Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

How to not be offensive

Wednesday, October 19th, 2016


Why women get tattooed

Sunday, October 16th, 2016

In general female behavior is not explicable in terms of rational pursuit of goals, but as innate reactions to stimuli, at least in anything pertaining to sex and reproduction.

And most things do pertain to sex and reproduction, at least until they hit menopause.

Thus, to explain a female’s behavior, one does not ask “what do woman want” but rather “how would this reaction to stimuli have affected reproductive success in the ancestral environment?”

It is obvious and well known that tattoos uglify women, which has a direct and substantial harmful effect on their lives and reproductive success. So, why?

Well, I can report the reason in one case. The one women where I was around when she made the decision to get tattoos initially wanted to get tattooed as a shit test. Her motivation was to test if I was strong enough to stop her from doing stupid self destructive things. Which I was. And then eventually I dumped her. After I dumped her she proceeded to do a pile of stupid self destructive things while somehow going to considerable lengths to involve me in them. The message being “see, without you to care for me and protect me from myself, I will do stupid self destructive things.”

Well, that is one case, and maybe it does not generalize, but this is the case where I know the reason why a woman got tattooed.

On the current path

Monday, October 10th, 2016

If you teach your elite to hate western civilization, whites, and modern technology, you are not going to have any of them for very much longer.

It looks rather as if 99% of western peoples are going to perish from this earth. The survivors will be oddball types, subscribers to reactionary and rather silly religions in barren edge regions like Alaska.

Recent events in Syria suggest that the Russian capability for air warfare is substantially more technologically advanced than that of the US – Russians are acting as if they think it is, and Americans are also acting as if they think it is, though no one will know for sure unless war ensues. Maybe Russians are bluffing, but when civilizations decline, it is normal for the center to decline first, while the periphery keeps going for a little bit longer. That American spacecraft rely on Russian plutonium, and that for a while America relied on Russian transport to the space station suggests that technological decline has hit America harder than Russia, is consistent with Russian air superiority over Syria.

Chinese GDP now substantially exceeds that of America.

Singapore is a trap. Smart people go to Singapore, they don’t reproduce. People illegally hiding out in the wilds of Chernobyl do reproduce. But Chernobyl is also a trap. People there turn into primitives.

The west conquered the world and launched the scientific and industrial revolutions starting with restoration England conquering the world and launching the scientific and industrial revolutions.

The key actions of the Restoration were making the invisible college into the Royal society – that is to say, making the scientific method, as distinct from official science, high status, and authorizing the East India company to make war and peace – making corporate capitalism high status. Divorce was abolished, and marriage was made strictly religious, enforcing patriarchy socially and legally, thus encouraging reproduction.

Everywhere in the world, capitalism is deemed evil, the scientific method is demonized and is low status, and easy divorce and high female status inhibits reproduction. If women get to choose, they will choose to have sex with a tiny minority of top males and postpone marriage to the last minute – and frequently to after the last minute. (“Top” males in this context meaning not necessarily the guy in the corner office, but rather tattooed low IQ thugs)

We need a society that is pro science, pro technology, pro capitalism, which restricts female sexual choice to males that contribute positively to this society, and which makes it safe for males to marry and father children. Not seeing that society anywhere, and those few places that approximate some few aspects of this ideal are distinctly nonwhite.

It is sometimes argued that the Restoration did not last long, that the Glorious Revolution put Whigs and Whig doctrine in power and ended divine right. Which version of history has Whigs presiding over the triumph of the West.


But for a hundred and twenty years, any Whig that said the Glorious Revolution was Lockean was apt to find himself in exile.

Divine right was still going strong when George declared that God had appointed him regent, though this unleashed a firestorm against him and all the Georges similar to that against Trump today.

Indeed, the doctrine that women are pure and chaste, and that therefore men are always in the wrong, which is currently being used to attack Trump, was originally deployed to attack King George, in much the same style, deploying much the same rationales. The entire Victorian era can be thought of as weaponizing the sainthood of women against that horrid alpha male, King George. To this day Queen Caroline is still sainted, and to this day they either deny that George was Regent, which makes it a bit odd that there is an entire period of art, science, and architecture known as “Regency”, or else they say he was “appointed” regent, passive tense, without, however, saying who appointed him. They are still to this day in shock that divine right was live and effective for King George.

Corporate Capitalism lasted about as long as divine right lasted. Aristocratic control of the army lasted a little longer, to the Crimean war. It is hard to say when patriarchy ended, but the sainthood of women logically implied an attack on patriarchy. If women are naturally virtuous, there is no need to coerce women to obey their marriage vows, only men. So all coercion against women was an unprincipled exception, albeit in much of the world that unprincipled exception lasted all the way to 1972. The Scientific Method, enforced and upheld by the Royal Society, lasted all the way to end of World War II.

One could argue that Whiggism was victorious in 1788, when the Whigs successfully prosecuted a revolution on the principle that all men were created equal – while refraining from suggesting that women were created equal, and kind of avoiding the issue of whether blacks were created equal, but I would not count the triumph of Whiggism in America till the war of Northern Aggression. Whiggism was victorious and triumphant in some American states starting 1788, but not in all.

The sainthood of that whore, Florence Nightingale, was part of policy of demonizing the warriors who actually fought the war, and led to a policy of logistics being carried out by high status people classified as soldiers, rather than low status people classified as camp followers acting under the supervision of regimental commanders and lower, acting under the supervision of officers who were expected to actually fight in person. This reorganization of military supply put warriors under bureaucrats, thus dramatically lowering the authority of warriors within the military. This eventually gave us today’s British army, which has two hundred generals none of whom have heard a shot fired in anger, but which can only put two hundred actual fighting men on the field of battle to combat their enemies.

The argument was that there were a lot of dismal failures of logistics during the Crimean war, but in fact it is not obvious that transferring power over feeding and clothing soldiers from those close to the soldiers being fed and clothed, to those in the capital, has led to an improvement.

The greatness of the west derives from patriarchy, science, and capitalism, which in turn derived from the divine right of Kings, the established state church, and the supremacy of King over Church, for all of these were established or greatly reinforced in the restoration of 1660, and fell apart after divine right came under sustained and venomous attack in the nineteenth century.

Maybe we still have corporate capitalism, but in the nineteenth century the state took the guns away from corporate capitalists.

Saying “Things went wrong on date X” is misleading, because entropy is constantly increasing while efforts to clean up the mess and expel entropy are sporadic, but things suddenly got a whole lot better in the big clean up of the restoration, and things started going to hell a whole lot faster after they sainted women in order to demonize King George.

While Pol is always right about Jews, the trouble with Jew centric theory is that it prescribes nazism, which is just a return to nineteen thirties leftism from twentieth century leftism. Any real fix is necessarily going to resemble the restoration, which makes puritan centric theory more applicable. And if we look at the carpetbaggers sent to rob the Ukraine, they did not come from the vicinity of Jerusalem, but from the vicinity of Harvard, the headquarters and seminary of the State Church of Massachusetts.

To keep organizational entropy under control you need one man in charge. And then the entropy grows in those parts of the state that he has trouble controlling. The decay of our civilization is priest led and priest caused, (defining priests broadly to include the professoriat and similar). So, when there was a state church under a divine right king, that king could, and often enough did, expel the entropy – frequently by encouraging problem priests to emigrate, often to America. Would have worked considerably better if England had had an inquisition, to make sure that those professing adherence to the Church of England were actually adhering to it, rather than actively subverting it. And if he had expelled the offenders to cut sugar cane in the tropical sun, rather than to America.

With the death of God, hard to manage a divine right King. Somehow I doubt that Moldbug’s crypto locks would do as effective a job as God did.

Maybe there is some other solution to installing science, the scientific method, corporate capitalism, and patriarchy, and preventing the growth of entropy within the organs of the state. But the method that mostly worked from 1660 to the early nineteenth century was divine right monarchy ruling over a church and state united.

Corporations are often effective in controlling entropy within the organization, because the CEO has plenary power. But we are not yet seeing any well run corporate states.

As the current election campaign demonstrates, America today is rather close to being church and state united, but with no one man in charge, and no inquisition, we get holiness spirals and phariseeism. Free lance witch finders always manage to drum up business more efficiently than state sponsored witch finders.

The usual way these things end is that one leftist makes himself supreme, makes it as dangerous to be to the left of him as to be to the right of him, and proceeds, like Cromwell and Stalin, to put some order into the system. And if you are lucky, he is eventually replaced by a rightist who, being a rightist, is able to put a whole lot more order into the system. On the other hand, a leftist singularity can go directly all the way into a dark age, or just kill pretty much everyone until outsiders take over.

Deus Vult

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

Spandrel observes that religion is our genes looking for a tribe to join, and concludes We shall drown, and nobody will save us

Alfa NL observes that Spandrel is very clever, but the natural law arguments for marriage, the family, for desiring the survival of our personal descendants are kind of chilling, and it is a lot easier say that marriage, property, and the survival of our descendents is the will of God, and that the purpose of organized religion is not to be a synthetic tribe in which the tribe secures the genetic survival of its members, but to help its members follow the will of God.  “God is a better sounding story than nihilism. I prefer the story of God. If that makes me a LARPer for holy status points in the eyes of Gnon’s guardian, so be it.”

Recall the wisdom of Heartiste, minion of Satan.  In human affairs, irrational optimism will get you your way, while rational pessimism will not.

God wills our survival.  We shall therefore win.  We shall defeat those such as Merkle that wish to take all of us quietly and comfortably with them to their graves.  We shall silence them and exile them forever from the seats of power.  We shall tear down their temples and make their temples and their prophets damnatio memoriae, so that like the Amalekites nothing remains but the condemnation, the erasure, and the memory of their wrongs.

Cathedral decision making

Monday, October 3rd, 2016

The president does not make decisions.  The presidency does not make decisions either, at least not in the sense that an individual, or a well run corporation makes decisions.

Rather, it is driven entropic forces, which tend over time tend to have certain outcomes, like a river slowly changing its course.  Thus we see the presidency gradually yielding on Aleppo.

If Xenophon, or Raffles, or Clive of India, or Atilla the Hun was running the show, he would decide whether to hold them, fold them, walk away or run.  What we see the American government doing is drifting and wobbling, and right now it is gradually drifting amorphously and slowly towards abandoning its long held plans for regime change in Syria.  By and large, the decisions of the presidency have no clear motive, no clear objective, and are not well modeled as decisions by a self interested individual.  When IBM does X, it is generally because the CEO has decided that X would be profitable.  When the presidency does something, it is the net outcome of a bunch of individuals each pursuing his particular self interest, each maximizing his particular microslice of power and his particular reputation for holiness, the net outcome of a great many individuals each with a tiny microslice of power each doing something that serves his particular interest, as a river changes its course as the net outcome of the drift of many tiny grains of sand. There are no elders of Zion, or if there are, they don’t care what happens to Zion.

If Clive was running the Aleppo operation, he would fight, or run, or cut a deal with Russia.  But the presidency is incapable of cutting a deal with Russia over Aleppo because, as the Russians have discovered, it is “not agreement capable”, a term generally used for failed states.  The American negotiators may agree with Russia that America will do X in return for Russia doing Y, but then X does not happen, not so much because anyone in America made a conscious decision to double cross the Russians, but because there is in fact no real chain of command connecting the negotiators with people who might have the ability to make X happen.  So the presidency neither fights, nor runs, nor cuts a deal.  Today it is drifting slowly in the general direction of running.

The amorphous, erratic, unpredictable, and uncontrollable drift of the presidency on matters of war and peace contrasts dramatically with Harvard’s ability to decisively and abruptly make decisions on matters of faith and morals, for example global warming or second hand smoke.  One day every academic everywhere in the entire western world believes X.  The next day, every academic everywhere in the entire western world believes Y, and not only believes Y, but has always believed Y, and has absolutely no recollection than anyone anywhere ever believed X, except perhaps a few ignorant bible thumping racist loons in the wilds of Appalachia or the marshes of Florida.

Women prefer men with the stones to rape them

Saturday, October 1st, 2016

Left wing activist hot heterosexual chick with no apparent boyfriend works as refugee aid activist.  Predictably gets robbed and gang raped.  Predictably continues to work as refugee aid activist and blames German racism.

Why, you may ask, does a hot chick have no boyfriend?  Well in my experience it is extremely common for way hot chicks to have no boyfriend because they are on booty calls to guys who are, by the rather strange and hard to understand female measurement of status, higher status than they are.

This post is intended to hint she was quite likely cruising for a gang bang, and quite likely still cruising for another.  Of course I have absolutely no direct evidence that she was cruising for a gang bang.  For all I know she might have been a pure minded virgin with unfortunate naive misconceptions about refugee behavior.

But I do have direct evidence from personal experience that cruising for a gang bang from males that are low status in the ostensible male hierarchy is alarmingly common behavior among hot chicks, and of course all us with any significant contact with women know from direct personal experience that most women are unimpressed by the ostensible male hierarchy.

Indeed one of the primary functions of patriarchy is to overrule female choice so that pussy goes to males who are high status in the ostensible male hierarchy, rather than high status in the disturbing and hard to fathom way that women perceive status – so that pussy goes to high IQ prosocial, well behaved, brave and hard working males, rather than to the Jack Dawson character in the film “Titanic” – an unsuccessful musician with no apparent means of support, whose numerous real life equivalents live mostly by sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.

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.