It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant home prices and wage stagnation, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the utter decimation of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?
Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by RRokkyy
Look.... if you are not going to even bother to read the article, please refrain from commenting about it.
(Second line is well read)
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context. Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This double standard has invisible but major costs to society. To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, and thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'. All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?
He claims monogamy produces a better economic society. However polygamy has been practiced my many societies throughout history.
Even if monogamy made the beta male more productive a declining IQ will eventually destroy society.
Instead of forcing women to marry beta males, it would be genetically easier to simply breed more alpha males.
The Narcissist of course will reject this idea.
further why is it inappropriate of necessary for there to be a union and works done from such for society to feel apt;
if i comprehend all that i read the creator of the post is suggesting the bubble of hatred towards man/masculinity? is about to pop or is beginning to become within the next few years; towards the end of his post his subject matter seemed positive regarding being a man.the last few portions of his post express what i find the thread about moreso; marriage being a union that is natively successful for peoples who are not natively american, thus their culture beyond marriage being a primary factor.
anyone with a different culture than what is prevalent in america who comes to america is instantly successful in capitalism, with the only stumbling blocks being the resistance from natives.
there have never been a union between man and woman that has existed in the fashion the the op intends to portray marriage existing as; and this is observance of 5 generations before my generation.
Actually I am arguing for Eugenics as opposed to random breeding, or non breeding as is the case of luxury sterilization. In 5 or 10 generations eugenics can create a super race of multi talented geniuses simply by breeding the top few percent of men to the rest of women.
As long as traits of people are distributed along the current bell curve, the top few percent will dominate and thus make virtual slaves of the rest.
I would describe Alpha males as being Third Chakra people. They perceive life as a power struggle.
The average person actually worships the high Alphas(the rich and powerful). In this way they dream of becoming like them. That is one reason we are led by them and why they make those huge salaries.
Those with lesser IQs and lesser abilities will always be the virtual slave of those with greater IQs. The only way to create an equal society is to create equal people with eugenics.
The Ego Self is simply Narcissus endlessly meditating upon his own reflection. It is the action of separating oneself from oneself. When one realizes this and spontaneously abandons it one may realize ones real nature which is God. See the links below,take the red pill.
the ideal is what is necessary for society as america is based on such; a physical union has never existed in my family that was identical to the ideal expressed.
a man does what he wants; does me doing what i want make you feel content as a member of some society you choose to include me in?
the author has no point of reference other than being what he claims as american and alien; and "male".his supports have substance from the point of view of a foreigner and not a member of the society he creates imaginarily.
lets say society is what you deem as functioning that provides you the experience of others; why is america included in this "society"? america is an ideal placed on paper and further fabricated in force, based on a society.people who are marrying now in other lands are successful nations because of the bond of marriage?
if lands are only stable when there is a bond between man and woman; then the stability from this union is the standard of stable?what society has failed?
Family Values in Ancient Rome - fathom.lib.uchicago.edu...
The Romans had their own evolutionary story about family mores, and it had nothing to do with the invention of affection, which they took to be natural and eternal in the family. However, their story did contain elements of the decline of paternal authority and the stable family. Roman authors--all men--often lamented that in the late Republic wives no longer played the ideal role that they had fulfilled for centuries. According to the Roman writers of the first century BCE and first century CE, divorce became increasingly frequent after 200 BCE, initiated easily by the husband or the wife. In addition, wives had their own property, which they could sell, give away or bequeath as they liked. As a result, women became more liberated and less dependent on their husbands. In fact, by the late Republic a rich wife who could divorce and take her wealth with her had a real threat against her husband and could wield influence over him. The sense of independence also showed up in increasing sexual promiscuity and adultery.
Roman men deplored the fact that these rich women were more concerned with their own figures and luxuries than with their families. Unlike the good, old-time matrons, according to the historian Tacitus around 100 CE, these modern women did not spend time with their children and did not nurse their infants but left them to slave wet nurses. Furthermore, children were handed over to be raised by child-minders, usually the most useless slaves of the household.
actually to assume anyone who comes to america is in some form of echelon is amusing; capitalism and america is open to all and when you come to america there is no echelon you enter into; its not a caste based society like your linked authors india.and what are these upper rungs you speak of pertaining america there is no such thing.
for a true american any foriegner who comes to america is greeted with success and is respected at the highest level.the last quote you attempt to use as a refutation is personal experience i knew my great great grandmother and all the descending mothers after, and i know the men in my generation by way of knowledge as far back as five generations marriage has not been the capstone you attempt to make it.
maybe sex and the knowledge and respect that comes from its interaction, but none of the past 5 generations of peoples within this land you call america had "marriage" in the guise of ideal that the OP author claim it necessary to have been.
or he just doesn't want to play the "america" game with the local ladies and is not content with the reality of life that is.
either way he doesn't say anything that is of importance to me. how about we stop creating more personalities within the ideal of america and give the ideal more powers, that sounds like more of a solution to issues in america than some false idea that i have to engage in another false union and create another fictional entity called marriage to make america successful.
i mean if at the end of his thread he leaves with a threat of leaving the union he entered he is truly blessed and should not have been welcome to come within my home in the first place.
Polygamy is still applicable. It is practiced to some degree in the Muslim world. And the rich commonly have mistresses.
The christian church enforced monogamy yet for a thousand years Europe was in the dark ages.
First if you believe that IQ,talent,health,looks,are hereditary than Eugenics makes sense. If you believe in Osmosis and the Stork then it doesnt make sense.
I dont presume that at all. Most men are Narcissus. If they had an IQ of 70 and a several hereditary diseases they would rather father their own child then raise one fathered through AI. Even the lobster lady wanted her own children. Humans are pathetically selfish. Midgets want to have more midgets despite the fact it is a dominant lethal condition.
To equate eugencis with genocide is the same as equating it with Hitler.
Nobody dies from good breeding.
If you are satisfied with the nature of the human race that is good for you. I invoke Godwins rule and win the argument.
Society presently is a class war. You dont know what the 4th ,and 5th chakras are about.
There are almost no people in society that have mastered the 4th chakra,the Heart, and maybe a handful that have mastered the 5th chakra,yogic powers. Spirituality is all about sacrifice of self attention, which is anathema to Narcissus.
I dont know what your point is. Do you think making women second class citizens will make society better? Do you think we should go back to the victorian age, or previctorian, or perhaps feudal?
edrick are you a man who is interested in women? where does this interest in "women" stem from?are you taught to desire yourself in the form of a woman, or do you not see you in any woman at all?
its funny you mentioned chakras, as i find them to be defunctional unless used with the proper ancient technologies chakras were created for use with;but thats off topic:
unless you somehow equate artificial intelligence or superficial knowingness with "alpha males", and in such case the entire idea alpha males becomes obsolete.
is a man and womans union necessary for the birth of another man and woman?
i find the ways people treat forms of life for the attempt to maintain an image within ones own eyes of said life in form within mind;atrocious.
im enjoying this verse we are having although i know that regardless of what is typed that you decide to read you will consume and regurgitate what you feel is your own way;
Monogamy is a genetic failure where there is no Darwinian survival of the fittest.
If everyone survives there is no evolution.
While the 4th Chakra is about love there are very few people who have mastered it and live from that point.(I just had some experiences of it) Society functions from the point of view of survival which is 1st Chakra:money and power.
It starts with an assumption - that the ills of the world are brought about by "misandry" or "denying breeding to beta males".
American society in decline has everything to do with the valuing of wealth and noise over ability and substance. Add this to the problems of a nation that desperately wants to be an empire while desperately not wanting to be an empire...