On Formalism

Formalism is supposed to prevent violence, but instead encourages violence, in particular rare but catastrophic large-scale violence. It is supposed to be the political-formula-free formulation, but cashes out to right of conquest.

unrelated galaxy cakes

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople, been a long time gone Constantinople.

— Lance Vader (@LanceVader) October 12, 2017

As a good formalist, we accept that it's nobody's business but the Turk's. However, this raises the question of why it's their business, and the answer is they marched a large army into Istanbul. Hence, formalism, far from being a solution to violence, actively endorses it. If you dislike a power distribution, all you need to do is formally declare war on it and win, whereupon the formalist will dutifully switch to your side.

Insofar as the war is indeed won, this is actually fine. It's a proof that the prewar formalist beliefs about who owns what was mistaken, and the war kindly corrected it.

The problem is that humans are manically optimistic. Wars frequently occur because of illusory opportunities. Hence, formalism in fact encourages the exact thing it is supposed to discourage. The only actual deterrent that's been found is to bodily threaten the person in charge of declaring wars. For example, pointing a nuclear missile at their face. (I suggest cryptographically signed assassination technologies as a cheaper and cleaner alternative.) Absent such deterrents, unwinnable wars are declared all the time, which cause vast destruction before the overoptimistic human in charge gets the message.

As a bonus, because political formulae are perverse, formalism encourages progressivism or other Sophist phenotypes. If you say coercion-legitimizing status comes from beating somebody up, then the true elite shows themselves by coercing someone without laying a finger on them and getting away with it, that is, using rhetoric.

By contrast, the anarchist formula of Exit (short ver.) implements the only other deterrent for war: disallowing coercion-legitimizing status and/or making the person who declares the war also pay for the war. War is obviously unprofitable; demand simply isn't high enough. I am curious to see how Exit's perversity would play out. If it's bad, I'm officially anarcho-pessimist.

As an aside, formalism also has two moral norms - violence is bad, and lying is bad. Moral norms have a poor track record as political engineering constraints. This is unsurprising given that moral nihilism obtains.

Why I Am Not a Nationalist

Nationalists want to be ruled by someone like them.

Problem: the plebs, always and everywhere, are fucked. If they could rule, they wouldn't be plebs.

The rulers aren't like you, even if they look like you and speak like you. Who do you think let in all the foreigners in the first place?

Ancien Feminism: Courtly Love

So, uh, fun fact: modern feminism is 900 years old. It's traditional.

As per my hobby horse, the 'dark' ages ended with the conquest of Toledo in 1085, which released Greek and Roman works from the library there into Christian Europe. The virulence of the Sophist virus can be seen in how very immediately the idea of Courtly Love infected the place. (As an aside, the first scientist also appeared, in the form of Robert Grosseteste.)

It is a mistake to blame Eleanor of Aquitaine (pictured) for the disaster. As soon as Sophism appears, there's a feminism-shaped hole in the world, which will be filled by a convenient woman. Doubtless there had been several similar attempts during the 'dark' ages, but without refined rhetorical arts, their ridiculousness was apparent.

I feel like I should have known about this. It's four years old, an eternity at internet communication speeds, but I didn't, so it's time for some antifisking. I'm actually glad I didn't find it earlier, because I can read far more meaning into it now than I could have four years ago. Do read the original, as I'm going to skip any part I can't add to.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes.

Courtly love, as per the name, started as an ultra-high-class vice. It's only late in the game, mid 1700s, that it filtered down to the plebs, and the final collapse occurred fifty years ago. Feminism is the very opposite of an egalitarian grassroots movement, and is particularly poorly suited to the capacities of your average Jane.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”.

This, as it turns out, is a bad idea. Psychotic androcentrism results in psychotic gynocentrism. (Which results in psychotic androcentrism, which...) Proof: you've read the news before, yes?

On the plus side, high-functioning autism has few troubles reproducing in such an environment. (Low functioning autism gets infanticided, exposed, lynched, or burned as a heretic.)

And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say. 

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

That is, autistics reproduce (and fail to fall for Sophism) unless you allow gay men to get out of the dynamic by agitating for celibate monasteries, which naturally attract scholarly-minded autistics. Remember, gay men find vaginal sex almost as disgusting as straight men find a gay blowjob. Basically, they'll do it in prison, and that's part of what makes it a prison. With sodomy strictly banned and marriage not particularly up to either bride or groom, gays will desperately agitate for a way out. In this cause, Paul's struggle with his nymphomania becomes a useful tool.

This is more of the overreaction-overreaction cycle. To put it bluntly, while women can indeed be troublesome, to react with doctrinaire celibacy is to be a beta cuck. Solve the problem, don't run like a worthless coward.

So, basically dark ages MGTOW. Shit's not new. That said, MGTOW is now a rational response to state distortions of the marriage market. Doctrinaire celibacy is not the same as a personal calling to celibacy.

So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. [...]  

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area,

Awfully coincident...or rather, proof that it happened all the time, but only after the reconquest of Toledo did it spawn disease.
Further, even before proto-feminism, Hajnal Europe didn't really have a problem with women becoming powerful. Psycho androcentrism isn't consonant with the European character.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

There is a problem in that patriarchy is a fact. Men can oppress women whenever and to whatever extent they desire. A single man can often overpower an entire mob of women, sometimes simply by being willing to attempt it. As a result, courtly love must have something to offer men, and you can find it here.

"Women define what is good." Surely, this is almost how it works in heaven.

This has been a problem since the axial age, when men realized mere material success is a bit weaksauce. Physics is not the arbiter of the good. Since it is possible to combine material failure with nonmaterial success, how is the man to judge his own goodness? How does he avoid fooling himself into thinking he is virtuous when he is not? One requires an external standard. 

In heaven, a man who is in fact good is judged by an infallible judge, whereupon he is granted a wife whose beauty and devotion parallels his achievements. I'm not an expert, so do check with your local astronomer, but unfortunately I suspect we live on Earth, not the heavens. Most women are particularly terrible judges of character. Sexual success is a particularly monochrome version of material success.

(Do note my considered use of the word 'devotion.')

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love.

The French did garner a reputation as being good lovers, and you know what they say about stereotypes. It wasn't a pure waste.

And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit.

I do like having these things spelled out, so let me spare you the link surfing to find it: this is a manual for creating beta orbiters and one anointed alpha fuckboy. Since everything is 'secret' the betas don't see that one tryst is not like the others. One of these trysts does not belong. Since gentlemen don't demand sex, then the alpha 'gentleman' must also not be demanding sex. Not that he needs to.

Meanwhile, a bunch of betas get to prove their restraint. Which is a genuine virtue...that nobody else cares about.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is. [...]

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal.  

Jordan B. Peterson says the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is about the awakening of human consciousness. One must feel before one can suffer. As the event which cast humans out of Eden, Christians have a habit of attempting to jam this genie back into the bottle. However, it is in consciousness that Man is made in the image of God. God is pure, perfect consciousness. Nous and Logos. Perception so intense it becomes direct power. Man is always surprised to find that trying to deny he has feelings, such as love, result in bestial outcomes.

Basically Satan loves it when you start thinking wisdom is merely the opposite of folly.

--

There's a wide range of companion pieces I could choose, but I choose this one, on the history of chivalry.

This is a link.

Note the pre-corrupt code of chivalry wasn't too hot either. It's impossible to con an honest man. Nobody is completely honest, but corrupting chivalry was just easy. However, there is this wonderful opportunity for amusement.
"Is chivalry dead?"
*Look confused.* "You want me to protect the Church and smash the infidel? Err...right now?"
Optional: comments about where to find a gun and one's ability to aim.
It's not like it's hard. A bunch of infidels have been imported, so you rarely have to travel far to find one to smash.

--

The synthesis positions is obvious, is it not? Practice Game within a strict marriage. Perhaps garnish with anti-slut certification. Also, very high status men are going to have more than one wife, whether it's allowed or not, so give it up and allow it.