90% of men. It’s because of this phenomenon there aren’t a lot of attractive men. “There’s someone for everyone.” No, there’s not. Not in a society where we go for what’s attractive.

It’s not a bad thing to have freedom and choices. It is a bad thing when there are consequences to those freedoms and choices that women aren’t told about. I want women to have freedom. I want them to be aware of the consequences to those freedoms.

When women chase what’s attractive and don’t enter a monogamous relationship when they are at their peak attractive level, they remove the option to be with a very attractive man (because they too have options). When women settle, they get unhappy because they’ve had “more attractive”. When women are unhappy in a relationship, they leave. Cue divorce rates, split families.

“If marriage wasn’t a thing we wouldn’t have divorce rates.” Sure, but it’s not just men who are unhappy following divorce (which are predominantly initiated by women). Women have been getting less happy for decades (by every measurable measure). This is despite all the freedoms women have been given.

Monogamy should be in place to restrict the options of attractive men – more so than restricting women.

Marriage for love is an even more recent idea. It’s only a few hundred years ago. There were critics. The documentary says there shouldn’t have been – that love is noble. There should have been critics.

Love is largely defined today as the feelings of attraction, which is aimed at those top 10% of men. That leaves scraps for the bottom of men, and started this long journey toward nonmonogamy. Love is to blame for today’s rampant divorce.

Darwin says man surpassed women in cognitive ability because of sex. The documentary says this is sexist. It is. There are differences between men and women and they exist because of sex. Men need to develop our socioeconomic status, intelligence, and social skill in order to receive intimacy. Women don’t. It is sexist. It’s not misogynist.

Are people jealous? Yes. It’s a natural emotion that surfaces when we want something we can’t have but feel entitled to. How about when a woman is monogamous with you (manifests entitlement) and cheats on you? Cue jealousy.

Commitment to monogamy and not the person is a good thing, contrary to the movie. Before love people were committed to monogamy for monogamy’s sake. You could call in and out of love, but you honored he relationship. This goes counter to the modern “do what feels good” mantra.

Relationships based on love don’t hurt the 10% that are attractive. Even relationships with multiple people can work well for these people at the top. These are the people that were interviewed for the film – people with active sex lives, including those with multiple partners.

But this doesn’t apply for the bottom 90% of men – none of whom were interviewed in the making of this documentary. It would have been an entirely different movie, with a different meaning, if it were lonely unattractive outcasts that were interviewed for the film.

Pleasure is natural. We evolved to feel it, and to want to give into it.

Honor is a virtue.

Virtue doesn’t become less attractive, addictive, and with diminishing returns. Pleasure does.

Enter relationships built in something that will last forever.

The real reason for school shootings

There were two school shootings yesterday. There’s been a comparatively large amount of mass shootings in the news over the last five years. These have been cases where young men have taken guns to public places to shoot and kill fellow citizens. Many of these high profile cases have been at schools where gunmen have brought death and destruction to children – usually fellow children.

The response from liberals and conservatives has been inappropriate. The left says ban guns and this won’t happen. Conservatives say keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and this won’t happen. They are both wrong.

We can’t ban guns in America. They have been a part of our culture since the nation’s founding. They are a right in our constitution to protect from tyranny and other people with guns. As a result, there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country. Hundreds of millions of guns don’t just go away. Nor should they. Also, we won’t be able to identify shooters using mental health tests. While mental illness is linked to higher rates of suicide, it does not correlate to higher instances of violence inflicted on others. Dismissing the rise in shootings as a result of mental illness is lazy, but it’s an important concept to understand.

The mentally ill live worse lives than the rest of us. Depending on the illness, there can be physical problems or mental. Either way, life’s better healthy. It’s harder for the mentally ill to find their role in society. In a sexual marketplace that rewards value (good emotions, money), the mentally ill don’t have access to things like sex and intimacy and friendship because they have a difficult time relating to other people. It’s a struggle to find a way to give value when they are at such a physical and mental disadvantage from their illness.

This – the decreased perceived value of men, is what I believe to explain the increase in mass shootings. The increase in mass shootings is caused by a decreased perceived role of men in society.

Not all killers are schizophrenic loonies that “just snap”. Elliot Rodger, the college student that shot and ran over students at UC Santa Barbara, wrote a manifesto that detailed his anger at the world and at women, and he intended to bring harm to others.

While Rodgers did go in and out of counselors and medications, which does point to mental illness, his frustrations are not unique to the mentally ill, and they are becoming more common frustrations among Western men.

There are several reasons men are perceived as less valuable and less needed in society.

 

  • Decreased perceived utility of fathers.

 

Men are not seen as a necessity in the home. There are more single mothers in the United States than anytime in history. Any psychotherapist worth her salt will tell you how terrifying that is. Children raised without a dad in the house are far more likely to commit crimes, end up in poverty, and be removed from socialization due to early developed narcissism instilled by the single parent.

There are a couple reasons we see the decrease in perceived need. Mothers are incentivized to leave and take the kids. Modern child protection and divorce laws actually give money to mothers that leave their husbands. These laws have the right intention – that families aren’t destroyed financially when a parent leaves, but they have the opposite effect in many cases. Mothers see a means of independence funded by child support court.

Related, there is an increase in divorces, and marriage is way down. Kids aren’t being raised by their fathers. Divorce is incentivized by moving half of a man’s assets to the woman after a breakup. This incentivizes women to get married, even without honoring the marriage, because they have an out that pays if they decide they no longer want to work on the relationship.

Relationships are hard work. Bouncing from person to person is easy. It’s even easier when it’s funded by an ex.

Elementary and middle school teachers are more than 80% women (US). Not only are children being raised without a father figure at home, but they are being raised without a father figure at school. I’m not saying teachers should play a role in parenting, but they do play a role in shaping the future and acting as role models for children.

 

  • Decreased opportunities for the average man to experience intimacy.

 

Only the top few percent of men are the ones having all the sex. The top percent are the ones women find attractive enough to have sex with. Women find, generally, the same traits and therefore the same men attractive. Attractive men are strong, socially savvy, (generally) good looking, and have no insecurities – looks, financial, or otherwise. Also, attractive men spend time with attractive women. That’s a reinforcing loop – men are perceived more attractive when they are with beautiful women.

This benefits the top few percent of men in the modern dating marketplace. The United States has a strong hookup culture, spearheaded by feminism and attractive men. The hookup culture dictates that you should “have fun while you’re young” and bang attractive men, then “get serious when you’re older” which basically means marry a guy that can pay for you and your children. She can leave this less attractive man any time, which, when she’s had multiple sexual partners, greatly increases her chances of not staying in the relationship. It also increases the likelihood that she will settle with an attractive man, because attractive men that have options will opt for a woman that’s less “worldly”.

Whether it’s Tinder or bars or the office, it’s the cool, sexy guy that’s likely to make his move and be confident and attractive to women he comes into contact with. Once she is attracted to him, he can do anything he wants and she will find it intriguing. HR departments and hashtags the likes of Metoo will never hear of cases involving the attractive man.

This is dangerous for men that don’t have the sexual charisma to behave confidently and attract women. These men see the attractive men doing something and try to emulate it. They go out and say the same things and get turned down, and reported for sexual harassment and tweeted to the world. This greatly discourages men from trying to flirt with women. When you don’t try to flirt, you don’t get better at flirting. When you don’t get better at flirting, you remain a virgin that still wants to have sex. The man without social skills is discouraged from building the social skills required to be sexy.

One of the recent trends is for parents to raise their children to not be masculine or feminine. This means gender-neutral toys or toys that do not align with one gender (the GI Joes and the Barbie). The point of this is that men and women can be more free to be gay if they realize heterosexuality isn’t for them. The problem with this is that boys and girls aren’t raised to develop masculine and feminine traits that the other sex finds attractive. This is fine for five year olds at play time (maybe), but it is not fine when those boys grow up thinking it’s fine to express feminine qualities when they do want to attract women. It’s the boys and girls that grow up straight (95% of the population) that lose during this style of parenting. Masculine qualities are attractive to women. Feminine qualities are attractive to men.

Social media magnifies the attractive men getting all the sex – it is sexy to have a large following and command attention. So women find them more attractive, but other men who are still becoming attractive have that to compare to. While some may be motivated to work harder or learn from the social media heroes, it’s also possible to be rejected by the pressure of social media. Also, social media sexualizes everything. Women get “likes” by sexualizing themselves. Porn has made its way into social media. Leggings and sexual clothing are advertised on the different platforms. Not only are men not getting sex, but they are seeing sex everywhere, which leads to the feeling that they are missing out, and that they are the only few individuals missing out, when really it’s over 90% of men missing out.

 

  • Decreased perceived need in the workplace.

 

The rise of women in workplace has done wonders for our economy. We moved way beyond countries that don’t have women working. Output is high. We are productive. But, it’s not all roses and sunshine, as you may be starting to see.

The increased numbers of women in the workplace removes man’s need to provide finances. There is nothing wrong with this in itself. Everyone is free to compete in a capitalist marketplace, which I’m a fan of. However, financial provisioning was historically a way for men to exhibit sexual market value. Without this, a man has to come up with new ways to provide value, if value is what women are looking for.

In relationships, people either look for value or virtue. And we aren’t going to start having virtuous relationships any time soon.

The problem with women in the workplace is that even if we wanted to – which we don’t, the economy may is not reversible for people that want to maintain a standard of living. The Western world is expensive, largely because we have twice as many people producing than other countries. The expensive urban cities in America do not offer the luxury for a woman to just stop working if she wants to and be supported by her man. Two incomes are required in many places to meet rent or mortgage.

Women better educated getting good jobs.

 

  • Decreased success in education.

 

Boys that cause trouble are “disruptive”, not boys that are different from their female classmates.

More than 80 percent of teachers in America are women. These teachers will teach to feminine because it’s what they know. It’s the role of the feminine to keep children safe and away from danger. But experiencing danger and chaos and learning how to deal with it is how children grow.

We aren’t teaching boys to develop their ability to deal with chaos and to deal with their anxieties and to deal with women. We teach them to behave like girls. This goes against every instinct in them, it’s not rewarded in the sexual market, and it limits their ability to deal with their true feelings.

What about guns?

The left says take their guns away. What will guns do to this? One argument is that men without perceived value should not have a gun. That without access to a firearm they will not kill many people.

That’s not unreasonable, except for the fact that it violates the constitutional rights of those individuals that otherwise aren’t mentally unhinged.

In addition, a perceived role of men, and a biological impulse, is to protect himself and his family and his tribe.

By removing guns and a man’s ability to protect, you remove one more instance of a man’s ability to be valuable to his loved ones.

I argue that removing guns would actually increase the number of men that carry out violent attacks to others as a backlash for their removed value.

I explained why men have a decreased perceived sense of value. How does decreased value jump to violence?

These pained individuals want to cause the most pain and destruction possible. Elliot Rodger saw the smart, handsome, fun person be evil. It wouldn’t have mattered as much if some nerd punched him. He would have been mad, but he wouldn’t have experienced evil. Rodger experienced evil when the jocks at the parties bullied and hit him, and were then rewarded with sex from the pretty ladies.

Not only did Rodger see evil in the world in the bullies, he saw that evil being encouraged by women. The jocks were evil. The women were evil. We all have evil in us. When people understand that there is the possibility of evil in all of us, we can do one of two things: act on it and bring destruction, or choose virtue despite of a proclivity to evil.

Another incentive for someone in this situation to bring destruction is the lack of attention they experienced. The Isla Vista shooter in 2014 articulated this quite nicely (hah). He wasn’t even seen by hot girls walking down the street. He wanted them and they didn’t even know he existed. That’s not the hot women’s fault, but it is a let down that the man doesn’t know how to go about getting their attention in a healthy way.

Elliot Rodgers knew one way to get attention. He knew his actions would end up all over Facebook. He knew the blonde hottie would notice him. He had an opportunity to become famous on Facebook, noticed by the people he always wanted attention from. And he took it.

So. Men have no perceived value and that perception is harmful to both themselves and innocent people.

  1. Family and parental values. Glorify the father and the mother.  Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
  2. Actually accept diversity between the sexes. Value it. Men and women are different. Allow men to be their strong, masculine selves. Allow them to manifest their sexual identities just as women have. And allow them to try. Allow men to build social skills. We have given resources to women to allow them to be confident and successful, but it’s men who are now left without perceived meaning. We need to give men the skills to succeed in a world that no longer values their old skillset.
  3. Get off Instagram and Facebook. Instagram and Facebook create mass negative emotion do to our proclivity to compare and to seek validation from others, that can never be fulfilled by more “likes”. It gives a platform for horrible people, and silences the majority of moderates who “aren’t interesting”. Life is lived by the average but we compare ourselves to the outliers that rise in popularity because of their wild ideas and actions. Sometimes, like in professional sports, that is inspiring. Sometimes, like the 17 year old with fake tits or Elliot Rodgers, it’s damaging and sad.
  4. Value the individual. We are all unique and all have our contributions. Allow the individual to try and fail. Again, don’t stop him before he can try, without giving him a chance to see what doesn’t work.

Incels are becoming more common, they are violent, and that will continue

A new article came out claiming that involuntary celibacy (incel) in on the rise among unmarried men. This is dangerous because this has been quoted as a reason for some of the high-profile mass shootings in the recent news.

The problem with involuntary celibacy is it is a result of a man failing in the sexual market, where so much of our value is determined, and where so much of our psychology is dependent. We are programmed to reproduce. If we fail at that, or are incapable of that, we are genetic failures. Plus, it feels good, and we don’t get those good feelings we don’t get when we want. Plus, sex with beautiful people is associated with status. So, if you’re not having sex with beautiful people, you are both low-status because you can’t have sex, and you are low status because you aren’t and aren’t seen having sex with beautiful women.

When people have no value, and that lack of value manifests in the the sexual market, and these individuals see others as having no value, then we get the mindset conducive for a killing spree. It’s dark. And it’s becoming more common.

Sex is everywhere. When someone can’t have sex when they want to (this is a male problem), seeing sex around them reinforces that others are having sex and they aren’t. It’s a constant reminder. They see this in marketing with sexual ads, with women wearing provocative outfits (leggings), and on TV, movies, and social media. It’s the girls with the least clothing getting the most likes.

Social media has made it much harder for the average man to get sex. By showing some skin and acting slutty a girl can quickly rack up followers and “likes”. Women get an ego boost out of this and become dependent on social media for attention and good feelings. So they continue to publish more content in less fabric.

When a woman increases the amount of attention she receives, her perceived sense of her sexual market value increases. 6s think they’re 9s because so many men “like” their picture. When 6s think they’re 9s, they don’t have sex with 6s. Nor do they have sex with 7s or 8s. It takes a man who’s a 9 to have sex with the 6.

Guys that are 9s are absolutely crushing pussy. They have their pick of the litter, and the sexualization of women has made it easier for 9s to have sex with more women, rather than settling down with one good one. While it was never hard for a 9 to have sex with a beautiful woman, now they have more women actively looking to have sex with them, and no one else.

Guys that are nines are becoming more rare and its becoming harder to become a nine as a man. For one, a lot of men’s sexual market value used to be tied to how much money he makes. These days, that’s not the case. Women are in the workplace, especially young women out of college, and they are making just as much money as men. They aren’t financially dependent on a man, and they aren’t looking to start. That’s actually another way men have less perceived value than they used to. Not only do men risk the increasing chance that their actions or words will qualify as sexual assault of some kind, but they are not rewarded by the sexual market for their efforts in the workplace. Which, again, reinforces negative perceived value of the individual.

Men have to be sexy. They have to be charismatic, bold, confident, and have advanced social skills to manage any social situation. Throw in good looking if they are going to have a chance with online dating.

The problem with being attractive by building social skills is that this is becoming more and more difficult for men. #metoo, which has great intentions of stopping abuse and harassment, if it grows too encompassing of behaviors and actions of innocent-intentioned men, can have dire consequences. In addition to getting people fired from their job or industry, strict harassment rules can decrease the opportunities for men to try to develop the social skills that are needed to have sex in the modern world.

Anti-harassment rules and laws discourage men from trying to flirt with women. That’s great – it means women won’t be uncomfortable because they won’t be hit on by uncomfortable (creepy) men. This doesn’t apply to men that are attractive (not just physically) – they will always be able to flirt and converse and touch as they please – as long as they are still seen as attractive.

Men who aren’t skilled socially are just as uncomfortable approaching women as the women being “creeped out”. It’s scary for these guys. They are taking a chance. They are trying. When guys are told not to try because they are creepy, or will be fired, or will be shamed on social media, they won’t develop experiences to become better and more socially equipped.

What is the result? Men will stop. They will back out of the workforce because their efforts aren’t recognized, and their lack of value will continue to be magnified for their failures in the economic and sexual markets.

How do we turn this around? Few things.

  1. Honor the man. It’s important that we recognize the efforts of men in both the workplace and the sexual market. We are all sexual beings, even men who only work and play video games and don’t venture outside. Let’s accept that and celebrate that. Don’t go have sex with a dude that’s nerdy and unattractive, but don’t shoot him down hard for being creepy.
  2. Glorify marriage and parenting. Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
  3. Get off social media. You’re a six.

False Empowerment

This article first appeared on Return of Kings here: link to article


The big myth of modern feminism is that its teachings lead to female empowerment—that women are more free in this system than in a patriarchal system where she is expected to honor her man.

Not so.

Women have not become more free. Women are enslaved to the government, corporations, and to pleasure in the matriarchal world they created.

Even if you argue women were enslaved to their man in patriarchal systems, which is debatable, women still have far more masters to serve in the modern feminist world they created than the one husband and with that, far few freedoms.

The repression associated with the patriarchy is also debatable because women in patriarchal systems were expected to honor the relationship through mutual sacrifice. Men had sacrifices they were expected to make (monogamy, commitment to family). There are no sacrifices governments, corporations, and simple pleasure have to make during their enslavement if women.

Except maybe an HR department.

Government

The government has grown and replaced honor of her man with a dependence on the government. The government has grown in power and size and has more freedom to exert power to do what it wants, and feminism is largely to blame.

Feminism grows the government by growing debt. Money is created when money is borrowed. When money is created, the entity that creates the money grows more powerful, as it controls that asset.

Feminism creates debt with the college degree. Degrees with limited job opportunities are granted to those who take out government loans to pay for them.

Feminism is to blame for these unpractical degrees because feminists preach that women must go to college to be equals to men. The result is not the same though. Women enter college not because they are attracted to building the skills to make money as engineers or businessmen, but because they are supposed to get a degree which shows they are equals to men.

Women borrow for college and then become slaves to their student debt. It must be paid back, and they cannot be free until it is. Women enter careers to pay off the student debt, spending their prime years (young and hottest) not marrying a great man with an engineering or business degree but instead working to pay off loans. This disincentives marriage for men, because they aren’t getting commitment from women in their prime. 

Men also become slaves to their debt, but are more likely to take a practical degree in engineering or computer science that teaches a profitable skill. Skills are profitable because society pays for them because society is benefited by the skills. Sociology of ethnic relations, while neat, is not profitable because it doesn’t teach a skill that benefits others.

Yes, it is selfish to major in sociology of ethnic relations.

Feminism teaches us that women were slaves to the patriarchy. There were great sacrifices by both the man and woman in the patriarchal world.

Men used to find honor in marriage by marrying a woman in her prime beauty years. In return for her giving him her best years, he was expected to be faithful with her in her later years, when his value is up and hers down. The two had a commitment to each other, and society praised those that could maintain this commitment. She was investing in the future of the man—hopefully one that showed promise. 

Now, the feminist asks him to give up his best years for her worst, after she fucks other men during those prime years. The fucking being encouraged by feminism. And that’s not all.

We further incentivize her to leave the man who puts up with her worst years by throwing alimony payments and child support to transfer his wealth to her. This forces him to be enslaved to the corporation and government tax schemes to make his payments.

Governments and corporations grow. Individual liberty is reduced. The growth of governments necessarily depends on decreased liberty for the individual because it takes more resources (tax dollars) to fund a larger government.

Feminism preaches an empowerment that’s a false empowerment. By encouraging women to work to pay down debt, men and (mostly) women become more enslaved to the growing governments instead of a mutual sacrifice from both the man and woman to commit and support each other.

It’s the greatest bait and switch ever pulled. It’s bait and switch on a macroeconomic level. Global in scope.

Women are not just slaves to the government.

Corporations

Women become enslaved to corporations for the same reason they are enslaved to the government. They owe money. They went to school and racked up student loans that must be paid off. Companies are where people to go pay off those loans.

Women are more likely to choose a college major that results in careers that pay less than the masculine business and engineering degrees. Because these college graduates do not build the skills to succeed in high-paying professions, women are more likely to work in a job that pays less than recent business and engineering graduates.

Companies are extremely incentivized to keep women working. It’s simply more money for them. Companies can create more when they have more workers.

Despite claims by feminists that companies don’t want to pay women for equal work, companies are happy to pay women for creating more profits for them. The more profits the merrier.

Obviously there are some additional expenses to companies for hiring women—healthcare costs and human resource departments, but generally companies are happy to have workers making them more money, or companies would not hire women.

The glass ceiling isn’t real. Companies are amoral, not immoral. They will maximize profits and if women are creating profit, those women will be paid, and economists have proven they are, justly. Of course, women are less likely to be the creators and the decision makers because they didn’t learn the skills in college, but the opportunity is there.

Corporations keep women enslave by promoting the next big debt purchase. As women pay off their college debt, they are encouraged to buy cars and houses and vacations to Tahiti and graduate degrees. Women remain enslaved to the companies that allow them to pay off debt.

Women are not just slaves to the government and corporations.

Pleasure

The modern empowered woman is a slave to pleasure. She is a slave to the feeling of attraction she has towards a given man.

This has always been the case psychologically, but not in execution. In the evil patriarchy, women were told to honor their man above all and to honor meant to support and stay committed to him.

An empowered woman under modern feminist doctrine is told to honor the pleasure she receives over honoring commitment. She is told to chase pleasure instead of honor.

We see examples of this everywhere, although the vices are cloaked in virtuous buzzwords. Women are empowered when they are promiscuous. They are careful when they date around before choosing one man. They are successful when they reach director level at her company.

What is more virtuous—these buzzwords or the rejection of chasing the status and pleasure to provide for a man and a family?

Feminism says the former. Christianity, the Bible, classical books, and Buddhism all say the latter. Basically, everything that has ever been called wisdom

It is this pursuit of pleasure that is enslavement. If you crave pleasure, you are enslaved to the feeling of that pressure, and a suffering takes place in its absence. See: drug addicts. See also: the modern woman.

Through Buddhist meditation or following Biblical teaching we learn to drop our ego and our dependence on pleasure. We can choose not to seek pleasure and therefore the need to chase it. The chase can lead in disappointment and the acquiring of pleasure can lead to diminished returns, but receiving pleasure also increases the likelihood to return for more.

Pleasure necessarily feels good. When pleasure is received, it reinforces the activity and encourages the chase. There’s nothing inherently wrong with feeling good.

The problem is in the chase. There is an inherent suffering involved in chasing pleasure, and modern women suffer in spades. The suffering is in not living in the present. We want the present to be better, so we look forward to feeling better. Not only are women told to have sex with multiple people, but they are told that in conjunction with chasing a career—which they need to pay down debt. Each of these discourages men from honoring them, and the modern woman does both.

Modern feminism enslaves women to short-term pleasure seeking, careers, and growing government.

True empowerment is the ability to say “no”. In the world women created, women must pay back their loans, and they must follow what’s attractive instead of valuing commitment because a dependence has been developed to both.