Man’s limitations

We are defined by our biology. Our biology is defined by our genetic blueprint. Our genetic blueprint is adaptable through nurture, but it can never transcend its programming. Maximizing its programming is transcendence. Or, stated differently: an orang-utan can not build a space shuttle and it is stupid and insulting to expect an orang-utan to build a space shuttle.

Similarly, biology means differences between the sexes.

Woman creates and nurtures life. Man builds, conquers and protects the environment in which woman can create and nurture life. Naturally there is some overlap: some women are more masculine, some men are more feminine. But the way the previous sentence is worded tells you the basic principle holds.

Because of these different roles it is clear that women want to be owned by men. Women fight other women to be owned by the highest-status men. Similarly, men want to own women and fight other men over ownership of women.

Owning one or multiple women is not like owning a table. It is also not like owning a dog, although it is more similar to owning a dog than to owning a table. But a woman is neither a dog nor a table; she is a woman. Thus different rules of ownership apply, rules which are hard yet not impossible to explain.

As white men, we have lost ownership over our women. Unfortunately, this is entirely our own fault, for we are our own worst enemy. It was white men who pushed progressivism, white men who pushed feminism, white men who pushed women into the workplace. Emancipation was a tactic for some white men to gain the upper hand over other white men. It was very successful. And women didn’t protest too much, for it is in woman’s nature to shit-test men, and boy, has feminism given women a lot of opportunity to shit-test men.

The white men who illegalized female ownership effectively set small fires to white society in order to more effectively plunder it. Being a cold-hearted logic machine, I can appreciate the effectiveness of this strategy.

Nonetheless these fires are growing into infernos that consume us. Most white men would like to not have a society that is falling apart, thus the desire to stop the inferno. The problem is that for the foreseeable future we are, well, fucked. I realistically expect continued deterioration until the day I die. (This seems to be where reactionary blogosphere diverges from the dissident-right blogosphere: Audacious Epigone points towards Generation Zyklon being a woke beacon of hope. I am skeptical, for I do not see them talking much about reinstating ownership of women, in fact I’m pretty sure they would find it horribly sexist and misogynistic of me to talk like that.)

The problem is that men are limited. We do not think in terms of society, we think in terms of direct proximity. A man can have about 150 meaningful social relations and the only way to scale his status beyond that is to improve the status of those he chooses to have a meaningful relation with, if necessary by switching the people within his Dunbar. Dunbar Dunbar Dunbar. (of course there is variance: introverts have a small Dunbar, extroverts a big Dunbar.) So beyond our Dunbar we are not communicating with each other; we are jockeying for status, showing off our Dunbar.

For instance, take this revealing phrase from a recent Scott Aaronson post:
how can a person read Gower’s blog, or Slate Star Codex, without seeing what I see, which is basically luminous beacons of intellectual honesty and curiosity and clear thought and sparkling prose and charity to dissenting views, shining out far across the darkness of online discourse?’

Regarding the charity-to-dissenting-views part: I do believe Jim is banned from both Slate Star Codex and Scott Aaronson’s blog, while neither Scott is banned from Jim’s blog. So that is a bit hypocritical.

As for the rest: Scott makes a valid point. Which is to say, as far as he is concerned, his part of the blogosphere is a luminous beacon of intellectual honesty. He is simply optimizing his status within that circle. What he says may be cringy, but it is no doubt well-received by Gower and Scott Alexander, who both fit Aaronson’s Dunbar preferences and have a –for blogosphere terms– large fan base. I do the same thing when I flatter Spandrell or Jim. We are all trying to scale our Dunbar. White men in particular are very proficient at this.

This dynamic shows up everywhere.

Movies: Oh you had dinner with Shia Lebeuf? Well I was invited to Leonardo Dicaprio’s yacht. Yeah I used to have an occasional lunch with Weinstein, but that was before all this came out. Never really liked the guy anyway.

TV: Yeah that Jimmy Kimmel man, he really is a funny guy. Oh you do golf with Conan O’ Brian? We should hang out some time.

Politics: You know I had dinner with Podesta and we did some really interesting things. Yeah he and Mark Zuckerberg shoot each other mails, he told me all about it.

YouTube: Man did you check out Idubbbz’s video on Ricegum? Dude even Pewdiepie was in it! Ricegum’s career is over.

Music: wow this collab between Pharell, Katy Perry and Calvin Harris is lit!

Alt-Right: yoo did you check out the beef between Vox and Andrew Anglin? No? Well lemme tell you it was crazy!

Cross-overs: so Justin Bieber invited Adam Sandler and David Spade over for lunch. Guess he wants to be an actor. Well he’s got some competition from Logan Paul — he made an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel!

I could go on and on but I think the point is clear. Dunbars rule the world. So, if you want to save (and in effect, rule) Western civilization you can only do it with a Dunbar that is sufficiently high in status. Not all Dunbars are created equal. In fact, they are horribly unequal. Thus the reactionary assertion that the masses are not so important as they naturally prefer to align themselves with the highest status Dunbars. So if you want power, you want to scale your Dunbar into the ruling elite.

The problem with this is that, as Moldbug hypothesized and Jim asserts, our ruling elite for the largest part is crazy and becoming crazier every day. Observing how even Trump is unable to build sufficiently high-status Dunbars within the ruling elite, this seems true.

So, you need to build a new Dunbar to challenge the existing highest-status Dunbars. Which is hard, very hard. If Trump can’t do it, I doubt you can. Which leaves the next best thing: scale as effectively as you can and wait for the existing highest-status Dunbars to collapse or grow sufficiently weak so that you may usurp them. Which in fact is what everyone already is doing. Good luck.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Man’s limitations

  1. “Which in fact is what everyone already is doing. Good luck”

    It’s not like they have any other option, anyway!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s