Mercurial Hosting > arkian
changeset 20:ffeac1e232a7
fix links
| author | Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| date | Fri, 19 Sep 2025 21:40:40 -0600 |
| parents | b7584d239e7a |
| children | 938d0b9eb7c6 |
| files | src/mikraite/Against_Womens_Suffrage.html src/mikraite/Understanding.html src/mikraite/Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html src/mikraite/mikraite.html src/old/about_old1.html src/old/about_old2.html |
| diffstat | 6 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/src/mikraite/Against_Womens_Suffrage.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +<!doctype html> +<html lang="en"> + <head> + <script src="/site.js"></script> + <script> head() </script> + <title>Arkian - Against Women's Suffrage</title> + </head> + <body> + <script> header() </script> + <div content> +<h1>Against Women's Suffrage</h1> + +<blockquote> +<p>Youths oppress My people,<br> +and women rule over them.<br> +My people, your leaders mislead you;<br> +they confuse the direction of your paths.</p> +</blockquote> +<cite>Isaiah 3:12</cite> + +<blockquote> +<p>Were our State a pure democracy, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.</p> +</blockquote> +<cite>Thomas Jefferson</cite> + + +<p>Women's suffrage means that women vote in general elections together with men. I will argue here that this undermines democracy and is disastrous for society. I would go so far as to say that women's suffrage is probably the greatest disaster in all of human history since it destroyed the most successful culture in human history.</p> + +<p>First I want to replace the phrase "right to vote" with "power to vote". A right is something that you are permitted to do, as in the right to speak or the right to practice religion. A right is not a government granted authority over others, that is a power. Technically, the right to vote just means being permitted to vote. But voting itself is meaningless unless that vote is counted by the government, and the result of the vote is implemented by force by the government. So what really matters isn't the right to vote, but rather the power to have your vote counted and to have the decisions of the majority of the voters implemented by the government.</p> + +<p>The central idea of democracy is that the government is selected by the governed. So indirectly, the governed exercise power over themselves collectively. It was the violation of this concept that upset the American colonies and led to the American Revolution. The British House of Commons was democratically elected, but only by residents of Britain. The Americans were upset because they were governed by a government elected by others. Similarly, imagine a campaign to have Mexican and Canadian citizens win the "right" to vote in American elections. We recognize this as absurd because the American government doesn't govern these people, so these people have no business voting in American elections.</p> + +<p>Now let's consider the question of whether children should vote. The first question is whether children are primarily governed by the government. I argue that no, in fact children are primarily governed by their parents, and therefore they have no business voting since they cannot really be counted among those governed by the government. One could argue back that children are in fact subject to government law and are punished for violating that law. I respond that the same applies to a Canadian citizen who visits America as a tourist, but this isn't enough to give the Canadian tourist the right to vote because the Canadian spends most of his life in Canada and is mostly governed by Canadian law. The same applies to children who are basically just tourists in the adult world, to the extent that they enter it. The primary government of children is their parents, so children have no business voting in government elections.</p> + +<p>But there is another, more obvious issue with children which is whether they are qualified to vote. In the case of teenagers, it is hard to argue that they lack the needed intelligence. Rather, we recognize that teenagers think differently from adults and that their thinking patterns make them unqualified to make wise voting choices. So this is a second reason that children shouldn't vote.</p> + +<p>Now I will argue that these same arguments for why children shouldn't vote also apply to women. First, let us consider how women are governed. One way that one can judge the extent of the government's impact on people is to look at who is punished for violating government law. In America, the incarceration rate for men is 15 times that of women. Why is this? Are women really 15 times as good as men are? I don't think so. I believe that there are several explanations, but the main one is that government law is primarily designed to govern men and to prohibit certain typical male behaviors. Typical bad female behavior is rarely if ever regulated by the government. So what governs women? My answer is primarily peer pressure and cultural norms. Women are more social than men are, and are more sensitive to social pressure. Social pressure is not enough to make men behave, men must face the threat of punishment to control their behavior. But for women, social shaming is enough to regulate most behavior. And in fact the idea of sending women to prison inherently feels odd to most people for this reason. If anyone disagrees with what I am saying here, I would like to hear their explanation for why the incarceration rate for women is so low. If I am correct and women are primarily governed by social norms, not by government law, then women have no business voting for the reasons I gave above for children.</p> + +<p>Now let's consider the other issue, which is whether women are qualified to vote. As I pointed out regarding teens, the issue here isn't intelligence. The issue is whether the mental framework of a teen or a woman is well suited for making wise voting choices. If we look at how primitive people of the past organized themselves in tribes, or how chimpanzees organize themselves today, we see that the tribe is always governed by a group of men/males. And because men were in this position, men evolved to have the right instincts for governing. In particular, men have a strong sense of fairness, of loyalty to a group, and an instinct to protect everyone, including women and children, in the group. Women have none of these instincts. Women developed instincts suited to their role in primitive tribes, which was primarily focused on the family and on personal connections. Women excel in these areas, none of which have anything to do with good governance. The extreme difference between men and women is obvious to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by feminism. Consider how a man reacts to a woman crying out in distress compared to how a woman would react to a man crying out in distress. Men instinctually protect women in their tribe, but women only instinctually protect children and people they are connected to. And because of these differences, men are qualified to vote but women are not.</p> + +<p>What actually happens when women are given the vote? Since women do not have any sound tribal instincts, they instead vote based on their selfish desires and their instincts for personal connections. In particular, when a woman votes for a man, she is giving him her approval. And the basic instincts wired into women regarding giving men approval are sexual. So in effect, women will vote for men who they would date. Of course women will never admit this, but this is what is happening subconsciously. A man like Abraham Lincoln, who isn't the type who naturally appeals to women, could never have been elected after women's suffrage. Now, to be elected, a man has to be handsome and smooth talking. Women naturally seek men who can provide for them, and through this instinct, women vote for a government that can provide for them. So women vote for big government. To the extent that women support particular laws, these are always laws that benefit women at the expense of men. Women have never supported any law to address some injustice against men, child custody imbalance for example. And women have never supported any law primarily designed to regulate women's behavior. Giving women the vote simply allows women to govern men, and this is a violation of the concept of democracy. It is disastrous for society because women are unqualified to vote and will vote for big government and for anything that benefits women at men's expense. Women will never vote for something based on fairness or for something to regulate their own behavior.</p> + +<p>So does this mean that I am against rights for women? Not at all. First of all, voting is a power, not a right. I have no problem with equal rights. And second, I don't even have a problem with women voting as long as women are not given political power over men. In a system of universal suffrage where men and women vote together, the result is inequality where women vote to oppress men. Some men, particular the most corrupt and immoral men, actively support women in this oppression. To have true equality, the sexes must be separated. Let men govern men and women govern women, so that neither can oppress the other. It is my view that women would soon become totally bored with governing themselves since women have no desire to regulate themselves, and they would just as well not be bothered with all this and just let men govern them. But this should be women's choice. Let women decide if they want to be governed by women or by men. Men should not impose their will on women, but if women choose to submit to the will of men, then there is nothing wrong with this.</p> + +<p>What is the Bible's view? The Bible had women prophets and women judges, but almost no women rulers (the only one being the unpopular Athaliah). This is fully in accordance with my views. The judges in the Bible were judges of arbitration, more like Judge Judy than like a government judge. In other words, people would submit their cases to judges, the judges did not have political power over people. So in the Bible, while women were respected and equal to men in many roles, women were never given political authority over men.</p> + +<p>What about the successful queens in history (not in the Bible)? These women became queens in royal courts full of intrigue. And as I said, women excel at personal relations, so women are well designed to succeed in a royal court. I am particularly thinking about the royal court of England during its rise. But these queens were no feminists. They rose to power with the support of men and their authority depended on these men. And they relied on men as advisers for making policy. This worked because women as a whole could not impose their will on men and because these queens could not remain in power without the support of men. To put this in perspective, it is worth quoting Queen Victoria's view of feminism:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.</p> +</blockquote> +<cite>Queen Victoria, 1870</cite> + +<p>Another point worth making is that political power is not the most important power. The single most important power for shaping the future of a society is the power to raise children. And in fact I couldn't care less whether I personally have the vote or not, but I absolutely care about being able to influence my children. Unlike most men, I was able to work from home and homeschool my kids, and I believe this will have more impact on the future than anything I could have done in politics. Women who value politics over their children are just following bad modern social norms.</p> + +<p>We can see the practical result of the issues here by looking at religions today. All of those religions that have successfully managed to remain moral and not conform to the immoral modern world are religions that have not given women authority over men. Examples include the Amish and Orthodox Judaism. There isn't a single religion with a low divorce rate that has given women authority over men. + +<p>So far this has all been purely theoretical. There is no practical chance that modern society will come to its senses and repeal women's suffrage. So what are the practical implications here? First, women's suffrage is a malignant cultural condition. Any society that has degenerated to the point that it has enacted women's suffrage is doomed. Don't waste your time trying to save such a culture. This applies both to countries and religions. Any religion that gives women authority over men is doomed. In Rabbinic Judaism, the Reform and Conservative movements give women authority over men but the Orthodox do not. This means that Reform and Conservative Judaism are doomed but Orthodox Judaism will likely survive. In Karaite Judaism "<a href="http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml">In the 10th century, the leader of the prominent and powerful Karaite community of Spain was a woman whom the Karaites referred to as "The Teacher" [al-Mualema].</a>" So it is no surprise that this Karaite community did not last long. On the other hand, I haven't heard of any cases of women having authority over men among the Egyptian Karaites, which explains why they still exist today.</p> + +<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Against-Women-s-Suffrage-tp11.html',2013) </script> + </div> + </body> +</html>
--- a/src/mikraite/Understanding.html Thu Sep 18 19:13:16 2025 -0600 +++ b/src/mikraite/Understanding.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ <p>For those who don't think that God is supernatural, this approach should make sense. But if you believe in a personal supernatural God, you may object and say that it isn't our place to try to understand God. To which I respond, why not? If God made man in His image, why shouldn't we try to understand Him? It seems like the least we can do in an attempt to follow His will. So I ask you, believer in a personal supernatural God, why does God give us commandments? Are these commandments for His benefit or for ours? Is God an egomaniac, like a bad king or a bad boss, who wants us to follow senseless rules just to show allegiance to Him? This kind of God makes no sense to me and doesn't at all appear to be the character of God portrayed in the Old Testament. I see the opposite kind of God, one who wants justice and morality for OUR benefit. So the commandments of the Old Testament are for our benefit, not for God's benefit. If this is the case, then all the commandments can be understood by asking why/how the commandment benefits us. When we can answer this question, then we understand the commandment in the same way that we understand a mathematical formula that we derive. So this is the way to understand and follow biblical law. Actually, the Hebrew word "Torah" doesn't mean law, it means "instruction" or "teaching". Properly studying the Torah will teach you to understand morality. The rest of the Old Testament after the Torah can be considered applied examples of Torah thinking that will deepen your understanding of the Torah.</p> -<p>On this website, I apply this approach to understanding the Old Testament to specific examples. One example is <a href="http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Diet-td5.html">dietary law</a> which is clearly a health law. The reason behind the law is that eating bad food makes you sick. The application of this reasoning is to avoid bad food, an example of which today would be trans-fats. Another example is <a href="http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Dress-Biblically-tp22.html">the commandment to wear tzitzit</a>. The reasoning behind this is to wear something to remind yourself and others that you are different from those who don't follow biblical law.</p> +<p>On this website, I apply this approach to understanding the Old Testament to specific examples. One example is <a href="http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Diet-td5.html">dietary law</a> which is clearly a health law. The reason behind the law is that eating bad food makes you sick. The application of this reasoning is to avoid bad food, an example of which today would be trans-fats. Another example is the commandment to wear <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit">tzitzit</a>. The reasoning behind this is to wear something to remind yourself and others that you are different from those who don't follow biblical law.</p> <p>Is everyone intellectually capable of understanding math and the Old Testament? I think most people are. In college, I tutored math. There was a room where tutors and students who needed help went to work together. Two types of students typically went to be tutored, pre-meds (who wanted to get into medical school) with B's and football players with F's. The pre-meds would come to me and ask me for the formulas. I told them that I didn't know any formulas and they looked at me with horror and went on to the next tutor. But the football players were innocent, not having learned to be obedient robots. So I taught the football players to understand math and they did well. The football players were capable of understanding because their minds hadn't been destroyed by school, but the pre-meds were a lost cause and seemed to me to be permanently incapable of understanding anything because their minds had been destroyed by school.</p>
--- a/src/mikraite/Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html Thu Sep 18 19:13:16 2025 -0600 +++ b/src/mikraite/Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ <p>The walking brainstems who pass for people today certainly can't be blamed for anything. They are the product of modern culture, not the cause of it. We need to look back to people with brains for the cause.</p> -<p>Boomers were intelligent and well-intentioned but they were ignorant of religion and history and they had inherited a dysfunctional political system that included <a href="/Against-Women-s-Suffrage-tp11.html">women's suffrage</a>. Because of their ignorance, it was inevitable that all their conclusions would be wrong. So they can't be blamed. Who caused the destruction of education and the political system?</p> +<p>Boomers were intelligent and well-intentioned but they were ignorant of religion and history and they had inherited a dysfunctional political system that included <a href="Against_Womens_Suffrage.html">women's suffrage</a>. Because of their ignorance, it was inevitable that all their conclusions would be wrong. So they can't be blamed. Who caused the destruction of education and the political system?</p> <p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening">Third Great Awakening</a> produced the first social justice warriors of western culture. These lunatics promoted women's suffrage and attacked prostitution and evolution. Prostitution is needed to protect female chastity, and attacking evolution undermined the eugenics movement which was needed to prevent dysgenic decay. They were also complicit with the destruction of traditional western education as promoted by evil intellectuals. The full effect of this horrible movement can be seen in the 1920s. What caused all this? This was the result of modern Christianity which is an evil perversion of traditional Christianity. So I can't really blame these people, the blame lies with modern Christianity itself.</p> -<p>Where did modern Christianity come from? It came from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening">Second Great Awakening</a>. A key player was Charles Finney as I described <a href="/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Christian-Culture-tp102.html">here</a>. This movement killed the Enlightenment and made Christianity an enemy of science. It also destroyed the traditional historical understanding of Christianity and encouraged religious ignorance. So here is where the blame really lies. But there remains the question of what allowed such a horrible change to happen to Christianity in the first place.</p> +<p>Where did modern Christianity come from? It came from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening">Second Great Awakening</a>. A key player was Charles Finney as I described <a href="The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Christian_Culture.html">here</a>. This movement killed the Enlightenment and made Christianity an enemy of science. It also destroyed the traditional historical understanding of Christianity and encouraged religious ignorance. So here is where the blame really lies. But there remains the question of what allowed such a horrible change to happen to Christianity in the first place.</p> <p>So now I will extend the blame to Luther. The key good figures in the Reformation are Zwingli and Calvin. Luther was the bad guy and almost everything he said was bad. In particular his idea that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood">we are all consecrated priests through Baptism</a> meant that ignoramuses like Finney who lacked any serious religious education could be taken seriously. For more on the Reformation I recommend reading <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Reader-Primary-Texts-Introductions/dp/0800663101/">A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions</a>.</p>
--- a/src/mikraite/mikraite.html Thu Sep 18 19:13:16 2025 -0600 +++ b/src/mikraite/mikraite.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ <li><a href="Translating_Psalm_94.html">Translating Psalm 94</a> - 2017</li> <li><a href="In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> - 2016</li> <li><a href="Who_is_my_neighbor.html">Who is my neighbor?</a> - 2015</li> + <li><a href="Against_Womens_Suffrage.html">Against Women's Suffrage</a> - 2013</li> <li><a href="Understanding.html">Understanding</a> - 2013</li> <li><a href="The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Christian_Culture.html">The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture</a> - 2013</li> <li><a href="God_for_Atheists.html">God for Atheists</a> - 2013</li>
--- a/src/old/about_old1.html Thu Sep 18 19:13:16 2025 -0600 +++ b/src/old/about_old1.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ <p>Since the topic here is specifically cultural decay, I will mention some relevant descriptive writing from other cultures. The Old Testament does a great job in describing the decay of Israel/Judah from the beginning under King Solomon to the final fall of Judah to Babylon. Decaying Athens is well described in the comedies of Aristophanes. The beginning of Roman decay is described by Juvenal. Late Rome is described by Ammianus Marcellinus who I discussed <a href="https://saidit.net/s/nonmorons/comments/9e6y/the_antony_option/">here</a>.</p> -<p>One common feature of all decaying cultures is feminism and family instability. This is related to promiscuity and I will discuss the dysgenic effect of promiscuity later. For now I will just describe what happens. Once punishment for adultery (sex between a married woman and man other than her husband) becomes reduced, it becomes in women's evolutionary interest to become promiscuous. I discuss why below in <a href="#dysgenics">Genetic Decay - Dysgenics</a> and also in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/In-Defense-of-Feminism-tp570.html">In Defense of Feminism</a>. But the result is feminism which is essentially a slut power movement. This feminist degeneracy is described in many decaying cultures. The Old Testament describes it in decaying Israel, Aristophanes in decaying Athens, Juvenal and Apuleius in decaying Rome, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280/">Procopius</a> in Byzantium.</p> +<p>One common feature of all decaying cultures is feminism and family instability. This is related to promiscuity and I will discuss the dysgenic effect of promiscuity later. For now I will just describe what happens. Once punishment for adultery (sex between a married woman and man other than her husband) becomes reduced, it becomes in women's evolutionary interest to become promiscuous. I discuss why below in <a href="#dysgenics">Genetic Decay - Dysgenics</a> and also in my post <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a>. But the result is feminism which is essentially a slut power movement. This feminist degeneracy is described in many decaying cultures. The Old Testament describes it in decaying Israel, Aristophanes in decaying Athens, Juvenal and Apuleius in decaying Rome, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280/">Procopius</a> in Byzantium.</p> <p>Beside the dysgenic effect, feminism causes family instability which harms the raising of children. So this directly harms the culture. Also men without stable wives are less committed to their society and so less likely to contribute to society. So feminism is an example of both a cause of decay and a product of decay. It is a product of deteriorating religion which results in lessening punishment for adultery which results in feminism. And it is a cause as I described.</p> @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ <p>The sequence is roughly this: Religion declines which causes morality to decline including a decline in effective prevention of adultery and this causes feminism and cultural decline which in turn is dysgenic and causes genetic decay. This long sequence explains the lag. This happened in Ancient Israel, Ancient Athens, Rome, Early Islam, and is now happening in the West.</p> -<p>Why does religion decline in successful societies? One can only speculate. I gave one possible explanation in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Why-Religions-Fail-tp2257.html">Why Religions Fail</a> but here I will give another. When society is poor then people feel a need for religion and intelligent people tend to go into religion as the only escape from the chaos of their world. Once a society becomes successful, regular people don't feel as much need for religion. But even more important is that intelligent people have many other options in a successful society besides religion, so religion attracts far fewer intelligent people. Some of these intelligent people become degenerates and attack religion. Since religion doesn't have enough intelligent people to defend itself, it either conforms to the degeneracy of its time or it simply closes its collective mind and becomes fundamentalist and rejects all reason. This happened most clearly in Islam where the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila">Muʿtazila</a> became degenerate in response to challenges from philosophy, and then there was a fundamentalist backlash led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali">Hanbali</a>. Muslims have been closed-minded fundamentalists ever since which is why they never produced anything comparable to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">Islamic Golden Age</a> again. Christianity is now going through a similar process. The end result is a loss of religious understanding as I described in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Understanding-tp6.html">Understanding</a>.</p> +<p>Why does religion decline in successful societies? One can only speculate. I gave one possible explanation in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Why-Religions-Fail-tp2257.html">Why Religions Fail</a> but here I will give another. When society is poor then people feel a need for religion and intelligent people tend to go into religion as the only escape from the chaos of their world. Once a society becomes successful, regular people don't feel as much need for religion. But even more important is that intelligent people have many other options in a successful society besides religion, so religion attracts far fewer intelligent people. Some of these intelligent people become degenerates and attack religion. Since religion doesn't have enough intelligent people to defend itself, it either conforms to the degeneracy of its time or it simply closes its collective mind and becomes fundamentalist and rejects all reason. This happened most clearly in Islam where the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila">Muʿtazila</a> became degenerate in response to challenges from philosophy, and then there was a fundamentalist backlash led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali">Hanbali</a>. Muslims have been closed-minded fundamentalists ever since which is why they never produced anything comparable to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">Islamic Golden Age</a> again. Christianity is now going through a similar process. The end result is a loss of religious understanding as I described in my post <a href="/mikraite/Understanding.html">Understanding</a>.</p> <p>As far as I know, the only Christians who retain a good understanding of their religion is the <a href="https://saidit.net/s/nonmorons/comments/9e6z/please_visit_a_mennonite_church/">Conservative Mennonites</a>. One can see the beginning of the process of religious decay in the <a href="http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4641">Mexican Mennonites</a>. Most of modern Christianity is too far gone to even be interesting. Modern Islam is closed-minded but still retains the potential for a reformation that could make it a good religion again.</p> -<p>One last point is the relationship between religion and science. Science only conflicts with fundamentalist religion, and in fact science depends on good religion, particularly good monotheism. I discussed this in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Science-Requires-Monotheism-tp2014.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a>.</p> +<p>One last point is the relationship between religion and science. Science only conflicts with fundamentalist religion, and in fact science depends on good religion, particularly good monotheism. I discussed this in my post <a href="/mikraite/Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a>.</p> ` , }, dysgenics: { @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ <p>This type of sexual selection in promiscuous cultures is far more dysgenic than the usual explanation of the lower classes reproducing faster than the upper classes. This force means that decent men will find it almost impossible to reproduce with women from their culture, but that the most stupid and evil men will have a huge number of children.</p> -<p>Now the question arises why this force didn't destroy humanity long ago. The answer is that human culture has generally punished promiscuity, and that those that didn't either remained as primitive weak tribes or quickly collapsed as a culture. In the book <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Sex-and-Culture-book-tp437.html">Sex and Culture</a> anthropologist Unwin analyzes the correlation between female premarital chastity and the level of development in all known isolated tribes of his time. He finds that female premarital chastity perfectly correlates to the level of development, absolutely without exception. Unwin then turns to history and studies rising and falling cultures. Again he finds that all rising cultures require strict female premarital chastity (virgin wives) and that declining cultures typically don't enforce female premarital chastity. So it should be no surprise that all religious texts oppose promiscuity, particularly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140447946/">The Iliad</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/">The Odyssey</a>, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433603640/">Bible</a>, and the <a href="https://dar-us-salam.com/quran/noble-qurans/q03g-noble-quran-english-only-medium-green.html">Quran</a>. Religion has been the primary force in enforcing female chastity and thereby preventing dysgenic decay. But successful cultures tend to become less religious and this causes an increase in promiscuity which results in dysgenic decay. Any solution to the problem of human decay must address this issue.</p> +<p>Now the question arises why this force didn't destroy humanity long ago. The answer is that human culture has generally punished promiscuity, and that those that didn't either remained as primitive weak tribes or quickly collapsed as a culture. In the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Culture-Joseph-Daniel-Unwin-ebook/dp/B083113DMD">Sex and Culture</a> anthropologist Unwin analyzes the correlation between female premarital chastity and the level of development in all known isolated tribes of his time. He finds that female premarital chastity perfectly correlates to the level of development, absolutely without exception. Unwin then turns to history and studies rising and falling cultures. Again he finds that all rising cultures require strict female premarital chastity (virgin wives) and that declining cultures typically don't enforce female premarital chastity. So it should be no surprise that all religious texts oppose promiscuity, particularly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140447946/">The Iliad</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/">The Odyssey</a>, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433603640/">Bible</a>, and the <a href="https://dar-us-salam.com/quran/noble-qurans/q03g-noble-quran-english-only-medium-green.html">Quran</a>. Religion has been the primary force in enforcing female chastity and thereby preventing dysgenic decay. But successful cultures tend to become less religious and this causes an increase in promiscuity which results in dysgenic decay. Any solution to the problem of human decay must address this issue.</p> -<p>This chapter is based on my earlier posts <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Human-Evolution-tp17.html">Human Evolution</a> and <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/In-Defense-of-Feminism-tp570.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> which go into more depth on this topic, and this is well summarized in the post <a href="http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929">The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes</a>.</p> +<p>This chapter is based on my earlier posts <a href="/mikraite/Human_Evolution.html">Human Evolution</a> and <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> which go into more depth on this topic, and this is well summarized in the post <a href="http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929">The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes</a>.</p> ` , }, },
--- a/src/old/about_old2.html Thu Sep 18 19:13:16 2025 -0600 +++ b/src/old/about_old2.html Fri Sep 19 21:40:40 2025 -0600 @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ <p>Since the topic here is specifically cultural decay, I will mention some relevant descriptive writing from other cultures. The Old Testament does a great job in describing the decay of Israel/Judah from the beginning under King Solomon to the final fall of Judah to Babylon. Decaying Athens is well described in the comedies of Aristophanes. The beginning of Roman decay is described by Juvenal. Late Rome is described by Ammianus Marcellinus who I discussed <a href="https://saidit.net/s/nonmorons/comments/9e6y/the_antony_option/">here</a>.</p> -<p>One common feature of all decaying cultures is feminism and family instability. This is related to promiscuity and I will discuss the dysgenic effect of promiscuity later. For now I will just describe what happens. Once punishment for adultery (sex between a married woman and man other than her husband) becomes reduced, it becomes in women's genetic interest to become promiscuous. I discuss why below in <a href="#dysgenics">Genetic Decay - Dysgenics</a> and also in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/In-Defense-of-Feminism-tp570.html">In Defense of Feminism</a>. But the result is feminism which is essentially a slut power movement. This feminist degeneracy is described in many decaying cultures. The Old Testament describes it in decaying Israel, Aristophanes in decaying Athens, Juvenal and Apuleius in decaying Rome, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280/">Procopius</a> in Byzantium.</p> +<p>One common feature of all decaying cultures is feminism and family instability. This is related to promiscuity and I will discuss the dysgenic effect of promiscuity later. For now I will just describe what happens. Once punishment for adultery (sex between a married woman and man other than her husband) becomes reduced, it becomes in women's genetic interest to become promiscuous. I discuss why below in <a href="#dysgenics">Genetic Decay - Dysgenics</a> and also in my post <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a>. But the result is feminism which is essentially a slut power movement. This feminist degeneracy is described in many decaying cultures. The Old Testament describes it in decaying Israel, Aristophanes in decaying Athens, Juvenal and Apuleius in decaying Rome, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280/">Procopius</a> in Byzantium.</p> <p>Beside the dysgenic effect, feminism causes family instability which harms the raising of children. So this directly harms the culture. Also men without stable wives are less committed to their society and so less likely to contribute to society. So feminism is an example of both a cause of decay and a product of decay. It is a product of deteriorating religion which results in lessening punishment for adultery which results in feminism. And it is a cause as I described.</p> @@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ <p>The sequence is roughly this: Religion declines which causes morality to decline including a decline in effective prevention of adultery and this causes feminism and cultural decline which in turn is dysgenic and causes genetic decay. This long sequence explains the lag. This happened in Ancient Israel, Ancient Athens, Rome, Early Islam, and is now happening in the West.</p> -<p>Why does religion decline in successful societies? One can only speculate. I gave one possible explanation in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Why-Religions-Fail-tp2257.html">Why Religions Fail</a> but here I will give another. When society is poor then people feel a need for religion and intelligent people tend to go into religion as the only escape from the chaos of their world. Once a society becomes successful, regular people don't feel as much need for religion. But even more important is that intelligent people have many other options in a successful society besides religion, so religion attracts far fewer intelligent people. Some of these intelligent people become degenerates and attack religion. Since religion doesn't have enough intelligent people to defend itself, it either conforms to the degeneracy of its time or it simply closes its collective mind and becomes fundamentalist and rejects all reason. This happened most clearly in Islam where the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila">Muʿtazila</a> became degenerate in response to challenges from philosophy, and then there was a fundamentalist backlash led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali">Hanbali</a>. Muslims have been fundamentalists ever since which is why they never produced anything comparable to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">Islamic Golden Age</a> again. Christianity is now going through a similar process. The end result is a loss of religious understanding as I described in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Understanding-tp6.html">Understanding</a>.</p> +<p>Why does religion decline in successful societies? One can only speculate. I gave one possible explanation in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Why-Religions-Fail-tp2257.html">Why Religions Fail</a> but here I will give another. When society is poor then people feel a need for religion and intelligent people tend to go into religion as the only escape from the chaos of their world. Once a society becomes successful, regular people don't feel as much need for religion. But even more important is that intelligent people have many other options in a successful society besides religion, so religion attracts far fewer intelligent people. Some of these intelligent people become degenerates and attack religion. Since religion doesn't have enough intelligent people to defend itself, it either conforms to the degeneracy of its time or it simply closes its collective mind and becomes fundamentalist and rejects all reason. This happened most clearly in Islam where the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila">Muʿtazila</a> became degenerate in response to challenges from philosophy, and then there was a fundamentalist backlash led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali">Hanbali</a>. Muslims have been fundamentalists ever since which is why they never produced anything comparable to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">Islamic Golden Age</a> again. Christianity is now going through a similar process. The end result is a loss of religious understanding as I described in my post <a href="/mikraite/Understanding.html">Understanding</a>.</p> <p>As far as I know, the only Christians who retain a good understanding of their religion is the <a href="https://saidit.net/s/nonmorons/comments/9e6z/please_visit_a_mennonite_church/">Conservative Mennonites</a>. One can see the beginning of the process of religious decay in the <a href="http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4641">Mexican Mennonites</a>. Most of modern Christianity is too far gone to even be interesting. Modern Islam is closed-minded but still retains the potential for a reformation that could make it a good religion again.</p> -<p>One last point is the relationship between religion and science. Science only conflicts with fundamentalist religion, and in fact science depends on good religion, particularly good monotheism. I discussed this in my post <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Science-Requires-Monotheism-tp2014.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a>.</p> +<p>One last point is the relationship between religion and science. Science only conflicts with fundamentalist religion, and in fact science depends on good religion, particularly good monotheism. I discussed this in my post <a href="/mikraite/Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a>.</p> ` , }, dysgenics: { @@ -142,9 +142,9 @@ <p>This type of sexual selection in promiscuous cultures is far more dysgenic than the usual explanation of the lower classes reproducing faster than the upper classes. This force means that decent men will find it almost impossible to reproduce with women from their culture, but that the most stupid and evil men will have a huge number of children.</p> -<p>Now the question arises why this force didn't destroy humanity long ago. The answer is that human culture has generally punished promiscuity, and that those that didn't either remained as primitive weak tribes or quickly collapsed as a culture. In the book <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Sex-and-Culture-book-tp437.html">Sex and Culture</a> anthropologist Unwin analyzes the correlation between female premarital chastity and the level of development in all known isolated tribes of his time. He finds that female premarital chastity perfectly correlates to the level of development, absolutely without exception. Unwin then turns to history and studies rising and falling cultures. Again he finds that all rising cultures require strict female premarital chastity (virgin wives) and that declining cultures typically don't enforce female premarital chastity. So it should be no surprise that all religious texts oppose promiscuity, particularly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140447946/">The Iliad</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/">The Odyssey</a>, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433603640/">Bible</a>, and the <a href="https://dar-us-salam.com/quran/noble-qurans/q03g-noble-quran-english-only-medium-green.html">Quran</a>. Religion has been the primary force in enforcing female chastity and thereby preventing dysgenic decay. But successful cultures tend to become less religious and this causes an increase in promiscuity which results in dysgenic decay. Any solution to the problem of human decay must address this issue.</p> +<p>Now the question arises why this force didn't destroy humanity long ago. The answer is that human culture has generally punished promiscuity, and that those that didn't either remained as primitive weak tribes or quickly collapsed as a culture. In the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Culture-Joseph-Daniel-Unwin-ebook/dp/B083113DMD">Sex and Culture</a> anthropologist Unwin analyzes the correlation between female premarital chastity and the level of development in all known isolated tribes of his time. He finds that female premarital chastity perfectly correlates to the level of development, absolutely without exception. Unwin then turns to history and studies rising and falling cultures. Again he finds that all rising cultures require strict female premarital chastity (virgin wives) and that declining cultures typically don't enforce female premarital chastity. So it should be no surprise that all religious texts oppose promiscuity, particularly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140447946/">The Iliad</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/">The Odyssey</a>, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433603640/">Bible</a>, and the <a href="https://dar-us-salam.com/quran/noble-qurans/q03g-noble-quran-english-only-medium-green.html">Quran</a>. Religion has been the primary force in enforcing female chastity and thereby preventing dysgenic decay. But successful cultures tend to become less religious and this causes an increase in promiscuity which results in dysgenic decay. Any solution to the problem of human decay must address this issue.</p> -<p>This chapter is based on my earlier posts <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/Human-Evolution-tp17.html">Human Evolution</a> and <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/In-Defense-of-Feminism-tp570.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> which go into more depth on this topic, and this is well summarized in the post <a href="http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929">The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes</a>.</p> +<p>This chapter is based on my earlier posts <a href="/mikraite/Human_Evolution.html">Human Evolution</a> and <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> which go into more depth on this topic, and this is well summarized in the post <a href="http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929">The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes</a>.</p> ` , }, },