Penned in response to a request for more reading on this post. This is just what I've observed from being involved in history, economics and psychology. Though I am fairly sure there must be material on it as it is so obvious: [evolutionary biology monogamy] and [evolutionary biology Christianity].
There are three hierarchies that societies are primarily organised by. They dictate your place in it and how you can improve your place in the society.
a) a dominance hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by your ability to position yourself in relation to the force that holds the society together
b) a competence hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by how competent you are at extracting/providing value from/to the society
c) a grievance hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by how much of a victim you can portray yourself as and as a result how much redress you are owed
There will likely be forces from multiple hierarchies at play.
These hierarchies are all survival strategies – methods for obtaining value to survive and for pleasure. People choose to either compete or languish within a hierarchy. They choose a hierarchy based on their genetics, social conditioning, cognition and how they are being attacked by other hierarchies.
Recently when digging through the forum, I came across a question asking why RVFers (masculine men) have so much time to help other men to be masculine as this increases their competition. One reason is survival strategy. They require an abundance of men competing with them within the same value distribution constructs for those constructs to withstand assault from other hierarchies.
On a deep subconscious level, this is a reason why there is such dislike-disgust for the types of low testosterone men recently discussed in the Buzz Feed thread. The proliferation of these men pose a threat to the existence of a hierachy of value distribution that masculine men want to partake in.
Throughout almost all of recorded history and whatever came before it, societies were controlled by dominance hierarchies. That was the only way to organise societies. Organising your society in any other way would leave it vulnerable to outside capture, destruction or inner turmoil from those who wanted to extract more value from the society by destabilising it's structure to climb its hierarchy.
The fabric of these societies selected male dominance, violence, ability to command etc. DNA evidence from these societies show considerably fewer men than women passed on their genes as a result. They were societies in which the genes selected the social structure and the social structure selected the genes. It was a feedback loop, which likely took 10,000s of years to overcome. Or all of biological evolution, depending on how you want to approach it. These early societies were largely comprised of a combination of violent and unintelligent people who were unable to develop particularly complex or stable systems of interacting. There was little chance to reason with such people, particularly in the midst of small social units in a sea of other often hostile social units. But for reasons that can be explained by human psychology, humans can be convinced by religion, where they can't by a human ruler; as evidenced by the former colonies who rejected their human rulers, but kept their divine religions. Thus in early civilisations we see the concert of human leaders in combine with the representatives of the god(s) - the priests, who provided some sort of moral substrate which the people were willing to accept as divine, over the dictates of a brute-force ruler. People may laugh at the ideas of such societies today, but at the time they were revolutionary. Another key aspect of religion is they gave diverse people a more shared idea of society, reducing disputes as how society should operate.
Early religions incorporated considerable preferences for dominance. This helped create wealthy kingdoms while not threatening the dominance hierarchy, but limited the societies' potential growth.
There is a religion that contains in it the proclamation, "thou shalt not kill". This may sound like a given to people today, but in the past it was not. In early societies killing was often a mark of distinction. In indigenous American cultures you find killing venerated in personal names, which were adopted to denoted the most important event in a person's life. Names such as Kills Enemy At Night, Kills at Night and Kills Her Own. You will find similar acceptance or reverence for violence in any undeveloped society. The religion, Christianity, has a number of other instructions:
"Love thy neighbour as thyself."
"You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind."
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
Christianity spread in some numbers throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. But it was not until it was adopted and enforced by the Roman Empire that it had the necessary brute force to establish itself firmly.
Probably the most important teaching of Christianity is that one man should only have one wife. This allowed more men who were physically weaker and less mentally commanding to enter the gene pool in much greater numbers than they had been due to the prior preference to select male dominance. Over centuries, the number of genes predisposed to aggression and domination declined, resulting in more settled societies. This increasing stability led to a space in society of trades, commerce, philosophy, science; all largely carried out by people who would not have fared well in societies that selected dominance. It was a feedback loop that broke the prior feedback loop of violent societies selecting violent men.
In England the turning point of this evolution was the War of The Roses, which was the last hurrah of a formal dominance hierarchy (feudal system) and the beginning of an increasingly fast ascent of the merchant class, who earned their place in society from the competence of producing and distributing value.
The more informal and flexible hierarchy of the merchant class was largely selected on the practical application of intelligence. As trades and professions grew, the society increasingly moved away from men earning mating rights by dominance in a fixed hierarchy to competence in a competitive and ever-changing hierarchy.
It is difficult for low intelligence people in violent societies to explicitly adopt a whole host of wide-ranging philosophies, rules etc. But if they are enforced, they will eventually become implied in society to a point where people know nothing else or what came before such ideas. Thus, you don't get dramatic changes in people's morality overnight. In the case of Christianity in England, from c. 500, you had an increasing change in the genetic selection and the adherence to a moral code, which influenced which genes were more likely to replicate. Both are inherently anti-human-biology and very delicate. Other societies went through such development and were either destroyed from without or from within by decay.
This is the reason why Christianity a stand out factor of why ~99% of the modern world was created in Europe or its descendants and the places that developed most of everything you value and removed or eroded most of what you dislike.
Ironically, the rulers that imposed Christianity would end up being destroyed by the society it led to, particularly by the commercial class who they begrudgingly licenced and encouraged. The ruling class were suspicious about trade was because they sensed the potential for competition, but were wooed in by the riches it provided; and as one kingdom embraced trade, others had to in competition.
Without Christianity, there would have been no vibrant late-medieval to early-modern commercial class (competence hierarchy), who through their industry provided the wealth for the age of exploration, the enlightenment, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technological revolution...
As religions and rulers provided a space for competence in a harsh world, competence has provided a space for grievance; notably since the mid-19th century. Those who seek to establish the supremacy of a grievance hierarchy see the competence hierarchy as a dominance hierarchy. Rather than seeing it as people exchanging value, they see it as what a dominance hierarchy manifests as: a small number of people extracting most of the value a society produces via the imposition of a totalitarian hierarchy. Although there are aspects of this in current society, as well as fraud, proponents of a grievance-based society see the fruits of competence as ill-gotten and organised by a violent system. They can't or feel they can't compete in the competence hierarchy and injustice is a seductive shortcut to explain why. They seek to change the fabric of society to one that would better deliver them value and make their genes more likely to replicate. It's a system based on the celebration on weakness or whatever can be cast as weakness. It consumes value while producing none, but requires inputs of value to exist. It devours competence and so is wholly impossible to sustain. It's also unable to protect itself and that's why when we've seen grievance hierarchies seize power they have established the most brutal dominance hierarchies ever seen (communism).
Those who engage in grievance politics put forward that it's all about compassion, caring, values etc. However, you can observe this is not the case in the lopsided situations in which the alleged values are applied. The outrage over grievances stops when it goes up to the magic line of people who don't agree with reorganising society around varying degrees of grievance politics. Over the past few decades it has been a very effective political tool for those pushing grievance narratives to shout how bad anyone who doesn't agree with them is. Using this emotional manipulation has been so successful that as Anita Sarkeesian put it “everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic”. What she didn't add is “so long as you agree with how I to reorganise society.”
When a woman, non-white person, homosexual etc. they don't agree with is subject to harassment, death threats, racism etc. the outrage over such grievances typically disappears. Regressives are quick to shout "sexist" when a female Labour MP is given a challenge but magically disappear or applaud at the jubilation of Margaret Thatcher's death and the prior calls for it; so quick to start shouting "coon", "porch monkey", "uncle Tom" when a Ben Carson, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Tommy Sotomayer etc. doesn't agree with them; so quick to shout "anti-Muslim extremist" to Maajid Nawaz who says all the killing and violence in the Quran needs to be excised; ban the UKIP LGBT group from the London gay pride march as they don't fit in.
This trend is so prevalent and the failure to publish news on breaking topics that deflate grievance narratives makes it perfectly clear that they don't care at all about all these -isms they are so fervent to find. Where you will find their solidarity is one sole area: those who want to distribute value based on grievance. They want a society in which they feel comfortable and can compete in. It's not about victims, you or anyone else. It's about they want and it's a self interested as not wanting to pay any tax.
The hierarchies and what they seek:
Dominance - the ultimate strong-man
Competence - the ultimate truth, reason, technology...
Grievance - the ultimate victim
Method of control/promotion:
Dominance: force
Competence: exchange of value
Grievance: emotional manipulation
Survival strategy:
Dominance: serve
Competence: produce
Grievance: identity, self-destruction, self-depreciation, emotional manipulation, irresponsibility
Some more ideas on some of the topics here.
There are three hierarchies that societies are primarily organised by. They dictate your place in it and how you can improve your place in the society.
a) a dominance hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by your ability to position yourself in relation to the force that holds the society together
b) a competence hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by how competent you are at extracting/providing value from/to the society
c) a grievance hierarchy, where your place in society is dictated by how much of a victim you can portray yourself as and as a result how much redress you are owed
There will likely be forces from multiple hierarchies at play.
These hierarchies are all survival strategies – methods for obtaining value to survive and for pleasure. People choose to either compete or languish within a hierarchy. They choose a hierarchy based on their genetics, social conditioning, cognition and how they are being attacked by other hierarchies.
Recently when digging through the forum, I came across a question asking why RVFers (masculine men) have so much time to help other men to be masculine as this increases their competition. One reason is survival strategy. They require an abundance of men competing with them within the same value distribution constructs for those constructs to withstand assault from other hierarchies.
On a deep subconscious level, this is a reason why there is such dislike-disgust for the types of low testosterone men recently discussed in the Buzz Feed thread. The proliferation of these men pose a threat to the existence of a hierachy of value distribution that masculine men want to partake in.
Throughout almost all of recorded history and whatever came before it, societies were controlled by dominance hierarchies. That was the only way to organise societies. Organising your society in any other way would leave it vulnerable to outside capture, destruction or inner turmoil from those who wanted to extract more value from the society by destabilising it's structure to climb its hierarchy.
The fabric of these societies selected male dominance, violence, ability to command etc. DNA evidence from these societies show considerably fewer men than women passed on their genes as a result. They were societies in which the genes selected the social structure and the social structure selected the genes. It was a feedback loop, which likely took 10,000s of years to overcome. Or all of biological evolution, depending on how you want to approach it. These early societies were largely comprised of a combination of violent and unintelligent people who were unable to develop particularly complex or stable systems of interacting. There was little chance to reason with such people, particularly in the midst of small social units in a sea of other often hostile social units. But for reasons that can be explained by human psychology, humans can be convinced by religion, where they can't by a human ruler; as evidenced by the former colonies who rejected their human rulers, but kept their divine religions. Thus in early civilisations we see the concert of human leaders in combine with the representatives of the god(s) - the priests, who provided some sort of moral substrate which the people were willing to accept as divine, over the dictates of a brute-force ruler. People may laugh at the ideas of such societies today, but at the time they were revolutionary. Another key aspect of religion is they gave diverse people a more shared idea of society, reducing disputes as how society should operate.
Early religions incorporated considerable preferences for dominance. This helped create wealthy kingdoms while not threatening the dominance hierarchy, but limited the societies' potential growth.
There is a religion that contains in it the proclamation, "thou shalt not kill". This may sound like a given to people today, but in the past it was not. In early societies killing was often a mark of distinction. In indigenous American cultures you find killing venerated in personal names, which were adopted to denoted the most important event in a person's life. Names such as Kills Enemy At Night, Kills at Night and Kills Her Own. You will find similar acceptance or reverence for violence in any undeveloped society. The religion, Christianity, has a number of other instructions:
"Love thy neighbour as thyself."
"You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind."
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
Christianity spread in some numbers throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. But it was not until it was adopted and enforced by the Roman Empire that it had the necessary brute force to establish itself firmly.
Probably the most important teaching of Christianity is that one man should only have one wife. This allowed more men who were physically weaker and less mentally commanding to enter the gene pool in much greater numbers than they had been due to the prior preference to select male dominance. Over centuries, the number of genes predisposed to aggression and domination declined, resulting in more settled societies. This increasing stability led to a space in society of trades, commerce, philosophy, science; all largely carried out by people who would not have fared well in societies that selected dominance. It was a feedback loop that broke the prior feedback loop of violent societies selecting violent men.
In England the turning point of this evolution was the War of The Roses, which was the last hurrah of a formal dominance hierarchy (feudal system) and the beginning of an increasingly fast ascent of the merchant class, who earned their place in society from the competence of producing and distributing value.
The more informal and flexible hierarchy of the merchant class was largely selected on the practical application of intelligence. As trades and professions grew, the society increasingly moved away from men earning mating rights by dominance in a fixed hierarchy to competence in a competitive and ever-changing hierarchy.
It is difficult for low intelligence people in violent societies to explicitly adopt a whole host of wide-ranging philosophies, rules etc. But if they are enforced, they will eventually become implied in society to a point where people know nothing else or what came before such ideas. Thus, you don't get dramatic changes in people's morality overnight. In the case of Christianity in England, from c. 500, you had an increasing change in the genetic selection and the adherence to a moral code, which influenced which genes were more likely to replicate. Both are inherently anti-human-biology and very delicate. Other societies went through such development and were either destroyed from without or from within by decay.
This is the reason why Christianity a stand out factor of why ~99% of the modern world was created in Europe or its descendants and the places that developed most of everything you value and removed or eroded most of what you dislike.
Ironically, the rulers that imposed Christianity would end up being destroyed by the society it led to, particularly by the commercial class who they begrudgingly licenced and encouraged. The ruling class were suspicious about trade was because they sensed the potential for competition, but were wooed in by the riches it provided; and as one kingdom embraced trade, others had to in competition.
Without Christianity, there would have been no vibrant late-medieval to early-modern commercial class (competence hierarchy), who through their industry provided the wealth for the age of exploration, the enlightenment, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technological revolution...
As religions and rulers provided a space for competence in a harsh world, competence has provided a space for grievance; notably since the mid-19th century. Those who seek to establish the supremacy of a grievance hierarchy see the competence hierarchy as a dominance hierarchy. Rather than seeing it as people exchanging value, they see it as what a dominance hierarchy manifests as: a small number of people extracting most of the value a society produces via the imposition of a totalitarian hierarchy. Although there are aspects of this in current society, as well as fraud, proponents of a grievance-based society see the fruits of competence as ill-gotten and organised by a violent system. They can't or feel they can't compete in the competence hierarchy and injustice is a seductive shortcut to explain why. They seek to change the fabric of society to one that would better deliver them value and make their genes more likely to replicate. It's a system based on the celebration on weakness or whatever can be cast as weakness. It consumes value while producing none, but requires inputs of value to exist. It devours competence and so is wholly impossible to sustain. It's also unable to protect itself and that's why when we've seen grievance hierarchies seize power they have established the most brutal dominance hierarchies ever seen (communism).
Those who engage in grievance politics put forward that it's all about compassion, caring, values etc. However, you can observe this is not the case in the lopsided situations in which the alleged values are applied. The outrage over grievances stops when it goes up to the magic line of people who don't agree with reorganising society around varying degrees of grievance politics. Over the past few decades it has been a very effective political tool for those pushing grievance narratives to shout how bad anyone who doesn't agree with them is. Using this emotional manipulation has been so successful that as Anita Sarkeesian put it “everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic”. What she didn't add is “so long as you agree with how I to reorganise society.”
When a woman, non-white person, homosexual etc. they don't agree with is subject to harassment, death threats, racism etc. the outrage over such grievances typically disappears. Regressives are quick to shout "sexist" when a female Labour MP is given a challenge but magically disappear or applaud at the jubilation of Margaret Thatcher's death and the prior calls for it; so quick to start shouting "coon", "porch monkey", "uncle Tom" when a Ben Carson, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Tommy Sotomayer etc. doesn't agree with them; so quick to shout "anti-Muslim extremist" to Maajid Nawaz who says all the killing and violence in the Quran needs to be excised; ban the UKIP LGBT group from the London gay pride march as they don't fit in.
This trend is so prevalent and the failure to publish news on breaking topics that deflate grievance narratives makes it perfectly clear that they don't care at all about all these -isms they are so fervent to find. Where you will find their solidarity is one sole area: those who want to distribute value based on grievance. They want a society in which they feel comfortable and can compete in. It's not about victims, you or anyone else. It's about they want and it's a self interested as not wanting to pay any tax.
The hierarchies and what they seek:
Dominance - the ultimate strong-man
Competence - the ultimate truth, reason, technology...
Grievance - the ultimate victim
Method of control/promotion:
Dominance: force
Competence: exchange of value
Grievance: emotional manipulation
Survival strategy:
Dominance: serve
Competence: produce
Grievance: identity, self-destruction, self-depreciation, emotional manipulation, irresponsibility
Some more ideas on some of the topics here.
![[Image: md19972374844.jpg]](https://pictures.abebooks.com/THEPARNASSUS/md/md19972374844.jpg)
