2405040300Sa HIERARCHIES:

Why can’t people understand that there is no escaping ‘hierarchy’ under any circumstance be it spiritually or politically – or in any other way.

Professor Peterson was made fun of for pointing out just how unbelievably old hierarchies actually are. In fact, I’d posit that ‘hierarchies’ are intrinsic (essential) to life itself.

Socialism (in all its forms) represents itself as a curative answer to the inequality of hierarchies. When what really happens with socialism is the hierarchy you have is simply traded for a socialist hierarchy every bit as bad or worse than what you already had.

It really doesn’t matter what you think of the ‘hierarchy’ you now have you can only install another hierarchy in its place.

Feminist socialism, for instance, will misandrously, tell you that the hierarchy we have in America is “ Too Pale, Too Stale, and Too Male.” Screaming out for 50% female representation today, but tomorrow it’ll be 100% they demand -- for the simple reason that ‘hierarchy’ is inescapable.

Professor Peterson also tried his best to explain that any ‘hierarchy’ based on power, such as socialism is, is a corrupted ‘hierarchy.’ The elitist ‘hierarchy’ in charge of our government right now is a prime example of corrupted hierarchy waging law-fare against the democratic populist choice of the American people. The poverty of inequality will be with us always as Jesus explained at John 12:8 among many other admonitions.

Today we have socialists, but in Jesus’ day it was Judas that was trying subvert the will of GOD.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.(kjv)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now I don’t want to mislead you, and I can’t reference this properly as my library, is inaccessible, in storage for now. But I feel it might be helpful to acknowledge that Jesus’ ministry was financially supported by a small group of pious women in his days on Earth. The second thing that might serve to help women spiritually is the knowledge that GOD has open to women, just as HE has men, the prospect of sainthood. Sainthood being the prospect of HIS adoption as siblings to HIS only begotten son – Jesus Christ.

I received a lengthy comment some days ago which fell apart after the very first sentence which read: “Isn't feminism a worldly not a spiritual issue?”
It falls apart because the answer to that very first sentence is emphatically NO. As one speaker once put it: “Feminism is socialism in panties.” And not having a confrontational nature, I’ve hesitated to respond to the lengthy comment referred to here.

PS. Do you think it’s humility that women are being encouraged to learn while here in the flesh?

Posted by: Al Jazeera English ~ 1 year ago ~ 602K views ~ 13.4M subs
“Cuba: A deserted revolution? | Talk to Al Jazeera: In the Field”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi·er·ar·chy
/ˈhī(ə)ˌrärkē/
noun

1. a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority:

"the initiative was with those lower down in the hierarchy"

▪ the clergy of the Catholic or Episcopal Church; the religious authorities:

"the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Romania"

▪ the upper echelons of a hierarchical system; those in authority:

"the magazine was read quite widely even by some of the hierarchy"

▪ an arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness:

"a taxonomic hierarchy of phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species"

▪ the traditional system of orders of angels and other heavenly beings:

"the heavenly hierarchy"

Word Origin:
late Middle English: via Old French and medieval Latin from Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhēs ‘sacred ruler’ (see hierarch). The earliest sense was ‘system of orders of angels and heavenly beings’; the other senses date from the 17th century.

Powered by Oxford Languages

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In·trin·sic
/inˈtrinzik/
adjective

1. belonging naturally; essential:

"access to the arts is intrinsic to a high quality of life"

▪ (of a muscle) contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.

Word Origin:
late 15th century (in the general sense ‘interior, inner&rsquo: from French intrinsèque, from late Latin intrinsecus, from the earlier adverb intrinsecus ‘inwardly, inwards’.

Powered by Oxford Languages

@1914wizard

Maybe I should elaborate. There are practical "worldly" reasons that the state has an interest in promoting "feminism". I will offer a couple of examples. During WWII so many males were in the military that industrial production had a labor shortage. Women stepped up and filled many of those vacancies. That is what "Caesar" needed. Most of those women returned to traditional roles after the war ended. Was that voluntary or did the get forced out by returning males? I don't think we really know. The problem has to do with agency and it's relationship to morality which I have covered many times before. As it relates to the subject at hand however you can't have a meritocratic system if it excludes half the population. While civilization requires hierarchies of competence based on meritocratic productivity that will not happen unless underlying social structures are morally meritocratic. Social structures of coercion undermine the necessary structures. We can argue over what those structures should look like but the basic principle applies universally.

The second example is more complicated and seems to go unnoted by the vast majority of intellectuals. I will use healthcare as an example. The problem with modern healthcare is that it is too effective. When I was a kid any kind of serious illness was a death sentence. Especially worth noting are cancer and heart conditions which are widely treatable today. In the past when effectiveness was low demand reflected that. With increased demand you have a supply problem and a cost problem. Effective itself is often more costly than rudimentary care as you found in the past but there is a second problem that supply and demand systems can't address. There is a biological limit on healthcare in a technological society. To be a doctor you need an IQ of at least 130. That represents 2 percent of the population. That same 2 percent of the population has to do all the other highly technical work society requires. As technology increases there are not enough people to do the necessary jobs. What you certainly don't want to do is exclude half the population so you need female doctors. So you promote "feminism". You can argue with the meritocracy but you can't argue with the genetic limitations.

Societies are complex chaotic systems resistant to reduction. They are ultimately dependent on virtue. Because that is the only thing that can be reduced to a simple formula and universally applied. What is wrong with feminism doesn't come from the "practical" but from the rejection of the virtues that culturally evolved over thousands of years. In the West those virtues which seemed to promote civilization were recorded by Christian philosophers. You can find many of the same principles cross culturally in successful civilization but I will just list those the West evolved.

Chastity or Purity and abstinence as opposed to lust or Luxuria. Temperance or Humanity, equanimity as opposed to Gluttony or Gula. Charity or Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice as opposed to Greed or Avaritia. Diligence or Persistence, effortfulness, ethics as opposed to Sloth or Acedia. Patience or Forgiveness, mercy as opposed to Wrath or Ira. Kindness or Satisfaction, compassion as opposed to Envy or Invidia. Humility or Bravery, modesty, reverence as opposed to Pride.

What you will note is that they all have to do with the disciplining of instinct to evolve agency. Do those virtues apply equally to men and women? What the feminist get right is that restrictions on their agency undermines their ability to become moral agents. Many of the talking points of current feminist do the same because they reflect a kind of slavery to instinct that was encouraged in the past. It is a case of you reap what you sow. I'm not going to pretend that I know how you overcome the obvious problem that people are not virtuous by nature. But I would insist that it applies equally to men and women. Making virtues different for males and females is not helpful. You can't mix the spiritual and physical and have a happy solution. The idea that the spirit is willing but the flesh weak applies to both males and females. I'm also not going to claim that I know what form of social organization is most desirable. I will claim however that you don't get there by segregation of virtue.