Very interesting and insightful. An idea came to me while reading this, and I wonder if you think it tracks with what you're saying here. The Longhouse obviously gets a lot of mileage out of rhetorical slight-of-hand. If I understand your argument here, I think that the particular rhetorical trick doing a lot of heavy lifting here is equivocation on the notion of "safety."When we say that a particular thing is "safe," we could mean either that it is "safe for" something/someone, or that it is "safe from" various threats. Those are very, very different.
A strong person is "safe from" threats, perceived or otherwise, by virtue of his or her strength. But that same man may or may not be "safe for" others, depending on how that strength is used/controlled. The Longhouse can't have that, so strong people are anathema. But a weak person is always "safe for" others, because weak people are incapable of posing a genuine threat. Weak people are thus strongly preferable to the Longhouse.
On the flip side, the Longhouse, and the members thereof, wants to be "safe from" even perceived threats, so it is willing to countenance strength in itself and its members-in-good-standing, but it's never really comfortable with this. Why? Because the only way a weak person can be "safe from" perceived threats is to either 1) make sure that nobody, anywhere, has the strength to pose such a threat, or 2) be protected by someone who is strong.
These are, obviously, mutually exclusive. That doesn't stop the from Longhouse going for both possibilities at various times. Sometimes even at the same time. Various impulses that motivate the Longhouse push for both possibilities. The preference for absolute egalitarianism manifests as a hatred for competence, because strong people are threatening. But the motivation to protect requires the acquisition of strength, or at least power, even if the former preference makes such moves fraught with tension.
This really resonates with me. What you describe here is why the GAE demands hegemony. This objective depends on the propagation of the lie that no one can be safe unless everyone is sufficiently weak.
I thought your mention of why the Longhouse is not really comfortable with strength, even in its members of good-standing, was very insightful. This is perhaps why the fixed victim mindset is so championed within its ranks. An entity such as the Longhouse, which thrives on self-deception and the outward lies that follow, is wrought with suspicion. Where those of us who do our best to pursue virtue, truth, and community can experience trust in our fellow man, the Longhouse is cursed with eternal wariness. Even some of the most deluded of its members can still sense the existential threat posed by a shift in power. Or, as McConkey calls it, the circulation of the elites. This is why I am presently of the mind that if more mothers become aware that the Longhouse is actually hiding threats of violence behind its soft words, they will be encouraged to leverage their maternal instincts and their natural strengths against this threat.
Just came across it today. Teaser quote: "If you are weak and have never wielded power, before anything you first fear it, and only conceptualise it as brutality - as "threat". If you have wielded power, you know that it does not cause blind brutality, but rather a great many things, some of which are noble and glorious."
I will definitely read that! Sounds compatible with some of my thoughts here on how women might come to perceive men as threatening and another essay I've got in mind too. Thank you so much for pointing me to this! It seems like it will be very helpful.
It is very helpful, Bridgette, to read your insight into feminine thinking. Thank you!
>It scrambles for ... advantage through ... urgently needed new interventions that will keep everyone safe. It capitalizes on the natural inclination for safety that women possess and, through persistent messaging, it turns them into neurotic dependents of den-mothers.
Makes sense of the way so many women in my life bought into "The Narrative".
I agree and celebrate that thanks to your work here,
>A better understanding of the soft competition model will make them more effective at recognizing the tactics of the Longhouse as the indirect forms of competition that they are and, through forging collaborative bonds with other men, they will strategize together in that specialized way men do to find ever more refined ways to say to the Longhouse, “not today.”
Thank you, Jerome. You strike me as a very kindly gentleman. I've heard many anecdotes of women becoming indoctrinated by their schooling, in-laws, social media, etc. who have found their way back to more constructive ideas. It helps when there are positive examples of virtuous people in their lives. :-)
In my opinion, the Longhouse also capitalizes on the natural affinity most women have to maintain the notion of egalitarianism amongst themselves. I suspect this is one reason why so many women respond to peripheral queues concerning what everyone else is doing with regard to safety, among other things.
Thanks for bringing a careful eye to my writing, I made the edits you suggested!
We all benefit from positive examples of virtuous people in our lives. I appreciate how you've celebrated virtue in this series of articles, Bridgette. A breath of fresh air. An example of what John Carter proposed in his "NO!" article: celebrating the joy we earn and experience in pursuit of the positive (virtue), rather than focusing on the consequences of the vice we've allowed to poison our cultures.
Very interesting and insightful. An idea came to me while reading this, and I wonder if you think it tracks with what you're saying here. The Longhouse obviously gets a lot of mileage out of rhetorical slight-of-hand. If I understand your argument here, I think that the particular rhetorical trick doing a lot of heavy lifting here is equivocation on the notion of "safety."When we say that a particular thing is "safe," we could mean either that it is "safe for" something/someone, or that it is "safe from" various threats. Those are very, very different.
A strong person is "safe from" threats, perceived or otherwise, by virtue of his or her strength. But that same man may or may not be "safe for" others, depending on how that strength is used/controlled. The Longhouse can't have that, so strong people are anathema. But a weak person is always "safe for" others, because weak people are incapable of posing a genuine threat. Weak people are thus strongly preferable to the Longhouse.
On the flip side, the Longhouse, and the members thereof, wants to be "safe from" even perceived threats, so it is willing to countenance strength in itself and its members-in-good-standing, but it's never really comfortable with this. Why? Because the only way a weak person can be "safe from" perceived threats is to either 1) make sure that nobody, anywhere, has the strength to pose such a threat, or 2) be protected by someone who is strong.
These are, obviously, mutually exclusive. That doesn't stop the from Longhouse going for both possibilities at various times. Sometimes even at the same time. Various impulses that motivate the Longhouse push for both possibilities. The preference for absolute egalitarianism manifests as a hatred for competence, because strong people are threatening. But the motivation to protect requires the acquisition of strength, or at least power, even if the former preference makes such moves fraught with tension.
This really resonates with me. What you describe here is why the GAE demands hegemony. This objective depends on the propagation of the lie that no one can be safe unless everyone is sufficiently weak.
I thought your mention of why the Longhouse is not really comfortable with strength, even in its members of good-standing, was very insightful. This is perhaps why the fixed victim mindset is so championed within its ranks. An entity such as the Longhouse, which thrives on self-deception and the outward lies that follow, is wrought with suspicion. Where those of us who do our best to pursue virtue, truth, and community can experience trust in our fellow man, the Longhouse is cursed with eternal wariness. Even some of the most deluded of its members can still sense the existential threat posed by a shift in power. Or, as McConkey calls it, the circulation of the elites. This is why I am presently of the mind that if more mothers become aware that the Longhouse is actually hiding threats of violence behind its soft words, they will be encouraged to leverage their maternal instincts and their natural strengths against this threat.
If you liked my comment, then you should definitely read this: https://eggreport.substack.com/p/towards-a-metaphysics-of-power
Just came across it today. Teaser quote: "If you are weak and have never wielded power, before anything you first fear it, and only conceptualise it as brutality - as "threat". If you have wielded power, you know that it does not cause blind brutality, but rather a great many things, some of which are noble and glorious."
I will definitely read that! Sounds compatible with some of my thoughts here on how women might come to perceive men as threatening and another essay I've got in mind too. Thank you so much for pointing me to this! It seems like it will be very helpful.
Leveraging maternal instincts toward prioritization of virtue and strength!
It is very helpful, Bridgette, to read your insight into feminine thinking. Thank you!
>It scrambles for ... advantage through ... urgently needed new interventions that will keep everyone safe. It capitalizes on the natural inclination for safety that women possess and, through persistent messaging, it turns them into neurotic dependents of den-mothers.
Makes sense of the way so many women in my life bought into "The Narrative".
I agree and celebrate that thanks to your work here,
>A better understanding of the soft competition model will make them more effective at recognizing the tactics of the Longhouse as the indirect forms of competition that they are and, through forging collaborative bonds with other men, they will strategize together in that specialized way men do to find ever more refined ways to say to the Longhouse, “not today.”
Thank you, Jerome. You strike me as a very kindly gentleman. I've heard many anecdotes of women becoming indoctrinated by their schooling, in-laws, social media, etc. who have found their way back to more constructive ideas. It helps when there are positive examples of virtuous people in their lives. :-)
In my opinion, the Longhouse also capitalizes on the natural affinity most women have to maintain the notion of egalitarianism amongst themselves. I suspect this is one reason why so many women respond to peripheral queues concerning what everyone else is doing with regard to safety, among other things.
Thanks for bringing a careful eye to my writing, I made the edits you suggested!
We all benefit from positive examples of virtuous people in our lives. I appreciate how you've celebrated virtue in this series of articles, Bridgette. A breath of fresh air. An example of what John Carter proposed in his "NO!" article: celebrating the joy we earn and experience in pursuit of the positive (virtue), rather than focusing on the consequences of the vice we've allowed to poison our cultures.
What could it be? It's a mirage... You're scheming on a thing, that's SA-BO-TAGE!!!!!
Incredible singing voice you have there! ;-)