Defining "sub-culture"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Defining "sub-culture"

Drealm
Administrator
This post stems from recent thoughts and a conversation with fschmidt.

The goal of CoAlpha Brotherhood is to create a "sub-culture". Sub-culture is an extremely broad term though, broad to the point of even causing paralysis. From a practical standpoint "sub-culture" needs to be broken down into smaller parts. Breaking a sub-culture down into smaller parts allows us to identify what's most important. Knowing what's most important tells us where to invest and get the greatest return. This also makes the approach to building a sub-culture more straight forward. Theoretically a sub-culture could be built in modular parts, that eventually come to form a whole.

It's my opinion that all sub-cultures can be broken down into smaller parts. If you eliminate crucial parts, the sub-culture will die altogether. Equally if you maintain certain parts, a sub-culture will survive. There's a minimum threshold of core parts. Beyond these core parts a sub-culture develops excess parts. Excess parts enhance a sub-culture but won't enable a sub-culture to stand on its own. It's my opinion that the "core parts" are the same for all sub-cultures, regardless of being ultra traditional or hyper modern.

So when evaluating the offerings of religion vs. CoAlpha Brotherhood, you should evaluate each sub-culture based on the "parts" they offer. Some sub-cultures may offer complete solutions, with all parts intact. While other sub-cultures may be fragmented, forcing a person to subscribe to several sub-cultures to meet all their needs. CoAlpha Brotherhood by necessity will need to compete with other sub-cultures. In particular I mean religions.

It's my hope now that we can define the minimal "core parts" for making up a successful "sub-culture". These parts should be practical and concrete. Here's my list:

1. Socializing.
a. Outlet for women to socialize.
b. Outlet for children to socialize.
c. Outlet for men to socialize.

2. Location for socializing.

3. Dating outlets.

4. Education.
a. Pre-school.
b. K-12.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

fschmidt
Administrator
I'm starting to think that we should change our mission statement.  Creating a sub-culture feels too ambitious.  Looking at your list, things like "Outlet for women/children to socialize" and "Education" are completely out of reach right now.  Instead of listing what is needed for a subculture, I would list those things that we should try to provide for our members any way we can.  I can think of 3:

1.  Socializing - The Sunday Skype meeting addresses this somewhat.  We can plan physical meetings later.

2.  Dating - Since I am past the dating stage, I need thoughts from others.  I just posted about Mr Cupid's virgin brides as an example of a meaningful unique approach.  We could deal with this issue either by finding good services or by creating our own service.  This is one area where we could do something ourselves that is unique.

3.  Alternate Culture for Family - This is what motivated the whole CoAlpha sub-culture idea, but it isn't practical yet.  So here we just have to find the best existing sub-culture that we can and leverage that.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

Drealm
Administrator
What can't be gotten from CoAlpha Brotherhood's sub-culture, by necessity should be outsourced to other sub-cultures. But for CoAlpha Brotherhood to stand the test of time, it must compete with these other sub-cultures. Which means eventually establishing these items itself. For the time being though I see no harm in subscribing to multiple sub-cultures and seeing which sub-culture wins out, especially if time is of the essence. So if someone needs an immediate sub-culture they should join a religion, while building CoAlpha Brotherhood's sub-culture on the side.

Another possibility is CoAlpha Brothhood serving in a relegated role, where instead of being an insular sub-culture itself, it can serve as a networking platform for connecting and promoting already existing viable sub-cultures.

As far as the list goes, I'm not sure the emphasis should be placed on what we can offer to members. If I was to reorder the list from most to least important it would be:

Outlet for women to socialize.
Outlet for children to socialize.
Education.
Outlet for men to socialize.
Dating outlets.

Women and children's needs are far more important to sustaining a sub-culture then men's needs. I don't say this out of chivalry, but as observation of CoAlpha Brotherhood itself. Our coming together has proven one thing. Men can survive in a decaying culture, women cannot. There is no "CoAlpha Sisterhood", or any group resembling a coming together of women whom hate modern mainstream culture. For a woman to remain good, she either needs to be led by men or surrounded by good women. But an individual women by and far will not stand on her own, she will submit to the dominant influence. Children are also more susceptible to influence, perhaps more girls than boys. The point I'm making is we can offer many things to men, but we won't secure our women or children.

In short to offer anything to women or children, we'd all need to be married and have children. This is a long ways off. But it's crucial to establish the most important criteria none the less so that these needs can be outsourced in the interim.

I enjoy the Skype meetings, but it's obvious women and children don't benefit from these.

What do you mean by "Alternate Culture for Family" specifically?

How do you think the mission statement should be changed? Would you like it changed to something like this:

wrote
The CoAlpha Brotherhood is an attempt to abandon feminist society and collectively live a sub-culture based on patriarchal values. The CoAlpha Brotherhood is not an attempt to reform society. Some religious groups like the Amish and Hasidic Jews already have such sub-cultures. We want a community where men can trust each other and our families are free from feminism.
I'll respond to Mr Cupid's virgin brides in that thread.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

fschmidt
Administrator
What I mean by "Alternate Culture for Family" is basically your "Outlet for women/children to socialize".

What problems are we trying to solve?  One could say that the problem is modern culture, but that is too general.  So let me give the concrete problems:

1.  Modern men can't be trusted.
2.  Finding a decent wife is hard.
3.  Keeping one's family from being corrupted my modern culture.

These 3 items correspond to the 3 things I suggested that CoAlpha provide in my previous post in this thread.  Does it really matter how we solve these problems as long as we solve them?  Maybe a new sub-culture would be ideal, but this is really hard to do.  We should only worry about this approach if we grow to the point where it becomes feasible.  We aren't close to that, so let's look at what we can do now.

Even though you put "Outlet for men to socialize" low on your list of priorities, this is important for 2 reasons.  First, it is one real way that we may be able to grow CoAlpha.  And second, because it is the only thing on the list that we even have anything of a solution to offer right now.

On dating, we have nothing right now.

On family socializing, I am really looking into this because I have an immediate need.  So while we have nothing yet, I will push this issue hard.  The solution here will be based on some existing subculture/religion since this is the only immediately practical options.

I don't think we should tamper with the mission statement yet.  Instead, I think we should focus on what practical things we can offer, and then change the mission statement later based on that.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

Drealm
Administrator
I like that we're thinking on the same wave length, we've narrowed down the entire concept of sub-culture to "Outlet for women/children to socialize". This gives us a concrete marker. We can expand this "sub-culture" marker later, but we at least we know a minimum requirement.

My concern with focusing on dating or socializing is you'll get nothing in return. As long as your okay with that for the time being, I see no problem.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

Humanity
Administrator
In reply to this post by Drealm
It might be more helpful to think of the goal as creating a new culture instead of a sub-culture. Or perhaps that frames things in an overwhelming way. For the goal of separating completely from society, take into account self-sufficiency. Food, water, and energy production. A way to educate children. Healthcare. And then of course we have the social aspect that you guys have already mentioned: socializing for men, women, and children. Religion as well. Things that a community consists of. Then we need jobs that directly relate to and benefit our community/brotherhood. Housing, other physical needs, etc. I know I'm sort of drifting over to the infrastructure side of things, but we'll need both the culture part and the infrastructure to have even a fighting chance. It would all blend together in practice. I guess on another note, there are the options of going with bare minumum needs or fleshing things out. Primitive or advanced.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

Drealm
Administrator
Humanity wrote
It might be more helpful to think of the goal as creating a new culture instead of a sub-culture. Or perhaps that frames things in an overwhelming way. For the goal of separating completely from society, take into account self-sufficiency. Food, water, and energy production. A way to educate children. Healthcare. And then of course we have the social aspect that you guys have already mentioned: socializing for men, women, and children. Religion as well. Things that a community consists of. Then we need jobs that directly relate to and benefit our community/brotherhood. Housing, other physical needs, etc. I know I'm sort of drifting over to the infrastructure side of things, but we'll need both the culture part and the infrastructure to have even a fighting chance. It would all blend together in practice. I guess on another note, there are the options of going with bare minumum needs or fleshing things out. Primitive or advanced.
The only difference between a culture and a sub-culture is dominance. Both terms are vastly overwhelming.

I don't see us separating completely from society. To achieve this we'd need to live communally like Hutterites. I don't think anyone here wants to live communally. There's also a fundamental flaw with living communally, you don't have a very productive culture. Although the Hutterites live communally, the high-tech farm equipment they use would never be a product of themselves. So their standard of living is really an illusion kept up by depending on greater technologically advanced society. The same goes for Hasidics, Menonites, ect. They all close themselves off from society, yet still rely on societies greater output of technological contributions. They don't produce anything themselves.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

ShaunS
Again please forgive me for dragging up an old thread (I'm still on page 5).

Culture bound. That's all I'm seeing here. The corner stone is dating, which is something that I don't do.

Dating is where a couple get together to do something that is common to both such as eating food. They would go out and have a meal together. So anything that is common to both males and females that both can do is something that can be done on a date. So where the male and female are equally doing similar things they can do these things together on equal grounds - as though they were equal - a common association.

Hopefully you're beginning to see the flaw here. If we adopt the view that males are superior to females then they are NOT equal and the whole concept of dating becomes a method of supporting the political concept of equality. A couple who are equal to each other. Now this may be so, but the presumption is that the CoAlpha Brotherhood will choose to take the view that this is NOT so because presumably everyone here will accept the view that Males are superior to females. Did you see how that capital "M" just slipped in there by complete accident! So if the male is superior to the female what would be the correct form of dating? As the people on this thread are so culture bound none of them can see the answer.

NeoDating:
But it's not new. The male is an Ice Hockey player. The visible contention his claimed superiority creates is played out on the pitch. His practical superiority is demonstrated, and even if he loses he is still superior to a non player. All the players have female fans. These females are fans of the obviously superior player, who is clearly superior to his female fans. They will struggle to meet him, to be with him, to get his autograph. In South Korea these would be computer gamers, generally male, who have many female fans. In playing the game they demonstrate their superiority - which would be more actual in the even of the computers controlling drones in a war zone. Their female fans try to meet them, try to be with them, try to get their autographs and so on. This is NeoDating.

In the case of the bodybuilder who does have superiority but only displays it - the lumber jack would win out through practical demonstration of superiority. So to merely display would be a form of seduction which we would be against. There is then a practical issue of demonstrating functional superiority, and the function is often a form of problem solving, which is often centred around competing against others. Now if you don't have physical superiority then you would need to find some other arena where you could display some other form of superiority. A singer who sings in a band, whose songs are better than those of some other band. Clearly display and performance is an issue here.

So:

Outlet for women to socialize - they would be at the game or watching the performance of the men, where they would encounter other females doing the same.

Outlet for men to socialize - they would be at the game or doing the performance and this presumes that there would be some kind of team or at least recognition of each others performances, thus they would be socializing with each other.

Outlet for children to socialize - they would be at the game presumably with their mothers, watching their fathers perform.

Education - watching the game.

Do sports people date - or do they just fuck?

What I'm saying here appears to be fairly correct if you look at the animal kingdom. It's not common ground dating that animals do. Dating is really the 'friend zone', perhaps leading to the accidental baby zone. It's not good and does not produce strong children. If you try to get your head around this concept then clearly your sub-culture must revolve around the general concept of 'acquiring and then displaying' some form of actual superiority - much like what the rich guy would call status.

So a sub-culture needs to be centred around some form of dating replacement based on a generalised understanding of the need to have and display practical superiority. Isn't that what the jerk tries to achieve? Likewise the financial money argument ties in by winning competitions because not only do you demonstrate superiority in a practical sense but you also get paid when you win. The other point here is the problem solving element. Where the form of superiority is not fixed and must vary with the abilities of the member, it will tend to revolve around the solving of problems to a higher standard than the competition - and this is where such a culture would start to thrive because it's ability to survive would become enhanced. It's people would be looking for problems to solve and their children would be better problem solvers. On top of that it doesn't exclude the intelligent people.

So an alternative to dating does exist and could exist in the form of a sub-culture (wrestling, Fight-Club) where it's members could be recognised and followed by female fans, and this would pick up and resolve a huge range of other problems along the way. It would not need to be exclusively physical. Examples already exist but are not being recognised. The problems are not being seen clearly due to the culture binding already present. Politically you would need to favour Neo-dating over existing forms of dating and try to push the concept as a better alternative.

That leaves the issue of acquiring superiority in a form that is useful where other men can compete. Solving just that issue would result in the rest of the pieces falling into place.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

ShaunS
There is another aspect that I need to convey here, which is the negative aspect of what it isn't.

Suppose that a guy is a Road Sweeper. Fairly obviously he won't be competing against other Road Sweepers. He will not have female fans cheering him as he moves past. He isn't really demonstrating superiority and the average person is superior to him merely by not being a Road Sweeper. And yet... the road still needs to be swept?

In cultural terms I can only hope that the job eventually gets done by a robot. The Amish Community seem to have avoided this problem somehow. The objective of the work is to earn money I guess. If it was a robot then it could compete against some other teams robot for a prize for the best robot road sweeper?

The best example I think of here is the film 'The Wrestler' (Mickey Rourke). Not a film that I would recommend as it's generally awful. In the film an ageing wrestler is past it and has a choice of continuing which will kill him, or working behind the counter of the local supermarket where he gets treated badly by everyone. Meanwhile he tries to explain his dilemma to his daughter who is a lesbian, while asking for advice from a pole dancer who he tries to date. It's a fine example of the modern culture, which is why the film is so bad.

A sub-culture would exist within the prevailing pre-existing culture, and as such the previous culture could be relied upon to provide the workers for lowly tasks such as the Road Sweeper. The alternative culture would need to be able to take this Road Sweeper and provide him with an alternative profession that would earn more money (in a way that prevents non-members from doing the same), while making him into some kind of star to be adored by female fans. You can see that this would be a bit of a challenge. The only alternative would be the hobby concept.

Currently capitalism expects the person to be a slave for 5 days of the week and a free man for only 2 days of the week. There is no work life balance and generally people use the two spare days to recover from the toil of the previous five. To throw in a vigorous pursuit on top of working for a living may be asking too much, and people get the sack for conspiring to run other businesses. Then you have the polarisation between either A) Sucking up to the management OR B) Having a bad attitude, and what you see is clearly very screwed up world. If you work for someone then you start at the bottom of the pyramid, if you run your own business then you are at the top of a non existent pyramid that you then need to build beneath you - hence the popularity of MLM etc.

Fixing it is difficult. Not only is dating faulty, but working for a living is faulty too, and now there is the need to combine both. If such a strategy could be achieved the wife that would result would clearly tend to be a housewife and would not be working for a living. In the case of the Road Sweeper I'm stuck with the concept of asking the guy to run away and join the Circus?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

ShaunS
All of this is very poor (including my previous posts here).

Socializing, socialize, socialize, socialize, socializing - I'm guessing here but perhaps it's a problem to do with socializing? While you are focussing on the problem it's seems clear that the problem in this case does not contain the solution. Let's go for an example:

Mods & Rockers
The Mods were on Vespa Scooters, while the Rockers were on motorbikes and would wear leather. The Rockers were tougher than the Mods, yet they still seemed to have died out. The Scooter Boys are still out there, typically on a Sunday night, on the road in large groups. They think about Scooters not socializing. Perhaps they visit each other in hospital after they crash in the snow each year? Their dating consists of outings - Blackpool and other seaside resorts. As a group they attract females who help them with their scootering. They are a fine example of a sub-culture.

The culture is not for the sake of socializing, because if it were then it would be fake. It is not a patriarchy it's just the case that male often gets there first, the female arrives moments later (which in the case of hunting allows her to survive). The female plays an auxiliary role. She helps the male with his culture. The credibility of his culture is proven by the large number of members - the size of the group, which gives her greater choice if she joins in. The money argument is a feature of the culture itself, the buying and selling of parts or skills. The children will also join in etc.

The sub-culture if good enough will eventually become the dominant culture if it has superior values or fixes existing problems. You have to show better ways of doing things and link these better methods together to form a recognisable style. The socializing is a spin off of that.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Defining "sub-culture"

ShaunS
And... this 'spin off' is the crux of the matter.

The view emerging is that the Cortex of the brain is not very good at solving problems. The consequence is that the key target will always fail, and the winner that makes money will always be the spin off. The spin off is a feature that is auxiliary, and it's being handled by the rest of the brain ie. the brain stem and the limbic system are great at solving problems (where the cortex sucks).

The female is auxiliary because the sexual aspects are associated with the brain stem and the limbic systems, not the cortex. This is why the basic problems cannot be solved head on.

So the issue is that we think we are great when we are not. In the context of religion Jehovah (within the cortex) and Jesus the Son of God ie. consciousness (also within the cortex) are NEW and lack the problem solving skills of the rest of the brain. Perhaps then the point of religion is to focus the mind (ie the cortex) on an unattainable goal so that the rest of the brain can get the job done - the Cortex is a Manager, who gets in the way and screws up... lets give him a Vespa Scooter to play with, so we can get on with the task of solving the problems.

As per the Israelites, the Cortex is good at - running away. It doesn't solve problems it avoids and evades them while fudging the issue. Lateral thinking of some kind is required. Some form of misdirection. We must somehow engage the more capable areas of our brains and let the subconscious get the results that we need. This is where the difficulty lies.

Much like OCD the self administered solution is usually alcohol, which directly inhibits the cortex of the brain.
 
Loading...