Yes, women vote for rape, conquest, and enslavement

September 25th, 2016

Some of my supposedly red pilled commenters doubt my account of the nature of women.

So, I am going to steal shamelessly from the great and wonderful Heartiste, Minion of Satan.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:

calais-sex-camp

Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

When we voted to emancipate them, we failed their shit test.

“Hey”, I hear you saying: “How come they vote for emancipation and conquest, both? Aren’t you being inconsistent Jim. You cannot have it both ways. Why are they shit testing us harder than they shit test the rapeugees?”

Because we are weak and guilty about it, and the rapeugees are bold and aggressive about it. You need to tell girls to make a sandwich and take their pants off. And when they are difficult, you need to hit them, hit them in a properly careful and loving way of course.

Nitrocellulose illegalized

September 22nd, 2016

The government has defined nitrocellulose, a deflagrating explosive, as a high explosive.

This makes anyone who creates ammunition subject to rules that are impossible to comply with. Fortunately the government has also issued an unprincipled exception, telling people not to worry about it. Just go on handling nitrocellulose as the deflagrating explosive that it actually is, and, wink, nod, we will not prosecute you.

But slowly, over time, unprincipled exceptions always go away. This is a back door criminalization of private ownership of guns. A few years down the line, they will start enforcing this, and say, “Oh, we are just enforcing laws that have been on the books for a long time, but widely ignored.” And private gun owners will find it strangely hard to legally buy ammunition. “Hey, the state has not banned your guns, nor your ammo, just banned anyone who makes ammo for your guns. And this law has been on the books since forever. They are still allowed to make it, but they have to make it safely – except that no one can figure out how to make it safely.”

Of course people who make ammunition for law enforcement and the military will get a continuing unprincipled exception, but people who make ammunition for private customers will not.

Then again, the way they are cutting the balls off our police and military, I would not have a lot of confidence that the military will continue to get ammo either. They banned mines and cluster bombs by a similar back door law: Our government passed laws against our military that could never be complied with, issued an unprincipled exception that allowed mines and cluster bombs, then the unprincipled exception somehow slowly faded away. Meanwhile the Soviets continue to use cluster bombs with devastating effect.

I cannot see any sane reason for banning cluster bombs other than that in the many proxy wars where the Red Empire of the Bases backs one side, and the Blue Empire of the Consulates backs the other side, cluster bombs were blowing the hell out of the State Department’s proxies.

Hitting your woman with a stick

September 17th, 2016

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Yes, Trump legally can fire the bastards

September 14th, 2016

We all know that Trump loves firing people who are no damned good, and that giving effect to his program requires firing a whole bunch of civil servants.

From time to time the pious say that this shows that Trump has no understanding of how government works.  The president cannot fire people.

Someone who may not be named drew my attention to Myers v. United States a much ignored but never overruled Supreme Court decision that the president can fire any federal government employee he damn well pleases for any reason or no reason at all, and that any law restricting his power to do so is unconstitutional.

Actually firing people is still going to resemble a military self coup, but at least this makes the self coup clearly legitimate, a restoration of presidential authority that has been unlawfully and unconstitutionally usurped by the president’s overly numerous and overly powerful servants.

Actually firing people is likely to result in Trump becoming God Emperor after the style of Augustus or King by the Grace of God after the style of King George the third, because the powers his dangerously powerful servants have usurped from the people and the states then fall into his hands, but at least this Supreme Court decision gives firing people the plausible appearance of a constitutional restoration of the Old Republic, making the loyalty and obedience of the military easier to maintain during the purge.

The puritan hypothesis in short

September 13th, 2016

New world order university forum has issued a post criticizing the puritan hypothesis

Their counter theory is that leftism is an efficient, centralized, and competently run conspiracy of evil people who for entirely rational reasons want to rule the world, and that leftism is composed of coherent, well defined, and unchanging beliefs.

Well if that was the case, we are toast.  But I am pretty sure it is not the case.

Observing leftism in action, it is all holiness spirals. Social Justice Warriors continually out left each other and form circular firing squads.   Every few years they find something new to be holy about. There is no consistent and unchanging core of leftism.  One day they love the proletariat the next they hate the rednecks.  One day they love the peasants, the next they liquidate the kulaks.  The only consistent things in anglosphere leftism have been war on marriage and war on Christmas, but other outbreaks of leftism have not had those elements.

Leftism is a thousand points of doctrine, but new points continually get added, and old points reinterpreted, or altogether dropped.  Remember when Obama and Clinton opposed Gay Marriage?  Well you may remember, but somehow very few other people do.

The Bolsheviks were a largely an evil Jewish conspiracy – except that the Jews in question were largely self hating Jews, who proceeded to enthusiastically purge each other until Hitler was able to congratulate the Soviets on having achieved a Judenfrei ruling elite.  The Khmer Rouge were foreign educated intellectuals, who proceeded to murder all the foreign educated intellectuals, then all the intellectuals, then murder most Khmer Rouge members who could count.

When I read up the writings of the proto puritans, the members of the Church of England who were industriously being ever holier – well at first it was conventional Christian holiness.  Very sincere people being very holy.  Suspiciously holy.  Then, by the time the Puritans set off for America,  it was conventional Christian holiness that had turned distinctly pharisaical.  And then by the later Cromwell years, the most holy were pushing standard twentieth century leftism, which so alarmed Cromwell that he cracked down.

Communism is not directly puritan descended, though Marx was influenced by the leftists suppressed by Cromwell, and proceeded to do to Judaism what they had done to Christianity.  Marxist Dialectics is Talmudism transmogrified into left wing politics, and Dialectical Materialism is God’s plan for the Jewish people transmogrified into History’s plan for the Vanguard of Proletariat.  Obviously today’s progressivism is massively influenced by Jews, Communism, and through communism, influenced by Judaism, particularly the recycling and global warming movement.  But Anglosphere leftism are the winners, and anglosphere leftism has organizational continuity going back all the way to the proto Puritan Brownists mentioned by Shakespeare.   Harvard was the state Church of New England.  Harvard conquered America, and then the world. This is an accident of history; there were several other strains of leftism that could have conquered the world.  But they did not.  And here we are.  If you look at the desegregation of the Boston school system, which is where desegregation and affirmative action started biting Northerners, not a Jew in sight.

Communism never had organizational continuity with any Jewish synagogue, whereas leftism does have organizational and institutional continuity with Puritan religious institutions, in particular Harvard, a religious seminary and the central authority of the New England State Church.

If the world was currently ruled by the Soviet Union, then Jew hypothesis would be largely true.  But it is ruled by the US state department, which wants Israel destroyed, so the Jew hypothesis is largely false, and the Puritan hypothesis is true.  There are a lot of Jews in today’s progressivism, but they are all conversos.  They are intermarrying, and if they have any children, which they seldom do, their children seldom identify as Jewish.  If any Jew in Harvard started to wear conspicuously Jewish Orthodox gear, the way the Happy Merchant in the Happy Merchant meme does, the Social Justice Inquisition would be on to him in a flash and he would lose tenure.  George Soros wants whites in Europe genocided, but he wants Jews in Israel genocided even more, even sooner.

How to remove eleven million illegals.

September 11th, 2016

Trump has promised to triple the number of ICE deportation officers, the people whose job it is to remove illegal aliens already in America, the ones that made it past the border regions.

Since public servants can never be fired, the ICE deportation officers (ERO) are still there, and are still theoretically deportation officers, but their status has been systematically lowered, and these days they push paperwork in circles rather than actually deporting anyone.

If you catch someone near the border, you can deport them pretty easily, but the huge problem with ERO is that in order to deport anyone, they have to go before a judge, and judges are extremely reluctant to deport anyone.  There is an unending due process legal labyrinth in which illegals, even criminals, even murderers, circulate forever.  If Trump empowers ERO officers, judges will continue to disempower them.  Trump not only needs to triple the number of ICE deportation officers, he needs to empower them.

The Australian solution to this problem was to just deport illegals and completely exclude judges from the process altogether.  In Australia an “unlawful person” (Aussie for illegal immigrant) is just administratively sent to Villawood Detention center.  From there, they can get a ticket home.  Or if they cannot get a ticket home, they are sent to an “Offshore processing center”.  (Australia’s equivalent of Gitmo.)  This tends to highly motivate them to get a ticket home.  Some, who it seems were insufficiently motivated, have just been dumped by the Australian navy on some foreign country’s beach between the high tide and low tide mark.

In Australia, whenever someone in authority encounters an “unlawful person” inside Australia, for example at a police stop or a hospital visit, they are supposed to rat them to border control, and they generally do rat them to border control.  And from border control, to Villawood Detention center.  Trump has to make sure that police stops, hospital visits, welfare applications, and so on and so forth, rat illegal immigrants to ERO, and that ERO has a nice convenient prison in which they can throw people and leave them to rot without pesky judges bothering them.  If all ERO can do is take them before a judge, the judge will let them loose, even murderers and rapists. An unlawful person is likely to become a whole lot more cooperative if his only way out of his oubliette is to go home.

Let us call the wall, “The Great Wall of Trump”, and the prison, “The Trump Archipelago”.

On the day of the rope

September 11th, 2016

On the alt right, a lot of people correctly observe that certain groups are all enemies, and conclude we have to hang them all, or give them all helicopter rides to the Pacific.

That is a lot of helicopter rides.

Does not follow.  A lot of these people are Havel’s Greengrocer, and will chant the new slogans as mindlessly as they chant the old, without even noticing that the slogans have changed.

In the English restoration, people in politically sensitive jobs – preachers, university professors, etc, were invited to reapply for jobs similar to the jobs that they had before the restoration, at similar pay, but these offers were conditional on “conformity”.  So in the job interview, one had to display the same enthusiasm for the new political correctness as for the old, and most announced that they had always believed what they now believed in the post restoration job interview, despite the fact that in their pre restoration job they had had to enthusiastically display the opposite beliefs.

Seems to me that the English restoration was a huge success.  It eventually, after a long time, came apart, as all things come apart, but this was not due to any failure in the early purges.  It was failure to continue the early purges.  They stopped monitoring people in politically sensitive jobs for apostasy.

William Wilberforce should have been enslaved for apostacy and sold to cut sugar cane in the Caribbean, and if that had been done to him and the entire Clapham church, all of them that were in politically sensitive jobs, the British Empire would still be doing fine.

The dangerous ones are not Havel’s Greengrocer.  The dangerous ones are the ones who sincerely and strongly believe one thing, and conspire with other people believing that thing, while pro forma saying they believe a different thing – entryists.  You need an organization to watch for entryists in governmental and quasi governmental jobs (banking, universities, foundations, ngos, and major media), an inquisition, which takes stern measures against them, but you don’t want to put Havel’s Greengrocer through the inquisition.

The policy of the Spanish Inquisition was that if people said they believed what they were supposed to believe, and superficially acted as if they believed it, they were fine.  The Spanish inquisition did not torture people till they confessed.  It tortured people till they stopped confessing.  If someone was obviously practicing and advocating different religion, while claiming to adhere to the official religion, they would make him confess his “error”, confess that he was supposedly a sincere adherent of the official religion who had supposedly mistaken and misunderstood the beliefs and practices of the official religion, and give him a moderate punishment for his “error”, the purpose and the effect being primarily to make apostasy low status and economically unrewarding.  Unrepentant heretics, people who boldly claimed to be holier than the inquisition, they burned at the stake, but when you were in the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, it was mighty hard to stay unrepentant.  They knew that actually burning a heretic was a big win for heresy, so sought to avoid it as far as possible.

The Inquisition depicted in Warhammer 40 000 is very popular on the alt right, but the fictional Warhammer 40 000 Inquisition, unlike the Spanish Inquisition, is apt to arbitrarily torture and execute heretics without due process.  We need to be very careful to torture and execute the correct people.  No torturing Havel’s Greengrocer  (even if he is Jewish)!  Even if we don’t care about groceries, still a win for heretics.

There will be war

September 8th, 2016

Politics is about who whom.  Politics is tribalism and sectarianism.  The question is simple.  Who’s side are these guys on?  What tribe to they favor grabbing all the loot, and what tribe to they plan to destroy?  Ferguson burning is real politics, not ethanol subsidies.  Milwaukee burning is real politics. The violence that followed Trump’s cancelled Chicago rally is real politics.  Politics is the destruction of your enemies, the burning of their homes, the seizure of their women.

Politics is to defeat your enemies, to drive them before you, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears.  If you are not ethnically cleansing Ferguson, and Milwaukee or resisting the ethnic cleansing of Ferguson and Milwaukee, it is not politics.  If you are not dumping weeping anchor babies over the border, it is not politics.

And if the other side is engaged in politics, and you are not engaged in politics, you lose.

Rotherham was the women of one voter group being forcibly emancipated, and then forcibly unemancipated to the benefit of another voter group.  Similar operations are taking place conspicuously and spectacularly in Sweden and Germany.   That is politics.

Politics is not abortion.  Politics is who gets control of women’s sexual and reproductive services.  Emancipation is not natural for women, and if one group’s women are emancipated, they will be taken by another group, and will be mighty glad of it.

Politics is ethnic cleansing and seizing the women of your enemies, politics is about land and women, and it has been about land and women ever since the wealthy and successful were driven out of the American inner city and lost their inner city properties.

If you are not destroying your enemies and securing land and women for your supporters, you are not engaged in politics.  The left is engaged in politics, mainstream conservatives are not.

For a conservative party to exist, it must unite to protect those that commit sacrilege against PC, in the same way it now unites to destroy them.  This requires them to reward their friends and punish their enemies, in the same way that they now reward their enemies and punish their friends.

For democracy to exist without massacre, pogroms, arson, and ethnic cleansing, requires very high levels of social cohesion and trust that we no longer possess, and that our government has been systematically destroying.  Diversity plus proximity means war.  If white males start nakedly pursuing their own interests the way that every other interest group does, it is going to be war.  If they don’t, genocide.

War is easy, peace is hard.  Governments everywhere have forgotten how easy war is, how difficult peace is, and gleefully throw jet fuel on the fire.  The natural state of mankind is war. Peace requires a high level of trust, cooperation, and well functioning social technology, all of which are being enthusiastically dismantled.  Peace is an elaborate machine with many moving parts, all of which have to work together correctly.

The anglosphere has been internally peaceful since the Mormon War and the War of Northern Aggression, so we think internal peace is natural.  This, however, is survivorship bias.  The anglosphere rules the world because of long internal peace.  But peace is not natural.  Peace is hard.  Ever since the wealthy and successful were driven out of the inner cities, we have been on a trajectory to where politics gets serious.

Hillary’s illness

September 6th, 2016

The most notable symptom of her illness is the need for frequent and lengthy “naps”, often at inconvenient times that play hell with her schedule.  This sounds like alcoholism, since Parkinsons is bad all the time, while getting drunk comes and goes.

Both alcoholism and Parkinsons can cause coughing fits, but by and large, when you get coughing fits in Parkinsons you are pretty far gone and cannot pass for normal even superficially, whereas alcoholics with coughing fits pass for normal except that they get drunk at times that are socially inappropriate or inconvenient for their careers.

Alcoholic coughing fits tend to be associated taking high proof shots.  If you get drunk on wine, no problem, or at least no coughing problem.

During her most recent coughing fit she was stressing her throat by shouting into a microphone. Getting coughing fits while shouting is not all that odd.  If I took a few too many shots of high proof moonshine and then started shouting I would probably cough also, not really a sign of anything seriously wrong, (though the fact that she could not stop coughing but had to be hustled away is a sign of something seriously wrong) but why shout?  Just hold the microphone a little closer, or do as everyone does while singing or videoconferencing, have a headset that holds the microphone just beside your lips.

That she was shouting into the microphone suggests she was having speech difficulties, which she disguised by shouting.  If she was not shouting, would probably be slurring her words drunkenly.

Shouting worsens the common perception of her, that she is an angry nagging scold, a social justice warrior, the wicked witch of the west wing.  Women should not shout, and men should shout infrequently.

A white woman’s chance of getting married

September 4th, 2016

tl;dr If you are white woman who is thirty or over, and not already married or in a relationship resembling marriage, your chances are slim. You are washed up, you are left on the shelf, you are past your sell by date.

This is my analysis of Dalrock’s data.

If white men had their way, and women did not have their way, most women would get married between fourteen and seventeen, and men would get married as soon as they could afford to support a wife and children. We know that is what would happen, because when white men had all the power, when men got their way, that is what did happen, for women of the affluent class.

If women had their way, and men did not have their way, women would spend thirty years from age ten to age forty sexing a long succession of wealthy charismatic socially skilled alpha males with big tools, then get married and have children using IVF and their eggs that they froze in their late twenties. We know that because there is a pile of highly emancipated women with highly successful careers in front of the fertility clinic, only without the husbands.

If you are a woman approaching thirty, and you are nagging your husband, bitching at him, interrupting him, speaking disrespectfully of him, or refusing him sex: Repent now.

There is a lot of divorce porn around in which a not very attractive woman ditches her boring unexciting husband, and then lands a six foot eight inch tall highly athletic billionaire. File that with ones where she marries an immortal vampire or gets abducted by pirates, sold into the Sultan’s harem, and becomes the Sultan’s favorite. The author of “Eat Pray Love” attempted to carry out her novel in real life. Wound up marrying a man in need of a green card, much older and poorer than her ex, who dumped her shortly after his green card came through. And if you are a woman approaching thirty that is what will happen to you if you don’t let your husband get a word in sideways. He probably will not leave you, but if you don’t treat him respect, you will wind up making the extremely bad decision of leaving him. Much as so often sex “just happened” even though you were not really planning on it and it was a really bad idea, divorce also “just happens”. Women inherently lack agency, and really bad decisions just keep “just happening”.

Let us reflect on what happened to the notorious reality television shrew Kate Gosselin. She harassed, humiliated, and scolded her husband day and night on reality television, while he cared for their eight children and held down a job, then she frivolously divorced him, excluded him from his children’s lives, demonized him to his children, and obsessively brings lawsuits against him for all manner of silly things, making it impossible for him to own any property or accumulate any assets, and destroying her own assets in high and frivolous legal costs.  Now she is permasingle while he has a girlfriend ten years younger than himself and his ex wife.  The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  You can tell that Jon Gosselin no longer loves Kate Gosselin, but Kate Gosselin is still very much in love with Jon Gosselin, for Kate hates Jon to the point of madness.  If a woman divorces at age thirty or close to it, she is apt to wind up like Kate Gosselin, while Jon Gosselin winds up with stalkers.

Men in their forties, fifties, and sixties routinely marry women much younger than themselves. Women in their thirties usually don’t marry men their own age, or indeed men of any age. Men past thirty usually will not marry women near their own age. They usually marry considerably younger women, or just do not get married at all.

I am a recent widower. I loved and cared for my wife all her days, even though during our last years she was terribly ill. And various women near my wife’s age, women in their sixties and late fifies, think to themselves “He loved his wife. Why should he not love me?”

Well it does not work like that. When a man loves a woman, he loves a young cute woman, and if she does not screw up, he gets wife goggles, and loves her all her days. But a man is just not going come to love an elderly woman. That is just how we are made.  Which means that when a girl past twenty five or so switches lovers, every time she switches, she will discover her marriage market value has fallen, fallen significantly and substantially.  And at age thirty, she still has substantial sexual market value, as a booty call girl, or a friend with benefits, but her marriage market value is likely to be zero.  Hence, when a woman is pushing thirty, probably not a good idea for her to act like the kind of girl who is going to divorce her husband, even if she still has lots of booty calls from rich charismatic men with big swinging tools, since such actions are apt to take on a life of their own.

Very few men are going to marry a women in her forties, even if the alternative is porn, whiskey and whores, but thirties is negotiable. It is a market price. How young a woman can a man get, so that he can ignore all the women older than that, how old can a woman dance on the cock carousel before she is left on the shelf and beyond her sell by date?  If all women panic at age x, a sensible man will insist on a woman a little bit younger than x.  The alternative for him is not porn, whiskey, and whores.   So a man should figure out the age at which all women panic, and marry a woman younger than that, a woman should figure out the age at which all women panic, and panic just before the rest of them.

Analyzing Dalrock’s data looks to me like not so much a marriage strike by men, but the age at which women should panic, and men can afford to ignore them because they can get someone younger, has been falling.  It was probable that before 2001, a woman was past her sell-by date at thirty two or so.   Then in 2007, past her sell by date at thirty or so.  Not a huge change in the age of panic, but the panic has been driven by a huge change in the number of women permanently left on the shelf.  Before 2001 the rise in the number of unmarried people was driven by a continual rise in the age at which women got married, driven by women choosing to marry later and later, a deal becoming ever more favorable for women, as they spent more and more years cavorting on the cock carousel from ten to forty, and ever less favorable for men, as their wives brought ever less youth, beauty, and chastity to the deal.  Now the deal is turning to be slightly less unfavorable for men, which means that the continuing rise in the number of unmarried people is a rise in the number of people who are never going to get married, ever.

Since the number of never-will-be-married people continues to increase, the age at which women should panic, the last minute at which men get picky and women get desperate, will continue to decrease, probably going to go all the way down to twenty five or so.