Family

You are always in a family environment. You may not be aware of it, but alphas and females are. The bar tables of today are the dinner tables of tomorrow. You can remember childhood, because you were a child once whether you think about it or not. You remember sitting around the table at dinner. Who was the ref? Who was the boss? Family life is the real world. Family life is the world around you that men suppress in order to think abstractly.

That world didn’t go anywhere. It used to be all you knew. Now it’s back and you’re not a child anymore. You learned to think, and now you have to think about that. Can you lead? Because that’s why people get divorced. Divorce happens when there is no one at the helm. Will you complain about women initiating divorces? Divorce is a vote of no confidence in the government of a family. When the governing bodies are no longer capable, they disband. One side does the disbanding, the other does the incapability. Whose fault is it?

We’re not equal. We’re not brother and sister. When you were 8, you were brother and sister. When you’re grown, you’re husband and wife. Time to lead. Time to lead and time to raise your sons to lead. It’s all around you all the time, and if you don’t see it, you’re not doing it. Every man is a king; start acting like it.

Advertisements

4 comments on “Family

  1. The greatest possible difference between two cultures is how big their families are. Some families are two parents and 3 kids; some are a chief and 5 subordinate adults. They are both experienced as families by their members. Human social life is naturally familial. The more public life in a culture, the more hierarchical it’s society will be. There can be only one alpha per family.

  2. NoveltyVotary says:

    Recorded history and human civilization had it’s genesis in the codification of the alpha male and the nuclear family as the supreme unit of organization and power. Patriarchy. We had millions of years to experiment with other structures while as organisms remaining unchanged in all other ways. Maybe we developed agriculture a few times, writing, law, etc, but these prototype civilizations weren’t stable enough to preserve those ideas. What we do know is that there aren’t many records we can use to find out. Given that the lifespan of civilization we know today is measured in thousands of years, as compared to millions of years of possibilities before it, we can deduce a lot. Once the family unit was “invented”, history was created, but not before. Inheritance and leadership allowed power structures to persist, wealth to be pooled and kingdoms to be created. Oppression and prosperity were invented.

    Perhaps today’s beta male assumes society is the father, all knowing, kind and beneficent— the ultimate family. Perhaps it once made sense, but society today has no particular interest in you, it’s impartial, unlike the alpha male, the father, the leader, the king. Substituting political leaders as your God is antithetical to following greatness as they represent, ironically, powerlessness, even at the helm of super-nations with super-armies and super-economies. We’re at the mercy of forces that are more than individual men can control, and as they corrode the power structure inherited for generations, they make way again for the traditional alpha male. The doors are opening for men with vision about how to live and the strength to carry that vision out, benevolent dictator or warlord alike.

    Thanks for the post and the reminder that we are the ones responsible for seeing how the first chapter will play out, not someone else.

    • It’s rare to see so many controversial statements at once and agree with them all. Thanks very much for commenting.

      Patriarchy inevitably leads to complexity — do you think complexity inevitably undercuts patriarchy?

      Do you think the nuclear family existed before agriculture? I’d be interested to hear your opinion.

      Ironically, the Sex at Dawn book influenced a lot of my thinking on evo psych and pre-civ social structure. We just have diametrically opposed prescriptions for what the appropriate response to the same reality is. The authors make a strong argument for patriarchy being the attendant value system of a high paternal investment society, and argue convincingly that the paternity certainty it mandates would be irrelevant in a society without private property (where children are reared collectively.) As such, both it and the nuclear family would be non-existent before the Neolithic. This is a popular opinion in neither traditional evo psych nor the manosphere, and I see traces of it in what you’re saying. Where does that come from?

      • NoveltyVotary says:

        Let’s start by saying I’m a bad student. I prefer to distill knowledge out of blogs and wikipedia articles before I sit down to read a whole book. So much fluff these days anyways, it’s like people have a legal system inspired mindset about covering their asses when trying to convey knowledge. I’ve got a terrible mind for dates and specific facts, but the generalities and trends tend to stick. I prefer the forest from the trees. That being said, evolutionary biology/genetics laid a good foundation for me in college for systems thinking, but having an engineering type of impartial mind has always just been there (I’m a web dev geek). That’s my only explanation as to how you can agree with me despite turning popular (and unpopular) culture on it’s head. I guess you must already think our world is fucked up.

        I’m not so familiar with evo psych thought, but when I look at patriarchy vs matriarchy, being a bad student, I pretty much sum it up very quickly with the types of generalizations seen in my last comment. People usually deplore that kind of snap judgement living in an expert-driven culture, but trying to get anywhere with just the tools anthropology has available is silly. So I fall back on the logic of evolution and the few essays I’ve read on the origination of patriarchy.

        I don’t think agriculture really “existed” before patriarchy, before history, as we probably would have carbon dated a wooden trowel or something by now. I was using it to promote the idea that patriarchy is what made history possible, because otherwise, during millions of years of pre-history, why didn’t we see it? The co-incidence of agriculture (and so many other things) with patriarchy is too improbable to ignore the idea they are causally linked. Ignoring any other facts around this subject, the basic deduction here is still simple and powerful.

        As for complexity, it seems like you’re suggesting that complexity is to patriarchy what “the human condition” was to communism. Basically: A nice idea, but doesn’t work out in the long run. Well, that can be said of lots of human ideas, and there’s a lot of people making that argument about capitalism right now. So is there anything stable about civilization at all? I declare it a bad question, because we’re looking at a new organism here that’s still at the very beginning of it’s evolution. Not humans but humanity— a very different animal. And how can we say how it’ll turn out from our current perspective and understanding of it? I think our only chance at gaining understand, besides waiting a million years, is deduction, the older way of knowing.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s