A Swirling Brainstorm

[Falcon SageParticipant 92]

I’ve recently have had some thoughts swirling around in my head that I felt like I needed to express. Firstly I do not wish to fight or offend anyone but I would like to hear your thoughts and I would love to have a civil discussion which will allow myself to learn and further evolve. Considering how every MGTOW here has managed to unplug himself from the Matrix, it’s fair to say you are an open minded group. Men are superior to women and women can only control us through government. Now what if there was no government? The government could no longer extort us men, women would have no power over us and would be forced to submit to us. A lot of people would say that no government would mean chaos. I disagree with that, a prime example is in America, the states with the least gun control have the least shootings because if you try shooting people, everyone else has a gun and you’re dead. What I’ve also wondered is this: if humans are wicked, corrupt creatures that cannot be trusted on their own, how does it make any sense to give those same humans power over other humans? Again, I don’t want to fight, I’m just sharing some thoughts that have been on my mind recently.

"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good." –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

[Anonymous 3]

Falcon Sage wrote:

Firstly I do not wish to fight or offend anyone but I would like to hear your thoughts and I would love to have a civil discussion which will allow myself to learn and further evolve. Considering how every MGTOW here has managed to unplug himself from the Matrix,

It is difficult to see how far we have descended into the political correctness hell.
One would think you where about to speak about something really outrageous or offensive, when you just wanted to philosophically discuss kinds of government…

Can we imagine Plato avoiding offence of political sensitivities when writing “Republic”?
Socrates was indeed sentenced to death by his teachings, he was said to be poisoning the youth… But now we think we are vastly above to those times…

Regarding the discussion of your subject, I had a revelation myself by reading this article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-13/too-many-laws-why-police-encounters-escalate

The interesting part was:

Prior to the age of the modern police patrol in English-speaking countries, state agents — often a sheriff-like official — were used primarily to compel named defendants to appear in court when another citizen had made a complaint in court against that person, usually to demand restitution for some wrong inflicted. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that police agents routinely patrolled an area looking for places to intervene. In the United States, for example, as Jack Greene notes, “the American police service was originally cast as a reactive force, not as a preventive of interdicting force. … America’s police were to provide assistance on request, not to proactively intervene in the lives of the community.”

I would say that the states are becoming ever more controlling. Travelling between countries is a perfect example of such thing. Initially there where no limitations, but with absolute monarchy things started to change. That is, until they where abolished. It was only with WWI that international travel was controlled again.

Not until the reign of King Louis XIV of France did these “letters of request” become popular. The King granted personally signed documents to his court favourites. The letter was dubbed “passe port,” literally meaning “to pass through a port,” because most international travel was by sailing ships. Hence the term “passport”.

Within 100 years of Louis XIV’s reign, almost every country in Europe had set up a system to issue passports. Besides needing passports from their own countries, travellers also had to have visas issued by the countries they wanted to visit, much as we have travel visas today.

The rising popularity of rail travel in the mid-19th century led to an explosion of tourism throughout Europe and caused a complete breakdown in the European passport and visa system. In answer to the crisis, France abolished passports and visas in 1861. Other European countries followed suit, and by 1914, passport requirements had been eliminated practically everywhere in Europe. However, World War I brought renewed concerns for international security, and passports and visas were again required, as a “temporary” measure.

So I would agree with you. We spend the majority of our history without government intrusion in major areas of life. Today everything is regulated and controlled by the government.
In many aspects we live in a totalitarian dictatorship compared to the past.

But then we exchanged all that for security…

You see, if the government does not have power, then individuals have power. And people are what they are; some good and some bad. So, if you have power you can exert it according to your tendency.

In the most part, giving people power could be a good thing, as we can learn from one of our members signature:

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
― Robert E. Howard

But on the other hand you must be able to defend yourself…

Not the kind of society that is prone to get feminism, wouldn’t you say?

[RoyDalParticipant]

Falcon Sage wrote:

I disagree with that, a prime example is in America, the states with the least gun control have the least shootings because if you try shooting people, everyone else has a gun and you’re dead

The right to self defense is identical to the right to survive. Anyone who submits to this is a gullible fool. Worse yet, the main body of deniers are those who want us to be obedient servants to their every whim. They want human property, tools with the power of speech. Even serfs have too many rights for their comfort (They aren’t allowed to kill a serf on a whim. There are laws.) Only slaves will do.

Falcon Sage wrote:

What I’ve also wondered is this: if humans are wicked, corrupt creatures that cannot be trusted on their own, how does it make any sense to give those same humans power over other humans?

The best answer I can come up with is:
1. Most groups need some form of leadership.
2. The leaders must be removed and replaced if they do not satisfy the group’s needs.
3. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others!

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Falcon SageParticipant 92]

RoyDal wrote:

1. Most groups need some form of leadership.
2. The leaders must be removed and replaced if they do not satisfy the group’s needs.

I do not entirely disagree with your statements. However I would not say that government is required for leadership. Wolf packs have leadership but not a government, they have an informal hierarchy. I can almost guarantee an informal hierarchy would be born and I think this is more ideal than government. From my observations and experience, societies that do not have a formal government and naturally build a informal hierarchy not only (for the most part) are more effective at policing themselves because they only focus on the actual bad stuff and hammer down on it.

"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good." –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

[Falcon SageParticipant 92]

What you have said was fascinating and I agree with what you stated. Though keep in mind, a man once said “those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither”.

"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good." –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

[Anonymous 3]

RoyDal wrote:

The best answer I can come up with is:
1. Most groups need some form of leadership.
2. The leaders must be removed and replaced if they do not satisfy the group’s needs.
3. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others!

I agree with this, but I would add this quote: “Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reason…”

I think it is safe to say that man has tried all forms of government, and while some are better than others, a GOOD form of government was not found yet. That has a lot to do with people, that are prone to act irrationally and allow themselves to be driven by lunatics.

All my life I was worried about our society and its future. How important was its survival, for all our knowledge, our achievements, our efforts. I also earned about the future, when technology would bring us to space and beyond our planet.

Now I dont care. It is not that I want this society to burn, or that I think something better could exists.

I simply noticed that it would be the same if it was not this way.

People feel the same, either they have a smartphone or a spear on their hand. The simplicity of a primitive life could leads to more happiness. But I am not deluded, even in a more primitive society the problems are the same.

Just yesterday I was watching this documentary about a tribe in the amazon river that is supposed to have the “happiness language”. But even there we notice AWALT at 32:00:

My family speaks “we are hungry. Let’s eat fish”.

The man is a good hunter, he kills monkeys by himself.

My wife speaks “kill a big fish”. There are no fish! I wont find any. My wife will be angry. She will speak “where is my fish?”

He kills nothing! The man kills no fish!

[Author]

Posts