Personally, at the risk of seeming misogynistic, I would far rather engage in discourse with a man (or a group of men) than a woman or women. In my experience, most women talk trivia. It is like adding an infant to a room of adults - the intellectual and meaningful content of the conversation drops precipitously.
“The path to all great things passes through silence.”
Yes, I feel that also and the true pain of it is knowing that even though that is what I prefer, and what all women prefer, i must deny myself the thing i want most for my own good. When I was a little girl, the very first observation I remember having of the world was that women always wanted to go to where the men were but the men always fled groups of women. I have never been proved wrong in that and I have a long known that without male only spaces I would not have indoor plumbing. Those spaces are ever shrinking and I think one of the last male only spaces in the world is on the traditional Latin Mass altar. Priest and alter boys, no altar girls, ever, and it's the most beautiful things I get to see every week.
I’ll have to find a Latin Mass near me. I took 4 years of Latin in HS, mostly because it was easy and I knew it would help me with all other Romantic languages. I go to Mass and stay for Rosary a few times a week and the group is about 10 women and 1 man (me). It’s also well done and a nice morning ritual. Now I can get on the FBI’s Most Wanted list by being a flawed traditional Catholic going to those terrifying Latin Masses!
Also, I served 4 years active duty US military in a male only unit. Cannot imagine what it would have been like with females there.
Not misogynistic at all. Ever since I was a little girl, I preferred hanging out with the guys. Most women do talk trivia, or about stuff in which I have no interest. The guys don't seem to mind.
They don’t mind until the conversation is diverted by a coterie of females (heretofore hanging out with the men) who lead the conversation into female stuff. At that point, the group dissolves almost unconsciously and reassembles ultimately at another man node. Unless, of course, everyone just starts to go home.
What I had in mind was the groups I tended to hang out with where the only women present were those who were accepted as one of the guys. Because we didn't talk silly girly stuff, rather, everyone was focused on whatever the point of the group was. In my cases softball, motorcycles, ping-pong…
How strange that we are supposed to pretend that introducing women into masculine hierarchies cannot possibly have any ill effects for the organization. It’s not even a subject that’s acceptable to discuss in most cases. It’s assumed that the presence of women will make everything better. Why? Because they tell us so!
Sounds more like an Invisible College than a monastery. And, if it is *truly* invisible, then we might suppose that there'd be no way to determine the sex of its members, as security measures would probably limit communications to faceless, encrypted P2P. Unless of course they moved the operation to New Atlantis, or a Yellow Submarine. 😉
But here’s a potential solution to the game. What if the brotherhood selected a rung of public-facing avatars: flesh and blood humans who would function as the intermediary layer between their knowledge sphere and the exoteric world. In selecting these false fronts, they could be as "egalitarian" as the current moment demands, thereby diffusing public envy and suspicion while they conduct their work in the background. The avatars would distribute any monetary awards via the encrypted network (including stipends for themselves) without knowing who secretly employs them.
Of course, this would mean that all accolades for their projects would be unduly attached to their public avatars. But if the project goal was deemed worthwhile, and the men were free of ego, this might satisfy all of the game's winning conditions.
Encrypted P2P is a good idea. I've been thinking along the lines of this brotherhood for a while and it seems to me that one very effective way of staying below the radar of wider society would be to avoid digital communication and electronic storage of information as much as possible.
In some respects this would limit the size of your organization and would impact its ability to work in a cohesive manner, but in return you'd be separating yourself from the main avenues of surveillance and exposure. Our society has remade itself in a digital form, and is most capable of thwarting opposition within this sphere. Organizing in a cellular form with designated record keepers and couriers would still allow for control of the organization and the dissemination of important information.
If it were up to me, I'd make all meetings as electronically sterile as possible. No phones. No laptops. Reports delivered verbally, from paper. I realize there is a certain amount of irony in typing this out on my phone, but do as I say not as I do.
Partly I advocate this course of action on the basis of practicality, but I'm also deeply skeptical of these devices and the network that binds them together.
Don't forget that your keystrokes are being logged. P2P, yes, but decryption must take place on a different machine without electronic transfer to that machine. Look into alternatives to the internet, like Meshtastic.
The Internet itself is enemy territory. So is your computer's operating system. Your Intel processor likely is too. So were old-fashioned analog phone lines, but at the least the rules-of-engagement for those were clear.
Secure digital communication is a difficult problem.
We can't save the world, but sometimes we may be blessed to pluck a brand from the fire.
This is merely the Christian version of "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Don't waste your life trying to save the world. Save someone who wants to be saved. Anyone who wants to can do that.
"The world, Indy; it doesn't want to be saved."
Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Japanese woman in Pearl City: "Do you pee when you shit or do you shit when you pee?" Is it "odorous" or is it "odorless"? As an American I always help out foreigners with the American language.
Once, in an outhouse in Kaga, I was taking a piss when a japanese woman strolled in to clean. She didn't blink an eye and worked around me as I finished. She didn't know one word of English.
As a woman, I have mixed feelings about the increasing trend of noting the feminization of many institutions. I can totally see the point, DEI being an excellent example. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that people like Briggs (and other writers that I enjoy reading) are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He's happy to exclude women from the Academy and sacrifice whatever contributions they might make.
Here's an idea…go back to merit-based membership. For some institutions, not all—I have no problem with single sex spaces—membership should be earned.
Men ran the world for thousands of years and did not exactly cover themselves in glory. Women finally managed to get in positions of power, and unfortunately got the bit in their teeth and went wild, with some disastrous results.
Can we learn from these mistakes and find a happier midpoint, rather than continuing to overreact?
Civilization reached the point it is (was) at with men “in charge”. (With women—as documented in the Bible, Civilization’s oldest, most complete, documented history—firmly pushing and smoothing alongside and behind their men.)
Can women-out-front actually avoid “overreacting”?
Took me quite a while to figure out what the second brotherhood was, since you've followed their fundamental rule not to talk about what they call "that thing of ours"; to "don" the mantle of secrecy, as one might say.
Sssshhhh, don't repeat it too much or widely, but there is a men-only club I belong to which has existed for two hundred years. A couple of years ago a member vote confirmed that it be kept men-only in response to a proposal to admit women by one member on the basis of equity. As Briggs suggests it is completely independent of government financially and entirely self-sustaining. Many local notables are members, including some politicians, though they are professional politicians.
I was wondering what portion of men recognized the problem right away instinctively and what portion had to work through a rationale about whether or not it was a problem?
But with few exceptions men are more likely to follow the rules and women are more likely to try and change them. So imo men are more suited to clubs.
Personally, at the risk of seeming misogynistic, I would far rather engage in discourse with a man (or a group of men) than a woman or women. In my experience, most women talk trivia. It is like adding an infant to a room of adults - the intellectual and meaningful content of the conversation drops precipitously.
“The path to all great things passes through silence.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, I feel that also and the true pain of it is knowing that even though that is what I prefer, and what all women prefer, i must deny myself the thing i want most for my own good. When I was a little girl, the very first observation I remember having of the world was that women always wanted to go to where the men were but the men always fled groups of women. I have never been proved wrong in that and I have a long known that without male only spaces I would not have indoor plumbing. Those spaces are ever shrinking and I think one of the last male only spaces in the world is on the traditional Latin Mass altar. Priest and alter boys, no altar girls, ever, and it's the most beautiful things I get to see every week.
I’ll have to find a Latin Mass near me. I took 4 years of Latin in HS, mostly because it was easy and I knew it would help me with all other Romantic languages. I go to Mass and stay for Rosary a few times a week and the group is about 10 women and 1 man (me). It’s also well done and a nice morning ritual. Now I can get on the FBI’s Most Wanted list by being a flawed traditional Catholic going to those terrifying Latin Masses!
Also, I served 4 years active duty US military in a male only unit. Cannot imagine what it would have been like with females there.
Not misogynistic at all. Ever since I was a little girl, I preferred hanging out with the guys. Most women do talk trivia, or about stuff in which I have no interest. The guys don't seem to mind.
They don’t mind until the conversation is diverted by a coterie of females (heretofore hanging out with the men) who lead the conversation into female stuff. At that point, the group dissolves almost unconsciously and reassembles ultimately at another man node. Unless, of course, everyone just starts to go home.
What I had in mind was the groups I tended to hang out with where the only women present were those who were accepted as one of the guys. Because we didn't talk silly girly stuff, rather, everyone was focused on whatever the point of the group was. In my cases softball, motorcycles, ping-pong…
I´ll settle for cute, funny and unpretentious.
How strange that we are supposed to pretend that introducing women into masculine hierarchies cannot possibly have any ill effects for the organization. It’s not even a subject that’s acceptable to discuss in most cases. It’s assumed that the presence of women will make everything better. Why? Because they tell us so!
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/bands-of-brothers
Not all of us - see my comment in the article. Thanks for your comment here - I wouldn’t have read the post if I hadn’t seen this one.
Sounds more like an Invisible College than a monastery. And, if it is *truly* invisible, then we might suppose that there'd be no way to determine the sex of its members, as security measures would probably limit communications to faceless, encrypted P2P. Unless of course they moved the operation to New Atlantis, or a Yellow Submarine. 😉
But here’s a potential solution to the game. What if the brotherhood selected a rung of public-facing avatars: flesh and blood humans who would function as the intermediary layer between their knowledge sphere and the exoteric world. In selecting these false fronts, they could be as "egalitarian" as the current moment demands, thereby diffusing public envy and suspicion while they conduct their work in the background. The avatars would distribute any monetary awards via the encrypted network (including stipends for themselves) without knowing who secretly employs them.
Of course, this would mean that all accolades for their projects would be unduly attached to their public avatars. But if the project goal was deemed worthwhile, and the men were free of ego, this might satisfy all of the game's winning conditions.
One can view the monastery as an academy hidden in plain sight.
Encrypted P2P is a good idea. I've been thinking along the lines of this brotherhood for a while and it seems to me that one very effective way of staying below the radar of wider society would be to avoid digital communication and electronic storage of information as much as possible.
In some respects this would limit the size of your organization and would impact its ability to work in a cohesive manner, but in return you'd be separating yourself from the main avenues of surveillance and exposure. Our society has remade itself in a digital form, and is most capable of thwarting opposition within this sphere. Organizing in a cellular form with designated record keepers and couriers would still allow for control of the organization and the dissemination of important information.
If it were up to me, I'd make all meetings as electronically sterile as possible. No phones. No laptops. Reports delivered verbally, from paper. I realize there is a certain amount of irony in typing this out on my phone, but do as I say not as I do.
Partly I advocate this course of action on the basis of practicality, but I'm also deeply skeptical of these devices and the network that binds them together.
If it lives on the Internet, it is by definition not secure.
Don't forget that your keystrokes are being logged. P2P, yes, but decryption must take place on a different machine without electronic transfer to that machine. Look into alternatives to the internet, like Meshtastic.
The Internet itself is enemy territory. So is your computer's operating system. Your Intel processor likely is too. So were old-fashioned analog phone lines, but at the least the rules-of-engagement for those were clear.
Secure digital communication is a difficult problem.
> If men want to go off by themselves and pursue their hobbies, why stop them?
Thinking of it, I was never able to get a satisfactory answer to that question from my wife
I am 64 soon. I watched the world become pussified and could do nothing about it.
We can't save the world, but sometimes we may be blessed to pluck a brand from the fire.
This is merely the Christian version of "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Don't waste your life trying to save the world. Save someone who wants to be saved. Anyone who wants to can do that.
"The world, Indy; it doesn't want to be saved."
Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
You could pee all over the toilet seat. That would be like some kind of statement.
Only, please, in the Undifferentiated Sex toilet.
Do you sit when you pee?
Not after Gunther finishes.
No, but I do lift the seat first especially in the Men’s Room, to allow a fellow brother to sit undisgustedly should the need manifest itself.
Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Japanese woman in Pearl City: "Do you pee when you shit or do you shit when you pee?" Is it "odorous" or is it "odorless"? As an American I always help out foreigners with the American language.
Once, in an outhouse in Kaga, I was taking a piss when a japanese woman strolled in to clean. She didn't blink an eye and worked around me as I finished. She didn't know one word of English.
Shisutā, akuma no hebi ni osoreru na!
She didn't act shocked. Seemed very commonplace there.
As a woman, I have mixed feelings about the increasing trend of noting the feminization of many institutions. I can totally see the point, DEI being an excellent example. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that people like Briggs (and other writers that I enjoy reading) are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He's happy to exclude women from the Academy and sacrifice whatever contributions they might make.
Here's an idea…go back to merit-based membership. For some institutions, not all—I have no problem with single sex spaces—membership should be earned.
Men ran the world for thousands of years and did not exactly cover themselves in glory. Women finally managed to get in positions of power, and unfortunately got the bit in their teeth and went wild, with some disastrous results.
Can we learn from these mistakes and find a happier midpoint, rather than continuing to overreact?
I don’t know.
Civilization reached the point it is (was) at with men “in charge”. (With women—as documented in the Bible, Civilization’s oldest, most complete, documented history—firmly pushing and smoothing alongside and behind their men.)
Can women-out-front actually avoid “overreacting”?
It isn't just the women overreacting. Some of the men I've seen even want to revoke our voting right.
True. There is silly extremism in all groups.
“equalitarians”
A great word!
There is a brotherhood which exists, is secret, is hypocritical and uses nepotism. Read or hear Solzhenitsyn's 200 years together to see it described.
https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-pete-quinones-show-544680/episodes/reading-solzhenitsyns-200-year-248975936.
It is not about women, it's about feminism and progressivism.
Took me quite a while to figure out what the second brotherhood was, since you've followed their fundamental rule not to talk about what they call "that thing of ours"; to "don" the mantle of secrecy, as one might say.
All through, I was waiting for a "Fight Club" reference that never came...
"A Canticle for Leibowitz" - great novel!
Sssshhhh, don't repeat it too much or widely, but there is a men-only club I belong to which has existed for two hundred years. A couple of years ago a member vote confirmed that it be kept men-only in response to a proposal to admit women by one member on the basis of equity. As Briggs suggests it is completely independent of government financially and entirely self-sustaining. Many local notables are members, including some politicians, though they are professional politicians.
I was wondering what portion of men recognized the problem right away instinctively and what portion had to work through a rationale about whether or not it was a problem?
But with few exceptions men are more likely to follow the rules and women are more likely to try and change them. So imo men are more suited to clubs.
I greatly appreciate (“love” seems too feminist a word) your Truthist, Realist, Historicist masculinism!
Bravo, Brother!
👍👍💯