Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed

Hence the collapsing birth rate.

Fitness tests:

A fitness test is usually applied by a woman to a particular man she is thinking she might like in her pussy. When applied in this manner, a fitness test is what pickup artists call a shit test.

For example, suppose one schedules to meet a girl at ten in the morning. One is planning an all day first date with a variety of activities, since one hopes for a first date lay. She is late. A little after ten in the morning she messages one saying she will be there around eleven, twelve, or so. If one says “sure, I will wait for you baby”, one will wait and wait for she is not going to turn up at all. If one says “forget it”, departs the agreed meeting place without looking back or looking around, (she is likely not late at all, but stalking and watching) does not return when she promptly responds that she has arrived (swift forgiveness of drama leads immediately to more drama, not sex), and then goes silent for a few days, then soon she will be pestering one for a date. See the wise and great, Heartiste, minion of Satan, for a lengthy elucidation of shit tests.

Women cannot help shit testing men any more than men can help looking at women’s breasts. This is instinctive and unconscious. They genuinely believe their postures, attitudes, and demands are sincere, genuine, and deeply felt, like a four year old’s temper tantrum, and are entirely unaware that when their bluff is called, they will fold like cheap cardboard, and feel a deep relief, like a child in her father’s arms.

Emancipation of women leads to population collapse:

To reproduce it is necessary that a man and a woman form one household, one flesh. Sharing kids between two households is often tried these days, with results that are uniformly horrifying. One household must have one captain, and that captain the man, for women by their nature will not have sex with kitchen men.

And to reproduce, it is necessary that they are stuck in this arrangement.

If it depends on moment to moment consent, then we have prisoner’s dilemma. Women cuckold their men, and men spin plates. We get tit for tat defection. Tit for tat can only produce good results in iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and with reproduction, there are not many iterations.

Thus, for successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage.

Emancipation of women leads to the welfare state, marriage to state, low IQ women having eighteen thuglets by eighteen different thugs, high IQ women having cats in place of babies.

The late nineteenth century, Victorianism, demonstrated that emancipated women without the welfare state means a whole lot of women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain to a fatherless child.

Victorianism was an effort to control this problem by dialing up censorious sexual moralizing to eleven, while simultaneously denying fathers the power to control their daughters and husbands the power to control their wives. Dialing up the sexual moralizing failed, and failed spectacularly. Recall Florence Nightingale’s wealthy gentleman friends, and Queen Caroline attending a ball naked from the waist up, and going back to her hotel with a man she picked up at the ball. Both of them needed a good whipping. No amount of pious moralizing will substitute for a father or a husband equipped with a stick no thicker than a woman’s thumb. Victorianism failed, and failed hilariously badly.

If you give women freedom of choice, a great many women make such terrible choices that men have little alternative but to pay for women’s choices. If you emancipate women to make their own decisions, you have to pay for their decisions, have to have a welfare state, because their decisions are frequently so bad. This profoundly impairs the freedom of men, that they have to pay for bad choices that they have no power over and receive no benefit from. Some thug knocks up some idiot, and the man with a job has to support another man’s child and a woman who is not giving him sex and domestic service.

This is pretty much what “Les Misérables” was about. “Les Misérables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women. And indeed that is true, if you reject the obvious alternative of coercively, involuntarily, and forcibly subordinating criminal men and immoral women to good men, of enslaving bad men and shotgun marrying independent fertile age women.

Since we don’t want to pay for eighteen thuglets, and we don’t want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain, we have to keep women under male authority that supervises and restrains their sexual choices.

The eighteenth century system of guardianship was in large part a system for coercively marrying off young women who would have otherwise become independent women of property. They were generally married off to their guardian, or their guardian’s son. Guardian/ward marriages were the normal outcome of guardianship, and though theoretically consensual were usually clearly involuntary or the result of rather forceful manipulation. When the ward was taken into the guardian’s family at a very early age she was usually married off to a family closely related to their guardian’s family as soon as they came of age, to avoid psychological incest. Psychologically incestuous marriages between guardian and ward, in effect adopting a child with the intent of marriage at puberty, were not illegal but were subject to social disapproval, immoral but legal. Though legal, seem to have been extremely rare. If it was necessary to raise a female ward from an early age, she was raised in a household separate from her intended husband and transferred to her intended husband’s household at puberty.

Our society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children as sex slaves, so we should not get agitated about eighteenth century guardians, who had to marry their wards for life in order to have sex with them and to keep charge of their ward’s property and dowries.

It is not clear what happened to poor independent young women, but somehow, in the eighteenth century, there do not seem to have been many poor independent women, so I suppose that something was done.

What was done with convict women in the early days of Australian settlement gives us a hint as to what was done with poor independent women in eighteenth century England.

When the convict ships landed in Australia, the convict women, now far away from family restraints, and free to mingle with men, acted like it was spring break in Cancun or Woodstock Revival. None of these women were there because of convictions for prostitution, and though they all acted like whores in eighteenth century meaning of the term, they don’t seem to have been selling sex, rather the reverse. The popular stereotype of a transported woman was a servant girl who stole something from her employer to give to her unreliable bad boy lover, who showed up at infrequent and unpredictable intervals to rough her up, have sex with her, and take her stuff. These days we longer call such women whores, because all women are like that, except for those few who have chosen to submit themselves for life to the firm hand of a strong man who is better than that.

If you read secondary and derived sources about the convict women in Australia they all invariably depict them as poor pitiful victims who were cruelly coerced into having casual sex by economic pressure or rape. This nineteenth and twentieth century account flatly, directly, and blatantly contradict what the primary sources and contemporary sources that they supposedly draw upon depict. What primary and contemporary sources all uniformly and consistently depict is Woodstock Revival and spring break on the shores of Port Jackson: Girls Gone Wild: “their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”. We don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until twenty years into the nineteenth century, three decades after settlement began – which is to say we don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until the coercion to impose monogamy was considerably reduced.

There is no contemporary report of convict women being forced into casual sex or paid for casual sex. What they do however report is women being forced, often by disturbingly severe violence, into monogamous sex, but resisting that coercion with amusing vigor and flair.

To solve the problem of spring break on the shores of Port Jackson, the authorities would frequently line up newly arrived female convicts in front of the female factory, and bring a bunch of preapproved males to marry them. Each male, on seeing a female he liked, would drop a small gift at her feet. If she picked it up, they were married (even if the female convict was already married to someone else in England). Any girl left over after every male had walked past was forcibly assigned to some male for seven years as servant and concubine, so it was advisable to pick up one of the gifts.

Upon arrival female convicts had to make a hurried choice between monogamous durable consensual marriage, or monogamous durable non consensual concubinage. Thus, for example, most, probably all, of the females that arrived on the Brittania in 1798 were either immediately married, married within a few weeks, or assigned to men to whom they subsequently bore children. They were swiftly taken out of circulation one way or another way. In some cases, many cases, they were taken out of circulation coercively by assignment. In the other cases, they voluntarily took themselves out of circulation with a swiftness that indicates very forceful pressure. Earlier and later convict women mostly got married in a less hurried manner, but they got married fast enough to suggest that pressure was applied case by case, and/or that they were shotgun married upon getting pregnant, but not shotgun married shortly after showing up on the docks like the girls of the Brittanica and other ships arriving around that time.

The first batch of convict women tended to produce children of uncertain paternity in brief and transitory relationships. Women off the Brittanica, who were swiftly married or assigned, generally produced children of known paternity in durable relationships, often durable relationships of assignment that they were forced into with open and unambiguous coercion, suggesting a harsh crackdown against immoral relationships and in favor of monogamy at about this time.

I would guess that what happened to poor independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England was something intermediate between what happened to rich independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England, and what happened to fertile age convict women on the shore of eighteenth century Port Jackson but I have no data supporting this conjecture, other than that eighteenth century England, unlike Victorian England, did not much resemble spring break in Cancun.

While the nineteenty century theory was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could safely be discarded, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex, and the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, or else married to a husband who had the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in extra marital sex. Eighteenth century people believed that fertile age women urgently needed sex, and if prevented from getting some were apt to take alarmingly drastic measures or go into hysterics, while from the mid nineteenth century to the present, people seem to think that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men. The nineteenth century treatment for hysteria reflects the realistic but unmentionable eighteenth century belief as to what caused it.

Harem formation


If female choice is unrestrained, twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the pussy. But they don’t get it in any stable way. A girl spends a few months as number three on some man’s booty call list, then realizes she has little chance of making it to number two, so gets herself a position on some other man’s booty call list. So nobody gets to reproduce, whereas in old fashioned harems formed by male power, rather than female power, she would be stuck in one man’s harem, so she and that man would get to reproduce.

Harem formation, whether the result of female control of sex, or a few powerful men controlling sex, has a detrimental effect on the rapidly diminishing number of men in the society. Without access to pussy, they are disinclined to work or fight in defense of order, peace, and their society. Instead they hang out in mom’s basement.

Monogamy and chastity can be understood as socialism in pussy, the seizure of the means of reproduction by beta males.

The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering. So he price controls pussy down to something ordinary men can pay. Bride price shall be low or zero, women shall obey their husbands, not their fathers or their own whims. Price control causes a shortage, as always, so the King and the high priest introduce rationing. Only one pussy per customer.

This works if you have non consensual marriage, if marriage is handshake between the groom and the father of the bride, or between the father of the bride and the father of the groom. But what if you have, partially or wholly, romantic and consensual marriage? In which case the woman is likely to delay marriage hoping for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks until her eggs start to dry up.

So the high priest deems that going out on booty calls will result in eternal damnation. This, however, has curiously little effect. So the King and the high priest say that if daughter goes out on a booty call, the father is dishonored, and possibly punished. This works, assuming the King backs parental authority over daughters. Or the King could give all women the status of pets, and the high Priest switches marriage to being a handshake between the father and the groom. Or the King could give only misbehaving women the status of pets, and have consensual romantic marriage normal and normative, but only normal and normative for virtuous women, which is to say virginal women, or women plausibly presumed virginal, under paternal supervision. (Which is of course the solution that I favor.)

This is not necessarily a literal account of the origins of monogamy, rather I have personified the motives leading to monogamy as the motives of individual powerful people.

Most societies seem to have used, somewhat inconsistently, hypocritically, and irregularly, a mixture of these tactics, with marriage being mostly consensual and romantic, but female choice severely constrained by the authority of the father and pressure to get married, particularly severe pressure to get married in the event of illicit sexual activity or illegitimate pregnancy.

167 Responses to “Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed”

  1. Anonymous Coward says:

    This post has a lot in common with a book I’m currently reading: Sex and Culture, by Unwin. Unwin shows that across various societies the level of energy and progress is highly correlated with the amount of sexual restraint imposed on women before and after marriage.

    Here’s a link to an online scan of it: https://archive.org/details/b20442580

    and an article that discusses it: http://www.thesocialleader.com/2013/04/society-sex-god/

    • jim says:

      I would say that Udwin’s “expansive energy” is not a mysterious Freudian psychic force. Rather it is members of the elite having lots of legitimate sons and looking to find elite jobs for them.

    • peppermint says:

      do you allocate your work-units towards seeking puxxy and mate guarding, or towards building up your children?

      If there’s puxxy to be had and you must guard your mates, you do what you have to.

      If there’s no puxxy to be had and mates don’t need to be guarded, you do what you have to.

      Even dirt niggers from the jungle will marry and work if Whites are in control.

  2. Jack says:

    >If female choice is unrestrained, twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the pussy.

    Absolutely false. From my own observation, it is much more like 65% of males getting 90% of the pussy. This is not to imply that those celibate 35% of males don’t deserve getting their share of vaginal enfoldment or that those celibate 10% of pussies shouldn’t be filled with penile muscle, but let’s not get carried away with the Manospherean propaganda, shall we? It’s not that a large majority of men don’t get pussy as your estimation suggests, rather, it’s that a small majority (between 50 and 70 percent) of penises occupy the overwhelming vast majority of pussies.

    In an ideal society all men and women are moral and therefore all men and women are in monogamous marriages; since society ain’t ideal whatsoever, many low value males and a few low value females are celibate, unfortunately, it’s not the anti-social cretins who suffer blue balls due to being rendered low value by the be-pussied ones, it’s the shy nervous gentle men who suffer blue balls due to being rendered low value by the be-pussied ones, so society is set on a dysgenic course, an accelerating dysgenic course, a dysgenic singularity if you will.

    >Or the King could give only misbehaving women the status of pets, and have consensual romantic marriage normal and normative, but only normal and normative for virtuous women, which is to say virginal women, or women plausibly presumed virginal, under paternal supervision. (Which is of course the solution that I favor.)

    The King should just sterilize the thug-fuckers and the thugs themselves, it’s not like he’s gonna incetivize the thug-fuckers and the thugs to become productive citizens by compelling them to monogamy, it’s better if they have sporadic sex rather than constant stable sex, thus fewer descendants, and resources proportionally scarcer than those at the disposal of the productive citizens to supply and bequeath to those proportionally fewer descendants, thus diminished survival and reproduction prospects for those descendants; and it’s better to erase them from the gene pool altogether so that after some generations you have a fully monogamous society composed of moral, productive citizens.

    Better still, the King should execute, orderly and transparently, the thug-fuckers and the thugs, which wouldn’t result in an overabundance of carcasses since most males are no thugs and most females do not wrap their pussies around gangsta cock, notwithstanding the fact that, deplorably, they do indeed, for the most part at the very least, moisten when the female mind reflects upon those gangsta cocks and the gangstas groinally attached to them.

    This ultimately-final solution to the socially-disruptive elements of society really couldn’t be more obvious and apt. Kill all dem gangstas and, just as importantly, dem gangsta-embracing females.

    • Seamus says:

      Jack, its not propaganda.

      It can be proven empirically that women are exceptionally hypergamous.

      http://lookism.net/Thread-80-20-RULE-CONFIRMED-on-TINDER-Study-FINALLY-done

      • Jack says:

        Get serious. I don’t give no crap about “immediate attraction” or “one-night stands”, this isn’t a degenerate PUA discussion, so bringing up Tinder here is just asinine. What interests me and is pertinent to the discussion we’re having is actual statistical long-term sexlessness, which for males is much closer to 35% than to 80%. You don’t seriously argue that 80% of males are sexless, do you?

        • Remo says:

          There are some people that cannot be convinced via evidence no matter what evidence is shown to them or how reliable and trustworthy is said evidence. These people “feel” rather than think and they are what are commonly known as fools, idiots, or sheeple, and they are easily manipulated into doing and supporting stupid things. It is via these people that communism and fascism flourished. These morons simply do not believe and will not believe until the showers come on and people start dying which then changes their feelings albeit to late.

          So you Seamus arguing with idiots like Jack above who is obviously too stupid to list any evidence that isn’t anecdotal is pointless. You can’t fix stupid, you just can’t. Jack is a moron and he’s going to believe stupid things until a crowd of like minded idiots changes their feelings for reasons totally unrelated to actual evidence.

          • peppermint says:

            Seamus: 80-20! Parroto! Polly want a cracker!

            Jack: let’s talk about statistical evidence regarding long-term voluntary or involuntary celibacy

            Remo: blah blah sheeple blah blah holohoax blah blah these people don’t care about evidence and are easily manipulated with emotional appeals and sloganeering

    • peppermint says:

      You imply that being a thug or thug-fucker is fixed, as marxists imply that being a capitalist or a worker is fixed.

      If we incentivize people to choose good behavior, then more of them will choose good behavior. I know many thug-fuckers who wish they had husbands and many thugs who, while they say that they like their current polyamorous position, wouldn’t necessarily feel too bad about getting permanently attached to one of their thug-fuckers.

      Potential patterns of sexual behavior are deeply ingrained from ten thousand years of being White and a billion years of sexual reproduction. It will take many generations of sterilizing potentials thugs and thug-fuckers before you have an impact. The impact is likely to be to to make New Soviet Man less likely to pick a woman before being steady in his career, and New Soviet Woman more catty about having sex, because those behaviors already exist.

      Incidentally, how many muds kill White women because those White women say no and try to fight when a mud woman would make a token gesture of refusal, if that?

      The racial differences in attitudes towards sex must be considered, if only because they illuminate our ways.

  3. Alf says:

    Great synthesis on gender relations for the past centuries. ‘Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed’ – this is where we now stand in the early 21st century.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Alf”,

      There are some who see it as more of an issue of Republicanism than anything. Myself, for example.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • Alf says:

        AJP,

        Cancer can be seen as a local problem or a systemic problem. Both views are correct. The question is which view is more helpful to solve the problem. Right now I have little faith in politics so I stick to that which I know, which is more masculinity-oriented.

  4. Caprizchka says:

    Prostitution and borrowed concubinage from the pool of less-marriageable women (to include some of the hotties who are merely difficult to tame in the harem environment) are alternatives in terms of providing sex to beta men that ensure more reproduction by the fittest, and less reproduction by the less than fit, but everyone gets sex.

    Although of course this situation is less prone to serve the megalomaniacal monopolist utopianists in terms of aggressive population growth while men are essentially enslaved to the corporate/government employer via their chattel (the “traditionalist” 1950’s model).

    However it still provides a lot of motivation for production in terms of being able to afford the hottest prostitutes (or get a concubine loaner) while similarly incentivizing entrepreneuralism and innovation. Hence, the less-desirable choice for the megalomaniacal monopolist utopianist.

    The Industrial Age however was just too exciting in terms of fanning the ambitions of the Rockefellers of the world et al, and doubtless materialist and power-mongering females as well, with Hillary the logical sociological result.

    Terrific piece.

  5. Irving says:

    >The eighteenth century system of guardianship was in large part a system for coercively marrying off young women who would have otherwise become independent women of property. They were generally married off to their guardian, or their guardian’s son.

    Interestingly, this arrangement was already under attack in the seventeenth century, primarily in Moliere’s famous play, The School for Wives, which was first staged in 1662.

    In the play, there are two male guardians, one of whom wants to tie up the young woman under his custody until she is of age, so that he can marry her, and the other who is lenient with his young woman, so much so that he refuses to compel her into marriage, and lets her decide, when she is of age, whether she wants to marry him or no.

    Moliere’s argument throughout is that the more strict guardian is setting himself to get cucked. Moliere articulates his view on the matter through the women in the play, by making them constantly say that women cannot resist cucking a man who is too strict, or to put in our own terminology, who is excessively ‘patriarchal’. Eventually the strict guardian gets cucked and his dependent marries someone else.

    It goes without saying that Moliere was not Jewish….

    • Caprizchka says:

      Perhaps Moliere was hoping for a little action on the side from married wealthy female patrons by pandering to them.

    • jim says:

      My perception, contra Moliere, is that women rather like strictness. They like to feel the hand of ownership. In the ancestral environment, the woman who was firmly owned was the woman whose children were more likely to be cared for.

      Given that her guardian was looking after her and caring for her, compelling her to marry him is a pretty good indication he is planning to continue to care for her and look after her, so probably a good idea to get pregnant by him.

      Allowing her to make her own choice means planning to dump her, so probably not a good idea to get pregnant by him.

      Yes, I am sure the wards would say what Moliere has them say, but it is just a fitness test, not to be taken seriously, or even tolerated.

      • Irving says:

        Moliere was obviously wrong. It none the less remains quite shocking that this man would be making feminist arguments in objection to an example of patriarchy as early as 1662.

        Women should be treated (slightly) better than cattle, but their status must be the same as cattle, i.e. a men must own women in the same way as they own cattle. Otherwise, societal degeneration happens, and soon all is destroyed.

        • peppermint says:

          Your woman is not your cow, or your dog. Your woman is your companion. She is less loyal than your dog and can not be sold once she is done producing milk for your kids like your cow.

          At some point, female behavior needs to be understood directly, rather than through analogies. Evolutionary biology will take you there. Then you will understand that Hitler did nothing wrong.

          • Irving says:

            >Your woman is not your cow, or your dog.

            I didn’t say that she was. I just said that she must be owned in the same that cows and dogs are owned.

            > Your woman is your companion.

            The word “companion” implies equality, but men and women are not equal; men are superior to women and the law must recognize them as such.

            >She is less loyal than your dog

            And therefore worse than a dog!

            >and can not be sold once she is done producing milk for your kids like your cow.

            Under saner forms of societal organization, in which the inequality between men and women is taken for granted, and men are given legal ownership over women. And obviously if you own something or someone, you can sell that someone or something. I agree that men shouldn’t be allowed to buy and sell women at will, but certainly if a woman doesn’t behave, and isn’t amenable to reason, and is incorrigible, the man should not be forced to keep her.

            >Then you will understand that Hitler did nothing wrong.

            Hitler was wrong about everything, and in those very rare instances that he did good, he did it for the wrong reasons.

          • jim says:

            Your woman is not your cow, or your dog. Your woman is your companion.

            My dog is my companion.

            We don’t want women to be resold, leased for limited periods, or rented out by the hour, but not because of any rights nonsense. Even less do we want women renting themselves out by the hour.

    • Jack says:

      Absolutely correct Irving, after frantically reading the blog called “unknown history of misandry” (which documents female criminality but has a long section about misandric movements of the past and the present) and the blog called “purple motes” like I did, one can no longer deny the essentially White Gentile character of the original Feminism and its various predecessors. Plus, Marquis de Sade and fans of his work are proof that the Goyim have degeneracy in spades, and always had.

      All that, however, doesn’t tell you anything about the Jews, who are their own class of degenerates and have their own white knights, and who didn’t require any extraordinary persuasion by the Goyim to become what they have become.

      • Jack says:

        Another way to look at it: most White women aren’t overt outspoken principled doctrinaire Feminists even though are quite sympathetic to Feminism in general, whereas most Jewish women *are* overt outspoken principled doctrinaire Feminists; you’ll be hard-pressed to find one who isn’t actively overtly on board with “team castration”.

        (You can spin this evident demonstrable reality to mean that Jews are Feminism’s primary victims, if you’re so inclined)

      • Jack says:

        A reservation that B may come up with is that in his community the Jewish women aren’t all frothing-at-the-mouth Feminists who use brooms for aviation purposes, so to preempt: almost all “unaffiliated” (secular), “Reform” (HIV-positive), and “Conservative” (lesbian) Jewish women are true Feminists, they almost unanimously have suspicious smoke passing up the chimneys of their houses, which it is rumored rest on two chicken legs Baba Yaga-style. Okay seriously, they’re almost all Feminists, rarely will you find one who isn’t.

        Among Orthodox women, not all are Feminists, but many are sympathetic towards Feminism and write articles calling for Halachic reforms to be made in order to “adjust” Orthodox Judaism to modern Feminist sensibilities, although so far the men, who are leaders as rabbis and as heads of families, have been somewhat reluctant to comply, though we’ll see for how long it remains so. As B won’t tell you because it’s embarrassing, the ideal Jewish family according to some Orthodox Jews is one in which the female is the breadwinner because the males “die in the tent of Torah”, that is, study the interpretations of the Gemara all day long so have absolutely no time on their hands whatsoever to engage in any form of material provision for their families. Some unconventional “patriarchy”, isn’t it?

        All in all, it’s undeniable that the Jews are deeply drenched in Feminism, notwithstanding the very religious ones being less enthusiastic than the rest, which is unremarkable to say the least: among Muslims, for instance, Feminism is quite rare, even among the rather secular ones.

        • Jack says:

          By “some Orthodox Jews” I meant to say all Orthodox Jews, or to be precise, all who aren’t secret heretics, that is, 90% of them. They don’t all follow this ideal, the vast majority don’t really follow this ideal, but they unanimously believe it to be the Divinely-mandated ideal.

        • Irving says:

          The reason why I brought up the fact of Moliere’s non-Jewishness was not necessarily to exculpate the Jews, but rather to show that feminism is something that is organic to the West, and was not created as a result of the Jewish subversion of the West.

          But to address two of your points:

          >All that, however, doesn’t tell you anything about the Jews, who are their own class of degenerates and have their own white knights, and who didn’t require any extraordinary persuasion by the Goyim to become what they have become.

          Obviously all of this is true. Wasn’t it you who, on another thread, expressed your belief that Ashkenazi Jews have less gender dimorphism than most other racial/ethnic groups? I think that there is something to that, and I think that it might explain the attraction that feminism has for Ashkenazi Jews. There’s evidence that a relatively high percentage of Ashkenazi Jews of both sexes identify as gay or lesbian. Also, it is well-known that Ashkenazi Jewish women are very assertive and aggressive (and therefore, in a sense, masculine) compared to non-Jewish women, except for maybe black women (who are also quite masculine), and that Ashkenazi Jewish men are physically quite puny and frail and therefore probably have less testosterone. All of these factors might explain their adherence to feminism.

          >most White women aren’t overt outspoken principled doctrinaire Feminists even though are quite sympathetic to Feminism in general, whereas most Jewish women *are* overt outspoken principled doctrinaire Feminists

          In my experience, Jewish feminists are definitely much more shrill and extreme than are white, or in any case all non-Jewish, feminists. Yet, pretty much every woman that I meet these days who has a bit of education professes some kind of feminism. It is clear however that the ‘feminist movement’ is nearly entirely led by Jewish feminists. But I don’t know who to blame here: the Jewish feminists for leading or the non-Jewish feminists for following.

  6. peppermint says:

    » The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering. So he price controls pussy down to something ordinary men can pay. Bride price shall be low or zero, women shall obey their husbands, not their fathers or their own whims. Price control causes a shortage, as always, so the King and the high priest introduce rationing. Only one pussy per customer.

    Monogamy goes back further than that. You should know this, because it’s instinctual for Whites to be monogamous, and not instinctual for muds. You should know this, because Whites behave differently from muds around women, even if there’s no one around to enforce PC on them.

    (1) A man builds a house, invites a woman to live with him in the winter

    (2) A woman goes to live with him. Not two women, because the second woman can do better as the one woman of another man (this is later enforced by social norms that call the second woman a second woman)

    (3) The woman who gets the sexy guy gets to reproduce more. The woman who doesn’t doesn’t reproduce as much. Women are under massive pressure to be beautiful, which is why anime girls are mostly White but with noses smaller than Asians and eyes bigger than Arabs

    (4) That White woman is stuck in the White man’s house all winter. She needs a way of telling him to stop what he’s doing. Mud women have pointed out how White women cry a lot.

    (5) Notice that young White men who are focusing on building their careers are not as interested in women, while young mud men are always interested in picking up some puxxy

    (6) Note that White children take longer to mature than mud children, and white White men have more agency than niggers, nigger children have more agency than White children, which causes White women to believe that nigger children are intelligent

    (7) Penguins and snowy owls also need one parent at home to take care of the helpless children while the other parent forages for food. Penguins take monogamy one step further than Whites: they will go back to the same spouse every mating season

    (8) The most important part of White supremacy is not the IQ, but the ability to cooperate, which evolved under conditions of monogamy.

    (9) Why do Swedes think muds will pay their social security? How is it a remotely reasonable suggestion? Because if they were White refugees, they would.

    • jim says:

      Mostly accurate, but I think you over estimate ancient white monogamy.

      And you clearly over estimate present day white monogamy: Spring break at Cancun.

      Still, the cuteness of white females indicates that low status white males could not afford women over winter.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “Still, the cuteness of white females indicates that low status white males could not afford women over winter.”

        Could you spell that out a little more please? What’s the connection?

        • jim says:

          White women have been selected for good looks. Therefore, women could not easily raise their own children themselves, and male support in short supply.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Could imply the existence of men who couldn’t afford women over the winter.

            Could also imply that significantly more men than women died before winter.

          • peppermint says:

            …what’s your mechanism for men dying more frequently than women? Men laying down their lives for the good of the people, women and children first? That’s exactly the kind of White behavior that could only have evolved under monogamy.

            Monogamy doesn’t need to be absolute absolute, just absolute enough to patch the White male firmware with cooperation.

            Niggers would sooner eat the women than starve. Sand niggers would marry all the women and let the weaker men starve, which does not select as harshly for female beauty. Which is why they need to put bags over their women.

          • Minion says:

            “White women have been selected for good looks”
            But women of most races (excluding indigenous southern and central Americans, some (but not all) genera of blacks, most aboriginals) tend to be very hot. Among the various non-whites, Colombian, Iranian, and Levantine women are well known to be goddesses. So your theory that white girls are evolved to be more attractive does not hold water.

          • Jack says:

            Familiarize yourself with the works of Peter Frost, please. Besides, it’s known the world over that White women are the hottest, hence all the races desperately want to ficki-ficki and taharrush them.

          • Jack says:

            >Among the various non-whites, Colombian, Iranian, and Levantine women are well known to be goddesses.

            Only if they resemble White women, mostly due to White admixture. Just like the hottest Asians are the Whitest Asians. The only “non-White” “goddesses” look White, are substantially genetically and phenotypically White.

          • peppermint says:

            » But women of most races (excluding indigenous southern and central Americans, some (but not all) genera of blacks, most aboriginals) tend to be very hot.

            ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            and you know this from porn?

            is that why you signed in as Minion this time instead of Corvinus?

            • jim says:

              East Asian women (chinese, vietnamese, etc) are hot.

              Further, the disparity in intelligence and brain size between men and women is less with East Asian women.

              I know this from travels, after the manner of Roosh.

          • Minion says:

            @Jack
            >Familiarize yourself with the works of Peter Frost, please.

            I have read those blog posts several years back where he argued that white women were hot as evidenced by how they were sought after by the Muslim slave trade. However, I still think brownness among Middle Easterners is sexually selected for by the sexiness of the samrawat (brown skinned women). Which is why the Middle East remains relatively brown to this day.

            Although his contention that white women are more attractive since they look more childlike and innocent may have a ring of truth to it.

            >Besides, it’s known the world over that White women are the hottest, hence all the races desperately want to ficki-ficki and taharrush them.

            Arabs ta7arush those baydhawat (white girls) because Western media, porn, actual western female behavior, etc, has established that white females as being easy, horny, little sluts who have really hot and slutty sex with strangers without shame. Brown men are just as rapey around sexy brown women when brown girls start signalling their sluttiness (eg India, where women are increasingly adopting casual sex and forgoing patriarchal marriage- hence the rape epidemic, as Indian men correctly view sluts as rapebait).

            >Only if they resemble White women, mostly due to White admixture. Just like the hottest Asians are the Whitest Asians. The only “non-White” “goddesses” look White, are substantially genetically and phenotypically White.

            “Resembling White women” is meaningless, since attractive women of all races tend to “resemble” each other to a great extent.

            @Peppermint
            >and you know this from porn?

            Mostly yes. Amateur porn mostly, which is often the only source of porn from socially conservative brown countries, so its not like I am only selecting for professional porn stars.

            And even IRL, I see tons of hot latinas, and even a few non-latina brownies, everywhere.

            >is that why you signed in as Minion this time instead of Corvinus?
            Totally not Corvinus

            And just so you know, tons of self described white nationalists and Alt Righters proudly proclaim how much they love having sex with non-white women, which they justify with their whole “enjoying the decline” credo.

          • Minion says:

            @Jim
            >East Asian women (chinese, vietnamese, etc) are hot.

            lol. Why is every alt righter a rice chasing weeb?

            Although, unlike their ugly/masculine looking central Asian cousins, East Asians have evolved feminine facial traits, likely as a result of eating mushier foods like rice, thereby deselecting the need to have a manjaw to chew on rough foods, unlike central asians.

          • peppermint says:

            like Corvinus, you baldly assert the patently ridiculous. Unlike Corvinus, instead of claiming that it’s true because it’s holy, you claim that it’s true because your dick.

            Sports Illustrated just put a fat chick on its cover. Perhaps you would like to gush about how hot she is. Who knows, maybe she’ll sleep with you. She should be easier than a hot chick, right?

          • Minion says:

            @peppermint
            I am not sure why my assertion that samras are sexier than white girls is so controversial.

            I mean, you don’t want colored men going after white women, right? Then why do you try to convince them that white women are far sexier than non-white women?

            Brown girls can be very hot. Deal with it.

          • Morkyz says:

            > and you know this from porn

            > Mostly yes. Amateur porn mostly, which is often the only source of porn from socially conservative brown countries, so its not like I am only selecting for professional porn stars.

            wtf is wrong with you guys

          • Minion says:

            >wtf is wrong with you guys
            Are you implying most men dont look at porn?

  7. Toddy Cat says:

    “From my own observation, it is much more like 65% of males getting 90% of the pussy”

    That’s as may be, but I think that we can take it as read that non-monogamous systems (created on what ever basis) produce a large population of unattached males, who are dangerous to the social order. There are a number of potential solutions here, but it’s safe to say that the current dispensation is, as our leftist friends say, “unsustainable”.

    • Jack says:

      Of course, the more widespread the celibacy, the less stable the society. Even eunuchs with no sex-drive are a source of constant scheming and discontent. Ultimately, only total patriarchal monogamy is sustainable, but that’s not because thugs should get pussy (they should get the guillotine), in fact they already get pussy, but because moral men and moral women should have sex, have married monogamous “unprotected” sex, preferably every day but at least every week, and produce those precious babies.

  8. Robert says:

    Traditional Christianity solves all of these issues. All verses below are from the new testament.

    For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

    You guys should watch “The Monstrous Regiment of Women”

    http://www.amazon.com/Monstrous-Regiment-Women-Colin-Gunn/dp/B000Y5Q1CW

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      That is because Christianity in its proper form sets up hierarchical societies, such as monarchies and when there is another man indisputably above another, the lower man wants something under him so he’s not at the bottom of the heap and therefore he puts woman there (hence the expression, putting a woman in her place, she knows her place as a woman, etc., etc.).

      Such a legacy of Christianity is still seen in what’s left of the monarchies today, (at least they still serve as Schelling Points) like the Calvinists which set up the monarchy of the Netherlands, the Anglicans which set up Britain’s, the Lutheran Christianity which set up Scandinavia’s and the spectre of Prussia which looms over Germany but is probably too close to Trentian heretics to coalesce (those who practise a religion originating at the 16th Century council of the same name).

      In fact, there is a good example of such egalitarian Trentian subversion in “Irving”‘s comment only a few posts above yours, my friend.

      Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

      A.J.P.

      • Mackus says:

        British/Scandinavian monarchies were the ones to set up local protestant churches, not other way around.

        AJP, you never explained why “Trentian religion” isn’t Christianity.
        What are conditions for a religion to qualify as christian?

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Hearing something you don’t like “Mackus”, you start screaming. So much for the freedom of speech, but hey, if it works why stop screaming?

          Are you going to stop your screaming today? Or will you be stopping it tomorrow? Come on, man. That’s playground material.

          A.J.P.

          • Mackus says:

            Excuse me?
            When did I exactly screamed at you?
            What is it that I supposedly don’t like that would make me scream at you?
            Is this your version of feminist “he raped me with his twitter message!”? Freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom from criticism or questioning.
            Besides, even if I was screaming at you, it certainly wouldn’t be because of “but hey, if it works why stop screaming”, because you keep talking.

            I pointed out you got the order of things wrong: monarchies in Scandinavia/Britain came before Protestantism.
            I asked you a simple question which should be easy for you to answer. How you determined that Trentianism isn’t Christianity?

          • "Mackus" says:

            You’re transparently projecting.
            I ask you a question, and accuse me of screaming at you, while screaming like a feminist with dried up ovaries.
            I ask when did I screamed at you, and you double down, without actually backing your point.

            I am becoming more and more convinced that AJP is just a well made bot. (okay, maybe not well made. “decently” made)
            You could randomly move around most of his comments, and he would still make as much sense. Half of the time he condemns someone for disagreeing, when person actually makes the same point. Its a simple algorithm, by default it posts denunciations of Trentian closet-satanists, unless someone posts a reply to him, then throw accusations while appending “papist” to someone’s name. When replying to someone for third time, he’ll just say “insertname, you’re drooling on the keyboard”.

    • peppermint says:

      Obviously it’s true that your woman is your companion and she’ll only get butthurt about how controlling you were if you break up with her.

      Traditional cuckstainty is pro-monogamy because Rome. Jesus banned divorce to imitate Rome.

      Anyway, Augustus banned adultery and tried to de-emancipate women, the Romans also tried banning faggotry and other measures, but unlike muds, Whites need to believe that they have the resources to support their children or they won’t do it, and the Roman middle class was undermined by foreign imported goods and foreign imported labor.

      The government doesn’t even really need to do much. Kill snivel rights, men will have jobs and women won’t have make-work appointments. Mandatory abortions for welfare recipients solves the underclass problem.

      Without being able to pretend to be strong independent wymyn, social shaming will be enough for Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile, the once in a generation Emmy Noether can still do her thing.

      • Erik says:

        Please stop posting, you retarded fuckwit.

      • jim says:

        Wrong: Augustus emancipated women from their husbands, which is why Rome became even more sexually decadent and Romans failed to reproduce. He put the pressure on men to man up, rather than on women to submit.

        google Augustan reforms sine manu and you will find lots of stuff like the following:

        In the reign of Augustus, the wife obtained still greater independence in the handling of her estate because of slackening of the tutelage. It is noteworthy, indeed, that she was completely released from it if she became the mother of three children. The emperor Claudius abolished blood tutelage entirely, and as a consequence the husband had no further legal power over his spouse,

        And here is another

        Though Augustus restored the ancient ceremony, he added an important twist: The wife was not under the control of her husband.

        • peppermint says:

          I thought what Augustus meant by it was that if a woman’s husband can’t control her, as evidenced by adultery, she reverts to her father’s control. He banished his granddaughter for adultery.

          Jeb Bush started his campaign by telling men to man up, and SJWs love telling men they need to man up. This while making it impossible to do so.

          Augustus tried something, it was a bad idea because he didn’t understand that the problem was jobs for Romans. Billionaire pleb Tiberius Gracchus failed to make Rome great again.

          • jim says:

            The problem with the Augustan reforms that she was never in her husband’s control. Needs to be the husband that prevents adultery. Jobs are nothing to do with it. Very poor places have extremely high fertility if their women are unemancipated, modern European fertility if their women are emancipated.

          • peppermint says:

            those very poor places you speak of are populated by niggers, which behave differently from Whites

            • jim says:

              They seem to behave very like eighteenth century whites. And Afghans are white or mighty close to it.

              Afghans are extremely poor, nearly white, and have sky high fertility.

          • peppermint says:

            Afghanistan is dirt farmers, which is honest work, and they’re not swarmed by foreign workers.

            Saudi TFR is 2.7, Quatar is 2.0, Kuwait is 2.6.

            Syria has a TFR of 3, Egypt 2.8. Syria and Egypt sell less oil.

            Iran’s TFR collapsed in the ’90s as their natural gas production took off. Compare the chart that shows up when you google iran tfr with this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/IRAN_oil%26gas_production.jpg

            Iran’s TFR is 1.9. White US TFR is like 1.8 according to some blog post from 2010 on some blog, so I don’t know how trustworthy it is.

            The US is, of course, swimming in foreign imported goods, because the world needs petrodollars to buy oil, and foreign imported labor, while the great and the good proclaim that America is built on diversity, opportunity, and sex with all manner of sluts.

            • jim says:

              Saudi TFR is merely 2.7 because Saudis are feminists and cucks Two thirds of Saudi degrees go to Saudi females despite massive female underperformance. Same for Iran, plus Iranian universities are coed, and the coeds come out covered in semen from head to toe.

              Meanwhile in Afghanistan, where they blow up girls schools if controlled by progressives, the TFR is 7.3

              Timor Leste, where they have the Christian equivalent of the Afghan system, has a TFR of 6.53. (The Cathedral does not seem to have noticed that the Timorese are unemancipated, perhaps because Timorese have official victim status, so Timorese males can get away with oppressing women the way native Americans get away with hunting whales)

          • Minion says:

            “Saudis are feminists and cucks”
            Yeah, Arabian peninsular women are getting so entitled and whorish that many Arab guys are starting, like a lot of redpilled Western guys, marrying foreign women, especially from poorer countries where women are grateful to have a beta provider hubby to give them passably first world living standards.

            Arab women are sucking and fucking premarital cocks like crazy, but then expect men to pay upwards of 50,000 USD just for the “privilege” of marrying their used up cunts.

            I dont agree with ISIS at all, but they are correct in returning sex slavery to the Muslim world, since their women are definitely abusing their freedom and need some serious SMV competition in the form of concubines to put them in their place

            That being said, in Saudi Arabia, the government and legal system would be on your side if you wanted to keep your womenfolk in line, which is much more than what could be said in the West

            I have to agree with Iran, but whorish women are mostly limited to Tehran (which as Iran’s capital and trading hub, naturally imports Western liberalism along with everything else).

            Thankfully, Iranian women are still conservative in most other places. Especially non-Persian women (Kurds, contra YPG propaganda, are in fact the most conservative people in the Middle East, and unlike Persians, are not afraid of an honor killing or two to set as an example for other women). And Persians are a slight minority- being around 49% of the Iranian population, they are getting cucked in their own country like the Europeans are, and for the same reason too.

          • peppermint says:

            Yes, the men are male feminists and cucks as soon as the imported foreign goods show up, while in countries without oil money or White civilization, traditional marriage continues.

            • jim says:

              Not seeing it. There are plenty of dirt poor countries with below replacement fertility.

              What makes men into cucks is female emancipation.

          • Minion says:

            Female emancipation comes with the importation of Western goods, since Western civilization, due to its superior power, is a collective “alpha male” over third world patriarchal civilization. Ever since the Arab “Spring”, we are seeing tons of Arab women becoming liberals, feminists, atheists, and sluts. Muslim women are only attracted to secular liberalism because it has high geopolitical status.

            Access to the West means that the West is able to use its soft power to attract Muslim women into liberalism (and men too, since by becoming liberals, they can gain high international status by associating with the more powerful West). Yemen and a few other fourth world Muslim countries are too poor to be Westernized, and therefore are still relatively pure. Unlike Saudi Cuckrabia with its oil wealth

    • Stephen W says:

      Patriarchal Medieval Christianity was created by Germanic Barbarians. Early Christians of the Roman Empire where a bunch of SJW’s.

  9. A.B Prosper says:

    Cultural Marxism and immigration are far worse threats than lower birth rates in overcrowded nations.

    The US w/o immigration would have had a population of around 250 million which is plenty and for the most part fertility was around replacement. I suspect that if the economy were functional instead of wages being halved it would have stayed that way

    Its plenty

    Its worse in Germany and similar places though but even so sans immigration, 70 million in a nation the size of Oregon is too many.

    • jim says:

      Cultural Marxism and immigration are far worse threats than lower birth rates in overcrowded nations.

      It is women, single women more than Jews, that vote for their people to invaded and conquered, for themselves to be raped and enslaved, and for cultural Marxism

      Which will be the topic of my next post on this topic.

      • Irving says:

        >It is women, single women more than Jews, that vote for their people to invaded and conquered, for themselves to be raped and enslaved, and for cultural Marxism

        In the end, however bad one might think the Jews are, women, especially women that are allowed to participate in the political process, are much, much worse. What’s more, their male enablers, like Moliere, who I was sure to point out above was not Jewish, are just as often not Jewish as they are Jewish.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Looking forward to it.

      • Aristocles_Inv says:

        Women do not change the legislation to allow non-Whites, they only vote for the legislation the Jews create. No Jews, no uncontrolled non-White immigration. You analyze the creators of immigration reform bills that allow non-Whites and they are always Jews and White male liberals, very rare to find a woman there. Women’s support of non-White immigration is post-facto, i.e. after the legislation to allow them in has passed.

  10. Dave says:

    I recently read a long chan post by a guy who, against the advice of his friends, married a crazy slut with a 2-year-old daughter. A few years later, she went back to her first husband but left the daughter. Now that little girl is a horny tween with big boobs, and it’s pretty clear that they’re headed for a sexual relationship/secret marriage.

    There are always plenty of virgin females to marry if, like Muhammad, you aren’t picky about age. It’s rather strange to think that pedophiles might save civilization, but if Jim is right that all women are basically children, then all straight men are pedophiles.

    • jay says:

      Pedophilia is wrong regardless of era. Buggering prepubescents is as despicable as homosexuality.

      • Dave says:

        Quite so, but adopting prepubescents and converting them to wives at puberty is not uncommon in other cultures. Johnny Appleseed tried it, but disowned the girl when he caught her kissing a boy her own age.

        Or you and I each adopt a girl and we swap at puberty, to avoid the Westermarck effect.

        • jim says:

          Which is pretty much what guardians did when they got severely underage wards.

          Westermarck effect shuts down at eight in girls. Interest in boys starts up at nine at levels that are inconvenient, but seldom disastrous, becomes raging hot and socially disruptive at menarche. Ward would be moved to her future husband’s household when her interest in boys became inconvenient or alarmingly intense, usually at an age safely well past the Westermark effect. Or at least that was what was supposed to happen, and mostly what did happen.

        • jay says:

          “Child marriages” they are called and via western influence such a practice is dying out.

      • Minion says:

        How is pedophilia objectionable if its within the bounds of a heterosexual marriage? Unlike fag marriage, little girls grow up into fertile adults and potential mothers.

        Is it less objectionable to marry an adult woman whose mind has been poisoned by feminism, and has already been with several Chads (with the attendant emotional baggage that comes with that)?

        • jim says:

          During the seventeenth and eighteenth century they knew that if you marry girls very early, you get psychological incest, and this has bad consequences. We now know this as the Westermarck effect.

          However, the Westermarck effect ceases to be a problem well before fertile age. If you have sex with a girl as soon as she is obviously old enough to have sexual feelings and thus obviously old enough that the Westermarck effect does not apply, you are having sex with a girl who is obviously not yet fertile.

          • Minion says:

            >owever, the Westermarck effect ceases to be a problem well before fertile age.

            So, you would agree with Muslims that one should wait until 9 before marrying a little girl?

            > If you have sex with a girl as soon as she is obviously old enough to have sexual feelings
            What do you mean by that? Even fetuses masturbate, as brain bleachy as that thought is, so they obviously are old enough to have sexual feelings.

            • jim says:

              Even fetuses masturbate, as brain bleachy as that thought is,

              Male fetuses masturbate, due to a hormone burst that masculinizes them sufficiently for the difference to be obvious. The hormone burst goes away at birth, and does not resume till puberty. Female fetuses, and sufficiently small children, do not masturbate.

              Given that Arabs mature slightly faster than true whites, the Arab limit of nine is not significantly different from the traditional Western Christian limit of ten.

          • jay says:

            Jewish tradition set the minimum age of marriage at 12 when menstruation occurs. After puberty results in sexual maturation.

            http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

            The female child becomes a woman at that point after a ritual bath and its corresponding transitional ceremony.

            The holy bible strictly permits pedophilia by implication as the above article shows.

            • jim says:

              Ancient Jewish traditions tend to appear with alarmingly short notice and at impressive speed. What does the Talmud actually say about the matter? Give us a quote and a citation. Who is the earliest rabbi who actually says in plain words “it is forbidden to marry a girl before menarche”, or “it is forbidden to marry a girl before age twelve” (Twelve being the typical age of menarche.)

              The old testament indicators of marriageability are breasts and pubic hair.

              Breasts do not reach full development until well after menarche, but pubic hair appears at age nine or so, and breasts become noticeable on a naked girl well before menarche, typically at age ten or so.

    • Minion says:

      Indeed, the main reason why Muslims marry little girls is because they are guaranteed virgins. In Yemen, they say “marry an eight year old, for she is a guaranteed virgin”.

      Its pretty unreasonable to demand that girls remain virgins until they are 18+, and Muslims understand this. Little girls are the last bastion of traditional femininity in the Western world.

      Its funny how everyone here hates Islam (at least B has the excuse of belonging to a rival Semitic religion), when your views on marriage and sexuality line 100% with traditional Islam.

      • jay says:

        Honor killings for being raped and putting women in ninja suits do not endear your religion to us. As well as the destruction of traditional Christian lands of North Africa,Levant and Byzantium.

        Relentless aggression as mandated by your Religion’s jihad the taking of Christian women as sex slaves. The recent Rapefugees legitimized in their actions by the fact that their victims are Kafir women.

        Also likewise the destruction of Archaeological treasures due to them being “Idolatry”

        • Minion says:

          >Honor killings for being raped
          Rape victims dont get honor killed. Honor killing is not even a part of Islam (although Muslims are highly sympathetic to the motives- they just believe sluts should be given a second chance to prove themselves as housewives).

          >putting women in ninja suits
          I see that you don’t belong here. Burqas are the ultimate form of mate guarding, which is precisely what Jim is advocating. We dont want strange men ogling our prized possessions (that is, our women).

          The same reason you put your money in your wallet is the same reason Muslims put their women in a burqa- because they want to protect their valuables.

          >The recent Rapefugees legitimized in their actions by the fact that their victims are Kafir women.
          Are you implying that European women are Christian?

          And just so you know, Islamists, including Nusra and ISIS, consider rapefugees traitors for deserting the jihad warzone in Syria instead of staying and fighting on the ground.

          Rape is only allowed in Islam through marriage. Rape is not allowed outside of marriage.

          As Jim says, legalize rape and ban fornication. This is what Islam advocates as well.

          >Relentless aggression as mandated by your Religion’s jihad the taking of Christian women as sex slaves.
          What exactly is wrong with relentless aggression? Are you some liberal pacifist?

          • Morkyz says:

            Kafir = infidel, not Christian, you fucking retard.

          • Minion says:

            Kafir does not mean “infidel”, since Infidel literally means non-Christian. Stop using Infidel as an Islamic term, which it is not.

            He implied that European women were Christians, when in fact they are rapeworthy atheist whores.

          • peppermint says:

            I never thought I’d see someone larping harder than AJP. “rapeworthy atheist whores”, from someone who hates Islam so much as to deny Islam the English translation.

          • Minion says:

            >I never thought I’d see someone larping harder than AJP. “rapeworthy atheist whores”, from someone who hates Islam so much as to deny Islam the English translation.

            The problem when the counterjihadists use the word “infidel” is that they see it only as a term that Muslims use, as if outgroup exclusion on religious grounds are solely Islamic traits. They seem to forget that Christians called non-believers infidels.

            Muslims never use the actual english word “infidel” (even when speaking English) but is only associated with Islam due to English translation of Osama Bin Laden’s videotapes. Muslims either use “disbelievers” or “kafir” to describe those in the religious outgroup. “Infidel” is a liberal meme to project Christian theocracy as un-Western by associating it with Islam instead.

            Also, European women are by and large atheists and whores. Raping a whore is not a serious crime, unlike raping (forced fornication) of a pure virgin. Whores already give it out consensually, so whats so bad when they did it without consent?

          • peppermint says:

            Gee, how about the fact that they are incapable of making good decisions for themselves? If they can’t make good decisions, they’re not responsible for bad decisions.

            Also they’re our women, and mudslimes that touch them must be killed for that reason, regardless of “consent”.

            Also, sorry, Judeo-Cuckstains don’t get to call atheists or mudslimes infidels because they’ve observably don’t and no amount of larping on their behalf will change that.

            Finally, by calling mudslimes infidels, you imply that you would be okay with them if only they would try to act like us. This makes you a cuckold, and will never make hem act like us because they are biologically incapable of it.

  11. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    >Our society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children as sex slaves

    Remember, always be precise when making controversial claims.

    Our society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children. Gay men use children as sex slaves at an alarming rate. Progressives piously look the other way when they do this, because they regard gay men as a sort of priest class, who are holier than everybody else. But gay men are still sometimes prosecuted for sexual abuse, albeit at a much lower rate than heterosexual males.

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected, or at least guilty of oversimplifying, neglecting a complication that progressives would regard as absolutely and vitally important.

      Since a progressive is allowed to do anything, no matter how extraordinarily horrifying, provided his intentions are holy.

      • Bo says:

        I mean, really. Think about all the homosexual readers you might have lost.

        Maybe you could qualify every sentence thusly and make the article four times as long with no definable benefit.

        • Minion says:

          If alt right homos are anything like Milo Yiannopoulos, I dont think Jim would have to worry about offending them. Their egos would be too big for that.

  12. Greg says:

    I must be missing something

    If women had enough agency and power to do this to society by themselves, we can’t think of them as inferior, nor hope to get Jeannie back into her bottle. She’s clearly the superior sex and deserves to rule. The fact that some male individuals don’t like it is of no relevance. We do less space exploration and don’t build higher skyscrapers because women don’t care about that, but that’s not objectively bad, it’s just that the ruling and superior sex actually prefers society the way she orders society.

    Yet maybe women didn’t impose decay on their own societies from a position of superior power, but were really just victims and instruments of others with sufficient agency and power. In that case, the search for the “root cause” hasn’t ended. You dismiss the Jew as insignificant cause because some decadent royalty back in ancient history acted out without obvious Jew influence; by the same token you need to dismiss women as a significant cause because an inferior sex without agency and strongly under the thumb of the superior sex couldn’t have been a significant cause of decay by herself.

    • jim says:

      If women had enough agency and power to do this to society by themselves, we can’t think of them as inferior, nor hope to get Jeannie back into her bottle.

      White knights did it.

      During the eighteenth century a huge number of intelligent well educated wealthy women were non consensually married, their wealth and their selves coming involuntarily under the control of their husbands. Did a single one of them issue a memoir that this was a really bad thing and women should have freedom of choice in husbands?

      For example the numerous Victorians attempting to “rescue fallen women” (which is to say, remove all the unpleasant consequences of falling) were all male. Florence Nightingale was just a middle class whore some males snatched up to be a poster girl. She did not know what hit her. Did not have a thought in her head. Similarly Ada and Marie Curie. Florence Nightingale and Ada had no agency, and Marie Curie had very little.

      The suffragettes were a bunch of silly and ridiculous women. The movement for female emancipation was as female as the Southern Poverty Law Center is black. It was white males that freed the slaves, and white males that emancipated women.

      • peppermint says:

        the NAACP were founded by filthy rat kikes, like pretty much every left-wing institution founded after 1900. The SPLC was founded in the ’70s as a direct-mail donations scam getting donations out of old kikes the way old women give money to organizations that raise awareness of breast cancer.

  13. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Why did we fail it?

    It easy to explain any given society suddenly adopting maladaptive behaviour, harder to explain many societies doing so and those societies becoming dominant. There should be an evolutionary mechanism selecting out societies that make those choices.

    Rome is not problematic because Rome had no competitors, until feminism-induced decay made Rome vulnerable.

    Modern Western countries are powerful because they are rich, which is because of free market capitalism. If free market capitalism and feminism were orthogonal, we would expect free market capitalist, non-feminist states to combine the advantages of wealth and high population growth. We don’t see societies like that, even though any that existed would quickly become dominant.

    So is feminism required for free market capitalism? Why?

    • Minion says:

      Capitalism is tied with female liberation because liberated women can work and spend freely, contributing the capitalist economy in a way that domesticated women cannot.

      Additionally, women are much more manipulated by advertising, as women, much more than men, are status seekers (hence valuing conspicuous consumption) and simply follow what is trendy and popular.

      Advertising also works by manufacturing female discontent (convincing women they are not happy if they dont have certain material goods), eventually inflating that discontent until women become discontent with their beta provider hubbies, and going after sexy Chads instead, because capitalist advertising has convinced them they deserve the best, and should never settle for “good enough”.

      Plus, the sexual free market is a logical extent of the economic free market. The problem with the free market is that it favors the proprietors of scarce assets (eg capital, food, housing, pussy etc) over those who desire it.

      tldr: Libertarians are liberal enablers.

      • jim says:

        Capitalism is tied with female liberation because liberated women can work and spend freely, contributing the capitalist economy in a way that domesticated women cannot.

        Eighteenth century England was capitalism on steroids, and women during this period were absolutely unemancipated, with no right to own or control money or property, and their participation in the workplace was structured to deny them any opportunity to fuck bosses or customers.

        Women can produce and consume under their husband or father’s authority, or under female supervision in the workplace (supervised by the boss’s wife). Capitalists don’t need to separate husbands and wives so that wives can produce and consume. They need to separate husbands and wives so that they can fuck the wives.

        • Minion says:

          >Eighteenth century England was capitalism on steroids, and women during this period were absolutely unemancipated

          True, but it was the classical liberals (eg JS Mill, Herbert Spencer) who white knighted women and pioneered the feminist movement (as mentioned elsewhere here, women did not become feminists until men made it popular). Female liberation is a logical consequence of classical liberalism, itself an ideological defense of the emerging capitalist system.

          >Women can produce and consume under their husband or father’s authority

          But, when male dominance is the social norm, husbands will be able to control their wives spending patterns, and would be under little pressure to spoil their wives with lavish gifts. This is bad news for capitalists, as they cannot hamsterize women into wanting and buying unnecessary, but profitable, stuff

          • jim says:

            Adam Smith was a classic liberal and defender of capitalism. Locke was a classic liberal and defender of capitalism. JS Mill was a progressive and an enemy of capitalism.

            The younger Herbert Spencer who supported female emancipation was, like Mills a enemy of capitalism. He wanted to nationalize land and collectivize farming. When he changed his views on forced collectivization and became pro capitalist, he also became an opponent of female emancipation.

          • Minion says:

            >Adam Smith was a classic liberal and defender of capitalism. Locke was a classic liberal and defender of capitalism.
            Any reactionary views they had were simply a product of their time. Unlike future liberals, they were sheltered from the full implications of liberal thought. The fact that liberals can claim Locke as their heir, while being able to completely ignore all the un-PC views he had, is evidence for this.

            Once you admit the individual, and not society and social institutions (like the church and the family) is sovereign, then feminism becomes inevitable, since it simply is an attempt to give women the same agency as free men, with any illiberal tendencies of feminism simply a product of the inherent absurdity of female agency (women can only be “free” when they are in no way responsible for their actions).

            >When he changed his views on forced collectivization and became pro capitalist, he also became an opponent of female emancipation.

            Spencer’s opposition to female emancipation was merely contingent on the fact that women did not serve in the military, and therefore it would be a moral hazard to let them have a say in foreign policy. However, he seemed silent on if women should be emancipated if they served the military (which is even worse, given the sheer sluttiness of military women).

            • jim says:

              The world today is for the most part strongly feminist (females are overrepresented in accreditation despite obvious underperformance in accomplishment) and moderately socialist.

              By and large, the more socialist the more feminist, the less feminist the more capitalist. I just don’t see an association between capitalism, which as an ideology rejects equality, envy, and covetousness, and feminism, an ideology based on equalism, envy, and covetousness. If capitalists were allowed to, they would have zero women in the boardroom.

          • peppermint says:

            are you seriously implying that if men didn’t spend money on stuff to give their wives, they wouldn’t spend money?

            are you seriously saying that Hallmark wanted to destroy traditional marriage to sell more cards?

          • peppermint says:

            who should i believe, you

            » Once you admit the individual, and not society and social institutions (like the church and the family) is sovereign, then feminism becomes inevitable

            or john galt

            » You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.

            I know, I’ll believe neither. Reality doesn’t logic from axioms.

          • Minion says:

            >john galt
            A fictional character based on some edgy fedora tier fantasies of a Russian Jewess. Real life John Galts tend to be pretty liberal (eg Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc), Arab oil sheikhs aside.

            And that quote you provided might as well be quoted from the hamsters of every modern Western woman.

          • Minion says:

            @Jim
            >By and large, the more socialist the more feminist, the less feminist the more capitalist.

            Would you consider Yemen to be a capitalist society? I mean, they have very limited government (its mostly tribal), private gun ownership is the norm- and often the only actual form of military protection, and women are acknowledged to be property.

            The only problem I have with calling Yemen capitalist is that it is too third world to have developed financial institutions, which I would associate with capitalism.

            And most historians use the term “capitalism” to refer to a stage when society abandons patriarchal feudal and tribal norms. Feudal Europe would not be considered capitalist at all, despite it being very much in line with what we advocate (eg a patriarchal society based on contractual and familial obligations with virtually no interference from the central government).

            • jim says:

              And most historians use the term “capitalism” to refer to a stage when society abandons patriarchal feudal and tribal norms. Feudal Europe would not be considered capitalist at all,

              I think that reflects a tortured definition of feudalism and a tortured definition of capitalism. Charles the second empowered the joint stock corporation, and in his reign we see a bunch of Ayn Rand’s hero engineer CEOs advancing technology, and making the benefits of advanced technology available in the market place. So capitalism as imagined by Ayn Rand, the smart entrepreneur mobilizing other peoples wealth and other people’s labor to implement economic advances through the mechanism of the joint stock corporation, got going under Charles the Second. So England was clearly capitalist in the late 1600s, early 1700s, is still capitalist, but has been getting less capitalist since 1930.

              England was patriarchal until the early eighteen hundreds. Women generally could not own property, and if a woman somehow wound up with property, she, her body, and her property were apt to be forcibly placed under male control.

              How about feudal? In a sense feudalism died in the early 1400s, but in the early 1800s the regent claimed the Regency by the grace of God, not the will of parliament, declaring the supremacy of Kings over parliament. A warlike martial aristocracy operated the army as their personal armed forces and exercised a great deal of power until the Crimean war.

              Not feudalism, but still plenty of monarchic and aristocratic power, and definitely not anything like a democracy until 1830.

              So all up, over a century of patriarchy, monarchy, aristocratic power, and capitalism. I think the seventeen hundreds were doing it right, and want to restore those institutions.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Capitalism makes countries strong because it increases production, not consumption.

        It doesn’t matter at all if no one hedonistically consumes all the aircraft and missiles a society is capable of producing. What matters if that that society can produce more aircraft and missiles than others. That is why the Germans speak English today rather than vice-versa.

        What isn’t clear is why some peripheral society – say Japan – could not combine capitalism and anti-feminism. Japan had high population growth and poverty followed by low population growth and prosperity, never both at once.

        I do not believe that the US or any other country would invade Japan over the womens’ issue, even if it would impose feminism after conquering Japan for some other reason. And before WWII, the US simply wasn’t a major factor in world politics. It was certainly absurd to imagine the US dictating Russian policy in 1910. Yet Russia adopted super-feminism, and has a smaller population today than the same territory in 1910. If Russia’s population had grown like that of Japan from 1919 to 1945, which had the same living standard, it should have about half a billion inhabitants today.

        • jim says:

          I do not believe that the US or any other country would invade Japan over the womens’ issue,

          We are at war with Boko Haram and the Taliban primarily over the women issue.

          It was certainly absurd to imagine the US dictating Russian policy in 1910

          Soft power.

          Alexander the liberator was clearly seeking social status with English progressives.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            When are we going to beat the Taliban or Boko? Seems like when the choice is between doing what needs to be done, and losing, we rather lose. Suggests we’re not very serious.

            Now with Japan, we killed Japanese about as fast as they were being born, maybe faster. But that war wasn’t about womens’ lib or any other fuzzy cause, it was 19th century power-playing.

            The Cathedral’s main weapon is exactly “soft power”, but soft power means having a large fifth column loyal to you in other peoples’ countries. If that fifth column doesn’t exist there isn’t much you can do and a strong government can stop you creating one. The Cathedral doesn’t have a fifth column in much of the muslim world which is the main reason they are having such a hard time defeating Taliban and the others. It was assuming that building schools and NGO outposts would create one, but actually it just enraged the native intellectual ecosystem further.

            • jim says:

              Japan intended a nineteenth century colonial war, fought for nineteenth century stakes. A strictly nineteenth century war, played for nineteenth century stakes, would have restricted Japan’s colonial ambitions, probably leaving them Korea and bits of China. Nineteenth century wars were played for limited stakes. World War two was a holy war, a crusade, fought to immanentize the eschaton, and the emancipation of women was a big part of what made it holy.

            • jim says:

              When are we going to beat the Taliban or Boko? Seems like when the choice is between doing what needs to be done, and losing, we rather lose. Suggests we’re not very serious.

              We have beaten the Taliban and Boko. They both made peace offers. The offer in both cases was that if we let them manage their own women their way, they will refrain from linking up with or supporting people likely to commit terrorism outside their own lands.

              Oddly, so far we are allowing Timor Leste to get away with oppressing women, but I expect their day will come when more politically expedient.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            The outcome of accepting that deal is Afghans and Nigerians eventually spread across the world and defeat the Cathedral. Today the Afghan and Nigerian populations of Britain are growing rapidly while the British populations of Afghanistan and Nigeria are essentially zero and staying there.

            The Cathedral’s strategy rests entirely on all populations being biologically and culturally mutable by state education, not on destroying its enemies militarily.

            Destroying your enemies militarily was the Nazi strand of progressivism’s solution to the problem of unfavourable birthrate differential between progressives and non-progressives.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          And free sexual market – i.e. banning contract in the sexual market – has no relation to capitalism, which is more accurately and informatively called contractualism.

          In a real free sexual market, you could sign a marriage contract mandating sex, pre-determining distribution of property on divorce in any arbitrary fashion, and setting allowable and disallowed grounds for divorce.

          In a real free labour market, you could bond yourself out as an indentured servant, and that could be the forfeit for defaulting on a debt.

          A “real” contract-based society looks far too alt-right for the liberaltarians who dominate the movement, which is why they don’t support it. Liberaltarians are careful to stay within the Overton Window, and so advocate insane policies, but that isn’t a problem with libertarian as such, it’s a problem with trying to remain within an Overton Window that encompasses only insanity.

          • Minion says:

            @Oliver Cromwell

            What you are describing is not a modern capitalist society, but in fact, any premodern society, where women where managed through contractual obligations between men.

            A real contract based society is incompatible with Liberaltarianism, since, since it requires free men (those empowered to engage in contracts) to dominate women, children, slaves (who are objects of contracts), thereby denying the rights of the latter to their individual rights.

            The form of freedom that everyone here (including me) long for is a preliberal conception of freedom (liberty of the ancients). Classical freedom is essentially aristocracy/patriarchy, and existed long before Locke et al. Classical liberalism is utterly useless for promoting patriarchy.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Of course it’s incompatible with Liberaltarianism, which is libertarianism to the maximum extent permitted by the Liberal (or cathedral if you prefer) Overton window. The Overton window is why Friedman talked about abolishing the draft rather than free contract in marriage, and why today Liberaltarians talk about free contract in marriage if that means gay, but not if that means enforceable pre-nups.

            Libertarianism taken seriously would deliver the alt-right social institutions that work. Letting women sign contracts that are offensive to Liberals is “domination” of them by men in exactly the same way letting workers sign employment contracts that are offensive to Liberals is “domination” of workers by employers. What the West has in common with the USSR is that in the West a dysfunctional progressive state outlaws most useful marriage contracts while in the USSR a dysfunctional progressive state outlawed most useful employment contracts.

            Ancient societies did not have rule of law and free contract. They just sometimes had mandatory contract templates that were less dysfunctional for governing marriage but usually much more dysfunctional for governing trade. Even that is largely selection bias: ancient societies that had dysfunctional marriage contracts didn’t reproduce their way into our literary record to the same extent as others. But they surely existed in large numbers.

            A lot of people here don’t support freedom at all, they are Nazis. I do not know if they’re a majority. Problem with Naziism is two-fold:

            1. typical econo-progressive trade dysfunction, e.g. http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2015/03/German-Nazi-economy.png that comes from Naziism’s progressive roots.

            2. Naziism still wants proles to breed out of control, due to its progressive roots, just so long as they’re white, which doesn’t help.

          • Minion says:

            >Ancient societies did not have rule of law and free contract.
            They mostly did. Only modern societies are totalitarian enough to have a technocratic elite govern the norms, laws, and morals of a society

    • jim says:

      It easy to explain any given society suddenly adopting maladaptive behaviour, harder to explain many societies doing so and those societies becoming dominant. There should be an evolutionary mechanism selecting out societies that make those choices.

      Over the past two centuries, female emancipation is spread by a mixture of hard and soft power, by fire and steel.

      The central demand of the very black Boko Haram and the fairly whitish Taliban is that they, not Harvard, get to control the female curriculum in all female schools. The Shah of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran made the same demand, with the Shah specifically making unkind reference to Harvard. Iran may get nukes, but until then, not getting control of girls schools.

      Female emancipation has its roots in Christianity which, starting perhaps as early as the fourth century, demanded female consent to marriage.

      Which demand was widely ignored until the nineteenth century.

      So when ever you get a holiness spiral, it tends to fetishize female consent, leading to female emancipation.

      • Minion says:

        >Female emancipation has its roots in Christianity which, starting perhaps as early as the fourth century, demanded female consent to marriage.

        It did so under the assumption that women (as well as men) were not allowed to have premarital sex.Therefore, it is in line with what you propose (eg give virginal girls marital freedom, while forcing sluts to marry and settle down).

        Islam is also the same, allowing virginal women the power to consent, but allowing forced marriages for promiscuous women, and as you have noted, is in the front lines fighting the West against female emancipation.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        What is “Christianity”?

        A.J.P.

      • peppermint says:

        Feminism can and will say whatever it needs. Feminism comes from men who see multiple women and its goal is to sound smart while giving them the sense that the person touching them is independent and where everyone is going.

        Feminism occurs in every golden age where there are abundant goods, foreigners around attracted to the abundant goods, young men have trouble finding work so women can’t get a working husband, but can get welfare or a pinup job, and can have, as so many girls on OKCupid, a man who sees other women.

    • peppermint says:

      » feminism-induced decay made Rome vulnerable

      no, what caused Rome to fail was the middle class couldn’t compete with foreign imported goods and foreign imported labor, which was then followed by a collapse in the Roman population of Rome, and as an epiphenomenon, feminism and other degeneracy.

      Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus couldn’t make Rome great again because the senators thought they could make millions off foreign imports and everything was great. We’ll see if our senators are willing to consider that they’re hurting America, or whether they will believe, as the Roman sycophants said too, that the greatness of America is diversity, welfare, and sex with all kinds of whores.

      • jim says:

        no, what caused Rome to fail was the middle class couldn’t compete with foreign imported goods and foreign imported labor,

        The wealthy Roman upper class, such as Augustus himself, failed to reproduce. It was not competition with foreign goods and foreign labor that stopped Augustus from reproducing.

        • peppermint says:

          the elite don’t exist in a vacuum. When elite women crave the freedom that they see non-elite women have, how can elite men restrain them, when they can sign up for welfare or get a job just as well as non-elite women, better, even, since they’ve been working all along at rich womens’ foundation jobs?

          • jim says:

            I don’t believe women crave freedom. They want owners.

          • peppermint says:

            okay, they crave the social recognition that the non-elite sluts have. If you ask them today, they’ll tell you they want to not be White. And sure, they don’t actually want “freedom”, but they do want to shit test their husbands by asking for permission to sleep around or have a threesome with another guy.

            They want to ask their husband, does this ideology make you incapable of looking out for your children? And when he say, yes, I am totally committed to the multicult, no one is more committed than me, then, well, you know. The last thing “the elite” wants is to become “the proles”, who are all on food stamps and have no ability to have a normal family life, and denying the ideology is the easiest way to end up there.

          • Minion says:

            @peppermint

            Women want to be whatever is high status. If they want to be sluts, its because they want to have high status in a society that encourages sluttiness. If being a virginal bride who obeys her husband was valued by society, they would in fact seek to be virginal obedient brides.

            In patriarchal societies, women would never dare suggest to their husbands to be sluts. In as much as we had actual cucks and swingers, it was usually beta men who wanted their wives to fuck alpha men, so they would have the “privilege” of raising an alpha male’s child as their own (since they get proxy status of being the “father” of a warrior or other alpha male archetype). Women absolutely would do their best to refuse such offers from their husband to fuck alpha men, with a few slutty exceptions, since they had a sense of shame. This was the case in many pagan societies.

            tldr: women are fucked up because society is fucked up, not the other way around

            • jim says:

              women are fucked up because society is fucked up, not the other way around

              Pedestalization.

              Eighteenth century England was wonderfully socially conservative, but convict women, removed from husbands and families, behaved like it was spring break at Cancun and Woodstock revival. In one incident a bunch of them got naked with a bunch of men and all fucked in a great big pile.

              Nineteenth century England attempted to prevent self destructive female misbehavior by inculcating them with proper values and denying the existence of the (alarmingly numerous) bad role models. This was a total and disastrous failure.

              Victorianism not only failed, it failed very badly.

          • Minion says:

            >Eighteenth century England was wonderfully socially conservative, but convict women, removed from husbands and families, behaved like it was spring break at Cancun and Woodstock revival.

            Of course, you are selecting for “convict” women, who are likely to be much more high T than the average woman. Rather, I think that even modern women, including feminists, are deep down prudes. This can be evidenced by the rape and sexual harassment hysteria promoted by feminists. They feel “violated” by casual sex, not knowing their violated feeling comes from having sex with random people, rather than that magical word of “consent”. Also, many modern sluts start to regret their lifestyle once they hit 30, no matter how feminist or slutty they are.

            We also see, that in societies that practiced chattel slavery, free women were forbidden to sleep around (can only sleep with their husband), while slavegirls were often prostitutes. If women naturally wanted to be sluts so bad, why were freewomen forbidden to be sluts instead of slavegirls? This shows that most women naturally want to sleep around, and had to be forced into slavery before they did.

            • jim says:

              >Eighteenth century England was wonderfully socially conservative, but convict women, removed from husbands and families, behaved like it was spring break at Cancun and Woodstock revival.

              Of course, you are selecting for “convict” women, who are likely to be much more high T than the average woman.

              I have information as to how eighteenth century England handled upper class independent women – it harshly controlled their sex lives. I have information as to how eighteenth century Australia handled the sex lives of convict women, because the state was acting in the role of father, so its actions, policies, and punishments were formal and recorded. I don’t have information as to how England dealt with independent lower class women. But the way the authorities dealt with upper class women in England was not all that different from the way authorities dealt with convict women in Australia.

              The underlying presumption was that if a woman was not married off, you needed extreme control and coercion to prevent her from fucking around and seriously misbehaving. Victorian England ditched that presupposition, and promptly got serious misbehavior.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I don’t understand how you get from the introduction of foreign goods and labour to the collapse in the native population.

        Is there some very obvious causal mechanism here I am just too stupid or ignorant to see?

        I could well understand influx of foreigners diluting the homogeneity of the native population, which might make Rome vulnerable to ethnic civil war (note: this didn’t happen!), but I cannot see how influx of foreigners causes the natives to have fewer kids, causes the total population of the empire to decline.

    • Ron says:

      Feminism is the result of men weaponizing women against other men.

      Much the same as if you would poison someone crops, or send a Lenin in a sealed carriage to Russia, or cattle rustlers stealing a herd. Emanicpating women is about as beneficial and well meaning as emancipating someone elses horses.

      Its really an attack against the other man. And we can see this with modern feminism as it is nearly wholly bankrolled by people woth deep pockets and a great deal of power.

      The romans were extremely good at mobilizing their men to destroy their enemies, when they finished destroying anyone remotely legitimate to attack outside the state, they turned their attention to subduing their own countrymen. So it is with any empire. Basicalky their corruption turns on themselves.

  14. […] Lifeboat ethics (also). Distributed blind conspiracy. Institutional capture. A failed fitness test. Social media as a model of collapse. Quite a bit more persuasion needed. New(ish) blog of the […]

  15. […] Lifeboat ethics (also). Distributed blind conspiracy. Institutional capture. A failed fitness test. Social media as a model of collapse. Quite a bit […]

  16. Morkyz says:

    This constant mental masturbation about what ‘really’ causes leftism = gay shit.

  17. Zach says:

    Good post. The little bit more of explanation makes a good difference.

  18. Zach says:

    To Oliver…

    You share some of my sentiments. I once incorrectly assumed Jim a libertarian. Called him inconsistent. He isn’t a lib. There are social Darwinists and then there are social historyists.

    • jim says:

      Used to be a libertarian half the time and an anarchist the other half.

      But libertarianism went left. These days you cannot be a libertarian and support freedom of contract or freedom of association, or the continued existence of the white race, or the scientific method, or corporations based on double entry accounting, or marriage, or the family. Everyone who still calls themselves a libertarian favors burning people at the stake if they will not bake a gay wedding cake.

      And it became obvious that anarchy is only workable if the smartest people are on top, blacks enslaved, and proletarians enserfed – that a workable anarcho capitalism would necessarily resemble thirteenth century feudalism.

      Still an anarcho capitalist of sorts, in that Moldbug is a monarchist and I am a feudalist.

      • Irving says:

        So would you say Jim that you’re a anarcho capitalist + white nationalist?
        For myself, ‘race realism’ acted as a corrective to my libertarianism, though I’m still as libertarian as I ever was. Given that I’m not white, it doesn’t make sense for me to be a white nationalist, though I’m mostly sympathetic to white nationalist concerns, but I’ve made my peace with the fact that some kind of race based caste system is probably necessary for a workable and durable social order to exist.

        • Minion says:

          Well, if you are a non-white libertarian, you have to admit that the only realistic way of having a libertarian society is disenfranchising fellow non-whites.

          So which is important to you- being able to live in a libertarian society, or being able to vote?

          • Irving says:

            >So which is important to you- being able to live in a libertarian society, or being able to vote?

            Living in a libertarian society, for sure, although I would like to see some sort of arrangement in which the poor and/or the incompetent aren’t left to suffer and die, but merely have their right or ability to reproduce taken away from them.

            I haven’t voted in my life and I don’t ever plan to, so I have no problem if here in America all non-whites were disenfranchised. (In reality, of course, it wouldn’t work that way, and the right to vote, if it were ever restricted, would be restricted on the basis of class, and not racial, lines. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t mind how it was done anyway, so whatever.)

          • Minion says:

            “although I would like to see some sort of arrangement in which the poor and/or the incompetent aren’t left to suffer and die”
            That is what slavery, serfdom, and peonage is for. It gives guaranteed employment for the poor. And for the unable poor, religious charities and churches traditionally took care of them.

            If only white males could vote, then most states in the Union would be solidly Republican, and likely libertarians would be their main opposition. No more women ruining the political system with their fee fees.

        • jim says:

          So would you say Jim that you’re a anarcho capitalist + white nationalist?

          Not a white nationalist. White nationalists think that whites are naturally one people, and therefore whenever whites do bad things to whites, must be due to evil Jewish mind rays.

          Whites have always been at war or near war with whites, and the best we can hope for is not-quite-war, where white in-groups treat white out-groups respectfully in the sense of doing business with them, respecting their property rights, and letting them pass through, under the imminent threat of bloody slaughter if they do not.

      • Minion says:

        Yeah, it was also very suspicious for many of us that America was freer and more “libertarian” (eg no income taxes, limited government, states rights, etc) when we still practiced slavery and segregation, while women were domesticated and not allowed to vote.

        Which probably explains why libertarians are naturally drawn to reaction. Its either modern statist liberal democracy, or its neo-feudalism.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          NRx is a pragmatic libertarian heresy, just as Naziism was a pragmatic communist heresy.

          Like Naziism attracted a flotsam of aristocratic National Conservatives to whom the movement appealed aesthetically, but who actually had no place in it, NRx attracts a flotsam of White Nationalists.

          • peppermint says:

            Implying that libertarianism wasn’t just a way to confound leftist talking points and stay as right as possible within the Overton window. In fact, as soon as the Overton window got far enough, libertarianism+ and the collapse of libertarian affiliation happened.

            Implying that neoreaction is still a thing. The reaction to the letter to the French that may have been written by ((Moldbug)) in the wake of the terrorism shows how far we have moved on from post-libertarianism.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Libertarianism is a coherent philosophy with distinct logical foundations to all others. Many Libertarians are not willing to follow that logic to its destination. That’s not something unique to Libertarianism; most Progressives don’t consciously endorse white genocide etc.

            • jim says:

              Libertarianism is a coherent philosophy with distinct logical foundations to all others. Many Libertarians are not willing to follow that logic to its destination.

              And as the Overton Window moved ever further leftwards, ever fewer libertarians were willing to follow that logic to its destination.

          • peppermint says:

            » muh coherent philosophy

            four-eyed virgin bookworms are at best entertainers and deserve to have their head stuffed in the toilet if they’re not funny

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            You’re a puppet on their strings.

            Whoever the fuck you are.

          • peppermint says:

            Your coherent philosophy has a political purpose. Your failure to understand its place shows that you’re a four-eyed virgin bookworm.

            Its purpose was

            (1) to give Whites an alternative to nationalism, as seen in one of Revilo Oliver’s newspaper clippings, but I can’t find which one, so feel free to pretend it was always right-wing
            (2) to allow Whites to cite the coherent philosophy and freedom-centric principles to be permitted to be “accidentally” racist

            Since the left no longer pretends to care about freedom, and libertarianism supports inequality, libertarianism is now unacceptable, except to the extent that libertarian namefags can make the case that they’re actually more anti-White than normal leftists.

            Who’s on strings? Libertarian namefags and libertarian party supporters trying to avoid being called racist, or an anonymous Internet personality who can pretend to have always been a Sanders supporter when Hillary ends freedom forever?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Replacement society needs a replacement ideology.

            Nazi is just progressivism with some of the more obviously broken bits taken out.

            If you are a Nazi then you are a puppet on a progressive’s string. Maybe not the progressives in power right now, the ones you most despise, but some progressive, and the destination is the same.

            If you want to exclude the ferrin goods because America can’t compete, eventually you’ll kill the Jews because you can’t compete, then everyone with a university education, then everyone who owns a pair of spectacles. It’s been done. You want to exclude the ferrin goods, so you will eventually kill everyone who owns a pair of spectacles. Which means you have no place in our movement, however useful an idiot you may be at the start.

  19. […] has a big one, an instant classic, this week: Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed. It was overdue, but welcome. Stark but entirely […]

  20. […] A. Donald: Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed. I described this as an instant classic. Gives full voice to neoreactionary sex realism, […]

  21. Gutenberg says:

    Great article, thanks!

    I’m sorry if I missed this in the comments section, but I’m having trouble understanding the author’s preferred system mentioned at the end. How can women choose partners romantically if they’re under parental supervision? Is the idea that they can choose their life mate so long as virginity is conserved until marriage?

    Thanks again for your great piece.

    • jim says:

      Supervised ballroom dancing -> legally and socially enforceable engagement -> unsupervised dating with fiancee -> sex -> marriage.

      Coming out party at or shortly after menarche. Ballroom dancing – which involves intimate sexy touching and the lady continually following and obeying the male’s verbal and non verbal commands.

      Girl has a dance card filled out by her father, which socially requires her to dance with certain parentally selected males and not others.

      Girl falls in lust pretty quickly. In order to date any of these parentally selected males, and perhaps visit his room, has to first become engaged. Engagement is a legally and socially enforceable commitment to marry if they have sex. (Or perhaps if the girl gets pregnant) Sex ensues. Legally and socially enforced marriage follows.

      • Gutenberg says:

        Thanks! I think the dance as an example is powerful – the loss of elegant dancing strikes me as one of the sharpest losses from “die Welt von Gestern”…

        It strikes me I haven’t read much concrete examples in the reactosphere, but they’re important. It appeals right away to romantic longing for a higher Eros. We can hook nontheoretical people that way, then explain after they’re hooked how Eros has been channeled according to the nature of the sexes, etc.

  22. Jane says:

    This is completely offensive and, as a trained Anthropologist, entirely misconceived. I don’t even know where to begin!

    Overwhelming sadness for humanity and the men on this page. Can’t bag a woman and instead of humbling looking inwards and truthfully examining what the reason may be, they turn to hate speech and misogyny.

    Maybe there are girls out there who respond to PUA tactics. But the good ones, the ones with brains and hearts, never do. Kindness rewards kindness. Please guys, get off this website. It’s too pitiful.

    • jim says:

      When I said “she is probably stalking and spying”, and when I said “then soon she will be pestering one for a date”, I speak from experience.

      Women despise men who treat them well, hence the effectiveness of negs and preselection.

      My wife, who recently died, was a very good woman, the best. Although I have slept with many other woman, nonetheless until near the end, I always spent every night with her, and she loved me very much and I loved her very much.

      And all woman respond to PUA tactics. Look around you. A woman will only be happy if she is virtuous, and will only be virtuous if she is bagged by a good man who keeps her and restrains her inherently wicked impulses. Women reward playful cruelty and cheerful selfishness.

      Women do not reward kindness. If they choose to submit to a kind man, that is their good luck, not their good judgement.

      Consent based morality is based on the idea that we make rational choices. If two men agree to exchange iron for wheat, the exchange must be in the interests of both of them, it must make them both better off, or else they would not agree. But sexual consent in fertile age woman is based on raging hormones, on volcanically powerful and entirely irrational forces, thus women make terrible sexual choices that are very much against their interests. For this reason, sexual consent is not sufficient to make sex right, nor lack of sexual consent sufficient to make sex wrong.

      Emancipating women, allowing them to choose who to sleep with and who not to sleep with, is like setting ten year old children loose in the jungle to live by hunting bears. When menarche hits, women become less capable of consenting competently, not more capable. The age of consent should be menopause. Women should not be allowed to consent to sex except under male supervision.

  23. […] August 31, 2016Uncategorizedrichard1j Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed […]

  24. […] Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed […]

  25. […] “Women cannot help shit testing men any more than men can help looking at women’s breasts. This is instinctive and unconscious. They genuinely believe their postures, attitudes, and demands are sincere, genuine, and deeply felt, like a four year old’s temper tantrum, and are entirely unaware that when their bluff is called, they will fold like cheap cardboard, and feel a deep relief, like a child in her father’s arms.”    shit test […]

Leave a Reply