All Episodes
July 2, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
53:00
2419 The Origins of the State - Part 1

Why we assume that violence is order? Why do we assume that hierarchy is peace? Why do we assume that the initiation of force is both moral and immoral simultaneously? Why do we have such a fundamental terror over an absence of hierarchy?

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So, I'd like to talk, this could be a bit of a lengthy chat, but very important, very important.
We are born in a bubble of the now, and as Nietzsche says, that which lives long becomes so saturated with reason, and what he means by that is just justifications and normalcy.
That its original origins become improbable.
And it's really important to have a sense of perspective about why we as a species live so universally and consistently the way that we do.
It's really, really important to understand why The organization of society, which is really not organization, but repression.
Why we assume that violence is order?
Why do we assume that hierarchy is peace?
Why do we assume that the initiation of force is both moral and immoral, simultaneously?
And why do we have such a fundamental terror of A lack of hierarchy.
If the state said it was disbanding tomorrow, I mean, people would completely freak out.
Like, freak out in ways that would show how insane they really are.
See, I mean, just before we start this bit about the origins of the state...
Because, I mean, definitely I criticize families for adapting children to the state through brutality and through neglect and through manipulation and through various forms of abuses, but the state also conditions the family.
And most people retain the illusion of sanity only by molding And staying in close, remoulding themselves too, and staying in close proximity.
I daren't say intimate proximity because that's a contradiction.
You can't be intimate with crazy people.
You can only conform to their madness or reject their madness and bring their undying hostility.
But most people only maintain the mask of sanity by being around everyone else who reinforces their madness.
Now, if the world were to become sane, then the insanity of the majority would be revealed in one fell swoop.
The mask that has grown into their very skin would be ripped off to their undying agony.
So, if you are a Marxist, you tend to hang with Marxists.
If you are a global warming advocate, then you tend to hang with other global warming advocates, and you all tend to reinforce each other.
90% of the emails that fly around and the websites that fly around, they're designed to reinforce people's dominant prejudices.
And this is true for libertarianism as well.
Libertarianism, if it's not from first principles, remains a coincidentally benevolent prejudice, but it's not reasoned, and therefore it can't spread too well.
And I say this as someone who's been trying to convince libertarians for years to bring the non-aggression principle into parenting and faces various amounts of incomprehension and mockery and attacks and ridiculousness and like it's ridiculous and so on.
Which is exactly the same thing that happens when we say we should take the non-aggression principle from our personal lives to the state.
People reacting almost exactly the same way and almost as predictably the same way as libertarians do when Faced with the inefficacy of political action and the need to bring the non-aggression principle to life in our lives, which is the only place it can really live, since it sure as hell isn't having much of a chance in society.
So, the madness of the world is only masked by people clinging to other people who have the same madness.
Think of all of the The Muslims kneeling in prayer in the same square, you know, five times a day, facing Mecca, all that, and all the rituals that occur.
The church is necessary because religion is not true.
And therefore, reinforcement is necessary.
Without the reinforcement of lies, truth tends to win.
And the only reason that truth Doesn't win is because there's a constant reinforcement of falsehood and almost all of society that you can see is a constant reinforcement of falsehood.
And those who reinforce falsehood are as much to blame as those who tell the lies in the first place.
So, when somebody faces a crisis of unreality, In other words, when a few shreds and beams of truth, reason, and evidence begin to make it through the grim, bloody social wall of illusion, people freak out.
People are as yet constituted.
They can only take a very, very small amount of reality at the moment.
It's just where people are.
Too much reality for most people would simply literally blow their minds.
Or as my daughter says, Daddy, you just blew my mind right out of my ears.
Which fortunately remains as yet a metaphor.
People have so adapted to unreality that reality has become like air to a fish.
Fish have so adapted to living underwater that they can no longer live in the air.
And people have so adapted to living in unreality, into their societies, that reality will cause a disintegration of their identity.
And that is more than people can bear.
The disintegration of identity is...
I think it's experienced psychologically as simultaneous to death.
Because historically, the disintegration of identity meant no longer believing the lies of the tribe.
And one of the essences of what Ayn Rand used to call social metaphysics, which is where your reality is defined by your society rather than by your senses and your reason, by evidence, It's that the tribe will always choose lies over life.
The tribe will always choose lies over life.
And those who questioned or opposed the lies of society were ostracized by society and could not live on their own.
Or if they could live on their own, they certainly could not reproduce on their own.
We ain't seahorses, people.
Not that they reproduce on their own, but generally it's the men who question these things, and in seahorses, the males carry the babies.
Well, the comment does not get any more illustrative, or maybe more illustrative, but certainly not more enjoyable by being explained, but I thought I would before everyone tells me that seahorses do not reproduce asexually.
Anyway, and the reality is right now that People so fundamentally accept and believe that without the state we have a war of all against all,
that the state is like the fence around the cows and outside all is wolves and tigers, and that if you take the fence down the helpless cows will be devoured by the wolves and the tigers.
I mean, the cows or the bulls will attack anyone who approaches the fence with the intent of taking it down.
They believe that the fence is the immune system of their bodies and the shield against predators of their entire lives, and they will be helpless against the predators without the fence of the state.
They believe this viscerally, they believe this deep down, and if the If the fence is taken down, then the true predators, which are the predators of the mind, will attack them, right?
We are much more afraid of ghosts than we are of people.
I mean, think of all those times as a kid at night when you'd be frightened of things that go bump in the night, and there was nothing actually that went bump in the night.
We are far more afraid.
And it sort of makes sense, right?
I mean, we spend our whole lives when we were...
Primitive, I mean, still pretty primitive, but back in the day when we lived in the jungles, we spent our whole lives preparing to run away from a tiger, because we really needed to be able to run away from that tiger, which is why you have games like Tag and Hide and Seek and all that.
It's all practice for running away from predators, as in other games for hunting predators, or hunting prey, sorry.
And so we rehearse Predators, continually, but we only need to run away from them once or twice, which means we exercise fear much more against ghosts or imagined things than we do against real things that will eat us.
Because if we didn't do that, then that would be pretty bad for us, right?
So, I just wanted to point out, like there's this movie called The Purge, I haven't seen it and I doubt I will, That's just too much propaganda even for my relatively evolved brain to handle.
And the story is that once a year for 12 hours, everything is legal.
And I think Ethan Hawke plays a guy who's defending his family against these wretched criminals because everything is legal for 12 hours and therefore...
And this movie, which costs $3 million to make, made like $35 million.
Gross on its opening weekend, right?
I mean, that's because it plays into people's prejudices that without the state, everything will be destroyed.
And this is what you continually see in science fiction.
Whenever you have a dystopian future, it is a dystopian future where there's no government.
Just think about it, right?
In dystopian futures, there's no government.
Right?
So think of all of the Terminator series, the Matrix.
In the future where they're battling against the robots and so on, there's no human government.
It's all insurgency and so on.
Because the robots, you see, the killer robots have destroyed the government, right?
Independence Day, right?
Famous scene where the aliens blow up the White House.
Oh, hey, NSA, I'm just talking about a movie, just so you know.
I mean, who hasn't lived their digital life as if everything is recorded?
Anyway, so the first thing they do is destroy the government, and after that, you know, it's the remnants of the army that sort of battle through, and they battle through to repel the alien invaders and to restore the government so that peace can be restored to humanity.
So, people's visceral belief...
It's like physics to people.
It's not something you even question.
That if you take down the fence, the predators will eat us all, and the government is the noble fence that keeps the predators at bay.
And that is so visceral to people, that is such a fundamental belief to people, that if you were to get rid of the government tomorrow...
I mean, it's such an insane belief.
It's such an insane belief.
Because, of course, In the metaphor there, the fence is kept around cows who are milked and then eaten, like milked, murdered, and eaten.
And the idea that the government is there to protect you from people when the government is the one who preys upon you, it's so obviously illogical.
And for those who get it, it's so hard to remember what it was like to be insane because that sanity is so masked by its universal acceptance.
It's not crazy if everyone believes it.
It's called culture, right?
Only through the eyes of philosophy is it revealed as moral and practical insanity.
But in the eyes of culture, it's moral, it's necessary, it's virtuous, it's good.
And the opposite would be disaster.
This is genuinely what people viscerally believe like they believe You might as well say, I'm going to repeal gravity, and we're all going to float into space.
What a great idea that would be, wouldn't it?
Gravity.
It's just a belief in your mind.
Well, if you get enough crazy people, insanity...
If you get enough crazy people together, insanity becomes physics, because they never meet anyone who doesn't have the same belief, and everything around them reinforces that same belief.
And most of art...
It is designed to reinforce that same belief, and so when you switch your perspective, or your perspective is threateningly or forcibly switched from reality to mass delusion, mass delusion becomes reality.
And when you disassemble a mass delusion, you are disassembling reality, identity, connection, Relationships, love, truth, virtue, peace, security.
I mean, all of these things are reinforced by the madness that violence is not violence and that civil war is peace, civil war between government and the people.
So I just really wanted to point that out because this is what we're going to be talking about in this series, which is Why is there a government, sort of first, and secondly, why does government always grow?
Because it always does, right?
Now, there's lots of economic reasons why government always grows, and I'll refer you to a wide variety of libertarian writers who've done a great job of talking about those reasons, but I wanted to talk about some of the other reasons why government always grows.
Basically, that lies are unstable while the truth is stable, right?
If you believe something that is false, you become addicted, which means you need constant reinforcement that the false is true.
When you believe something that's false, when other people believe things that are different, that threatens your identity, which is why false beliefs have a mad desire to spread and why false beliefs get into wars so often.
Whereas beliefs that are true do not have the same compulsion to spread.
Reason and evidence-based people don't have the same desire to spread.
Because if you believe things that are false, and you believe that they're true, of course, if you believe things that are false, your identity is threatened by people who believe differently than you, whether it's other false beliefs or true beliefs.
Your identity is more threatened by true beliefs than by competing false beliefs, because true beliefs represent an opposite methodology, whereas false beliefs represent an opposite prejudice.
So, if you have one prejudice and someone around you has another prejudice, you may fight that person, but you won't have the same fundamental objection to them than you will to somebody who has a true belief.
Because the methodology for creating false beliefs and maintaining them is the same for everyone, and that methodology is fundamentally opposed by philosophy.
It's a reason and evidence thing, right?
So, this is why you don't have scientists going door-to-door, like Jehovah's Witness or other people.
It's why you don't have scientists putting children through indoctrinations, why you don't have philosophers Writing pamphlets and screaming on street corners and, you know, have you heard the good news that you're evil?
Kind of stuff.
And that's why truth does not require, demand, or generally exhibit the unbelievably brutal emotional abuse and manipulation that is necessary for a falsehood To spread.
You'll never see a theist selling expensive magic underpants to protect you from religion, but you'll have that in the Mormon faith to protect you from evil spirits.
And the fact that somebody who believes that, somebody who believes in magic underpants protecting you from evil spirits, was very close to achieving the presidency of the United States, Indicates just how fundamentally insane the culture is.
I mean, as far as the tough questions go, I mean, they all get asked about silly nonsense.
Newt Gingrich, did you have affairs?
And not much about the magic demon protecting underpants.
And the same way the Jewish candidate would not be asked, did you actually...
Sever the end of your child's penis as a religious ritual.
Are you crazy?
Well, you see, a fictional character demands it.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's alright then.
Because, you know, when voices in your head tell you to cut up other people, that's all fine.
The story of Abraham is near as to that.
Okay, so let's begin our journey.
And I appreciate your patience and I hope that to keep this sort of relaxing, I'm not going to try and get too hyper.
I'm not going to try and talk too fast because this is a very important series of things to understand.
And look, I want to be sort of very clear about the content of this.
These are logical theories.
I am not going to provide empirical proof.
And that weakens my argument.
This is an argument for the origins of the state.
And this hopefully will make sense.
I will reference as much as I can contemporary things that mirror, as a way of providing evidence, contemporary things that mirror the theory.
But this is an unproven hypothesis.
So, you know, not that anyone thinks, hopefully, that anything I say is It's gospel, hallelujah, brothers.
But it is a theory.
It is a hypothesis, really, not even a theory.
So I put it forward with all the caveats that you can imagine, and feel free to write me and tell me how ridiculous it is, how wrong I am, and so on, and that's great.
I will attempt to either answer or incorporate objections into the hypothesis, but this is tentative mind cobwebs.
I want to point that out.
I think there's good reasons to accept it, but of course, be as skeptical as you should be when it comes to these kinds of information.
So, the first thing to recognize is that as social animals, we evolved not out of reason, but out of conformity. but out of conformity.
As social animals, we needed each other to do things like watch over us while we slept, to help us and to protect us when we were disabled through pregnancy or the raising of children when they're very young and so on.
You see, social animals develop, very specifically, they don't develop big exoskeleton armor, right?
So, snails are not social animals, so they need a big-ass shell so they don't get eaten, right?
And lobsters don't swim around in schools like fish do, so they need an exoskeleton to...
Squirt ink and so on.
Whereas those little fish that all swim around in schools, they use each other for protection, which means they don't have to develop exoskeletons and big-ass rhino horns and things like that as well.
Now, I am thinking of all of the animals, like rhinos, for instance, that are herd animals that do have horns and so on, but they don't have an exoskeleton.
So, it's not a perfect correlation, but there's a general tendency that if you rely upon your tribe for protection, you don't have to have the additional biological overhead of developing your own exoskeleton and all that kind of stuff.
Because your tribe is your protection mechanism, not your horns, your exoskeleton, your poison sacs, your hiding, your squirting ink, your whatever, like you name it, right?
Like the rattlesnake rattles so that animals won't step on it, right?
So that's its protection mechanism.
Whereas social animals use the tribe as their protection mechanism, so that is their exoskeleton.
So removing the protection of the tribe is literally lowering the defenses of the defense less.
That's pretty important, right?
I mean, we don't have...
I mean, we're very soft.
We have...
I mean, human beings are very soft, can't run super fast, not the best climbers in the world, and small teeth, and, you know, we're pretty helpless in the face of predators.
And so, why have we survived and flourished?
Because we took all...
Of our physical defenses and we transfer them to tribal protection.
Which, you know, worked out pretty well for us as a whole.
And so, without the tribe, we viscerally and fundamentally feel defenseless.
Because without the tribe, we viscerally and fundamentally, in a state of nature, are defenseless.
I mean, what's the two things that organisms want to do?
Stay alive and reproduce.
And sometimes it feels like only because the first is necessary but not a sufficient requirement for the second.
Stay alive and reproduce.
That's our bag, man.
That's our thing.
That's our whole gig.
Stay alive and reproduce.
Staying alive requires tribal acceptance because Nobody is going to want to invest resources in protecting an unpopular member of the tribe, which is why apes have been shown experimentally to prefer physical torture to tribal rejection.
Because physical torture will keep you alive, but tribal rejection will not.
And this is another reason why women have been trained to prefer warriors and to shun nerds.
Because if women prefer warriors, then while the individual wants to stay alive, the genes, which condition, of course, I mean, human beings are bred for X, Y, and Z, depending on the cultural preferences, while the individual human beings wants to stay alive, the genes will sacrifice life for reproduction.
Because if you stay alive but don't reproduce, then your genes die with you.
But if you reproduce and then die, your genes at least have some chance of surviving.
So while the individual prefers to stay alive, the genes prefer reproduction over life.
And so if you can get women to do that white feather thing that they did in World War I where they handed out white feathers to men who weren't enlisted in the You know, meat grinder slaughterhouse of the First World War.
And the white feathers were powerful because they'd hand these white feathers out to men and they symbolized cowardice.
You're a coward if you don't protect your country.
And what that meant was, I'm not going to reproduce with you.
I'm not going to have your baby.
That's what the white feather meant.
Now, of course, the individual says, oh, you handed me a white feather.
Ooh, right?
I mean, the individual is like, who gives a shit?
Oh, a white feather.
I guess I can use this as a quill.
I can use it as a very small fan, but I am not going to be horrified at the chilling reality that you gave me a white feather.
See, the Germans will give me, like, massive amounts of lead in the intestines and cause me to die a horrible choking death.
They will pour mustard gas down my throat and cause me to die a horrible choking death.
You gave me a white feather, ooh, right?
But the reason the white feather story is powerful and the reason that women did it was because they're not talking to the individual when they hand out the white feather, they're talking to the genes, right?
Now, the genes say, if the only way to reproduce is to go to war, then, you know, by God, we go to war, right?
Of course we do.
Because the individual wants to stay alive, but the genes only want to reproduce.
And if the only way to reproduce is to risk death, the genes are like, yeah, absolutely.
Because we die, if you live but don't reproduce, we die anyway, right?
But if we go to war and live, and that's the only way we get to reproduce, then let's say that going to war is 50-50 chance of being killed, then we have a 50-50 chance of reproducing.
Which is a whole lot better than the 100% chance of not reproducing if we don't go to war, but women won't have sex with us, right?
Now, of course, the alternative, and of course the reality too, is that if we go to war, generally the spoils of warriors throughout history were rape, which is why, you know, what's called rape culture is quite strong in the military, but not so much in civilian life.
But Because if you go to war and you rape, like you kill the men and rape the women, then you have, you know, more of a chance of your genes to spread through rape.
You know, just ask a couple of tens of millions of descendants of Genghis Khan, you know, whether rape works as a methodology for spreading genes.
Of course it does.
It's morally evil and blah, blah, blah.
But from the gene standpoint, it's like, well, you know, they're just a blind photocopier, right?
They don't care.
They just want to spread.
So, if you only view society from the perspective of the individual biological organism, then society doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But if you view society from a sort of genetic standpoint, from a gene standpoint, Then society as a whole, well, you know, it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
And that which is because most of us are individualists, right?
And we value our own life and our values and our thoughts and our emotions and we're not, you know, sex slaves of the blind photocopier.
And so it's...
And of course, in modern life, reproduction has become sort of optional, and with the development of language, of writing in particular, you can spread your intellectual DNA, so to speak, you know, what is called memes, right?
You can spread your memes without sexual reproduction and without achieving political power.
And so a way of spreading what is more important than genetics, which is a virtue, a philosophy, you can spread all that kind of good stuff without having to have sex.
And so that's kind of changed the equation quite a bit.
And the essential thing to understand about the state is that the state is a gene structure.
Not an individual structure.
I'm going to really reinforce how important this is.
The state is a gene structure, not an individual structure.
And as such, it has no relationship to universal morality.
So A man can lie to have sex with a woman, which actually means that the woman has to believe his lie and acquiesce to sex.
And from a genetic standpoint, the genes would much rather, well, infinitely rather the man lie, have sex with the woman, than the man tell the truth and not have sex with the woman.
Right?
Which is why these wretched belief systems are so intractable.
Because the genes only care about the reproduction.
And so, if the woman believes that the man must grab a cobra's neck in order to prove himself worthy of having sex with her...
Let's say there's a 10% chance he dies when grabbing the cobra's neck because it, you know, bites him with venom or whatever...
Then the individual would say, may say, well, that's insane.
I'm not going to risk a 1 out of 10 chance of dying to have sex with a woman who's so crazy that she wants me to grab a cobra in order to have sex with her.
And that's insane.
Like, forget it.
That's what the individual says.
I have a 1 in 10 chance of dying.
Whereas if the individual was offered a 1 in 10 chance of surviving...
A certain death, then he would...
I'm sorry, 9 in 10's chance of surviving a certain death, he would grab it, right?
So, from the individual to grab the neck of the cobra is a 1 in 10 chance of dying.
Whereas from the gene pool standpoint, from the individual's gene standpoint, grabbing the neck of a cobra is a 90% chance of surviving...
A certain death.
Does that make sense?
So the individual looks at that and says, one in ten chance of dying, forget it.
The genes say, well, I'm going to die unless you grab the neck of the cobra.
I'm going to die for sure, but if you grab the neck of the cobra, I have a 90% chance of survival.
And so, the genes that give people a manic and insane sex drive are the ones that survive.
Because it gives people enough of a sex drive to overcome the insanity of that which harms the individual.
So if the women say, well, we're only going to have sex with warriors, the individual says, well, that's crazy.
I'm not going to go off to war when there's like no battlefield medicine and a single scratch could give an infection which will cause me to die.
I'm not going to go into a war Just so I can have sex.
Because I can just masturbate.
You know, or I can cross my fingers and hope that there's some woman out there who isn't so insane that she'll only thrill fuck a murderer.
Or I can work to change the ethics of the tribe so that having sex with the death cult is not the only way to make a baby.
Because that's what the individual says.
But that's not what the genes say.
The genes say, well, if they'll only have sex with murderers and going to war is a 50% chance of dying, then what it is for me is a 50% chance of living versus certain death.
Because if I go to war and I survive, I get to reproduce.
Plus I might get to rape, which further spreads the genes.
So, I mean, genes have no integrity other than reproduction.
You know, we can complain about that, but those same genes have given us, you know, a brain the size of Jupiter and all that kind of good stuff that we like.
I mean, so, you know, complaint or not, it's simply the reality of evolution.
It's an amoral photocopier.
It doesn't care How it gets its toner or paper, it just wants to photocopy.
And a lot of culture is driven by that.
And this sort of explains as well why women are subject to more propaganda than men.
And also, as a result of the fact that women are subject to more propaganda than men, the reality as to why men care so much about what women want and what women say.
Why there are so many white knights who ride to every woman's distress and will defend and guard her honor and, you know, why men care so much about what women want and what women think because, you know, men propose, women dispose.
Sexuality, right?
Men propose sex and women say yes or no.
And so because you are the proposer and not, right?
I mean, they've done studies, right?
attractive women go up to men in a bar and say, let's have sex, and the majority of them will do it.
Attractive men go up to women in a bar and say, let's have sex.
Almost no women will do it.
And again, that's not, you know, it's just the way things are at the moment, that men propose sex and women say yes or no.
I mean, just as a man, I think of the number of women I've asked out, as opposed to the number of women I've had sex with, and it's quite disproportional.
You ask out a lot more women than you have sex with, for the most part, I mean, unless you're Brad Pitt, in which case, the men propose sex and the women accept or not.
Now, of course, there is rape, and that's an important thing, but because human children are so ridiculously slow to develop, I mean, they develop amazingly quickly in terms of, like, they can talk, they can start using language between a year and two years old, whereas an elephant can live for 100 years and never develop language, at least not to the same level, if at all.
And so, human beings develop amazingly quickly, but...
In terms of their capacity to do things like survive independently, I mean, it's a crazy slow process, right?
I mean, 12 years, 13 years, 14 years, 15 years before they can really work to survive with any efficacy independently.
So, rape has value to the genes in that it reproduces the genes But the chance of the rape child surviving is far lower than the chance of a pair-bond child surviving, right?
Where there's love or affection or at least pair-bonding where two parents are affectionately giving resources to the child as opposed to a woman who's been raped who is not really going to want to care for the child as much and is not really going to want to marry the rapist.
And therefore, the child is going to have far fewer, far less of a chance to survive.
So, rape is like a desperation strategy, you know?
Like, nobody jumps out of a plane unless the plane's about to hit a mountain, in which case you'll take your chances.
So, rape is like this last-ditch effort to attempt to reproduce your genes with the lowest possible chance, other than zero, right?
It's the lowest possible chance of it really, really working.
So, So, the acquiescence of the woman, the acceptance of the woman and the willingness of the woman to pair bond is essential.
It's very important.
I shouldn't say it's essential.
That means required.
But it's very important for the survival and reproduction of the genes.
The genes are taking a long-term strategy, right?
I mean, immediately this generation, but looking for long-term.
So, this is why so much effort is poured into making women attractive to men And propagandizing women, because men in general will follow the cultural preferences of women, right?
So, if the woman says, well, I basically am only going to have sex with another Mormon, or Jew, or whatever, right?
Then, by golly, that's what men will have to be.
I mean, I don't know what it is like for other religious...
I mean, Jewish women in particular get a massive amount of propaganda, right?
Right?
I knew a Jewish woman once who was dating a non-Jewish guy and was thinking of settling down and she was told by her family that she would be continuing the work of Hitler in eliminating the Jews if she did not marry a Jewish man and raise the children Jewish.
Continuing the work of Hitler...
Usually not in your average wedding card.
So, not a lot of ghosts born of Hitler in the Hallmark catalogue of what to give people at their wedding.
Here's a small mustache and lots of brill cream and a podium to scream from.
And, oh, here's some excess brittle for you to spray on the audience because you are continuing the work of Hitler.
That's pretty brutal, right?
I'm making some jokes, but that's horrible.
It's a horrible thing to say to someone.
But, of course, the genes don't care.
I mean, the genes don't care.
If the women are propagandist, it cares that they acquiesce.
It doesn't care how they acquiesce, as long as they're there and will continue the work of continuing to reproduce.
Now, genes and memes work together, right?
So, if you can get women to only have sex, only marry and reproduce with other cult members, Then the genes are working with the memes.
And again, the memes are amoral.
The memes, again, most ideas simply want to reproduce.
They have no compunction about telling lies to reproduce, because memes and genes are closely interrelated, right?
So there's a meme called Mormonism.
It doesn't fundamentally change your biology.
It doesn't make you a different species of human being.
But there's a meme called Mormonism, And that meme significantly conditions the gene pool.
Because if the meme called Mormonism tells you only have sex, only pair bond and reproduce with other Mormons, why then the meme is defining the gene.
Right?
I hope this sort of makes sense.
This is really important.
You can't understand, like, male-female relationships, sexual politics, the state, the church.
You can't understand these things.
You can't understand culture if you don't understand the individual versus the genes and the memes.
Now, there's another reason why memes tend to focus on women.
And this also, of course, explains male disposability.
I hope you sort of recognize it.
Anyway, because, you know, men can impregnate men and women and so on.
But there's another reason why Memes focus on women, which is that women enter into a state of vulnerability when repeatedly having children.
And the more children they have, the more they are vulnerable.
And this very vulnerability is what makes women more sensitive to social approval.
Right?
So, I mean, we all...
Men all know this, right?
Which is that women are...
Very susceptible to social criticism in a way that men generally are not.
And, I mean, that's not just because of propaganda, and it's not because women are weak-willed or social metaphysicians or whatever.
It's not that at all.
It's simply that when women have babies, they're incredibly dependent upon the tribe.
It takes a village to raise a child and so on.
Women, through repeated pregnancies, are incredibly dependent.
I mean, women can't do much useful hunting and gathering when they're in the later stages of pregnancy and when they're breastfeeding and also when they're up half the night breastfeeding and taking care of the babies and so on.
You just need a massive amount of resources when you have a baby.
And it's impossible to understand things like the welfare state and feminism and all these without understanding the basic reality that women become resource black holes when they have babies.
And the genes don't care where the resources come from.
They just don't care.
They just need the babies to stay alive to achieve the age of sexual maturity to the point where they can themselves turn around and have more babies.
And keep the genes going, right?
I mean, I can understand that.
You know, you don't care that much about libertarian abstract principles of property rights when you need food for your baby, right?
If you've made bad choices about reproduction, right?
You've married...
Sorry, you've had sex with a guy who hasn't stuck around.
Well, this was being enormously frowned on by the tribe in the past.
And probably was one of the reasons for child sacrifice, right?
Which was to punish the women for making bad sexual choices and to remove a hungry mouth to feed with no father to provide resources which would have put a burden on the other men of the tribe and the other women of the tribe to some degree as well.
Useless eaters, they would call them.
I was trying to remember the phrase.
Now, men...
Like, to some degree, the meme restriction of the available women.
Right?
So, Jewish men, genetically, like the fact that Jewish women are commanded to marry only Jewish men.
Because it limits the competition, right?
Obviously.
It allows you to bring something to the table called I have the same meme as you do.
It allows you to bring something to the table that you wouldn't have, right?
It's a...
It's like getting a government license, but being born into a government license, it's a form of genetic hereditary, aristocracy.
And so men really, you know, some men, not all men, but men as a whole generally like, genetically, the restriction of acceptable men to women in a particular group based upon the meme.
Because then they don't have to compete, right?
And we all know lack of competition breeds corruption, of course.
And memes which limit competition are heavily inflicted upon women, and the way that they are inflicted on women is through threats of ostracism, right?
I mean, the general tradition is that boys fight physically and then make up, and women, girls fight verbally forever, right?
And develop these horrendous enmities and so on, right?
And...
So, you know, boys will have fistfights and then, you know, shake hands and make up and all that, but girls will spread lies and slander and all that, and that, you know, really poisons and becomes toxic and so on.
And that's because a man's success has to do with his martial ability, and his martial ability has to do with camaraderie, whereas a woman's success has to do with social acceptance, right?
To the woman who is pregnant.
And so the withdrawal of social approval is death to the genes.
This is really important.
The withdrawal of social approval is not death to the individual.
You can survive, I guess, in some sort of limited way.
It certainly hinders your chances of survival.
There's nobody to watch over you while you sleep or whatever.
But you can survive.
Like if there's some war where you've got an 80% chance of dying, Then the individual will do better going alone, particularly sort of in a modern context, but even historically, it's just better going alone.
But for the genes, of course, if you go it alone and you don't have access to, you know, the woman's eggs, then it's 100% certain chance of, not even chance, it's 100% certain demise.
So they'll take a 90% chance of death over a 10% chance of survival because If survival means access to women, then...
Anyway, I think we all sort of understand that.
And this is why there's such a really powerful and compulsive need to propagandize women and why women are generally so sensitive to social disapproval.
And their women's biological susceptibility, and by biological susceptibility, I don't mean that the susceptibility itself is biological, but rather the fact is that they are pregnant and breastfeed and in a pretty continuous way when they are,
you know, when they're in their fertile years, then what happens is this biological susceptibility to social Disapproval renders that the weak spot that the meme can use to blast through and reproduce itself, right?
Because if women are, in general, more susceptible to social disapproval, then the meme uses that social disapproval, which is a threat against the genes, the DNA, not against the individual's survival.
Because there are times, many times, when conformity with The tribal absolutes, the cultural prejudices, results in individual deaths, such as the case of war and so on.
But because women are susceptible to social ostracism, and they're that way biologically, the threat of social ostracism is the methodology by which irrational memes reproduce themselves.
Crazy wants to have babies just as much as peepees and vajayjays.
Crazy wants to reproduce.
I mean, insanity is a meme that wants to reproduce, and the best way to reproduce is through social ostracism, and because social ostracism is a very powerful way to reproduce, you want to, you know, you want to aim your black arrow at the soft underbelly of smog, so you want to do your social ostracism thing against those who are most susceptible to social ostracism, i.e.
the ladies.
And this, of course, is why I'm very confident that social ostracism will be the most powerful way to organize society in a rational continuum, both for the economic advantages of cooperation, which we've all pretty much adapted to these days.
I mean, imagine life without money, going back to barter.
I mean, it would be brutal.
Like, your income would drop like 90%, 99% probably.
So, if you don't understand, and, you know, I'm sorry to be annoying, it's just something that's really important to get, that most of culture is memes and genes.
Nothing to do with reason, nothing to do with evidence, it's memes and genes.
And they're both organisms, parasitical organisms, so to speak, that are perfectly willing to sacrifice the individual, For the sake of the memes and genes.
Your toe doesn't care about you, right?
Your toe only cares that it can use you to make another toe, right?
I mean, that's the basic reality.
I wrote about this in The God of Atheists many, many, many years ago, like 12 years ago, whatever.
Your fingernail doesn't care about your happiness.
It only cares that it gets to make another fingernail.
And to make another fingernail, it needs to have access to a willing, hopefully pair-bonded female.
So, it cares about access to the female only insofar as it wants to make another fingernail, right?
So, this is like when you see things like support the troops, right?
Support the troops means, like, if you look at it from the individual survival standpoint, it means bring them home.
But support the troops is aimed at the uteruses of the fertile women, right?
In other words, when people say, well, troops are heroes, they're not fundamentally talking to the troops.
They're talking to the women, the fertile women.
Which is that, I love a man in uniform.
This is something that women are propagandized to like this sort of crazy killer guy nonsense.
So that men will choose combat over survival.
So that a wide variety of memes and genes can be reproduced.
So if you can convince women to only have sex with those who are willing to show physical strength and the capacity for violence, then the meme of violence and the genes that depend on the meme will flourish, right?
And like in no other way will that occur.
Anyway, that's sort of it for the introduction.
I hope that makes some sense.
Export Selection