This video by Way of the World is a fairy tale, in a sense. It talks about “The Left” as some mythical creature that simply has to be defeated. No doubt the Left and it’s power is real, but what are the deep roots of it? Just “the joos”? That seems unlikely to me. The truth is more likely to be human biology.
“Truth” as Way of the World is using it, is truth based on free speech and Objective Truth….which is testable and verifiable. I support that truth, however:
There is another kind of Truth in the world, which springs out of human biology. That truth is emotional and Subjective Truth. That truth arises out of human emotion.
The human brain is wired to look at reality in at least 2 basic ways: One is based on emotion, the other on abilities of the human brain which lead to objective reality. All humans have brains wired to look at the world, in both ways.
The first way of emotion and Subjective Truth requires no training and can be manipulated by clever people.
The second way, of reason and evidence….Objective Truth…is quite different from the first. Using reason and evidence and logic is difficult. Few people are good at it. It requires a fairly high IQ. There are racial average difference that make that ability vary from race to race. There are also evolutionary differences between men and women that are likely far larger than the racial differences. Thinking about differences between men and women. At 4:20 to 6:06 in the above video, Professor Peterson says,
“I think that women’s nervous systems are not adapted to women. I think women’s nervous systems are adapted to to the mother-infant dyad. And because you are not the same creature, once you have an infant. Not at all. You’re way more vulnerable. And it’s partly because, you have to express, the vulnerability of the infant. And you also have to care for it. Right. So, you think about an infant especially under nine months. So, lets say how are you going to be optimally wired up, if you are going to care for an infant under nine months? And I’m saying under nine months because women generally do the bulk of child care for infants who are under nine months old. And part of the reason for that, there’s a whole host of reasons. But part of the reason for that is obviously is that they breast feed. But imagine what you need to be wired up for biologically, in order to care for an infant. First of all, they’re very demanding. Right. Because they’re completely helpless. And they are demanding 24 hours a day. And it’s quite. It’s quite…uh….an emotional load. And an infant under nine months is never wrong. Right. What you do to an infant under nine months is it’s in distress…you always respond. You never tell the infant, get your act together and stop whining, right?….Under nine months, its like, nothing is the infants fault, it’s surrounded in an extraordinarily threatening world, and you have to be responsive to what it needs, regardless of what you want, and you have to be very sensitive to the threats that emerge in the environment. So I think the price that women pay for that ability to have an intimate relationship with an infant in the very earliest stages of development is that their nervous systems are actually wired so that they can perform that role, optimally.”
Women are emotional because more than men, they are wired to look after infants. They support open borders and welfare because the impulses behind these things are legitimate biological female instincts to protect the vulnerable. This is on a collision course with male instincts in the modern world, because men do all the main things to produce wealth and protect the population. Women are inclined to look after the world’s babies, more than men, who are inclined to protect borders. Both borders and babies are in the respective genetic programming and biological interests of either respective genders. Giving women the vote means female inclinations and interests now dominate the political discourse, not male inclinations and interests…since women are the majority of voters. Will this be a good shift? Time will tell….but one thing is certain: the shift is real, it’s very real and substantial.
The birth rate in advanced countries has radically declined due to feminism, birth control and the invention of the modern world. However, evolved female instincts with regard to children do not somehow magically vanish, just because of this declining birth rates. Women just transfer those maternal emotions onto social programs, feminism, SJW causes, voting for welfare and open border. At the same time, since the birth rate is radically declining, males have far less vested interest in family, in helping and protecting women. While this is happening, democracy means women vote for open borders and bringing in sexual competition for the men into a country. Since men pay most taxes, the women by virtue of being a majority of voters, effectively tax men, to bring in replacements for the men in a democracy.
My contention is that women are wired by nature to be aligned far more, to the Subjective Truth way of looking at things, than men are. The reasons for this have to do with evolution: We are a sexually dimorphic species, women get pregnant, men must protect and provide for them. In our evolution women were not the hunters and protectors, they were the social center of human life. Human interaction centered around them. The raising of young offspring centered around them….particularly for infants under a year, as Dr. Peterson pointed out. Women had less physical strength than men during evolution. That is a basic feature of sexual dimorphism. How would nature arrange things, to allow women to survive under these conditions? To survive in this environment, women evolved for a social perceptual sense which is based on emotion….they look at the world more in the way of Subjective Truth. That’s because looking after babies, to ensure their survival, is very hard. So much so, that women’s nervous system may not even be wired for women. Nor is it wired for men. It’s likely wired for looking after the needs of infants.
Think about how that translates into politics….
So women are wired on average, more for emotion, more for Subjective Truth. Men are also wired for emotion and Subjective Truth….but less so than women, I contend. That’s because men were the hunters, the protectors of all. Science and technology arose out of man’s relationship with the physical environment. Physics is just an extension of the male hunting brain that deals with physical objects, assessing them in time and space, which hunters did, for survival. Logic and reason are complimentary with this and they arise out of the human brain. It’s striking that science, logic and reason and evidence….Objective Truth….it took so long to arise in human evolution. Another striking feature is that it happened, it arose out of almost exclusively male brains. And white male brains, at that. That’s very curious. I think these are bits of evidence there may be evolved racial variation involved here, but more importantly evolved sex differences between men and women.
Because women are wired more for emotion than are men, this involved keeping everyone happy, keeping social peace, looking after everyone’s needs, sharing and coordinating socially. The men led the tribe, protected the tribe, but the women set the social order. The trouble is, this arrangement I think, to be stable, it requires male leadership to stay intact, as a balancing force to female social order, which is subtly imposed on the tribe by emotion and coercion by females. Human life is a dance between the female role and the male role. One of the features of the female role in the dance of life: Women are not interested as much as men are at repelling outside threats. They don’t have to be. Men do that. It’s part of male leadership. The trouble of course comes when women get the vote, when we democratize. Then the dance, the power balance changes, in a new way that may or may not be good. We’ll see. How so? Since women are the majority of voters, they eventually impose their will, their Subjective view of life and Truth on everyone else…we see this in Political Correctness. They push for the emotional narrative of sharing, breaking down borders, taking care of everyone…..all these are agendas of the left.
So the alt-right’s view of some mythical “left” that has to be defeated, it misses the point. The enemy is not really an enemy. We men are part of the ‘enemy’, as all males have some female characteristics….some more than others….like “soy boys”. Women more so than men obviously have more ‘female’ characteristics, so it is women driving this leftist agenda….not men in general. And women are not our enemy. Speaking of enemies: The focus on outside males coming into the group, it misses the point as to why this is happening. The villain becomes the outside male, the Muslim. But is the outside male the real enemy? Ask yourself honestly: is the Muslim the source of the change in our demographics and culture? Or is it something else, deeply biological? It’s easy to blame outside men. It’s much easier than facing the truth.
Women are all about Subjective Truth. We are entering a new age where women control the cultural agenda. That’s what Political Correctness is all about: female control over political discourse. Female control is based on their emotion, sensitivity and female feelings and “being offended”. And the left of course, gets most of the female vote. This should surprise no one who has followed political trends. The difference between the male vote and the female vote is always there, in every country and must be explained. So for all those people pushing the idea that there is a mythical “left” that simply has to be defeated and that will end the threat of European civilization collapsing, I say: You are pushing a fairy tale. It’s not “the joos” behind the left, behind open borders…it’s evolved human nature that is the issue here.
However, the alt-right has many good points. One of them is absolutely essential to the survival of our civilization. That point is about free speech. Women don’t like free speech as much as men do. It’s far easier to offend women, than men. Comedians have always known this. If you want to know who’s in charge ask yourself: who can I not offend or criticize? Comedians routinely subject men to ruthless humor but they don’t do the same to women. Why is that? Why does the use of free speech and criticism vary between the sexes?
Why is the left suppressing free speech now? The left does not like free speech as much as the right does, now. That must change. Noah Carl, the academic talked about in Way of the World video at the top, is a victim of the left. They want to suppress his right to speak freely on contentious issues like race. This is a huge mistake on the part of the left.
The reasons for the left’s uneasiness with Noah Carl and the ideas on the alt-right are pretty understandable. They are also completely wrong. The left wants to shut down the alt-right and Noah Carl, not because he is wrong, but because he might be right. The left wants to shut down free speech because it leads to social disunity and contention. It works against human social harmony within a given society. It goes against feminine instincts for unity and social control of dialogue.
That social control of Noah Carl sounds an awful lot like women in a primitive tribe, trying to find group social consensus, trying to push for group unity in thought and opinion. This tendency is in both men and women but it is stronger in women for evolutionary reasons. Group unity and consensus were essential for human group survival in the past….especially for female survival. Women survived evolution, more as a group, than did men. That’s again because of sexual dimorphism: women are smaller, weaker and get pregnant. They require men to protect them. So women even today have an in-group preference today that is measurable and statistically significant. They want their group protected. That’s because women evolved as a vulnerable group. Men, less so. That’ where the expression “women and children” comes from. For a very long time, we recognized that the male role was about protecting women as a group, along with children. Feminists play this narrative of group protection. Trouble is, they play this and take it far too far, to the point where protecting the group extends to controlling “offensive speech” so the emotions of women are not offended. So it’s no wonder the left pushes for social censure and banning offensive thought, such as Noah Carl’s. The trouble is, the left is wrong. Relying on the Subjective part of the brain as a guide to reality, is obviously flawed very deeply.
In the long run, shutting down free speech never works. In fact, shutting down free speech leads to violence. The left is either intellectually or just plain stupid, if they don’t see this. Or perhaps it’s another thing behind it, much more frightening: perhaps the left wants to suppress free speech because on some level, they want violence. Antifa makes me half believe that. For surely in the long run, suppressing free speech eventually contributes to violence. In fact it pretty much assures it.
And that’s how the left is wrong: People on the left think they can impose social order and a common view of things, by subtle and not so subtle social coercion. That won’t work forever, because humans are too varied for that. In the end, the only way the agenda of the left….with it’s open borders and suppressing free speech can work, is through some sort of technological fascism. Google would certainly like that. They are part of the feminist arm of the technological elite now temporarily in control of the flow of most human information. It won’t work. Google is evil because it tries to suppress free speech. And by evil, I don’t mean their political opinions are wrong. I define evil as trying to control free speech. That’s evil because it inevitably leads to violence.
Humans need free speech in order to honestly sort through their difference and come to common agreements on the social organization of society, or else there will eventually no doubt, be violence. That’s why I don’t support the left.
At a deeper level, that’s why women were not mean to politically lead in a society; their biological interests compel them to things like sharing and suppressing dissent. This means taking the resources of men, against men’s interests, it means controlling male behavior, with women becoming the final arbiters of law and order….previously male domains, as they historically reflected male political authority in all societies. Women leading the political order has never been the pattern of the past. The likely reason is, it won’t work, for biological reason. Men lead because in evolution, men protected women, males competed for females. Females were the social source of life, and for new life of the tribe…and were dependent on males, but didn’t dominate them in terms of running the political leadership. Men ran the political leadership to balance the female power of control over sexual reproduction. Men ran the political leadership as a social balance to women controlling sexual reproduction. Female control of sex is vital. But let’s understand how powerful and significant female control of sex is, for the structure of human life: It means females selecting out certain males, for biological continuation through sex. This is a tremendous power granted to females, by nature. Part of this sexual selection power in nature, is female rejecting many males, letting them biologically die off. This is the female power to say to one man, “you live” and to another man “you die”. As a natural social balance to this tremendous female power, society evolved the balancing force of male political power….in all human cultures. This was a fair balance I think, set up by nature, for very good reasons. And from the male point of view, since males don’t get pregnant and males often go extinct, far far more often than females, the only way the male survives evolution is by controlling territory, limiting competition from outside males coming in from outside and competing against him for females. This means political control belongs for evolutionary reasons, to the male, since females control the sexual. All this sexual balance and fairness is done away with, in the new feminist order, because in a feminist political order, women seize the political power in society, via democracy…Women prefer more men around, to compete for her. So women welcome outsiders, more than men do, because it helps women, genetically. Female DNA wanders. Male DNA stays put. And women now vote and are the majority of voters….putting women effectively in control, politically. That’s what democracy and women voting changes in male-female power dynamics. In my view: Democracy tilts power too heavily towards to the female, for it to last long in history. The male in general has been politically neutered by the female in modern life, by extending the vote to women. The female, for biological reasons, wishes social control over opinion to ensure group harmony. That’s a reflection of her own natural biology. That’s expressed through voting in the agenda of the left. It means a very large reduction in male power. The male has had one foot cut off of him, in the dance of life. That’s what this is all about.
In video below, starting four minutes seventeen seconds:
“But I think women are also associated, at least in men’s imagination, with nature, which is part of the chaotic domain, say as opposed to culture, because they’re sexually selective. So you gotta think….what is nature? We have that as a cognitive category. Right. We think of the natural world. We think of nature vs. culture. It’s a fundamental opposition. What is nature? Well, nature is trees and animals and landscapes…..and all of that. But that isn’t what nature fundamentally is. Nature fundamentally is that which selects…from a genetic perspective. That’s nature. That’s the fundamental definition of nature.
And it is the case that human females are sexually selective. And it’s a major component of human behavior. So the evolutionary theory, roughly speaking, is that the reason that we diverged from chimpanzees eight million years ago, seven million years ago, is at least in part because of the differences between sexual selectivity between female humans and female chimpanzees. Female chimpanzees are more likely to have offspring from dominant males. But it’s not because of their sexual selectivity. So a female chimpanzee has periods of fertility that are marked by physical, by observable physiological changes. Not the case with human females. Human female ovulation is concealed. So that’s a very profound biological difference between human females and chimpanzees.
And the female chimpanzee will mate with any male. But the dominant males chase the subordinate males away. But human females are sexually selective. And so…it’s not a trivial fact. And so you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. You think….well how can that be? Well, imagine that on average every single human female has had one child throughout the entire course of history….which is approximately correct, by the way. Then imagine that half of the men had zero, the other half had two. OK….and that’s roughly the case. So half of males, historically speaking, have been reproductive disasters. And the reason for that is female sexual selectivity. So it is actually the case that female humans are nature. It’s not only that they’re associated with nature symbolically. As far as reproduction is concerned, they are the force of nature that does the selection. And so they are nature, in the most fundamental way.”
And what do females support, more than men? Globalism, multi-multiculturalism, diversity, suppressing free speech in academia and the mainstream media. Think about it: Feminists and post-modernists, SJWs are almost all women. Coincidence? I think not. And these groups all support forcefully pushing a common general consensus based on an enforced social narrative that highlights social conformity and sharing and “caring”….such as in communism and trans-female rights….which too is about “caring”…..and this psychological profile and proclivities are more common in women, than men. Coincidence? I think not. Living in the Age of Lies? The biggest lie being told, is perhaps that men and women are exactly alike….The Big Feminist Lie. As a counter to this over excess of female power in democracy, a new political force is arising: Nationalism.
Before you villainize nationalism, understand it: It’s an expression of male power, which declines in a democracy. The evidence says that men more than women, support nationalism. Why is that? Men more than women, vote Republican. Why is that? Republicans more than Democrats, support the military. Why is that? It’s because the biological interests of the male, are in protecting his territory, his women, his political power, in order to survive evolution. And as a counter balance to that, why do women, more than men, vote Democrat? Why do women, more than men, vote for parties that support open borders? Why do women, more than men, vote for parties that support large government and welfare? All this has evolution written all over it.
So really left vs. right needs to be thought of in terms of gender wars, in terms of male vs. female, in order to understand better, what is going on. Globalism and multi-culturalism and big government are in a woman’s interest. Women vote and the pattern of their voting says they vote in a way that takes resources away from men, who create most of the wealth. Multi-culturalism and diversity is all about caring for everyone in the tribe. This has evolution written all over it, just like Nationalism has evolution written all over it. The only difference is, multi-culturalism is evolution from a woman’s point of view, Nationalism is evolution from a man’s point of view.
Which one will win? I have no idea. However I do predict that if females win, if diversity, globalism and multi-culturalism and suppressing free speech win, it’s the end of Western Civilization. The reason is, with women fully in charge of both sexual selection…..plus controlling the political and thus economic levers of society, the male in general effectively has no power, thus no stake in the game. Women at that point, effectively control the whole human game….both reproduction plus political control. That’s severely unbalanced in favor of the female. It seems highly unlikely that men will put up with this one-sided deal for very long. Life is a genetic deal between men and women. It involves give and take. The new rules of democracy and feminism effectively cede full control of both sides of the equation to the females. That’s what we are seeing play out now that women have the vote. This new democratic game effectively ends male incentive to play the game at all. It turns human society in Europe and America into a Matriarchy. I don’t believe Matriarchies ever survive. They never have. The likely reason they never have is that males need an incentive, to devote their lives to the survival of women. The feminist fairy tale is that men will always work for women, for nothing…no reward. Now that women economically compete with men and women control the cultural and political narrative as well, this disincentives men from building families and working for the social betterment of women and children. That’s the likely reason Matriarchies, according to the fossil record of history and evolution….appear to be all genetic failures. They die.
The Bible understood these subjects perfectly well, if disguised in myth and story form. In the story of The Fall of Humans, the serpent deceives the woman, then the woman deceives the man. God intervenes and tells the woman her desire will be for her husband, who will rule over the woman. The curse of women is the pain of child birth. The curse of man is that life is mortal, he must work to sustain his life and that of his woman, by the sweat of his brow, only to eventually die….dust to dust, ashes to ashes….that is the truth of life and it hasn’t changed since that story was told. In the story Eve is the desired one for Adam, but Adam can’t really trust her. That’s wise. Eve has her own agenda. In modern terms, Eve has a competing set of biological interests, to Adam’s interests. Both are looking for a fair deal. It’s a story all about the biological dance of human life…male and female. Because of birth and the fragility of human life, Adam must toil all his day, to sustain his own life and that of the woman and her children, only to die in the end. Notice that the social order under this situation, which must be imposed, as the only workable power arrangement under this situation of biology, birth, survival and eventually death….the the only workable and fair power arrangement in order for man and woman to survive, is clearly expressed by the Bible. And I agree with it, when God says to Eve:
“Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you”
That’s Patriarchy, in a nutshell. In Patriarchy men rule but at the same time, like in Genesis they contend with painful toil, done at the service of the woman and children. She in return gives her genetic possibilities, to the man. That is the essential biological deal between the genders, in Genesis. And it’s a fair deal, for both sexes. Feminists twist this narrative, twist male sacrifice for women and they call it “oppression. That’s as ungrateful as it is a lie. Both get something out of it: woman gets a man’s resources, his energy, hopefully his loyalty, and his protection. The price she pays to get these things, essential to her survival is that he rules over her. Men on the other hand, don’t really want to slave for the woman. But slavery for men, economic toil for the betterment and survival of women and children, is the price he pays for sex, for genetic survival for him, because he gets offspring. Feminists of course, want men to be slaves to women, but with men having no power, no payoff to compensate for his slavery. Feminists want men to be responsible for keeping the world going for the benefit of women, but want this sacrifice by men to be such that men have no authority. Responsibility without authority is the worst deal in human history. Feminists are ripping off men. Taking them for a ride. To the cleaners, as the old expression goes.
The Bible in this story is summarizing a genetic deal between the sexes, which was worked out in time. It was a reflection of what worked. By implication, it was a story of what didn’t work. What didn’t work was Matriarchy. It didn’t work because Patriarchies out-competed Matriarchies, as a social form. Patriarchies did so because, more than Matriarchies, they looked after the needs of women and children. We are all descendants of Patriarchs. Patriarchies give men authority, but require a great deal from men, as the price they must pay, for that authority. Men are rewarded in Patriarchy and women and children are protected. Matriarchy didn’t work because there is no power or payoff incentive for men, in that social form. In such a social form men would be required to work and protect women, but for what? No authority? So she could be sexually free, boss over him, cuck him into supporting another man’s child? What kind of deal is Matriarchy, for men? A terrible deal. A very, very bad deal. This reminds me of mgtow. What is it in essence? It is some men saying, as much as I like sex and women and having children, the deal is now so very, very bad for men, that “no thanks”….I’m out…..I’d rather go extinct. Think about that.
Patriarchy may be flawed, but it is certainly a better deal for both genders, than is Matriarchy. And more than that, Patriarchy actually is workable. Matriarchy has simply proved to be an unworkable social form. Nationalism in Europe is the start of a move, back to Patriarchy. And to Patriarchy, we will return, some day….be it by Islamic hands, or the hand of European man.
Do I have evidence? Sure, it’s all over the place. Find out what works. What works is what survives: When it comes to birth rate among all humans of all races and religions, the same pattern emerges: societies that lead towards Patriarchal Judeo-Christian religions like Judism and Christianity and Islam tend to genetically out-compete groups that lean towards being non religious. Within these religions, there are many branches, some more conservative and Patriarchal than others. The more liberal and feminist branches of Christianity have much lower birth rates than conservative ones. The conservative Patriarchal branches of Christianity has higher birth rates than all the liberal branches of Christianity. The American state with the highest birth rate is Utah. The state is mostly Mormons, a religion which is a very Patriarchal conservative form which is an offshoot of Christianity. And in general in America, conservative religious people all out-breed non religious liberal people, in birth rate comparisons. Elon Musk talked about this in his y-tube video “Having Kids is a Social Duty”. In Israel the most conservative religious Jews, the Haredim, have the most Patriarchal branch of Judaism….by far. The Haredim also have the highest number of babies per capita of any Jewish population…by far. And conservative Muslims far out-breed liberal secular Europeans….by far. The Patriarchal Amish in America and all very conservative Christian groups have birth rates that far exceed all liberal populations.
These are clues in nature, as to what social form works genetically for producing offspring. What works, is Patriarchy. What doesn’t work, is Matriarchy, or it’s political agenda: feminism. What is feminism? It’s death, to a society. Feminism is genetic death because it’s just an expression of Matriarchy, which is a cancerous social form. Milo Y said “Feminism is cancer”….he could not have been more right.
Humans figured this out a long time ago:
The Biblical Pattern is a reflection of biology. It is Patriarchal. The Bible can be considered to be the Patriarchal manual of the Western world. Whether you believe in God or not doesn’t change the fact that the biological truths expressed in the Bible, of what works biologically, has not changed at all:
We live in the Age of Lies. The biggest lies are the lies we tell each other about biology and how societies function and survive. Don’t worry. After the trouble, the lies will end, we will return to truth.