Dong expansionist theories have a long, hard, and elaborate (mostly apocryphal) history, starting from 1886 when it was first theorized by Yama Tamagotchi, in then Feudal Japan. The foundation of the theory was based around the evolving perception of the right to rule in Japan, as a natural consequence of the then dying Feudal society, with serious questions being raised at the time on the divine right to rule, or divine right to lead and manage the people. At the time the right to rule was determined by force, with the right to leadership determined in the glory of open battle, in a somewhat archaic "might makes right" precept, however Yama theorized that while inaccurate, it possessed a grain of truth as to why the powerful were often more revered as leaders. Their powers were justly derived through merit, in a form of meritocracy, where the best rose to the top, although it did not necessarily result in the best leaders politically given the nature of combat. Nonetheless, it was their ability to organize large numbers of men, and woman, in to certain actions that lead to their success, and thus their existing size and efficacy in battle in part represented the organizational skills of the leaders involved, with this reflecting, in part, a general ability to lead, with this translating over to the management of society. Like all conflicts or battles, it was a measure of mettle as much as it was ingenuity of man, but this was in addition to luck and brute force, thus negating some aspects that would otherwise be desired in a leader. A tyrant, too, could rule under the precepts of the right to rule being influenced by force, which while a necessary instrument of governance, could easily be abused. Features which took in not only military success, but economic one's (military success which was in many ways a measure of this, such as the U.S. industrial base being of significant importance in WWII), as well as moral precepts, requiring a trifecta not only of the proper application of force, but the prior accumulation of it, stood as the basis for this new, critically, expanded theory. What dong expansionism took in to account was not only the total presence of force and dong expansion, but also the moral convictions and principles to properly execute it.
Like all battles and many struggles in life, Tamagotchi theorized this came down to in part competition, with the right to rule being an inherent struggle in virtually all forms of leadership, and through reduction was eventually honed to the inherent fundamental struggle all life has to reproduce. The goal of the smallest amoeba to the largest whale is procreation, creating and passing on to the next generation life, continuing this precious state of existence down the line for the next generation to appreciate. The need for male dominance in order to procreate, and resultingly the female deciders to determine what genes would be passed on (male rams butt heads in order to impress females, deer grow their antlers larger due to sexual selection by females, giraffes grew longer necks to impress females and so on), has been an essential part of the evolutionary line for humans, and other animals, for millions of years. Male sexual success among humans has historically, been correlated heavily, with penis size. In accordance with Dong expansionism, it speculates that life is frequently a competition over who has the biggest penis, or big dick energy, resonating from within them, and thus battles are actually an attempt to prove not only organizational skills, but those with the biggest peens. Thus, Dong expansionism speculates that the divine right to rule among the anointed, is often best reserved for those with the largest penises.
Thus while Dong expansionism can be said to be in a way a naturalist theory of philosophy, it focuses intently and specifically on the more human elements that are derived from the collective public unconscious, and projected purposes of humans in particular. While the initial proposal by Tamagachi was primitive, Third wave dong expansionism expanded on this concept by bringing this not only in to effective management skills, but importantly morality, expressing times when dong expansion was both important, and incorrect. 3rd wave Dong expansionism in particular delves more deeply in to the critical importance of controlled Dong expansion, representing not only the importance of force in the application of leadership, but a moral need to avoid violence or other impure acts, cementing it in to a personal as well as governmental rule for the average person. The all important question, "Does this expand dong?", was combined with, "Why, does this expand dong?", thus extrapolating the importance of the moral subconscious which formulates the public superconscious superstructure that innately determines the right to rule. Be it through a democracy or violent dictatorship, to rule one must in some way secure the will of the people, the will which provides a subconscious divides within a people. There is no, objective difference between the people living on the Border of one country and another, other than the internal ideological understanding of their own existence, projected on to themselves which defines their own sense of governance. While nations are often seen as arbitrary lines of map, a nation is truly made up of it's people and it's underlying subconscious will which forms the superstructure of society, which while varying in origin, nonetheless determines the societies own perception of it's self, and thus their determination of features regarding their own existence. A man believes he is Russian because he is told he is Russian and feels it to be so, and is American because he is told he so and feels it in his very being, making him now possess an entity and feature he has created, and adopted, despite solely resting in his own mind, and the mind of others. A government exists solely as an idea, collectively agreed upon by the individual and the collective society, through a subconscious social contract, and thus the right to lead this society is innately derived from that. Like all successful societies, there is an inherent need for competition, through it from elections or brute force, to guarantee effectiveness in their ability to rule. While dong expansionism does consider the ability to implement force as a necessary and important role in this, it evolves beyond the basic precept of violence and force in the traditional sense, and importantly expands the critical role of dong expansion to both moral and philosophical goals.
3rd Wave Dong Expansionist Theory: Moral Consciousness
What separates 3rd Wave Dong expansionist theory from 1st and 2nd wave is critically it's emphasis on the moral implications of Dong expansionism. The question of 3rd wave Dong Expansionism is not just following the simple formula of, "Does this expand dong?", but rather, "Why does this expand dong?". This critical shift in dong expansionist theory not only questions the more fundamental questions of dong expansion, but if it is morally correct, and thus if dong expansionism can be good or bad. Third wave dong expansionism postulates that some forms of dong expansion are bad, such as if inflicting harm on others or watching furry porn, and thus these types of dong expansion may be negative to society, and the individual and specific individuals, and thus should be questioned. Third wave dong expansion expresses self restraint and control, as well as morality, on if it is good or bad if dong expands, and not only if it does, separating it from 1st, and to a lesser extend, the short-lived 2nd wave Dong expansionism.
This question could perhaps be better summed up as, "Should this expand dong?", being that it should only expand dong for empathetic and moral purposes. It is not just a matter of expanding dong, but the reason as to why this expands dong, and the morality of that. Politicians and leaders with bizarre or immoral sexual proclivities, and other powerful people, such as Jeffery Epstein or Harvey Weinstein, indicate that not only they are immoral individuals, but will wield their powers for improper purposes, and thus would not make great leaders. Empathy and morals is introduced as a key faucet of dong expansionism, with not only Dong Expansion, but what expands dong being a prominent moral question in leadership. If people were chosen who did not have these perverted sexual fantasies, they likely would be far superior leaders, and thus not only the size of the penis but the reason for the expansion must be considered.
Thus why something expands dong has been added to the general base of the theory to determine greater moral consciousness. There is not only a material efficacy to rule but a moral efficacy, that must be determined not only by the success of their actions but their intent, so as to direct and manage society in as empathetic and moral a method as possible. Indeed, a meritocracy itself is fundamentally moral only because of the material results it brings to society and the good this has for other people, and not as an intrinsic value in it's own right. Therefore morality must become the basis for a successful society and is the subconscious basis from which all govern ship is derived, despite this being muddled in the day to day bureaucracy of the system or innate corruption many systems bring.
The subconscious superstructure and collective unconscious
The right to leadership is derived from the subconscious will eliminating from the people's unconscious, forming a collective superstructure which permeates all society. The conscious and subconscious desires of the general populace formulates the basis for anointment of a leader, or perhaps more aptly put a manager to regulate things they may end up effecting their daily lives. While the impact of a leader often does not effect the average person, it nevertheless can lead to many subtle or in some cases tremendous changes, and thus needs to be filled in a carefully crafted position.
Youngian philosophy deals heavily with the subconscious, but fails to take in to account the superconscious, or the conscious will of society and how it relates to the subconscious will of the individual. The individual is inseparable from society, and thus, the society from the individual, forming a hybrid collection of subconscious will of society and the individual. One generates the other, with the society imparting its influence on the individual and his own subconscious perception of self (I.E. nationality, city or home or origin, sense of self, and to a lesser extent even race or ethnicity), whether realized or otherwise (a Russian still believes he is a Russian because he lives in a territory that other people call Russia, thus imparting on them societies will subconsciously), while the individual is obviously needed to impart this sense of perception on others, and himself. The delicate balance between these two precepts is organic, and determined by instinct largely rather than overt will, and thus is a subconscious structure silently agreed upon by society, but rarely expressed. Language, dress, image, and other issues are also determined by this, which is why a country called Russia is believed to be called this by the people who live there, as one inherits languages, customs, and the national identity of the people of where he is from, whether consciously aware of this or not. Nothing demands that a country possess a certain name or be imagined as a collective entity despite the lines on a map other than ourselves, who, if under other conditions, could have found it going another way. If the words in another language had found itself going a different way, it is possible that the name for a country could be different, and thus is clearly only imagined by the individual, and then impressed upon society, by enough individuals, to create this hyper-reality imparted on to the collective subconscious to influence society as a whole. It is the mere acceptance of society that creates it, forming it instinctively as a society, given a shared series of customs or history, usually geographic in nature, that also were subconsciously agreed upon, many years prior to this. None of these things exist in the concrete, but merely in the abstract, which given the importance of higher thinking among humans, allows this shared reality to continue to exist.
Evolutionary Biology: The Naturalist case for a Piminarchy
The subconscious superstructure and collective unconscious
The right to leadership is derived from the subconscious will eliminating from the people's unconscious, forming a collective superstructure which permeates all society. The conscious and subconscious desires of the general populace formulates the basis for anointment of a leader, or perhaps more aptly put a manager to regulate things they may end up effecting their daily lives. While the impact of a leader often does not effect the average person, it nevertheless can lead to many subtle or in some cases tremendous changes, and thus needs to be filled in a carefully crafted position.
Youngian philosophy deals heavily with the subconscious, but fails to take in to account the superconscious, or the conscious will of society and how it relates to the subconscious will of the individual. The individual is inseparable from society, and thus, the society from the individual, forming a hybrid collection of subconscious will of society and the individual. One generates the other, with the society imparting its influence on the individual and his own subconscious perception of self (I.E. nationality, city or home or origin, sense of self, and to a lesser extent even race or ethnicity), whether realized or otherwise (a Russian still believes he is a Russian because he lives in a territory that other people call Russia, thus imparting on them societies will subconsciously), while the individual is obviously needed to impart this sense of perception on others, and himself. The delicate balance between these two precepts is organic, and determined by instinct largely rather than overt will, and thus is a subconscious structure silently agreed upon by society, but rarely expressed. Language, dress, image, and other issues are also determined by this, which is why a country called Russia is believed to be called this by the people who live there, as one inherits languages, customs, and the national identity of the people of where he is from, whether consciously aware of this or not. Nothing demands that a country possess a certain name or be imagined as a collective entity despite the lines on a map other than ourselves, who, if under other conditions, could have found it going another way. If the words in another language had found itself going a different way, it is possible that the name for a country could be different, and thus is clearly only imagined by the individual, and then impressed upon society, by enough individuals, to create this hyper-reality imparted on to the collective subconscious to influence society as a whole. It is the mere acceptance of society that creates it, forming it instinctively as a society, given a shared series of customs or history, usually geographic in nature, that also were subconsciously agreed upon, many years prior to this. None of these things exist in the concrete, but merely in the abstract, which given the importance of higher thinking among humans, allows this shared reality to continue to exist.
Evolutionary Biology: The Naturalist case for a Piminarchy
By it's very nature, a piminarchy or Dong expanionist society would be based fundamentally on biology, and thus be a naturalist argument for the right to rule. What a piminarchy seeks to establish aside from a moral and just, effective society, derived from empathy, is a society derived from the nature of man. Society exists to serve the needs and desires of man, and not to recreate him in the postulated image of self proclaimed visionaries such as Marx, Foucault or Hegel, who wish in a literal sense to change the biology of man, or brainwash them in to mentally broken heaps to fit their perfect world. Society should be created to advance the natural interests of humans, and is not merely organized in the way most efficient to man's nature so as to be more effective (in a sense, a society based on rolling logs downhill, rather than uphill to try and overcome nature), but due to it being inherently immoral to change the nature of man for arbitrary reasons to fit a perceived perfect utopia. It is not only impossible to change the nature of man and an inefficient waste of time, but barbaric and cruel to try and get them to resist that which is natural to them, which will crush their spirits and minds in disgusting and despotic ways. There is no way to change the nature of man, and attempts to do so by conditioning are as cruel as any has ever seen, and likely to lead to Tyranny when those conditioned are done so by the whims of those in power to serve their own power. It is often been said that Marx simply got the wrong species with communism, that it would work well only with ants. Even this is untrue to an extent as ants still have a hierarchal society with a queen, and thus deny a central core basis of marx's views. There is no where in nature where communistic and socialist societies exist, yet monarchal like systems, hierarchal systems, capitalistic one's and others exist due to the natural arrangement of animals and the universe. Thus attempts to change man's nature are not only inefficient wastes of time and society should be organized like rolling logs downhill or running water, to follow the path of lease resistance, but for empathetic and moral reasons. To attempt to change man's nature is unimaginably cruel and immoral.
Instead society must be organized by the routes man has chosen and by what they are accustomed to, along the lines and principles of a society that is not ideal in theory but that actually works. Lives depend upon us being correct, and thus this impetus behooves us to ensure we are engaging in logically and factually correct behavior to avoid immoral actions. Justice systems place truth highly as a virtue as imprisoning falsely accused victims is Tyranny in it's own right, and thus we have an empathetic and moral requirement to be correct and help others. Successful police prevent not only crime but Tyranny through improper persecution, as does a society as a whole. Thus it is a moral necessity to be right, and therefore a moral necessity to have a meritocracy so those best to lead or organize society can do so for the betterment of us all. While this can require it would be said an enlightenment, rationalist perspective to logically choose who should be the correct leader, the simple reality is that we must organize the acts of man as if rolling logs down hill, to go along with their better nature and improve their lives rather than force them in to an organization. It can be easy to get lost in one's ego or arbitrary senses of fairness, but what is most fair is to lead a fair and successful society.
Thus it shouldn't be lost on us that most leaders around the world have been men. While woman should not be denied the chance to rule, it should also be noted that we should not put people in to positions who are more likely to fail out of an arbitrary sense of fairness. Indeed, those who have historically proven to be more successful should be placed in to these positions, be them with dynasties like kings and queens, or families of politicians that have proven to be successful. Indeed we should hope that with the healthy competition that comes from democracy that such a system will result in the best players rising to the top, but we should not be dismayed when these individuals happen to bear a particular demographic resemblance when the nature of biology dictates they will be more successful. We owe it to society for the best individuals to lead, and not to try and force individuals in to positions of power based on arbitrary characteristics. If these individuals happen to be those who possess the big dick energy necessary to leading society, then this is simply a result of the biology of man, and not something to be afraid of or eschewed to keep certain bloodlines in power, or individuals of certain type in power. Indeed we should seek to advance society so that individuals of all stripes have an equal chance to succeed such as via fair education and treatment, but we should not deny that certain individuals rise to the top for a reason, often due to their higher success rate. While we should seek to give each individual a fair chance and promote those who do not have them, we cannot place them in to power if even by circumstances out of their control they have been hampered below their true potential. Indeed reality can be cruel to many and keep them from succeeding, but we cannot allow them to lead out of pity lest we doom society. Be it the poor workers in Zimbabwe who rose up only to fail to farm their own land or the worker's rebellions that lead to Tyranny, simply being an oppressed individual does not give you the ability to lead, an in fact their lack of education and training and experience may all hamper it. This does not mean we should put the rich and naturally powerful back in to power deliberately, but that we must accept that they lead effectively for a reason and seek to emulate it before replacing them. In effect, that reality, that nature itself, that our biology, demands certain material realities before we can lead. And, that if this leads to those with superior traits rising to the top, than we simply let them rather than fear the lack of representation or perceived fairness of it.
