Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Hitting your woman with a stick

Saturday, 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.

The puritan hypothesis in short

Tuesday, 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.

A white woman’s chance of getting married

Sunday, 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.

Civilization and dysgenesis

Tuesday, 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

Sunday, 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

Sunday, 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

Friday, 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.

Mean, median, and chastity enforcement.

Wednesday, 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.

Fertility and corporal punishment

Sunday, 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.

The next big thing in progressivism

Saturday, July 30th, 2016

Recently there was ass bandits. Then there was transgender.

For a while it looked liked the next big thing would be pedophobia – the “anti bullying” campaign sought to protect pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who had physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males from being “bullied” and sought to normalize pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who have physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males.

But no, it is clear that the next big thing is not pedophobia but killing white heterosexual males.

Ann Coulter reminds us:

as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.

In this regard, I notice that six of the nine “Mothers of the Movement” have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.

Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?