December 25th, 2010 by Lushfun
Serfdom, Feminism, Present part3Final (if you want to look at part1 and part2)
The dynamic of majority and plurality comes into conflict when the will of a group is forceful enough to inflict the tyranny of the majority on the rest of us. In the past it was primarily through arms and government enforcement, this time it is no different, the only thing that changes is the amount of mental public relations that gets pushed through society to butter us up before we are bent over to willingly submit to it.
Opting out of the system is actually very easy, once you stop believing in the system you are effectively outside. Certainly there are other actions you could take to make your capital and life better by leaving or structuring to avoid the pitfalls of the system, but that is secondary. The trick is to put yourself first, the individual first and foremost above any social/ideological system past, present and future, and it will melt like a cube of sugar in a cup of tea.
Serfdom is interesting in the fact that it makes one destitute by appropriation. Ergo everything you produce is appropriated by someone other than yourself and distributed in the fashion of their choosing. Feminism strives at a similar ideal, where ones' identity is above the individual. Putting one class, or gender above the other through mental masturbation for the "good" of society builds up a moral superiority complex, where the ethics are warped to such a degree that they become irrationally ingrained in the core of society. As with any ideology the absolute goal is for feminists to decide on the identity everyone else gets vested with. That is the crux of reality.
As of right now, our schools, job opportunities, government redistribution of income, court adjudication, and quiet a few other segments mandate a way of thought, action, and enforcement to favor one side rather than another, not on merit, but on favor predicated on an ideology. In respect to this reality all of them loose once compliance in the process by the other half is curtailed. Fantasy that the utopia is just beyond the horizon forcing the younger generation to sprint across the desert for the oasis beyond the horizon, which never materializes is the whimpering ending of the future. It is sort of sad as those disillusioned women walk the streets and the reality is not conforming to their expectations even now. Most hurt are usually the true believers, they are left devastated at the troth that is laying empty and no more morsels of encouragement nor the silk shades can hide the rays of sun and the truth beyond them.
Men whom have been hurt by the system will either raise the price beyond the orbit of the ability to pay for most females in the marriage/dating market or otherwise [which is reasonable], opt out to foreign lands, or do something completely different. Backlash on a system where disparity occurs for a long time occurs at the point of slow decline to accelerate its' collapse. How do people think dowry came into being? Imagine a market that has been shocked by plague or war, if there is a big gender imbalance either bride price or dowry will ensue to bring it to equilibrium. Sure the guys could impregnate all the available women but in a world where resources are scarce it would be hard to feed multiple families. Particularly in light of one where females are more favored in a socio-economic settings.
Ahem, yes ladies will have to actually pony up and pay guys to marry and stay with them. Not just sexually but with actual coin and labor. Age of Distpoia is ahead, meddling in the familial construct creates severe repercussions before things correct themselves. Yet we have not heard the last hurrah, an ending effort to "correct" all things wrong in the market of human emotions. Perhaps we can avert serfdom by legislation but at this point my mind is still doubtful on that point.
Present is like a conundrum where one side tries to outwit it-self in order to convince the other of the benefits it brings, while the opponent smiles haughtily as they turn to leave.
*ideology-fantasy relation of note
December 18th, 2010 by Lushfun
To some degree I think feminism rose out of the suffrage movement, as voting pluralized from segment to segment so did the agenda . Well think about it this way every –ism is based on an ideological world view that the movement behind it tries to push society into, the closer you are to the core of our species with an ideology the more skewed the world view of society becomes through it. Basically equality under socialism is defined and redefined over and over again to coincide with the changing socialists in control. A similar process is going on with the feminism movement. Satisfaction of an ideological worldview does not happen because those whom are in control always redefine it to their own ambitions. It is a fluid river of loops pushing out the beliefs of those behind it and segmenting the majority of those believers into smaller and smaller majorities to redefine, more and more worldviews based on the core values of those in control. Morality and ethics are just rationalization mechanism to convince others, when that doesn't work brute force and laws follow.
Money matters much less in creating ideological forces. Far more relevant are the institutionalized verticals of a power base, where it really creates loops which feed on themselves like government employees from teachers to administrators within state/city/federal agencies. Once something has inertia behind it and a lot of power its very hard to change, it somewhat becomes tautological and reinforces itself. Institutionalized feminism in these verticals of power begins to be ingrained so heavily as to displace actual functionality for which they were created. Schools are an easy example where hard sciences have been displaced more and more in favor of humanities and how to think within society. Critical thought, competition, and creativity are constrained by the egos of those who "know better". Perfection in the eyes of every person in power is just a shift one way or another, just a marginal step in the right direction, just a few more rights for some and less for others, and a cumulative destruction is slowly leveraged by magnitudes of time. Once power corrupts the system absolutely, it simply transfers to those whom ignore the system. Those whom organize outside the system and are non-reliant on it gain power. Compliance is destroyed once trust is destroyed and once a system does not represent your best interests you have no reasons to comply. Only a marginal amount of people have to cease complying before the system is too heavy to operate under its' own weight.
Due to different age curves and mortality rates for the most part the ratio of women to men in our society is around 51/49, considering that voters are stripped of their right to vote by being "criminalized" through the justice system and majority of those are men we can assume that the voting base is probably closer to 55/45 female to male. Then we can assume that higher voting rates will apply to women in the future due to greater college enrollment going on now. It seems closer and closer to an age where breakdown between men and women voting will be near 60/40. Assuming other factors discussed below marginalization of non-mainstream worldviews will simply mean ignorance of the interest groups whom are not aligned into this paradigm.
I suggest you look up pluralism, and think how interests are fractured by it.
Most people today ignore very basic facts, and look at politics with rose colored glasses.
Perceptions and reality are usually very different things. For example a country with a 100 million people and a voter turnout of 50% and two political parties only needs one of them to gain over 25 million votes to control a society of 100 million for the duration of their mandate. If the government structures policies in such a way as to pit against one another of its constituencies due to economic, moral, or other outlooks, they only need a marginal person to establish rules only they expressly wished for.
This is done rather simply, akin to marketing really. You take your basic population and divided it into groups where self-interest will make certain that it aligns to your position whether the rest of your position is aligned will be irrelevant since marginally they will be ahead. Having overlaps between groups is actually better since you automatically gain advocates of your will in multiple instances within society. Ergo society can be viewed thus: women, men, ethnic groups, age groups, economic groups. Let's take a 100 people with an inverse pyramid shape 50/50 female to male, a third each in a different ethnic group, a fifth each in a different age group, and a seventh in each different economic group. Now whom would you approach to win control of the group? Your fractional influencer group has to simply be slightly larger than any other to give you power. Ergo women whom vote from the dominant ethnicity of voting age, and within the top 5-6 brackets of income distribution. With 50% turnout that's less than 10 people*. In essence you leverage yourself by a factor of 10x.
But, nature always wins in the end. Always without exception. The longer you suppress it the bigger and more destructive the snap back effect, creative destruction has a way of appearing where it is least expected.
Several thoughts about what is going on now. Massive amounts of productive capital is held offshore in one way or another to escape government meddling. No amount of suing, divorce, government intervention will force it back. Government went into Byzantium mode with "good ideas" being implemented left and right as regulations. Any interest group willing to leverage an agenda and show backing from any segment of the population gets 'its' law or a section within one. What happens once the labyrinth is complete is decay and collapse, none want to operate in a system that is in conflict with itself because it will always conflict with you first and that costs money. This is not about making state and federal overlays the same, it is about having either one or the other.
Compliance with the system is falling not only due to people wanting to escape being strangled by paper mill forms but due to the said paper mill forms creating bottlenecks of accessibility and understandability, which begets audits and examinations for those participating. The ultimate ending is very simple, it is outright graft. When you are in violation of a regulation and there is a person examining things it will be cheaper to bribe than to pay the fine. Once it metastases on a massive scale, and it will in a very short time the outright real costs for the bureaucracy will become very high. Law and its enforcement will be totally arbitrary based on your real pocketbook.
*50 say 20 females are from the dominant ethnic group with 50% turnout you only need 10 and a fifth will not be able to vote due to age distribution.
Part 2 over still have no structure within this oh well.
December 10th, 2010 by Lushfun
Serfdom which is essentially slavery was abolished around 1861, until that time it cost you slightly less to kill a serf than horse. In America slavery was abolished only about four years later. The events happened for vastly different motives, and usually not the ones you read about in the history books. The likelihood of revolution due to poor treatment and status of serfs was rising with every years considering that Western Europe at the time had mostly abolished slavery and was on its way to representative republicanism. A few rebellions where the manor lords/gentry were killed off along with their families happened in Poland and Russia and thus reform was pushed through. In America similar things happened. Both got emancipated due to wars weakening their underlying regimes, ergo Crimean War and the Civil War basically forced the issue and for the most part it occurred to keep the economic system in place. In Europe it was done to keep the underclass placated and the economic hierarchy in place since the reliance of freed serfs on their masters was even higher than before, while in America it was done for economic domination of North versus South while keeping the social hierarchy similarly in place.
Fast forward to today and the rents and fees, those former serfs/slaves paid to their masters manifest themselves in perpetual taxation based on location(property taxes), income(income tax), commerce(sales tax), and a myriad of others. Most of these are passed through by the owner to the customer and the people on the bottom pay their freight just as before simply under a veil of ignorance and semantics(things are called different things). Simply naming things differently does not alter their function since as a base you have to pay someone for freedom of functionality just like before except now it is cycled through "the government" before the factors are redistributed to maintain the ideal of equal burden for the sake of optimal society. The ideal of course is to not just have the physical boundaries of laws enforced by the boot of the government agent, but to have you believe in the system and comply willingly. Without compliance the system does not work, so 'ideals', 'ethics', 'beliefs', and 'morals' are taught and ingrained through the boot camp of the school system we enjoy. Running around like Pavlov's dogs from one ringing signal to another with a social interaction meal in between we participate in our own brainwashing from kid to adult.
Present is a tricky state, it revolves around concrete actions, like getting up moving, doing, feeling, breathing, etc. Mentally our plasticity diminishes with time, no matter how open minded we think we are by the time we are in our twenties or thirties the way we think influences what we think about. Critical thought impedes on the comfort of regular and rehearsed outlets that make it easy to be a world thinker through participating in the consumption of thoughts of others. Consuming content and ideals along with it we build our little rationalization minds into pillars of discontent that revolve around some issue here and there that is flickered into our worldview by content mill we frequent.
Ah, subconscious appeal to the most basic and unscrupulous desires of men and women. The self, idiosyncratic nooks and crannies of our formative reptilian drives. Is there no appeal greater than to ones benefit and sexuality? Wouldn't it be great if the world just tilted slightly in your mental favor and it was done so in the pursuit of justice? Tam-ta-ra-ra-ram Feminism to the rescue! Why was it promoted instead of Masculinism or some such ideal? Glad you asked dear reader. Female networks are much more socially integrated and intertwined with the sinews of society. An ideal that elicits compliance of the whole populous through the carrot of one sex is also a good two for one deal. As the saying goes if the government robs Peter to pay Paulette, it can always rely on Paulette to champion her righteous cause to get whatever Peter has. There you have it an easy idealistic moral sword for one half of the population to wield to help aid in submitting the other, never realizing of course that it is a pawn in a much more shrewd game. As the laws were amended and the balance of power shifted further and further to one sex there are efficiency losses carried by society at large. Constraints that appear as benefits only further the likelihood of a slow but steady civilizational loss that is moving like a locomotive in a tunnel, except the headlight is out and you do not know how far away it is.
P.S. this is part 1 I will most likely amend and extend this or other versions.
November 16th, 2010 by Lushfun
One of the main reasons for the Swiss Confederacy forming was the enforcement of self-judging. Let me elaborate the original three cantons wanted to have judges that they elect from the community instead of the ones provided by their overlord, ergo Rudolf King of the Germans at that time I think. Their argument was that since they are free and the judges are not, therefore they are being judged by someone beneath them in rank which should not occur, Rudolf agreed and allowed them to choose the judges from among their ranks instead.*[p251-253]
Now notice, they are not independent, all they did was assert some sovereignty over how justice is carried out upon them. If we look at it from today's perspective we find it hard to relate, but if we think about it makes sense. Judges from the community will be hard-pressed to harm it IF said community is united behind what they deem lawful enforcement. Notice it is not what the state or the sovereign deems lawful by edict that is carried out in this community perhaps a great distance away through these justices but what the community does since they are united by an oath to do so. So if the sovereign all of a sudden declares that all their lands are his and dispossesses them, the judge will not have the backing of the community to enforce it and being part of it would not be allowed to do so. Law here is not based on interpretation or what someone writes that they vote upon some place far away but what the community will bear upon itself.
Today we have mandatory sentencing which takes away the right of the Judge to administer Justice for which he becomes elected but said community, ergo the law from far away supercedes the elected will of the people on the local level. Perhaps it will change in the future but until the people realize that forcing their will has to go from local level upwards instead of national elections which for the most part are meaningless since your vote is diluted by time, distances, and prorate among the others whom voted. Your power from affecting one official who deals with you directly with vast authority[judging] to many officials who deal with you indirectly[legislating] with marginal authority is considerably ratcheted downwards.
People ignore the Judges they vote for today and the tenures are far too long with a decade being very uncommon. You shouldn't need a J.D. to be a judge, especially an elected one, but most are pedigreed and so intertwined with the bureaucracy they serve instead of the people that elect them. It seems inconsequential and ignored on the ballot but the power of electing someone local and whom you know, a person who ignores the myriad of written regulation and defends the populous against the tyranny of the bureaucracy at large. For now we still have double jeopardy on our side and a judge that sets one free cannot have his verdict overturned, at least for the present.
*Oliver J. Thatcher, A Source Book for Mediaeval
November 10th, 2010 by Lushfun
At Battle of Varna, the Ottomans crushed a united Hungarian and Polish force and changed the dynamics of Europe for the next several centuries. What would be different? For one if the Ottomans lost there could have been a Polish-Lithuanian-Hungarian union altering history in unimaginable ways. The German push eastward in settlement might have been lower, along with the eventual rise of Hagsburg and Russian influence. Constantinople might have survived longer or been taken by a different state altogether.
But here are some of the larger impacts that come to my mind. Prussia might have never became a powerhouse or existed at all since a stronger Poland could have simply annexed it instead of settling for weaker vassal links. Coffee culture that developed throughout Balkans and eventually made it's way infusing with Central Europe, due to Ottomans being present there might have been radically different. Vienesse tradition of adding milk to coffee might have taken much longer to discover, and that would be a terrible tragedy. If the Ottomans were pushed off the European side of the Bosporus a lot of cultural influences would have taken a lot longer to permeate and diffuse in a Europe that had to deal with them for a few centuries. Persian influence in the Arab world might have continued longer, and perhaps grew stronger.
November 5th, 2010
Yesterday I read a fairly interesting article ("Misery as Motivation") and in some instance it was said before in a different way all throughout history. Ergo, pick a group or an idea and divide the supporters into layers, then try to show favoritism to a faction that is marginally impacting. It is not so much if you win or looze but how much of an impact you can create, once you are perceived as having an impact you will have even more. In some way it is similar to what was written in "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiaveli, where he gives an example of the Romans asking certain Greek-City-States to not be neutral but to pick a side since if you do not, neither the winner respects you nor the looser and in a certain sense you will be brushed aside post-facto, since you will become irrelevant to both after the outcome. I like how the motivational factors are presented in the psychological sense in the hbr blog, "gratitude factor" is a very specific orientation. It ascribes it externally instead of internally which is in the end what drives people. Yes, there are always external factors, but they fade and their fires generally become dimmer with time. Internal reasons and cohesiveness carries people through in my view.
A very cool perspective of this would be to apply it into the market and see how misery can motivate your niche to drive your success. I am certain negative incentives are of a higher value in market oriented setting than positive ones. The problem is not having them but the perception of them being so, aggitation and affirmation with repeatition and buzzing in my view does not work. Sure you get some customers by sheer volume of attempts through annoyance and general necessity being urgent in your product or service, but that is not the goal. The goal is to be a soft necessary stone in the warm hearth of their heart. If its missing there is a gnawing feeling and when its' there, comfort flows.
©2010 - privacy & terms