Natsocs are center left

August 25th, 2016

Socialism is left. If Natsocs are not socialist, need a new name.

One might argue that socialism is only left if demotic. Socialism on der Führerprinzip is the way every well run corporation works internally. But every well run corporation, as for example Apple under Steve Jobs, works by delegating everything except its core competence to the market place, and it then operates its core competence on der Führerprinzip. Steve Jobs decided what sort of glass the Iphone, and thus all smart phones, would have, but he then sourced the glass he wanted in the marketplace – where not only Iphones, but also every android phone now uses glass made to the specifications originally issued by Steve Jobs.

The sovereign has to grant property rights to his subjects in themselves and in their stuff, or he gets overwhelmed, as depicted in every critique of socialism, I Pencil, Atlas Shrugged by Rand, Ayn (1999) Paperback, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, and The Road to Serfdom, and winds up being puppeteered by ministers and bureaucrats, as depicted in “Yes Minister” and “Atlas Shrugged”, leading to anarcho tyranny.

The Soviet Union wound up depending on criminals, because the criminals, who like the sovereign had primary property rights established by their own violence, were alone able to be productive.

When natsocs propose Kristallnacht, they succumb to the secret stash theory of economics, that smashing up Jewish pawnshops and vodka stills will make non Jews rich. Similarly Venezuela cannot develop its gold mines because thugs from the government keep coming around expecting to find a pile of gold. Jews are a problem, but Jewish professors of social studies and the Hollywood Jews who produced “The Kingdom of Heaven” are a problem. Jewish pawnshops are not a problem. And implying that they are is pandering to the kind of short time preference people who borrow from pawnshops, who think if usury is forbidden they will be able to borrow for free, who think that if they smash up the pawnshop, they will be as well off as the people who run the pawnshop. It has been said that antisemitism is the socialism of the stupid – implying that the peopile running Venezuela are very smart when they smash up every pawnshop instead of only Jewish pawnshops.

Nah. Socialism is stupid, and it becomes less stupid when it fused with racism because the result is less socialist. Antisemitism is the socialism of the marginally less stupid. Obama’s socialism, as for example Obamacare and Obamaphones, the socialism of the supposedly terribly clever people, that is stupid.

Natsocs are right about nationalism. And their socialism, socialism on das Führerprinzip, does not suck nearly as badly as demotic socialism. Notice that it murdered far fewer people than demotic socialism. Not only did the Nazis only murder a handful of Nazis, while the communists murdered enormous numbers of communists, the nazis murdered fewer communists than the communists murdered communists. If you are a communist, the sensible thing to do would have been to vote nazi, vote for people promising to kill you and against the people promising to put you in power. Commmies, such as Obama’s biological parents and mentor, are enormously more evil than nazis.

Civilization and dysgenesis

August 23rd, 2016

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

Why women are sleeping with chads

August 14th, 2016

The problem is that dads are being emasculated and chads are not being emasculated

Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons. If we preferentially give children to the husband in the event of divorce, women will not wish to divorce – not because they don’t want to lose their children, but because husbands will not behave in ways that make their wives wish to leave them.

If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away, we severely weaken every man that loves his children. If we weaken him, his wife will despise him, and will take his children away, and his daughters will be raped and his sons beaten by some black rapper

It is not that women like being beaten, though some do.  What they like is that they could be beaten. To successfully raise children, needs to be a man and a woman forming one household. One household, one captain.  If cannot be beaten, not really one household.  So women feel insecure.

They want to be held by strong hands.  If not held by strong hands, will fuck black rappers.

They want a husband who is an oak, against whom their wild storms beat in vain. Women want men who actually have power in the relationship, despite the intemperate female urge to get their way in arguments.

Emancipation was a shit test that we failed. Women demand stuff, but when they get what they demand, are more unhappy

What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship.  But men want a secure relationship, and a mistress, or two mistresses, or two secure relationships plus some fly girls.  And women want a secure relationship with a male that is way more alpha than they are, the billionaire vampire of romance novels.  So they shit test their husbands by making demands, which demands are tests for weakness.  They want a secure relationship with a strong man, and current rules make all men weak.  

Prisoner’s dilemma ensues:  Nobody gets what they want.

The deal that everyone would choose if they could is illegal and unenforceable, except by personal charisma and the potential of personal violence.

Women truthfully complained that the traditional deal meant that some women were apt to be severely oppressed and ill treated.  But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted.  The result is that everyone gets ill treated.  If a woman gets her way, she will feel insecure, and go looking for a man who denies her her way. Because if a woman gets her way, it is not really one household, one flesh, and if not really one household, difficult and dangerous to raise children in it.

The telos of sex is children.   But because humans take a long time to raise children, must form a unitary bond.  And so the Roman Catholic position on the natural law of sex is wrong, for the telos of sex is not children directly, but the unitary bond, the formation of one flesh, sex as an expression, the primary expression, of erotic love.  Hence wife goggles.   And because a ship must have one captain, because raising children requires a single household, sex is also an expression of female submission and male domination.  More so for women than for men.  Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination.   Hence men look at women’s boobs while women shit test men.  Women want to be taken, want to be commanded to submit to sex.  They really hate this affirmative consent stuff.

If one household, then husband has sex whenever he feels like.  If husband begs wife for permission every night, not one flesh, hence not a safe environment to raise children, hence women do not really like it. Moment to moment consent is a shit test.  Women demand it, but if they get it, they really hate it.

If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex.  Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond.   A safe place to raise children in.  They both want it and neither can get it.

The type of relationship women need is illegal, not because women didn’t like it, but because they think they don’t like it. They struggle against it, but that is to test the strength of the husband, not because they actually don’t like it.  They think they don’t like it so that they will only submit to a worthy man, but under current rules, no man is worthy.

Women were not fooled on manipulated into asking for this.  It is what they really asked for, and what they think they really want. It is in the nature of a woman to rebel against a man.  But if she successfully rebels, she loses interest in that man.  He completely ceases to exist for her.  She forgets that he ever existed.

So women only see men that dominate them and push them around, they are completely blind to the current American reality where women walk over men all the time as if they were carpets. Hence the common complaint that men continually interrupt, talk over, and ignore women, when in fact it is the other way around.

If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.

If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.

If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.

If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.

On stopping power

August 14th, 2016

Ellifritz studied 1800 actual gunfights.

His study produced the seemingly absurd conclusion that the handgun most effective in stopping people, in resolving a gunfight to the shooters satisfaction, was by many reasonable measures the .22, a conclusion he was profoundly reluctant to accept.

Now obviously if you do a Mythbuster type experiment, put the gun in a vice, aim it at a block of gelatine, any other handgun will do a whole lot more damage to the gelatine than a .22, and by some reasonable measures the heavier bullets were more effective – but if you want a one shot stop, .22 is head and shoulders above the rest.

So what might be different when it is man on man?

Well consider the most studied combat of recent times. Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head onto the concrete, Zimmerman killed Martin with one shot directly through the heart. Obviously what mattered was not the gun but the man. What mattered was that Zimmerman was so well practiced he could put his bullet on target while blind and severely distracted.

Now, what is the cartridge that people practice with the most?

It is the .22 LR.

Thus the most likely explanation for Ellifritz’s seemingly absurd results is that stopping power depends on practice a whole lot more than it depends on the gun or the cartridge. So you should buy the gun you are most comfortable practicing with and have the most fun practicing with.

I would interpret his results as indicating that there were a higher proportion of expert shooters wielding a .22, hence the large number of one shot stops and deadly shootings, but that .22 was significantly less effective in the hands of a inexpert shooter who relies on spray and pray.

Common Core Explained

August 12th, 2016

tl;dr

Problem: If you try to teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic, People of Color will underperform. Thus teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic has disparate impact.

Solution: Yo Stop teaching dem dat racist whitey sheeit what ‘chew thinkin’ man?

A child who has been educated with common core is a child who cannot do maths, cannot spell correctly, nor write grammatically. He is cut off from the past two thousand years of civilization.

Hillary’s condition

August 9th, 2016

Hillary has been photographed being stabilized by two assistants as she climbs the stairs. This used to be Hollywood’s way of depicting someone as drunk – that he needed assistance to climb stairs without falling over and falling down.

Hillary is known to have injured her head by falling down.

Hillary has seizures. Seizures are typical of repeated severe alcohol withdrawal. Diazepam is used to control seizures and to treat alcohol withdrawal, and Hillary is accompanied everywhere by a man with a Diazepam injection pen.

Hillary is frequently unavailable for lengthy periods, while Trump is always on and ever ready to speak off the top of his head.

Hillary was famously unavailable for a considerable time during the Benghazi incident.

No such thing as moderate Islam

August 5th, 2016

If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a bad Muslim.

“Hang on” I hear you say: “Did not you tell us that Alawites, the guys in Syria that the State Department is trying to genocide, are moderate?”

Yes, Alawites are moderate. Their religion also has more gods that you can shake a stick at, they drink wine, celebrate Christmas, and eat pork. They celebrate something suspiciously like mass with wine and bread, plus a pile of pagan deities. Since Christianity is dead in the water, maybe we should convert to Alawism, since the likely alternative is that we get converted at swordpoint to Islam, or we males get killed and our women get converted at swordpoint to Islam. But I digress. Back to moderate Islam.

The great majority of Muslims are profoundly disinclined to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor. But they create an environment were the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor is holier than they are, an environment where the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor can fade into the woodwork when the police come looking for him.

There is no moderate Islam in the sense that there is no Islam where the adherent to the faith who engages in violence against non Muslims is viewed as bad, unholy, an outsider, no Islam where Jihad is not as Islamic as motherhood and apple pie are American. There is no Islam that fails to provide a favorable environment for terror. Terror is so fundamental and intrinsic to Islam, that any supposedly Muslim religion that seriously disengages from terror really is not Muslim, and any Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror gets assailed as inauthentically Muslim, as not taking Islam seriously, and it is transparently apparent that any nominally Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror is inauthentically Muslim, does not take Islam seriously.

For thirteen hundred years, no one has managed to coexist with Islam except in a state of war and near war. We will not be the first.

We have to either convert to Islam, convert to some faith capable of holding its own against Islam, or forbid Islam and expel Muslims.

Converting to Islam is the solution we do not want, the solution that will inevitably happen if we do nothing much. Hillary plans to bring in a hundred million or so male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and even if she fails to do so, the militarized Muslim womb will outbreed us, if nothing is done. In America and Europe large numbers of fertile age white women are converting to Islam, because Muslims are the only men that can get away with being manly, and Muslims are abducting and enslaving large numbers of young fatherless welfare girls.

The Cathedral thinks it can convert Muslims in the same way it has been so successful in converting Christians, persuading them that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism.

See also Scott Alexanders triumphalist exposition that progressivism is simply western culture, and everyone naturally converts to progressivism western culture because it so much nicer and more humane and wiser and better and truer than any of the alternatives.

In fact progressivism sucks, and men suffer terribly under it, for it is brutally contrary to human nature, and unless you actively crush Islam the way the Cathedral actively and aggressively crushed, and continues to actively aggressively crush, Christianity, it is not going to absorb Muslims. Rather we see the reverse happening. Aggressive Muslims get pussy and the girls are glad of it. The Cathedral defines Christianity as misogyny, hatred, homophobia, and so on and so forth, and crushes it with unrelenting ruthlessness, but is disinclined to do this to Islam, because islam is brown, and browns can never be racist, misogynist, or homophobic. Also because if it went after Islam the way it goes after Christianity, Muslims would start cutting the throats of progressives.

The Cathedral has had some considerable success at converting Muslims to progressivism, as for example Iran. Turkey, however, has definitively put an end to the program in Turkey.

For a long time it looked as if the Cathedral program, educate Muslims into understanding that Islam, rightly understood, was progressivism, seemed to be succeeding. And then we started to see head scarves all over the place.

As the Cathedral became ever more hostile, hateful, and destructive towards males and masculinity, coming to a supposedly right understanding of Islam became ever less popular among Muslims, and we started to see those headscarves multiply.

The Cathedral rationalized away the ever expanding sea of headscarves. For a while it was still possible to believe that the Cathedral program could succeed, the Hillary could bring in a hundred million male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, they would convert to progressivism, they would buy homes in green leafy suburbs with affirmative action mortgages, pay their mortgages, and replace the missing grandchildren to pay off social security.

This delusion was punctured at Benghazi in Libya:
Hillary:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton told him angrily. “Whether it’s because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”

Well it would not make much difference whether because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk. But it makes a huge difference that it was neither of these. It was a bunch of guys in military uniform, with military weapons, with chain of command, with military insignia of rank, equipped with the apparatus and institutions of a modern western state, that were, and are, applying this apparatus and these institutions to suppress progressivism and enforce Islam, in the way that Clinton and company have long been using this apparatus and these institutions to suppress Islam and enforce progressivism.

What was revealed at Benghazi, and has continued to be revealed ever since, is that the progressive program to convert Muslims to “moderate Islam” (aka progressivism) was entirely dependent on the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state, and that it really is not working any more, even in the rapidly declining number of countries where progressives command the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state. (Libya, and now Turkey, being among those were progressives have been removed from theocratic power.)

Mean, median, and chastity enforcement.

August 3rd, 2016

Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.

It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.

It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.

Why Trump is Hitler

August 2nd, 2016

You have doubtless seen lots of people arguing that Trump is Hitler. Often “Trump is literally Hitler!”

Of course people who read my blog know what “literally” means, and though Trump is obviously not literally Hitler, there is in fact a good argument that Trump is Hitler.

But for some strange reason, Democrats never make the argument out loud in plain words. I wonder why.

The argument, said outright in plain words, is:

Hillary’s nomination speech was in large part urging black people to murder white people, and promising to use the justice department to prevent police from enforcing law on black people. If police, for some mysterious inexplicable reason, wind up arresting and killing a disproportionate number of black people – well that is disparate impact, which illegal. You don’t have to prove racist motivation. Disparate impact is racist. Treating people according to the content of their character is racist regardless of motivation if the outcome is bad for non asian minorities.

This has been the law and practice for a very long time, and failure to apply this law to school discipline and law enforcement is an unprincipled exception. Unprincipled exceptions always go away sooner or later, and Hillary, truthfully or untruthfully, is promising to remove this unprincipled exception for policing and school discipline. I hope she is being untruthful, but sooner or later it will be the truth. Unprincipled exceptions are always removed sooner or later.

Hillary also promised to take away the guns of law abiding people (law abiding gun owners being almost entirely white Republicans) so that colored criminals can kill them (Criminal gun owners being mostly black Democrat voters. In other words, she promises to take away the guns of white Republicans so that black Democrats can kill them once she has appointed enough anti gun supreme court judges.

Hillary also promised to keep the borders open, and in particular open to poor suffering Muslim refugees, who are generally brown or black, male, military age, and always vote Democrat. Every few weeks we read of some outrage where black male military age Muslims murder large numbers of people, usually large numbers of white people. It is unclear how many black male military age Muslims we will get under this policy, but there are several hundred million such in the world, and they would all be much better off coming to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat. So there is a good chance that Hillary will bring in a few hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, to permanently change the electoral landscape so that whites are permanently outvoted, and we end up with a brown republican party competing with a slightly darker brown Democrat party over who will burn the most white shops, murder the most whites and rape the most white women.

Trump’s nomination speech was law and order, and he proceeded do demonstrate his capacity to maintain law and order in a wide area around the convention center. Among his various law and order measures was that he was going to stop illegal immigration and Muslim immigration.

We all know that lawlessness and disorder is in very substantial part, non white criminals preying on whites, for example Kristallnacht in Ferguson, so this means Trump is the pro white candidate and Hillary is the anti white candidate.

And, of course, Hitler was the pro white candidate, therefore Trump is Hitler.

And I now raise another glass of moonshine, this time to 27. Februar 1933.

Fertility and corporal punishment

July 31st, 2016

To 1933, wives in movies are never spanked by their husbands.

From 1933 to 1945, wives in movies are sometimes spanked, but it is shocking, unexpected and unusual.

From 1945 to 1963, wives in movies and on television are sometimes spanked and it is routine, respectable, and usual. For example in “I love Lucy” we are never shown a spanking on screen, but Lucy is regularly very afraid of receiving a well deserved spanking for her many amusing misdeeds.

In the Western “McLintock” the authority figure, representing virtue, middle class respectability, and normality, unambiguously endorses the husband beating the wife severely for gross misbehavior, with a small coal shovel.

From 1945 to 1963, appropriate and proportionate corporal punishment of wives is depicted as normal, proper, appropriate, expected, and respectable. As in McLintock, it is what respectable middle class husbands do ensure that their wives and families behave in a respectably middle class manner – since women, unless restrained, have a not at all middle class preference for drama.

This had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went up.

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives


USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

We see a significant rise in fertility when spanking starts being depicted, and massive rise in fertility when it starts being depicted as normal. When spanking stops being depicted as normal, stops being depicted at all, soon followed by a massive demonization of men who rule their families and a hate fest against them, which is to say, against marriage and husbands, as marriage was traditionally understood, fertility drops like a stone, as spectacularly as when women were emancipated in Japan.

The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected, though not necessarily wrong. It is often justified in the context of the movie, but it is also depicted as the act of an outlaw – illegal but romantic.

We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal, legal, proper, and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

As the MRAs argue, feminism has artificially raised female status above male status. When a man and a woman walk in opposite directions down the corridor, the man gives way and the woman walks right down the middle of the corridor. Women continually interrupt men with impunity. (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)

But the MRA demand, actual equality, feminism done right, is obviously absurd and unworkable, because of the obvious inferiority of women in the male sphere. (Obviously women are superior in the female sphere, such as babies, home, housework, and finding my car keys.)

Thus, for example, no one really expects women to bear the costs of their own decisions, because women really should not be making those kind of decisions unsupervised. Thus “equality” in practice means women make decisions and men pay the costs of those decisions.

So what we have to sell is the principle of patriarchy – that women should be ruled by fathers or husbands, that men really are superior, that women should give way and should not interrupt. All women should be deferential to all men, but should obey those men and only those men who are committed to care for them.

And we have to reject and dismiss consent culture. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Moment to moment consent is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for women. Women lack agency in sexual matters, making “rape” ill defined. The concept maps poorly to real life situations. “Rape” used to mean dating a woman without the consent of parent or guardian, irrespective of how she felt about it, or whether you physically had sex with her. We did not really have a word or concept for what we are now calling rape until the late eighteenth century or so.

The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible, because the word is difficult to fit to real life events.

I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

Thus, for example, Scott Alexander’s girlfriend consented to sex with lots of people, not including Scott Alexander, felt bad about it, felt that a gay man could do what she did without feeling bad about it or making Scott feel bad about it, so proceeded to surgically disfigure herself and declare herself to be a gay man. Clearly she would be much better off had she received a few severe spankings followed by some nonconsensual sex from Scott Alexander.

The population collapse is nothing to do with automation etc, since emancipated women in poverty stricken third world countries reproduce even less.

It simply a matter of whether or not men and women can enforceably contract with each other to durably form patriarchal families. If they can, total fertility per woman is around six or seven. If they cannot, total fertility per woman substantially less than replacement. If something in between (as for example the fifties when marriage as traditionally understood was illegal, but was nonetheless depicted on television as normal, normative, and respectable) then the fertility rate is something in between. The economy makes scarcely any difference, short of outright famine and hard Malthusian limits.

Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

Back in the fifties, when spanking was respectable, employers tended to advertise for married men, because they expected married men to be more highly motivated.

So we set up society so that prosocial behavior, reasonable competence, upholding order, and a bit of hard work pretty much guarantees a man will become a patriarch, and lo and behold, we will get prosocial behavior, order, hard work, and lots of well brought up children.

If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

If patriarchy is the law of the land and I have a legal path to be a patriarch but no job, I can find a job, or create one, or scrape up a living somehow. If patriarchy is outlawed and I am legally prohibited from being a patriarch, I will be receptive to the life of the outlaw, the life of the bum, the vagrant, or hanging out in my mother’s basement. Jobs are not the problem. The lack of a reason to get a job is the problem.

If you look at high fertility and low fertility times and places, the factor that massively outweighs absolutely everything else by far, is whether or not a man and a woman can make a deal to form one household and have babies and expect their partner to be forced to stick to it. Patriarchy is necessary for this, since one household must have one captain, but patriarchy is in itself insufficient – the woman also needs protection that her children will neither be torn away from her, nor will she and they be abandoned by their father. The deal has to guarantee both the authority of the husband over his wife and children and the economic and emotional security of the wife and children, has to guarantee the father and husband obedience and respect, and the wife and children that they will be protected and looked after.

Reality is that wherever and whenever men have the option to be a patriarch, the overwhelming majority of men gladly make whatever sacrifice necessary to attain that role, even if extremely poor.

Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized and damaged.

It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

The criminalization of patriarchy was the criminalization of the deepest and most powerful need of white men.