Hitting your woman with a stick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

206 Responses to “Hitting your woman with a stick”

  1. Cavalier says:

    I was greatly looking forward to the action in the clip linked, so I was sorely disappointed when literally. nothing. happened. And then she proceeded to lie her ass off like a stuck up little bitch to the rest of the girls.

    She could have used a good sticking.

    Also, what’s with the makeup? Seriously.

    Better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NssX5AqvLGw

    • Alf says:

      Was thinking the same. He showed kindness which she took as weakness and used against him, which was reinforced by the girls in the hall listening in and not hearing any slaps.

  2. Liv says:

    So you’re a Muslim? How is that part of a while heritage? Whites did not naturally evolve to then regress into this form of barbarism. I understand the domination part, and in Christianity, the husband’s punishment should be verbal. Violence means weakness, no matter what. The wife’s punishment is a verbal thrust that leads to humiliation and humility. I get that I’m a woman and that you probably think me inferior as other Muslims like you believe women are, and you’re right about most of this, but I will remain firm that a man who hits a woman is barbaric and deserves to revel in the penis-loving sanctum that is Islam.

    • Vic says:

      Some women desire to be hit and sone don’t. All cases where I’ve personally observed beatings resulted in the women showing insane amounts of love and devotion to the man after the fact. I also observed the woman pushing the man in order to trigger the beating. In that case she followed her husband around for 20 minutes insulting him before he struck her. She became entirely devoted and happy for months after that. This pattetned reapeated for 20 years according to thier children.

      Also speaking as a man nothing is more dangerous that to stop someone beating thier girlfriend in public. Not only will the woman turn and attack the man trying to intercede(often with a weapon) but the boyfriends tend to entirly willing to kill you for interfearing. Women pick those types of violent men because they need the dominance.

      • peppermint says:

        » Some women desire to be hit and sone don’t.

        pretty much all women want to be hit, just ask them about how they feel about BDSM or sexual spanking. My mom used to follow my dad around insulting him trying to get him to pay attention to her also.

        The pimp-slap is degrading to the man doing it as well as the woman. You need to be very careful about hitting your woman in the face, niggers aren’t because they don’t care about their women.

        It’s amusing and unsurprising that the feminists here are accusing White men talking about how women want to be hit of being coons or sand monkeys, this is just proof that feminism was never about helping women and always about attacking White men.

        Leftists are scum.

    • jim says:

      We will not get above replacement fertility unless men have a reason to invest in women and children. For men to invest, the society must act collectively to enforce the individual property rights of men over their women and children. That is the way it has always been. Whites and East Asians need patriarchy to reproduce successfully, and their women are psychologically adapted to patriarchal environment and become disturbed outside of that environment.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        I’m not sure we couldn’t do with less fertility for a few decades if we keep our nations free of foreigners but I reluctantly have to agree

        There is zero benefit to man to marry or have children these days and only a return to incentives is going to work.

        • peppermint says:

          low fertility is itself a problem, it causes children to grow up micromanaged and thinking they’re super important, which is exactly what liberals are like

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            That’s actually a damned good point Peppermint.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Interesting point. I often think about this in relation to the fact that overall fertility has been, of course, 2.0 offspring-surviving-to-reproduce almost all the time humans have been around.

            But there are many differences. Most of that time, fertility-to-reproduction may have been 2.0, but average family size was 4.0 or higher per woman, to compensate for infant and child mortality. So even if you were one of the lucky 2, you still grew up with more siblings than we see in the modern West.

            Also, for almost all of that time, foraging life was so tough that there was no such thing as being spoiled.

            Then, when farming did arrive and gave rise to a potentially spoiled upper class, they had a HIGHER fertility than the lower class until the Industrial Revolution. So rich kids had even more sibs than poor.

            Add it all up and the modern family in the industrialized world is the first time in history we spoiled, special-snowflake humans have EVER existed in large numbers.

            Just pass me that big black horse pill.

        • Corvinus says:

          Tens of thousands of marriages occur every year, with hundreds of thousands of children being born as a result. Obviously, men have incentives.

      • Learner says:

        Surely there is some relationship between welfare and low fertility. Children used to be an insurance for times of illness and old age. There is no point in having children if the welfare state is promising to care for you when you are sick or old. And democracies tend to welfare.

        • Vic says:

          Not really. The stongest correspondence between fertility is how liberated wome are. Low levels of liberation results in lots of children.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Low levels of liberation results in lots of children.”

            Citation?

            • jim says:

              The two most fertile places outside subsaharan Africa are Aghanistan and Timore Leste, which are the two places where women are strikingly unliberated.

              The Philippines are reasonably fertile thanks to the total lack of subsidies for fatherless children, the difficulty of divorce, and the absence of affirmative action jobs for women.

              Japan had high fertility in war and peace, boom and bust, until McArthur emancipated women.

        • Oc.Va. says:

          I have heard this argument many times, and it is not true. In a Libertarian society you would not have a welfare state, but there would be some form of private retirement which would fulfill the same purpose, so there would not be incentives to reproduce either.

          The problem is that children in developed countries are basically pets. Very expensive pets, to be more accurate. People in the Third World don’t have children due to muh patriarchy, but because they need them. They work from an early age, helping the family, and they take care of their parents in their old age. And since some are probably going to die, you better err on the side of more, not less.

          • jim says:

            The evidence is overwhelming that economics does not matter, short of actual starvation. Economics fails to account for observed fertility patterns. War and peace, boom and bust, has surprisingly little effect. People do not have children for reasons of rational economic self interest.

            • peppermint says:

              …with the notable exception of young Whites stuck in school and entry-level jobs putting off family formation until they are in their 30s when they hope to have more resources

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >Violence means weakness, no matter what.

      You are incorrect.

  3. My girls always misbehave eventually, and I dump them. The cycle usually takes 3-6 months.
    I know that they don’t want to get dumped. They are testing my resolve and looking for drama. They want me to yell or argue or show some kind of fierce emotion that they can inspire in me. My deathlike calm exasperates them. Perhaps yes, they’d prefer that I hit them.
    But I don’t. I just dump them. I have a job that requires a clean record and >zero fucks given. You guys are going to have to rescue our civilization and repopulate it without me.

    • Alan J. Perrickth says:

      The turn of phrase, of course, would be “despite” you, not “without” you.

      • Yes, that phrase is more descriptive and accurate.

        • Corvinus says:

          “You guys are going to have to rescue our civilization and repopulate it without me.”

          You and Roissy are biological dead ends and are useless to the Alt Right. Good riddance.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Until Trump came along, Roissy did more for the Alt Right than anyone. Sex and Race are inextricably related. Low White fertility, White weakness to invasion, and changing White sexual habits are all linked in many highly significant ways.

            Sex sells. Sex spikes interest in young men. Sex is about status. In 2014, KMac and many others were in open despair and the Alt Right was ripe for a change from an intellect driven Phase 1 movement to a status and emotion driven phase. Roissy played a yuge part in that transition. Trump is the ultimate high-status male.

            And who knows; history tells us the best men often have children late. Come a revolution, Roissy and Nikolai met yet impregnate young hotties with the seed for beautiful, dominant children.

            • Alan J. Perrick says:

              L.O.L., what’s funny is that I don’t believe that either he nor Mr Vladivostok are really behind what they wrote right here.

              “Corvinus” is notoriously anti-white and Mr V. links Mr Matthew Forney at his blog…

              A.J.P.

              • Corvinus says:

                ““Corvinus” is notoriously anti-white”

                You can’t even clearly define that concept. It has little meaning to whites who make their own decisions regarding race.

                “Low White fertility, White weakness to invasion, and changing White sexual habits are all linked in many highly significant ways”

                Why don’t you offer us your insight this connection.

              • I’m not sure what you mean. I’m new in these parts. Yes, my blog links to Matt Forney – is he unpopular around here?

    • Spandrell says:

      I’d rather there were more people like you around in the future so try to get one or two knocked up.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    As in one of the most globalist organisations in the world, the United Nations, picking one’s nose is forbidden the same way using the word “gypsy” is forbidden (if the speaker is white), so is any deliberate corporal punishment, Yet, far away from those barren halls of artificiality, one finds such conduct with considerably less difficulty.

    A.J.P.

  5. viking says:

    once while this girlfriend i had was doing the cowgirl i slapped in the face her for the fun of it and called her a little slut. she threw a fit so i left her unapologetically a few days later she calls me to please come hear her out at which point she confesses it upset her because she liked it and it scarred her

    • Corvinus says:

      Because she was sexually aroused at that moment in time and had developed trust with your prior to your alleged encounter. This case does not mean one can automatically conclude that all women therefore want to be dominated by any man.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      Slapping during sex is sex-play dominance, not punishment dominance. It’s better than nothing, but it’s nowhere close to what Jim is writing of. Unfortunately, it’s about all men can do in the modern West if they wish to avoid divorce rape, lawsuits and jail. There are only a few Jim Goad’s that can build a career on such experience. The rest of us in the West are stuck with sex-play dominance. Which makes it WAY better than nothing.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Unfortunately, it’s about all men can do in the modern West if they wish to avoid divorce rape, lawsuits and jail.”

        Thus the fact that “real men” like Jim who claim to use sticks to hit women when they misbehave are not real men, because they are scared shitless of the consequences for their actions. They can only display this dominance at home in front of their “little woman”.

        • jim says:

          At home is precisely the most dangerous place to display dominance, though the most necessary place to display dominance, because at home it is “domestic violence”. Outside of home, lightly slapping a woman in the face, or amoging the leader of the pack, though not exactly safe, is nonetheless way safer.

          • Corvinus says:

            “At home is precisely the most dangerous place to display dominance, though the most necessary place to display dominance, because at home it is “domestic violence”.”

            No, at home is precisely the safest place to show your mettle, especially if you have complete control of the situation. She dare not call the cops, especially if she knows you mean business.

            “Outside of home, lightly slapping a woman in the face, or amoging the leader of the pack, though not exactly safe, is nonetheless way safer”

            Why don’t you offer proof to your hypothesis by field testing it? Show how safe it is by recording how your new woman in your life is disciplined when she gets out of line. All you have to do is tell law enforcement she deserved it. She is your property. They’ll go for that explanation.

  6. Mark Yuray says:

    “The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women.”

    Jim, the rest of the post was 180, but you’re wrong about this.

    Vast majority of white converts are fat male gingers, typically with engineering degrees, followed by SJW tumblristas whose obesity has probably already rendered them infertile.

    Quit it with this alt-right attitude of Whites vs. Muslims. It’s Whites vs. Other Whites, always has been, always will be.

    Hot fertile age white single women aren’t converting to Islam, they’re sacrificing their eggs to Hollywood, New York, London, and DC. And not for the benefit of kebab food stand owners therein.

    • Vic says:

      A quick image search shows mostly fertile age skinny white women who have conveted to Islam. Only one fat Ginger guy.

    • jim says:

      https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=western+converts+to+islam
      Hot chicks wall to wall.

      If you are on the alt right, you have read the red pill about women, on this blog and many others. If you accept the red pill, why would you doubt that hot women want to be fucked by traditional Muslims? Also romantically married to traditional Muslims, also abducted by traditional Muslims, raped by traditional Muslims, etc. If Islamic State was capturing white women in Europe, chaining them up in shipping containers, and shipping them off to Syria as in the days of the Barbary coast pirates, you would see hot women hanging around shipping containers with high hopes.

      Women resist enslavement only because they hope to find owners strong enough. It is a fitness test which we have failed, and hot chicks are looking for men that can pass it.

      Be the man who passes!

      • Aristocles Invictvs says:

        Muslim men are low status, ergo most women, especially ones high on the social ladder, will avoid them like the plague. Speaking from experience all the White women I have seen in Germany with Muslim boyfriends have been landwhales or corrupted by listening to too much Muslim rap music and being immersed in that scene.

        • jim says:

          Maybe that works in Germany, where you have long tradition of guestworker Muslims doing shitty low status jobs. It is not working in America or England.

          And you may well find you are out of date in Germany, now that Muslims look more like conquerors and less like slaves.

          • Mark Yuray says:

            This is pretty bizarre Jim. I haven’t been to England in a while, but the most prominent Muslims in America are irreligious doctors and toothless Halal stand hotdog salesmen, that hot fertile age white women pass by 50x a day on their ways to Tinder dates with white men in suits, or on their ways to work in big skyscrapres built by and staffed with white men in suits with lots of money.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            A middle class German woman might consider a refugee who is both physically attractive and fluent in English, and intelligent enough to have been middle class had he been born in Germany (probably true of most of those who are fluent in English).

            A lower class German woman won’t even speak good English and I doubt many Afghans or Syrians or Cameroonians speak German.

            There are a lot of rapefugees primarily because they’re not getting any any other way. They have massively tilted the gender balance for young people in Germany and they are at the bottom of the pile. The demographic threat they pose is that they will be allowed to start importing wives in a few years, wives who will be completely dependent on them for immigration reasons.

            The situation in England is a bit different because English immigrants are not 100% low IQ Muslims. There are plenty of decent-looking Indians with good jobs in England.

        • Mark Yuray says:

          This, basically. Painfully obvious.

      • Learner says:

        I don’t think you should compare Muslim converts vs. Christian converts, but rather Muslim converts vs. Muslim-origin people becoming “modern” in the European sense (freeing themselves from religion). I’d say around 1 in 10 Muslim girls in Europe are completely free from religion, though nominally Muslim; in fact, you wouldn’t know they are Muslim at all. Thus, they are rather converts to the Enlightenment.

        • peppermint says:

          Yes, it’s well known and humiliating to muzzies that most White men could get any jihad chick to suck their balls.

          It’s also well known that the White women who racemix are usually either damaged in some way, getting back at their father for being a total cuck, or both. White women would pretty much stop immediately if social norms shifted.

      • Mark Yuray says:

        Indeed, more woman than men, so I was wrong about the gingers, although fat gingers with engineering degrees are still vastly overrepresented.

        https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2790/europeans-converting-to-islam

        Average age of conversion is 27. That doesn’t scream “hot fertile age women” to me, that screams “rode the carousel now cruising for a beta to marry up, and the only betas left are low-status Muslims.”

        I do not know a single hot fertile age white woman who has converted to Islam, or ever indicated she might, or would want to do so.

        I do not know a single hot fertile age Muslim woman who is devoutly religious, or ever indicated she would want to be.

        I do not know a single hot fertile age white or Muslim woman who is not pursuing status and career in the big city, chasing white men in suits with lots of money, or big muscles, or whatever.

        • Mark Yuray says:

          Furthermore, the Heartistian notion that the migrant crisis in Europe is an Islamic invasion of alpha Muslims is totally retarded, the fact you buy into it is not damning since it’s plausible, but anyone who has visited Europe can tell you the opposite is more accurate.

          Most of the migrants are not alpha Muslims, they’re 5’4 little Bangladeshi dudes traveling in packs.

          Not tingle-inducing material.

          White women aren’t welcoming them because they want 5’4 little Bangladeshi dudes to bang them, they’re welcoming them because they are slavish devotees of power, of the state, state run by white men in suits with lots of money, who demand millions of little Bangladeshi dudes enter their countries and vote for them to keep out of power the white men in red hats with less money, who outnumber them.

          • Mark Yuray says:

            The migrant invasion looks to me more like a Beta Uprising, than anything else.

            • jim says:

              If betas could uprise, they would not be betas.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                All these people have done is walked somewhere they have been told they will be given free money. If Merkel had said that she would shoot people at the border how many would have come anyway?

                It’s not an alpha invasion; the immigrants are the cape not the matador.

          • jim says:

            Packs are scary. Fear turns women on, and comfort and security turns women on. Seeing the pack, the woman immediately imagines a situation where she is comfortable and secure, because the leader of the pack has claimed her as his personal possession.

            If there is a pack of males, and the leader of the pack hits on a girl, and you want that girl, or if he hits on your girl, you have to immediately and on the spot devastatingly, but confidently and calmly, amog the leader of the pack. And if you don’t, you are hosed but good.

            Well, I have not been where you have been, but knowing how women act, I expect that European men are hosed but good.

            That said, South Asians fold easily. And Muslims fold easily, because their God tells them not to muck with other people’s women, so if you make a confident claim of possession, however spurious, they are obligated to fold. But somehow I just don’t see the typical European as willing to try it.

            What you say is true but irrelevant, unless European men have the balls to make it true in front of women. Which they do not.

            • Mark Yuray says:

              Not a pack, more like a swarm. Like insects. They all look the same too.

              I’m not buying what you’re selling. Were it as simple as an invasion, but it’s not. They’re being invited here, and it’s not just by non-existent women who want to be dominated by a swarm of smelly Bangladeshis who can’t look you in the eye.

            • lalit says:

              “And Muslims fold easily, because their God tells them not to muck with other people’s women”

              Beg to differ, Jim. Their God tells them not to much with another muslim’s woman. He explicitly commands them to muck with the kaffir’s woman.

        • jim says:

          Average age of conversion is 27. That doesn’t scream “hot fertile age women” to me, that screams “rode the carousel now cruising for a beta to marry up,

          True

          and the only betas left are low-status Muslims.”

          False

          There is a vast supply of white betas with lots of money. What is in short supply is betas who can subdue her and put her in proper, wifely, place.

          • Mark Yuray says:

            Fair enough. Still betas though. Not all European men are betas. European men disproportionately desired by women, hot white fertile age women included. Disproportionately represented among alphas.

            • jim says:

              Reflect on Rotherham. Unowned white women being propertized by Paki muslims because white men were prevented from propertizing women. Still happening. Despite the scandal, nothing has changed.

    • theshadowedknight says:

      Whites vs Muslims is a real, historical war waged for over a millenium. At the gates of Vienna it was Whites vs Muslims, where the Whites set aside their infighting to fight Muslims. Once we get to a point where the right class of Whites rules, the threat of Islam will still be lurking if it was not handled in the process of installing the right Whites.

      Yes, Whites vs Whites, but also Whites vs Muslims. Not mutually exclusive. Muslims are not fighting for Whites, fighting against Whites. Attacking New York, one of the prog capitols in America. Killing goodwhites because Muslims are not content to be goodwhite pets.

      The Shadowed Knight

      • jim says:

        Yes, progs are pro Muslim because they think they can make pets of them. Others have thought this before progs did.

        • Minion says:

          Islam is not “anti-white” tho. Its anti-non-Muslim, and Islam is not a race.

          If by whites you just mean “European Christian culture”, yes, Islam was a historical enemy, but Western society is no longer a White Christian culture, so that is rendered moot. What the West is now is a Multicultural secular liberal construct that worships faggots as their natural aristocracy. There is nothing about the West that is worth defending.

          Whites are too cucked to really unite for their own interests (even the so called “alt-right” only hates Islam because its an actual threat to faggotry and femlib, rather than a desire to preserve Christianity or Whites). Notice how when a Muslim does a terror attack, the only thing that really happens is that some moderate Euroskeptic gains 1 or 2 percent in popularity. It seems modern Western whites are just incapable of standing for their interests.

          But, yeah, Muslims, at least the actual ones (eg those who support sharia, go to the mosque, etc), are becoming increasingly discontent with being prog pets. This is especially true given the rapid shift in our culture towards liberal causes (such as gay marriage and feminism), where it is now seeping on to Muslims, with feminism, fag rights, and atheism becoming widespread among Muslim youths. Many Muslims have even rooted for a Trump victory just to spite the progs for corrupting the Muslim youth (they would even love the irony that secular “muslims” – who Muslims hate more than regular kuffar- will fall victim to any of Trump’s anti-Muslim policy).

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            “If by whites you just mean “European Christian culture”, yes, Islam was a historical enemy, but Western society is no longer a White Christian culture, so that is rendered moot. What the West is now is a Multicultural secular liberal construct that worships faggots as their natural aristocracy. There is nothing about the West that is worth defending.”

            Quite. The European far right – the guys who are unacceptably fringe but still numerous enough to hear from – tell me that Western civilisation needs defending because it gives me gay rights, feminism, and death penalty abolition, things that are about fifty years old, and that have accompanies and perhaps caused massive social degeneration.

            If these things are Western culture then Western culture is not old, is not the culture of my great grandparents, and is opposed to my interests.

            Islam is bad because it does not believe in cause and effect, not because it does not believe in gay rights and feminism.

    • Alf says:

      A while ago my gf told me she has this fantasy where she is taken into an arabic harem. It felt like a warning.

      The problem is that muslim men are allowed to act like men while white men are supposed to listen and be good. Maybe white men at the moment still have enough status to secure the love of white women, but the line will not hold forever.

  7. viking says:

    men are better off killing progs before deciding to slap their women.whites used to whip their blacks dont recommend that either until you have beat faggotry back.

  8. herbert says:

    Thank you for so completely fulfilling the role of “giving me someone to feel superior to in every respect.” I’d feel sorry for the women who cross your path, but honestly anyone so damaged as to not run screaming from a “man” who calmly strikes her palm with a stick for withholding sex probably doesn’t have the odds on her side anyway.

    • jim says:

      I had a beautiful virgin wife who loved me and served me all her days. I have two legitimate sons, a grandson, and more grandchildren on the way. I had various women in addition to my wife. After my wife died I brought an attractive girlfriend thirty eight years younger than myself into my home, who is now lying in my bed as I write this. How is your sex life?

      • Corvinus says:

        “I had various women in addition to my wife.”

        Yes, we know that you are an adulterer.

        “After my wife died I brought a girlfriend thirty eight years younger than me into my home.”

        You mean bought, not brought.

        “No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it. What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”


        
Jim, you are delusional per usual. It is more than likely that you project your feelings of superiority on your blog to mask the nature of your relationship with your wife or girlfriend or whomever you say you are with to your fanboys.

        You cannot possible say “no woman in love ever” because that assumes you know without a shadow of a doubt every single women’s intentions and feelings. Only God is able to make that claim.

        “Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands.”

        
When she is a completely comfortable with the nature of the relationship, yes.

        “Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.”

        Corrected for accuracy —> Most women find sex interesting and enjoyable, with few desiring to be absolutely dominated by their lover.

        “Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

        Ephesians 5:28—and to present her to Himself as a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.…

        “If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.”

        One’s wife MAY abandon that household. Considering that hundreds of thousands of married couples today, Jim, make their own decisions on who guides that ship and are committed together, your claim is demonstratively false.

        “But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose…They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.”

        First, you only speak to what YOU believe women want. It is merely an opinion on your part.

        Second, insisting that YOU and ONLY YOU have the definitive position regarding what women want is EXACTLY the line of thinking SJW’s employ, that their way of thinking other than false.

        Third, men and women themselves have the freedom to make their own choices and decisions in a marriage. They need not be harangued by an elitist such as yourself as to how to live their lives.

        Fourth, until your wife or girlfriend or whomever you say you are with to your fanboys actually comes out and reiterates your sentiments, that they enjoy being beaten with a stick, that they desire being constantly overpowered in the relationship, -and/or- you post yourself hitting a women with a stick, you are merely “fronting” as the darkies say. It’s all talk.

        See, you need not be afraid of the authorities, since you are able to completely justify your position to law enforcement as being entirely truthful. According to you, you are totally right in this case, and with God on your side, you will be exonerated. So go ahead and show the world that you actually hit women with sticks when they get out of line.

        “For men to invest, the society must act collectively to enforce the individual property rights of men over their women and children. That is the way it has always been.”

        

That is the way it HAD been in certain societies dominated by Christian patriarchy. That society is dead. It’s not going to be revived, thank God. Americans themselves, not you, will decide what are property rights and how they will be enforced.

        • jim says:

          You cannot possible say “no woman in love ever” because that assumes you know without a shadow of a doubt every single women’s intentions and feelings.

          NAXALT

          until your wife or girlfriend or whomever you say you are with to your fanboys actually comes out and reiterates your sentiments, that they enjoy being beaten with a stick, that they desire being constantly overpowered in the relationship, -and/or- you post yourself hitting a women with a stick, you are merely “fronting” as the darkies say. It’s all talk.

          No woman is ever going to say, or even think, that she enjoys being punished, that she enjoys being dominated. For if she said that, or even thought that, it would not be punishment and domination, it would merely be the BDSM role playing that the fairy boys at “Less Wrong” do with safe words and silly costumes.

          But women hang out with men that dominate them, they choose men with whom sex is submission, they misbehave but choose men who will not put up with their misbehavior. They say one thing, say it quite loudly and aggressively, but do another thing, quite docilely.

          AWALT

          • Jack Highlands says:

            And unfortunately Jim, since no woman has a clue to the answer of the age-old question, and generally say the opposite of what they really want, a true knowledge of women is partly a matter of faith. Faith and the field test. Me, I believe. But it took some field testing.

            • Corvinus says:

              Jack…

              “Me, I believe. But it took some field testing”

              Which is subject to confirmation bias.

              Jim…

              You can “NAXALT” or “AWALT” you want, but using those phrases does not pass for truth.

              “No woman is ever going to say, or even think, that she enjoys being punished, that she enjoys being dominated.”

              Again, you are offering an opinion here, not fact.

              “But women hang out with men that dominate them…”

              Because women are comfortable with that part of the relationship due to a host of reasons (e.g. trust, fear, enjoyment).

              “they choose men with whom sex is submission”

              Because women are comfortable with that part of the relationship due to trust.

              “they misbehave but choose men who will not put up with their misbehavior”

              Men and women misbehave. They chose one another who may or may not put up with that misbehavior.

              “They say one thing, say it quite loudly and aggressively, but do another thing, quite docilely.”

              So do men.

              • jim says:

                You can “NAXALT” or “AWALT” you want, but using those phrases does not pass for truth.

                “NAXALT” is a short summary of a long and much repeated argument that is undeniably and obviously the truth, and anyone who denies it is lying, stupid, or crazy.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “that is undeniably and obviously the truth.”

                  What you peddle is other than the truth, as has been demonstrated time and time again on this blog.

        • jim says:

          

That is the way it HAD been in certain societies dominated by Christian patriarchy. That society is dead. It’s not going to be revived,

          Neither the white nor the east asian race can reproduce successfully without patriarchy. If we don’t revive patriarchy, we disappear from the face of the earth in the quite near future, and western civilization with whites, technological civilization vanishes with whites and east asians.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Neither the white nor the east asian race can reproduce successfully without patriarchy. If we don’t revive patriarchy, we disappear from the face of the earth in the quite near future, and western civilization with whites, technological civilization vanishes with whites and east asians.”

            First, it depends upon how one defines “reproduce successfully”. Because for the past 100 years, whites and East Asians have been having children. They have been instilling the values they believe to be necessary to properly sustain society. What you are demanding is that they abandon their own ability to make decisions on how to parent.

            Second, white people aren’t going to “disappear”. There are hundreds of millions of whites on this Earth. They work and play and live their life the way THEY want to, not how YOU think they should.

            Third, very few whites revel in “western civilization”. Rather, they focus on ensuring the survival of English civilization, or American civilization, or Australian civilization.

            • peppermint says:

              so, you’re willing to accept that Whites are a thing, but are now disputing Western civilization?

              I personally know at least one person who was a socialist five years ago and is now what Vox Day calls alt-West.

              Evidently Corvinus is responding to this trend by trying to undermine it with a new political lie.

            • jim says:

              Because for the past 100 years, whites and East Asians have been having children.

              Not, however, for the last thirty four years.

              Since it became socially unacceptable to beat one’s wife with a stick, we have been reproducing substantially below replacement, which means we shall disappear in a few generations.

        • peppermint says:

          — — Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands.

          — 
When she is a completely comfortable with the nature of the relationship, yes.

          Yes, Corvinus, and a women becomes completely comfortable when she knows her man wants her.

          Put down your prooftexting highlighted Bible and go watch some BDSM porn.

      • herbert says:

        Let me thank you again, because it’s hilarious to see someone justify their public advocacy of domestic violence with “but check out all the pussy i got brah.” It’s really a pleasure to hate you, and I really appreciate the effort you put into making it that way.

        Beyond that, I’m not going to discuss my sex life with a piece of shit like you, mostly because it’s none of your fucking business, but also because it’s beside the point. I could be the saddest little cuck incel on the prison block and I still wouldn’t be impressed at someone trading away his basic sense of human decency for pussy.

        • jim says:

          Beyond that, I’m not going to discuss my sex life with a piece of shit like you,

          As I surmised, no sex life.

          Or maybe you get to chastely hug your wife to comfort her after her lover beats her up, fucks her, beats the kids, takes the housekeeping money, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and messes up the bed that she sleeps in but you do not.

          • lalit says:

            Funny! He could have much easily lied about his sex life instead of refusing to discuss it. Now why would he not just lie about it?

            • jim says:

              He could lie, and sort of win the argument, but if his sex life is bad, lying about it will make him feel worse. Also people with bad sex lives are unsure what kind of lies are credible, so do not want to go there. He thinks to himself “Is Jim’s story pretty ordinary for an asshole male with violent tendencies, a scary guy, so I can double it and still be believed, or is it totally over the top, and if I double it, people will laugh at me? Or if I ridicule his story as too impressive to be believed, maybe people will conclude I am the loser that I really am.”

              • herbert says:

                There’s no argument to win. You’re a self-professed woman-beater, the lowest form of trash. Absolutely everyone in society looks down on you. I don’t need to describe my life to you because you’re not a peer to me, and its hilarious that you and your audience think that “having a family” and “having sex, with a girl!” are herculean feats that make the scorn all worth it. You fantasize that everyone else is living a sad and pathetic life when the reality is that you’re bragging about absolutely pedestrian life events that most people have no trouble accomplishing without selling their soul and/or rendering themselves anathema to most of society.

                • Eli says:

                  Actually, having sex with even a moderately attractive emancipated (Western) woman and have her be genuinely into you for a very long time does require huge effort from a regular man. Or sheer dumb luck; which, again, runs out.

                  Nothing wrong with flogging or slapping a misbehaving woman. It was OK till last century and men managed to keep civilization going. Jim is correct. You are brainwashed.

                • Eli says:

                  I should add: the only thing that’s wrong is being conditioned to not have enough personal courage to mete the punishment she deserves, and the system of informers and so-called “justice system” — which is a statist attempt to control natalilty and a ruthless power grab by bureaucracy.

                • peppermint says:

                  » You’re a self-professed woman-beater, the lowest form of trash.

                  Jim tries to make clear the distinction between punishing a woman and harming her, but you have been carefully trained to ignore than distinction. Bear in mind that that nuance is coming back and the future will laugh at you.

                  » Absolutely everyone in society looks down on you.

                  this is not a good argument to bring to a racist blog

                • Cavalier says:

                  “absolutely pedestrian life events that most people have no trouble accomplishing”

                  If you’re married, was your wife a virgin bride?

                  If you’re unmarried, why haven’t you married a virgin bride yet?

                • jim says:

                  Absolutely everyone in society looks down on you.

                  Official truth, but not reality. Every man wishes he had the balls to subjugate women the way women wish to be subjugated. Every woman wants to be with a man who will subjugate her.

                  Furthermore the attack on “wife beating” is directed precisely at the group, white married males, that are least likely to harm women. Blacks get a free pass to bitch slap women, even though slapping a woman full strength is quite likely to cause lasting harm, Muslims get a free pass to whip them. The objective is to promote miscegenation by making white men weak. They don’t care about black males beating white women, precisely because they know that makes black males more attractive to white women.

                  Similarly sexual harassment. Everyone prosecuted for sexual harassment is white. Everyone who actually engages in sexual harassment of a white woman is non white. (Recall those videos of a pretty white woman walking around the city “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman”) It is not war on men. It is war on white men, to make eunuchs of white men, while allowing nonwhites to be men.

                  “Everyone looks down on wife beaters” Do they?

                  Really?

                  Really?

                  When they have no problems with black pimps bitch slapping white women?

                  The program is not emasculating men. It is emasculating white men.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Official truth, but not reality.”

                  YOUR truth, but not rooted in reality.

                  “Every man wishes he had the balls to subjugate women the way women wish to be subjugated. Every woman wants to be with a man who will subjugate her.”

                  Corrected for accuracy –> Some men and women wish to be subjugated in their relationship.

  9. ShemTealeaf says:

    Can you point me toward any evidence supporting your position here? If you’re making a claim that the vast majority of women secretly want to be dominated and subjected to physical violence, in direct opposition to what most of the profess openly, I feel like there’s a high burden of proof on you.

    • jim says:

      Open your eyes and look at what is in front of your nose. You will immediately see a striking discrepancy between stated preference and revealed preference.

      • ShemTealeaf says:

        I do see some discrepancies in some cases, but I don’t see anything as widespread as what you’re suggesting. I’ve never encountered anything to suggest that any of my girlfriends ever wanted to be physically disciplined. I don’t think I know any women who have happily stayed with men who physically discipline them, but it’s possible it’s occurring without my knowledge. I know a small number of women who have left abusive boyfriends/husbands. Certainly, my experience doesn’t refute your conclusion, but it doesn’t really support it either.

        What do you make of the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence calls to police every year? Are those outliers, or is there an alternative explanation?

        • peppermint says:

          Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of women complain about their ex being too controlling.

          As soon as I explicitly wondered why they didn’t choose me instead because I wouldn’t be controlling, I realized what their revealed preference was and why they complained after breaking up.

          You are a white knight beta faggot and doctrinally and probably temperamentally incapable of having what up until 30 years ago was considered a normal marriage.

          • Zach says:

            Dood. He’s just talkin’ yo.

          • ShemTealeaf says:

            Isn’t it possible that they were telling the truth, and they simply have factors other than being controlling that go into choosing their partners? I’m sure I’ve complained at some point that my ex’s tits were too small; that doesn’t mean that I’m going to date a woman with larger breasts if she’s unappealing in other ways.

          • James says:

            Whatever women complain about in a man is what they want in a man. If a woman says she hates jerks, it’s because she has a history with jerks. If she didn’t have the habit of fucking jerks, she wouldn’t have anything to complain about. Revealed preference often directly coincides with professed revilement.

        • jim says:

          What do you make of the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence calls to police every year? Are those outliers, or is there an alternative explanation?

          Same thing as I make of the hundreds of thousands of rape complaints in elite universities: Women engaged in wishful thinking.

          Recall Virginia university, of the infamous Rolling Stone article, “A rape on campus”

          That year there were thirty six complaints of sexual assault on Virginia campus, none of which led to any disciplinary or legal consequences. So either the university is horribly biased against women, or women are speaking their sexual fantasies out loud and confusing them with reality.

          Rolling Stone went fishing for evidence the university is horribly biased against women, came up with some chick’s sex fantasy.

          • ShemTealeaf says:

            I’m assuming most of those sexual assault complaints were situations that didn’t involve significant force, so it’s easy to make false complaints, and it’s hard to prove even the true complaints. Physical violence, on the other hand, has a much greater chance of leaving actual evidence to back up the claim, so I don’t think you’d get as many false reports.

            Also, I’m not sure why you think that domestic violence complaints are necessarily made up. You certainly acknowledge that men use physical violence against their wives and girlfriends; is it unreasonable to think that even a minority of them object to that?

            • jim says:

              I’m assuming most of those sexual assault complaints were situations that didn’t involve significant force, so it’s easy to make false complaints, and it’s hard to prove even the true complaints.

              You can assume all sorts of things. I on the other hand assume they resembled less dramatic versions of the story that Rolling Stone actually went with – sexy brutality and sexy cruelty by high status males that these girls desired, but were not in fact getting banged by.

              That, after all, is the data that we actually have, rather than “assuming”. We know that at least one of these stories was a rip roaring tale about a horde of cruel high status males driven mad in a frantic frenzy of savage lust. Sexy blond beasts running wild and cruelly inflicting sexy sex on a helpless defenseless quivering, trembling, woman, cruelly punished by the savage thrusts of their great big iron hard penises on her trembling, shaking, moaning, body. Sexy, cruel, high status, brutal males frantic with dangerous and uncontrollable lust. Thrusting. And thrusting. Cruelly.

              That lot had quite remarkable stamina and energy. All those high status brutal blond beast penises remained cruel, thrusting and hard for a mighty long time. Lots of violently thrusting violence.

              Pretty sure the journalist was typing one handed as she recorded the complainant’s testimony.

              Also, I’m not sure why you think that domestic violence complaints are necessarily made up. You certainly acknowledge that men use physical violence against their wives and girlfriends; is it unreasonable to think that even a minority of them object to that?

              I think that those that complain about it, complain in large part because they are not getting it.

        • JRM says:

          Shem:

          “What do you make of the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence calls to police every year? Are those outliers, or is there an alternative explanation?”

          Why would they not? It’s a no lose scenario for women (except the ones that end up dead).

          To wit: It ties the “victim” to the “perpetrator”. It has the aggregate effect of stamping the relationship with a martyr’s imprimatur. It sets up a possible scenario of “abuser” begging forgiveness and fealty to “victim”. It assures “victim” is on the right side of any future legal action. It becomes a weapon to be used at the discretion of “victim”. It satisfies the need for drama. It makes a great story for the gal pals.

          Stuff like that. In any given case, some will apply, others won’t; in some cases, many, even apparently self-contradictory ones will nevertheless apply.

          • ShemTealeaf says:

            “It sets up a possible scenario of “abuser” begging forgiveness and fealty to “victim”. It assures “victim” is on the right side of any future legal action. It becomes a weapon to be used at the discretion of “victim”.”

            Doesn’t this fly in the face of Jim’s original point that women desire to be dominated by strong men?

            “Why would they not? It’s a no lose scenario for women (except the ones that end up dead).”

            If they actually want to be physically disciplined, wouldn’t they be concerned that their man would be scared off by the threat of legal action and tone down the physical force?

            • jim says:

              Doesn’t this fly in the face of Jim’s original point that women desire to be dominated by strong men?

              It is the nature of women to do their best to resist domination. But if they succeed in such resistance, they become unhappy with the man against whom they have successfully rebelled, and wander off looking for someone sufficiently manly to quell their rebellion.

              It is a shit test.

              And in order to encourage miscegenation, the government backs female shit tests in a racially selective manner, to make white men less attractive to white women, and black and browns more attractive to white women, by forcing whites to fail shit tests and allowing blacks and browns to pass shit tests, by for example allowing blacks to pimp slap white women, even though this is extremely dangerous and frequently results in lasting injury, thus making blacks more sexually attractive.

              Has any black man ever been prosecuted for injuring a white woman with a pimp slap?

              Thus for example is obvious that 99.9% of sexual harassment of women comes from blacks and browns, (recall the “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman” controversy) but 99% of prosecutions for sexual harassment are against white males, in order to emasculate white males and make them less attractive to women.

            • JRM says:

              ” It becomes a weapon to be used at the discretion of “victim”.”
              Doesn’t this fly in the face of Jim’s original point that women desire to be dominated by strong men?”

              What you have to remember is that women aren’t always (or even usually?) acting under a unified logical program.

              Therefore, you see women calling the police on a man they want to tie to them, not get rid of. Even the women get confused in the context of these running domestic battles. Women are often being coached from the sidelines by their female friends. So a friend insists that “next time” he does this, you call the cops. The woman will remember this, do it in a state of confusion, then wonder how soon she can get her man back.

              “If they actually want to be physically disciplined, wouldn’t they be concerned that their man would be scared off by the threat of legal action and tone down the physical force?”

              You are attributing long-term, consistent strategizing to women. They aren’t famed for their mastery of this branch of thought.

              Official Song for this Post: “He Hit Me, And It Felt Like A Kiss”.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Therefore, you see women calling the police on a man they want to tie to them, not get rid of. Even the women get confused in the context of these running domestic battle”

                You see those women who have specific emotional hang-ups who call the cops when they get hit by their boyfriend or husband, then neglect to press charges. Other women who lack those issues and are in the same situation will indeed want him arrested.

                “Women are often being coached from the sidelines by their female friends. So a friend insists that “next time” he does this, you call the cops. The woman will remember this, do it in a state of confusion, then wonder how soon she can get her man back.”

                Some women are coached, not all. She wonders “how to get her man back” because in those particular situations there is a toxic dependency built up for several months or years by the man.

                Of course, there are circumstances by which men in their relationships are “beat up” physically and emotionally by their womenfolk. Out of pride, these men rarely desire to have law enforcement involved.

    • peppermint says:

      Secretly?

      Just the other day I saw a meme on facebook: what did we not like as children? being spanked and taking naps. What do we like as adults? being spanked and taking naps.

      What women actually find sexy is found in 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. I knew a girl who was reading Twilight. She said it made her feel giddy.

      Maybe your problem is that you don’t actually know any women. Every woman I’ve ever talked to about sex has said she likes having her hair pulled.

      Corvinus someone is going to tell me I only talk to garbage women now.

      • Anon says:

        Peppermint you should join /rel/ on kikebook, it’s hilarious, better than 4chan

      • ShemTealeaf says:

        I agree to some extent, but I think there are a few areas where the argument doesn’t hold.

        1) There’s a huge difference between what people like during sex and what they like in their actual life. I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly have sexual interests that don’t reflect what I want to do outside the bedroom.

        2) I’m basing my knowledge of Twilight solely on the two movies I saw, but I don’t remember any physical discipline there. Just because a woman likes a strong, even aggressively overbearing man, doesn’t mean that she wants him to hit her.

        3) Many women don’t seem to share these preferences at all. If they have them, they’re hiding them well. Plenty of women hate Twilight, and I’ve dated one woman who didn’t like anything even vaguely resembling violence, even during sex.

  10. JRM says:

    Wow, the old hot-button issue sure gets higher comment counts than the reasoned discussions of realpolitik.

    Several thoughts here…I’ll try a scattershot delivery.

    The patented genius of this blog is the use of staccato over-statement to drive home points that might get hung up in socially implanted defense mechanisms and censored before hitting their target if more diplomatically stated. Nevertheless I’m surprised at some of the commenters who seem like they would be much happier spending their internet time elsewhere.

    Women mostly do want the threat of being dominated or even punished by a man who is greater in physical strength. The dearth of women seeking men who are smaller-statured and more diffident than them seems to be sufficient reason alone to accept this.

    We could always write two competing singles adverts- both will carry the same status and wealth clues, but one will sound dominant and alpha, and the other will sound beta and doubtful. We could then count responses for the doubters here.

    The issue arises, then, do most sensible women want to be beaten? Almost certainly not, although sensible women aren’t easy to locate. But for most women, the idea and knowledge that their man has the power to control them is enough. It (the potential to solve problems via force) actually does address the need for stable environments (but not boring ones) as jim addressed in main post.

    I must also insist that many women who are plagued by emotional difficulties do rejoice in a bit of knocking about. Like the inability of little black children to learn as well as little White children, this is one of those things everyone knows but no one will admit.

    But here’s the kicker: most women also enjoy the freedoms of Western culture. They like going out and about, shopping in a high-trust and safe environment. I think the waters of the discussion were unnecessarily muddied by dragging Islam and conversion into it. Some women may be attracted to the culture and faith of Islam, perhaps b/c they are suffering unduly from a Western anomie. It’s really a different issue from the “male dominance” one IMHO. It may be more about reinventing themselves as adherents to a demanding set of ideas than it is about serving a demanding man.

    Women’s tendency to fantasize about being conquered by a man who knows what he wants is so frequently attested to in pop culture aimed at women that I wonder at the souls posting here in the comments that question it.

    I remember seeing a pile of “Harlequin Romances” in the Library once (this was early 1980’s but I doubt they’ve changed psychodynamics; probably dirtier now). Just by reading the précis on the back covers, a consistent theme of “strong independent successful women who refused to be dominated by a man, yet who fell in love with a dominating man in spite of themselves” was revealed. For those who might object that such cheap throw-away detritus as romance novels are not representative of “most women”, I say: dream on, and I hope you find your intellectually-deep dream-girl.

    The real problem with women, the one I would like to see jim tackle, is the fact that they are, about half of them, basically crazy, at least compared to men (and maybe not even compared to men). Most women suffer from emotionally maladaptive mental processes, as contrary to good sense as the male peacock’s tail proverbially is contrary to true fitness yet was evolved as a sign of hyper-fitness. Perhaps women developed their fragile mental-states and self-images as a kind of “canary in the coalmine”; ones which start causing no end of microcosmic trouble when the outer society is no longer macrocosmically healthy?

    Although often dealt with humorously, the real puzzle of women’s poorly managed navigation between instinct and culture is the cause of real tragedy and pain in this world. I’m sure I’ll be challenged on this, so let me suggest preemptively that you peruse the book “OUTBREAK! The Encyclopedia of Extraordinary Social Behavior”, where you will find that almost all sufferers from hysteria, panic, obsession and other bizarre social behavior outcroppings are women.

    • jim says:

      I have often dealt with the fact that women lack agency, and regularly assert that no woman should be treated as an adult until menopause. Women should remain under the authority and supervision of their fathers, until they transfer to the authority and supervision of their husbands. Fiancees are a special case – women should be allowed to transfer to the supervision and authority of their fiancee, assuming he is in fact in position to marry them and willing to do so. Dating without parental permission should be illegal. Nookie, other than with a fiancee, should be illegal. Excessive nookie with a fiancee should result in shotgun marriage. Female immorality, and indeed all the common forms of female misbehavior, including those that today we reluctantly tolerate but should not tolerate, should result in legal consequences for her male supervisor, who is responsible for her behavior as a pet owner is responsible for the behavior of his pet. Persistent failure to control her sexual behavior should result in her being forcibly and involuntarily transferred to some other male willing and able to do so, which is to say, shotgun marriage or something likely to lead marriage.

    • jim says:

      Perhaps women developed their fragile mental-states and self-images as a kind of “canary in the coalmine”; ones which start causing no end of microcosmic trouble when the outer society is no longer macrocosmically healthy?

      Whites and east asians are descended from patriarchal peoples, because the numerous matrilineal peoples attested to throughout history were conquered, failed, or just silently vanished from history leaving absolutely not a trace behind. It should therefore be unsurprising that our womenfolk just are not mentally equipped for life as an independent equal who has to take care of herself and make her own decisions.

      Just as testosterone not only makes you stronger, but also smarter, estrogen in high doses makes people irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless.

      Ever since people realized what caused babies, they figured out out to avoid them. The condom is a late bronze age invention, and before that we had various forms of pulling out. Condoms are horrible, but I rather like the procedure where I pull out at the last moment and the girl rewards my restraint by finishing off my penis with her well lubricated breasts and her mouth. Pretty sure the ancient Egyptians knew that one.

      Since pregnancy used to be extremely dangerous and painful for women, we can expect that low IQ, fecklessness, recklessness, and irresponsibility made women marked more fertile. Hence we would expect that testosterone makes you smart and brave, estrogen makes you foolish, feckless, irresponsible, and reckless. Which seems to be the case.

    • Corvinus says:

      “The patented genius of this blog is the use of staccato over-statement to drive home points that might get hung up in socially implanted defense mechanisms and censored before hitting their target if more diplomatically stated. Nevertheless I’m surprised at some of the commenters who seem like they would be much happier spending their internet time elsewhere.”

      

There is no genius here when Jim assumes that his points represents the ONLY path to truth and believe those who fail to embrace his absolutism lack the rational capacity to make their own decisions.

      “Women mostly do want the threat of being dominated or even punished by a man who is greater in physical strength.”

      Most women want to feel safe and secure in a relationship by a strong man—whether it be physically or intellectually. They rarely desire that raw power to be used to dominate them, especially when the man unilaterally claims she was “out of line”.

      “The dearth of women seeking men who are smaller-statured and more diffident than them seems to be sufficient reason alone to accept this.”

      You are falsely equating stature with power. Men who are smaller in nature are able to invoke fear and hostility through their words and actions, especially if they have an imposing presence.

      “We could always write two competing singles adverts- both will carry the same status and wealth clues, but one will sound dominant and alpha, and the other will sound beta and doubtful. We could then count responses for the doubters here.”

      

Assuming the definitions of the sexual-social hierarchy are able to be agreed upon by those participants.

      “The issue arises, then, do most sensible women want to be beaten? Almost certainly not, although sensible women aren’t easy to locate.”

      Like Jim, you argue from a false premise. You have your own definition of what is a sensible women and proceed to deem any counter argument as being other than true. Each man is able to determine for himself what is and what is not a sensible woman. It is other than sensible to believe that all women are more than willing to be hit by a stick for their apparent transgressions.

      “I must also insist that many women who are plagued by emotional difficulties do rejoice in a bit of knocking about. Like the inability of little black children to learn as well as little White children, this is one of those things everyone knows but no one will admit.

      First, you may insist, but that does not mean it is true.

      Second, darkie boys are more than capable of learning as lily white boys. It is a matter of nature and nurture.

      “But here’s the kicker: most women also enjoy the freedoms of Western culture. They like going out and about, shopping in a high-trust and safe environment.”


      Those are the liberties of any culture designed to promote materialistic endeavors.

      
“Women’s tendency to fantasize about being conquered by a man who knows what he wants is so frequently attested to in pop culture aimed at women that I wonder at the souls posting here in the comments that question it.”

      WHY is it attested to is the relevant question here. Women fantasize about being conquered by a man they already know or by a man who they deem desirable. In both cases, they feel safe and secure. They want to be ravaged, but by a man they love or believe they love. It is a matter of trust. Knowing what a man wants is brings tingles to a woman, but how he communicates his wants will bring her to gush or to dry up.

      “The real problem with women, the one I would like to see jim tackle, is the fact that they are, about half of them, basically crazy, at least compared to men (and maybe not even compared to men).”

      
You wreak of male solipsism.

      “Most women suffer from emotionally maladaptive mental processes, as contrary to good sense as the male peacock’s tail proverbially is contrary to true fitness yet was evolved as a sign of hyper-fitness. Perhaps women developed their fragile mental-states and self-images as a kind of “canary in the coalmine”; ones which start causing no end of microcosmic trouble when the outer society is no longer macrocosmically healthy?”

      Assuming our society is other than healthy and assuming that women, in general compared to men, are emotionally maladaptive. You are suffering from the same affliction as Jim—grandiose statements.

      “Although often dealt with humorously, the real puzzle of women’s poorly managed navigation between instinct and culture is the cause of real tragedy and pain in this world. I’m sure I’ll be challenged on this, so let me suggest preemptively that you peruse the book “OUTBREAK! The Encyclopedia of Extraordinary Social Behavior”, where you will find that almost all sufferers from hysteria, panic, obsession and other bizarre social behavior outcroppings are women.”

      You will have to list specific instances to prove your point rather than blindly offer a generalization.

      • Anon says:

        Corvinus:

        “It is a matter of nature and nurture.”

        If every single post you’ve made in the history of this blog wasn’t evidence enough, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • Corvinus says:

          “If every single post you’ve made in the history of this blog wasn’t evidence enough, you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

          I suppose you are compelled to fellate the host now and then to keep your white card.

          • Anon says:

            I may not even be white, and I definitely don’t agree with jim on everything, but I do know that you don’t know even half of what you think you know, and you have a very predictable response to anyone saying anything remotely positive about whites and anyone remotely agreeing with jim.

            • Corvinus says:

              Just like on Sailer’s blog, you ransack it for cheap points rather than up the difficulty level and earn higher marks. Are you seriously that uncreative in your discourse?

              • Anon says:

                There’s no point in “upping the difficulty level” because I can already guess how you will respond, to stunning accuracy: with predictable nonsense that could only be uttered by someone who never leaves his house. Are you even married Corvinus? Do you even have a degree? Or do you just pretend to on the internet?

                Also I don’t post on Sailer’s blog, you’re a fucking moron and your pattern detection software is broken. Hilariously enough I have read a couple articles from the Unz Review and on one of them there was a commenter who shares your internet handle and your propensity to post inane, clueless comments.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “There’s no point in “upping the difficulty level” because I can already guess how you will respond, to stunning accuracy.”

                  You obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur and confirmation bias.

                  “with predictable nonsense that could only be uttered by someone who never leaves his house. Are you even married Corvinus? Do you even have a degree? Or do you just pretend to on the internet?”

                  You are a one-trick pony here and on Sailer’s blog. You make the same statements over and over again. It is abundantly clear you lack the intellect to engage in serious debate. Unless, of course, you choose to stop the posturing and begin to offer comments of substance.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              “you have a very predictable response”

              He is an entirely uninteresting commenter who does nothing but give ordinary arguments for ordinary positions.

      • jim says:

        Second, darkie boys are more than capable of learning as lily white boys. It is a matter of nature and nurture.

        Don’t be silly. You guys have been trying and failing to educate blacks to white levels for 196 years. You have tried everything, and nothing works. Blacks are just stupid and violent and for the most part need a whipping.

        You have been saying “environment” for well over two hundred years, but for one hundred and ninety six years you have had total control over the environment of an ever increasing number of blacks and enormous funding, and yet you fail, and go on failing.

        What makes “bad” schools “bad” is not the teachers, it is not the funding, it is, for the most part, the students.

      • JRM says:

        Corvinus says: “You are falsely equating stature with power. Men who are smaller in nature are able to invoke fear and hostility through their words and actions, especially if they have an imposing presence.”

        Now here is an interesting statement. First of all, we aren’t talking about invoking “fear and hostility” in women. We are talking about keeping them in line, for their benefit as much as for our own. They are often grateful to have a man keeping them in line; some will admit as much. Women love to respect their men, but men can’t expect the respect to be proffered freely. It must be won and kept. Shit tests must bounce right off, like bullets off Superman.

        Who amongst us seeks to invoke “fear and hostility”? Are you arguing with jim, or a phantasm in your own mind?

        But the subject of small statured men is an interesting one; some are successful with women through sheer projection of their confidence. Others purchase the company of women by virtue of status and cash.

        Now, think about what those scenarios tell us about the WOMEN in those relationships, not the men.

        • Corvinus says:

          “First of all, we aren’t talking about invoking “fear and hostility” in women. We are talking about keeping them in line, for their benefit as much as for our own.”

          When one attempts to keep someone in line, that person employs particular strategies to achieve their objective. That may include gentle or hard persuasion. Indeed, fear and hostility is the preferred method by which some men and women employ to accomplish that goal. Indeed, those emotions are germane to this conversation. Moreover, in this context of “keeping someone in line”, we are talking about a man who believes knows what is best for a woman, when his thought process may actually be flawed.

          “They are often grateful to have a man keeping them in line; some will admit as much”.

          Only those women who subject themselves to being “kept in line” are grateful, and they will make it known. But there are more women (and men) who take umbrage with someone demanding they “fall in line” lest they be subject to a physical consequence.

          “Women love to respect their men, but men can’t expect the respect to be proffered freely. It must be won and kept. Shit tests must bounce right off, like bullets off Superman.”

          First, men and women develop respect for one another. Second, men and women cannot expect that respect to be submitted willy-nilly, it must be earned through mutual trust. Third, shit tests? Negro, please.

          “Who amongst us seeks to invoke “fear and hostility”? Are you arguing with jim, or a phantasm in your own mind?”

          You are being disingenuous. When one advocates using a stick to hit their woman because they get “out of line”, the result is undoubtedly resulting in a fear and hostility on the part of the woman.

          “Now, think about what those scenarios tell us about the WOMEN in those relationships, not the men.”

          It tells us that the man and woman, equally, procures companionship through money. The problem you have is that you see everything and anything through the lens of a man, not humanity.

          ‘1. Women tend towards irrationality and emotion-based decisions. (I know you won’t agree, but many philosophers and observers of human kind held exactly this view).”

          Who said I would disagree? The issue is that some men believe that, in order to “reign in” women from these tendencies, one must revert back to 1600’s Puritan patriarchal society. That is NOT going to happen.

          “5. This heightened female sensitivity may result in irrational and even destructive behaviors, because the world is “out of balance”, to the extent that social constructs (political parties, schools, courts, etc.) are no longer salubrious or life-affirming. If the culture is no longer life-affirming, women have lost their place in it. If women lose their rightful place as life-givers, they respond in ways that telegraph distress.”

          The same logic can be applied to men as well. So replace “female” and “women” with “people”.

          • jim says:

            Corvinus, it is clear you do not have a lot of actual contact with women.

            Women are different from men. Just slap a fertile age woman in the face and observe the reaction. A man will respond by punching you in the face. A woman gets the tingles. A slap is a super neg.

            Also, women below menopause are basically children – feckless, irresponsible, short time horizon, emotional. A woman will competently do stuff that is in her or her family’s long term interest because it pleases her husband, not because she is naturally inclined to think long term. Women are not capable of competently managing their own lives, hence the welfare and affirmative action state necessarily winds up making enormous economic transfers from men to women. Obamacare, for example, is basically forcing men to take care of supposedly independent women. There really are no independent women, or very few. Women need to be looked after by men, just as children need to be looked after by adults, and women, like children, want to be looked after.

            Progressives proclaim women strong and independent, and in the same breath promise them that the state will be their husband and their daddy.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Corvinus, it is clear you do not have a lot of actual contact with women.”

              I have a shit ton of “actual contact” with women. Every day I interact with women from work and at home.

              “Just slap a fertile age woman in the face and observe the reaction. A man will respond by punching you in the face. A woman gets the tingles. A slap is a super neg.”

              You are drunk. A slap to a woman’s face by a man in the context of a man who is upset with a woman for a particular reason is highly unlikely to consistently generate that sort of particular reaction by the woman. Now, if you are able to cite psychological studies by which women reacted in this manner, your hypothesis would have credibility.

              “Also, women below menopause are basically children – feckless, irresponsible, short time horizon, emotional. A woman will competently do stuff that is in her or her family’s long term interest because it pleases her husband, not because she is naturally inclined to think long term.”

              You are in decided minority with your point of view.

              “Women are not capable of competently managing their own lives, hence the welfare and affirmative action state necessarily winds up making enormous economic transfers from men to women. Obamacare, for example, is basically forcing men to take care of supposedly independent women. There really are no independent women, or very few. Women need to be looked after by men, just as children need to be looked after by adults, and women, like children, want to be looked after.”

              Corrected for accuracy –> Depending upon the circumstances, men and women are competent in directing their own lives. As legal adults, they are able to make decisions for themselves without being micromanaged by elitists on the Alt Right. Men and women do want to be cared for, rather than controlled, by their family members, friends, or partner.

    • Harambe's Ghost says:

      “I’m surprised at some of the commenters who seem like they would be much happier spending their internet time elsewhere.”

      Pretty sure y’all got linked to LW Facebook or something like that. Some of the posting styles are a mite familiar.

  11. JRM says:

    “Just as testosterone not only makes you stronger, but also smarter, estrogen in high doses makes people irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless.”

    Well said, jim.

    I think we’ve established the “why” at the individual level that females are so flighty, impulsive, and often act as agents of destruction.

    I don’t know if you have written much about it, but the female tendency to poach other women’s husbands is truly horrendous. A wedding ring is seen as more of a sign that the male is worth having, than that he is off-limits. Women are ruthless and cunning disrespecters of other women’s stakes in stable marriages.

    What I am finding interesting, and you have pointed the way yourself, is the social evolutionary “purpose” of female instability, i.e., is there one, and how does it function?

    You’ve diagnosed the problem as lack of agency, and recommended counter-measures (as reprised in your response above).

    But what if female vagueries and apparent dysfunction actually serve, via some kind of gender hypersensitivity, as alarm bells that the society at large is moving in the wrong direction? What if we could read, in a kind of psychic haruspicy, the ails that are more abstractly draining social coherence and safety?

    The pair-bond would make complete sense: men for defense against tangible threats; women as psychic tuning forks for upcoming instabilities that might become tangible threats. I think that question forms what we might colloquially call “the rest of the story”.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Just as testosterone not only makes you stronger, but also smarter, estrogen in high doses makes people irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless.”

      Higher doses of testosterone also makes a man irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless. Interesting how you neglected to include this fact.

      “I think we’ve established the “why” at the individual level that females are so flighty, impulsive, and often act as agents of destruction.”

      You have merely offered your position on the matter. Whether or not it is accurate is up for considerable debate.

      “I don’t know if you have written much about it, but the female tendency to poach other women’s husbands is truly horrendous. A wedding ring is seen as more of a sign that the male is worth having, than that he is off-limits. Women are ruthless and cunning disrespecters of other women’s stakes in stable marriages.”

      Corrected for accuracy –> Men and women, for a variety of reasons, who are married may be prone to break their vows and embark on a series of affairs.

      Praytell, if a man is married, does God enable him to have sex on the side, with women other than his wife?

      “You’ve diagnosed the problem as lack of agency, and recommended counter-measures (as reprised in your response above).”

      Men and women may lack agency.

      The rest of your post is psychobabble.

      • JRM says:

        Corvinus: “The rest of your post is psychobabble.”

        In your opinion. It wasn’t intended to be babble. I am serious about the following:

        1. Women tend towards irrationality and emotion-based decisions. (I know you won’t agree, but many philosophers and observers of human kind held exactly this view).

        2. Men and Women have evolved to solve different problems in different ways.

        3. Humans are affected by their social environment.

        4. Women may be (here is where the speculation begins) more sensitive and vulnerable to problems the group, tribe, or body politic is facing.

        5. This heightened female sensitivity may result in irrational and even destructive behaviors, because the world is “out of balance”, to the extent that social constructs (political parties, schools, courts, etc.) are no longer salubrious or life-affirming. If the culture is no longer life-affirming, women have lost their place in it. If women lose their rightful place as life-givers, they respond in ways that telegraph distress.

        It’s really along the lines of simple folk-wisdom like “female intuition”. Whether you agree or not, I hope you see that it is a functional hypothesis, not deliberately obfuscating “psychobabble”.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Just as testosterone not only makes you stronger, but also smarter, estrogen in high doses makes people irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless.”

      Higher doses of testosterone also makes a man irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless. Interesting how you neglected to include this fact.

      “I think we’ve established the “why” at the individual level that females are so flighty, impulsive, and often act as agents of destruction.”

      You have merely offered your position on the matter. Whether or not it is accurate is up for considerable debate.

      “I don’t know if you have written much about it, but the female tendency to poach other women’s husbands is truly horrendous. A wedding ring is seen as more of a sign that the male is worth having, than that he is off-limits. Women are ruthless and cunning disrespecters of other women’s stakes in stable marriages.”

      Corrected for accuracy –> Men and women, for a variety of reasons, who are married may be prone to break their vows and embark on a series of affairs.

      Praytell, if a man is married, does God enable him to have sex on the side, with women other than his wife?

      “You’ve diagnosed the problem as lack of agency, and recommended counter-measures (as reprised in your response above).”

      Men AND women may lack agency.

      • jim says:

        Higher doses of testosterone also makes a man irresponsible, irrational, reckless, and feckless. Interesting how you neglected to include this fact.

        You are an ignorant twit who makes up facts to suit himself.

        • Corvinus says:

          “You are an ignorant twit who makes up facts to suit himself.”

          Jim, you looked in the mirror and made that statement to yourself. Because I’m still waiting for your proof that African diets consist of eating daily flesh from human beings.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11715789/Does-too-much-testosterone-make-men-behave-irresponsibly.html

          “According to the study, the naturally-occurring steroids have been found to markedly increase the chances of risk-taking and audacious behaviour in men whose responsibilities include commercial and economic transactions.”

          • jim says:

            “Risk taking” fails to distinguish between courage, which everyone knows testosterone increases, and recklessness and fecklessness, which everyone knows testosterone diminishes. Testosterone increases courage, but also increases long term thinking, thought for the future, which manifests as increased prudence and diminished recklessness.

            Just as “domestic violence” fails to distinguish between punching your woman in the face because you are an angry drunk, and caning your woman on the hand for failure to perform her duty.

            • Corvinus says:

              ““Risk taking” fails to distinguish between courage, which everyone knows testosterone increases, and recklessness and fecklessness, which everyone knows testosterone diminishes. Testosterone increases courage, but also increases long term thinking, thought for the future, which manifests as increased prudence and diminished recklessness.”

              Citations?

          • JRM says:

            Corvinus: “You are an ignorant twit who makes up facts to suit himself.”
            Jim, you looked in the mirror and made that statement to yourself.”

            Come now, old man. That’s playground talk. Not that jim’s “ignorant twit” remark was exactly enlightened…I think his simply censoring your statement might be preferable to name-calling. IMHO.

            Corv (can I call you Corv?), I’m sure you have a function here as a voice for the received wisdom of the Cathedral, for the logic of unknowables preventing conclusions, and as an advocate for NAXALT reasoning; which really is a thing, and works like this: “You say woman are like “a”, but I knew a woman once who was more like “b”; I also knew a man once who WAS like “a”. Therefore you are wrong.”

            The problem with NAXALT: one white crow does not invalidate the assertion “all crows are black”; at most, reasonable thinkers will assign it a footnote: “we have encountered white crows, but very rarely, and consider them statistically insignificant”.

            Please try and give your self a little time to cool off before posting; the more emotional you are, the less valid your posts seem to be, from what I can see.

            I don’t doubt you are probably a reasonably intelligent man; but you do yourself zero favors with “you were probably looking in the mirror”-level arguments.

            • Corvinus says:

              I’m sure you have a function here as a voice for the received wisdom of the Cathedral, for the logic of unknowables preventing conclusions,

              Cathedral, eh? Or Churchian, or Cultural Marxism, or whatever Alt Right elitists call positions other than their own, well, yeah, I don’t recognize those terms. I am able to make up my own mind. There is an implication that the Cathedral is responsible for “brainwashing the masses”. I don’t subscribe to that theory.

              “”and as an advocate for NAXALT reasoning; which really is a thing, and works like this: “You say woman are like “a”, but I knew a woman once who was more like “b”; I also knew a man once who WAS like “a”. Therefore you are wrong.””

              Jim is wrong as far as making absolute statements and insisting there is only one truth–his. All other positions that contradict his thinking is deemed other than truth.

              “I don’t doubt you are probably a reasonably intelligent man; but you do yourself zero favors with “you were probably looking in the mirror”-level arguments.”

              Thanks, mom.

              • jim says:

                Jim is wrong as far as making absolute statements and insisting there is only one truth–his.

                Person A:

                All crows are black

                Person B presents a white crow:

                Person A:

                You painted it white. The paint is still dripping wet.

                Person B:

                It is still a white crow, and in any case there are such things as albino crows.

  12. Zach says:

    Makes sense. If we follow our natures a higher morality will be present.

    But, the only way I’m ever slapping anybody, including Women, is if they fuck with me. There is a zero percent chance I’ll spank my wife, and discipline her like a child. To quote Dan Henderson: “Why knock ’em down when you can stare ’em down”?

  13. Zach says:

    Should have just fucked her, and if she resisted, still fucked her. Seems more natural than little palm slaps.

    • JRM says:

      Zach said: “…and if she resisted, still fucked her”.

      They call that “rape” around these parts, mister. Even if it’s your girlfriend.

      • jim says:

        They should not call it rape, and I am old enough to remember a time when they did not call it rape.

        • JRM says:

          @jim and @Zach: It’s funny, though, how this entire line of reasoning grew out of the imposition of Law between men and women; the accurate appraisal jim has made of the State’s effort to emasculate (only) White men; and our options for sanity in the face of official meddling.

          Then Zach (unironically?) suggests forcing sex on the woman as the proper solution. It’s funny, because the illegality of that very (“more natural”) act is one of the subjects that took us down this road of contemplation in the first place. jim, you yourself couldn’t have written a more drily humorous post as a capstone.

          We don’t want to see our friend jim in jail, now do we Zach?

      • Zach says:

        The intention was to let it dawn on her that she likes it 😉

  14. […] A. Donald: Hitting your woman with a stick. Anecdotes and wisdom from an old man who knows what he’s talking about. Of course Jim paints […]

  15. JRM says:

    @Corvinus: “…’I don’t doubt you are probably a reasonably intelligent man; but you do yourself zero favors with “you were probably looking in the mirror”-level arguments.’
    Thanks, mom.”

    But C-man, if you are going to take the time to post, doesn’t it matter to you if we read them? Because when you argue at the level previously quoted, I see frustration and possibly anger but I don’t see any point or evidence to support a point. It doesn’t move the conversation forward when you type “you were probably looking in the mirror”.

    When the bulk of your posts read like that, I believe you lose your audience. People start skipping your posts. That means you wasted time- your own.

    I know it might have sounded snarky, but my advice was well-intentioned. If you want to be read and taken seriously, use *content* not insults. Insults are too common on the internet to carry much value, and don’t usually interest anyone.

    If, however, you decide to stay with insults, study peppermint. He can be harsh and dismissive, but he usually makes a point with it. See above example where he dismissed someone as a “puritan”. That term carries cultural information that is relevant to the argument being waged.

    Love,
    “Mom”

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “That term carries cultural information that is relevant to the argument being waged.”

      Unfortunately, Corvinus is at war with the idea of concepts carrying cultural information because he’s at war with reality. Any time someone makes a lucid point he panics and so jumps in with his “corrected for accuracy” and restates it in a less precise (and less true way). His posts are entirely skippable as they carry less than zero information.

      • Corvinus says:

        Lil Stevie, YOUR reality. There is no panic, just a straightforward statement on my part that blunts the wild generalizations frequently made here.

        Listen, it’s really easy on your part to be intellectually lazy to time and time again note how my posts are “skippable” or contain “less than zero information”. Just for once use that noggin’ of yours and actually address my points rather than entirely dismiss them.

        If you need help in crafting arguments, there are a number of resources I can send your way.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Because when you argue at the level previously quoted, I see frustration and possibly anger but I don’t see any point or evidence to support a point. It doesn’t move the conversation forward when you type “you were probably looking in the mirror”.

      Read my posts, or don’t read my posts. Your choice.

      Listen, we’re not talking about black crows or white crows. We are talking about Jim’s insistence that ALL women, in EVERY situation, desire to be hit by men to keep them in line. Jim is well known for his outlandish, over the top generalizations. When I explain that women lack that attitude, that they generally prefer not to be struck by a stick for apparent misbehavior, Jim counters that women are ultimately lying, that indeed they want to be dominated. In essence, Jim knows exactly what women think and feel, and anything to the contrary is automatically rejected.

      “He can be harsh and dismissive, but he usually makes a point with it.”

      Right, because “gas kikes now” and “there’s a reason why convenience stores in the US are owned by curryniggers” are worthwhile points to make.

  16. Glen Filthie says:

    Hmpffffff.

    As a kid growing up I was indoctrinated by liberal teachers at school.My own motheris liberal twat when she starts talking about political and social issues. Everything you say there goes against everything I’ve been taught – and quite frankly – my own personal experience. I stick by my guns on this: the man that treats his woman as a slave and a servant will get just that – and only that. Sometimes that’s the best you’re gonna do I suppose. As for me, I need a woman as smart and resourceful as I am and such women will not stand to be beaten. Just my two cents – YMMV.

    HOWEVER

    When my own daughter was brainwashed at university and became a militant lesbian social justice warrior – I seriously thought about beating that cunned stunt – with a lead pipe! HAR HAR HAR! But instead I put my emotions aside, and started studying those types with clinical detachment.

    Did you know that dykes are 30% MORE likely to practise spousal abuse than straight couples? There is all kinds of quirky shit like that – that is whitewashed by the media and the politically correct overlords. You would be shocked at how studying sexual degenerates like dykes – can improve your understanding of straights and normal people. It’s a pity all that stuff gets swept under the carpet.

    • jim says:

      I stick by my guns on this: the man that treats his woman as a slave and a servant will get just that

      No one proposes to treat their wife as a slave and servant. That is a hateful demonization of Pauline marriage, of the relationship that prevailed by law from the time that Christianity seized power to about 1860, and prevailed by custom to about 1972.

      That is a hateful demonization of the only possible system that can allow the higher races to successfully reproduce, the only arrangement that has ever allowed the higher races to reproduce.

      Anyone who demonizes Christian marriage in this fashion is a pervert, a cuckold, and an enemy of the higher races.

      Saint Paul, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5

      22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

      23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

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

      25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

      26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

      27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

      28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

      29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

      30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

      31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Oh yes, Jim! Argue that wife-beating is good, that women should be property and that BDSM is merely a simulation of how a man should REALLY treat his lover. Then when someone makes the common-sense observation that this sounds like slavery–a comparison that you promoted by talking favorably about Boko Haram and ISIS seizing women as literal slaves–you act wounded and start shouting derogatory names hysterically.

        I said it once and I’ll say it again: You sound like a far-leftist pretending to be absurdly far-right to tar the entire Right by association, along the lines of Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report. You even have a blowhard cartoon rooster as your icon!

        • jim says:

          Boko Haram is not seizing women as literal slaves. Islamic State is. Pretty sure I have never spoken favorably of Islamic State seizing women as literal slaves. Rather I have spoken unfavorably of the propensity of European women to be fine with Muslims seizing them as literal slaves, as we saw in Rotherham – that white women, deprived of masters, hunger and thirst for the conquest of the white race.

          See also my post on cutting. Cutting, Islamic conquest, BDSM, and Islamic state slavery no more represent my ideal than masturbation does, rather, women, deprived of male authority, are tempted by such sexual deviations, just as men deprived of faithful and obedient wives masturbate to anime in their mother’s basement.

          The woman who cuts herself and votes for open borders is the equivalent of the permanently unemployed man masturbating to “my little pony” in his mother’s basement.

          And I repeat, you oppose and demonize traditional marriage, and whoever opposes traditional marriage is a pervert, a cuckold, and an enemy of the higher races.

          • Hidden Author says:

            “And I repeat, you oppose and demonize traditional marriage, and whoever opposes traditional marriage is a pervert, a cuckold, and an enemy of the higher races.”

            I should take to heart a far-leftist blog dedicated to ridiculous parodies of the Right. Gotcha!

            • theshadowedknight says:

              One of you holds the same ideas of female agency as the modern left, but it is not Jim. If the left hates us, good. If the center hates us, indifferent. The center, the masses, will do as they are told and think nothing of it. What they revile today they will espouse tomorrow. Tarring the right does not work, because we have no shame in the right. Concern troll somewhere where they care.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Hidden Author says:

                Yes, but if an adherent to Mao Zedong “Thought” had a blog where he used reductio ad absurdum to “expose” the Right, how would that blog’s “positions” differ from the “positions” of Jim’s Blog? That is a question few of Jim’s fanbois want to consider!

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim’s positions are logical, if a Maoist were capable of making these arguments that would be a credit to Maoism

                • theshadowedknight says:

                  As I said, concern troll somewhere where they actually care. Most of us reached this place through the manosphere. You really think we care about wife beating? Look at how many women admit to rape fantasies, this knowing that women lie about sex and women’s brains are wired to deceive even themselves. We know all about this, so stop acting like it is shocking and unknown.

                  50 Shades of Grey, and no more needs to be said.

                  The Shadowed Knight

  17. JRM says:

    I feel I have already over-contributed to this thread, but I’m not sure one thing has been properly highlighted. And that is that these issues (Hitting Your Woman With a Stick-type issues) should not be a permanent state of affairs. IMHO.

    The “illness” being addressed promises to be acute, not chronic, if dealt with properly. It’s the early days (months, maybe a handful of years) in which getting this right matters. If you are still contemplating “hitting” after the first five years of marriage, I believe you must search for more profound issues lying beneath the surface.

    In other words, shit tests are a feature of the early stages of a relationship. Not just when “dating”, but the first couple of years after the wedding (or decision to live together) are critical here. If you come through that period with colors flying, you will likely have a good marriage, if a mid-life crisis or some sort of affair or catastrophic financial problems don’t derail you later on.

    jim can correct the record for his part, but I’m saying this whole matter is a question of male leadership mostly exerted at the front end of the relationship. Once the woman has learned she has your steady head and hand at the helm, things should settle down quite nicely. On the contrary, if you bungle the first few months/years with diffidence and timidity, you are going to have a turbulent life with the significant other.

  18. Corvinus says:

    “The “illness” being addressed promises to be acute, not chronic, if dealt with properly. It’s the early days (months, maybe a handful of years) in which getting this right matters. If you are still contemplating “hitting” after the first five years of marriage, I believe you must search for more profound issues lying beneath
    the surface.”

    The illness is that if ANYONE repeatedly contemplates using physical force in a relationship as the means to address supposed inappropriate conduct. That is, if a woman believes a man is spending too much time with his friends, and she wants to strike him with a bat because she thinks going out once a week to the bar with buddies constitutes “too much time”, she is being unreasonable in her thought process.

    “In other words, shit tests are a feature of the early stages of a relationship. Not just when “dating”, but the first couple of years after the wedding (or decision to live together) are critical here. If you come through that period with colors flying, you will likely have a good marriage, if a mid-life crisis or some sort of affair or catastrophic financial problems don’t derail you later on.”

    Assuming that men and women believe that this specific Roissyian phenomenon exists. Indeed, men and women “test” their significant other, but not exactly in the manner prescribed, nor in the amount of time offered.

    “jim can correct the record for his part, but I’m saying this whole matter is a question of male leadership mostly exerted at the front end of the relationship. Once the woman has learned she has your steady head and hand at the helm, things should settle down quite nicely. On the contrary, if you bungle the first few months/years with diffidence and timidity, you are going to have a turbulent life with the significant other.”

    SOME relationships may operate in this manner. But this idea that male leadership, or lack thereof, is the exclusive factor for a successful relationship is one of those wild generalizations. There are a number of reasons why a couple remains a stable entity. It COULD be that the man controls the relationship, just as it COULD be that the woman has the reins. It may also be that both make compromises, both play off each other’s strengths, both make sacrifices, etc. Turbulence in a relationship is NOT necessarily the result of men lacking the guile and guts to guide women on the right path as solely determined by that man.

  19. JRM says:

    @Corvinus: “SOME relationships may operate in this manner. But this idea that male leadership, or lack thereof, is the exclusive factor for a successful relationship is one of those wild generalizations. There are a number of reasons why a couple remains a stable entity. It COULD be that the man controls the relationship, just as it COULD be that the woman has the reins. It may also be that both make compromises, both play off each other’s strengths, both make sacrifices, etc. Turbulence in a relationship is NOT necessarily the result of men lacking the guile and guts to guide women on the right path as solely determined by that man.”

    Let me attempt a reconciliation of sorts between your philosophy and what I deem to be jim’s.

    It’s obvious that in just about any field, there is usually disagreement, even (especially?) between experts about the root causes of any given phenomenon. Whether it be economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, the history of every branch of learning will contain opposing viewpoints.

    These differences increase dramatically in predictive fields. e.g., two economists, reviewing the same data, might occasionally agree on what occurred that resulted in arriving at present point A, but the same two can have wildly different prescriptions for getting from point A to a desired (future) point B.

    Another thicket for confusion lies in sussing out the salient elements in a given teleological chain. Was the big brain in early humans the result of higher levels of complexity in socialization or the cause of it? Just one example.

    Now, back to you and jim. jim is what I would term an idea man. He thinks and writes in big sweeping arcs. His ideas have form and content and imply consequences. He’s like an Oswald Spengler, or a Charles Darwin.

    You seem to be what I would term a skeptic. You expect to be fully convinced of any proposition, and your mind runs to immediate exceptions to any overarching idea you encounter. You are more like the critics of idea men, those who review theories, examine evidence, isolate individual assumptions, demand proofs, and lodge objections.

    Now both types of men have value in the world of ideas. Idea men come up with models of how the world works, and skeptics kick the tires and poke around under the hood, looking for a reason not to buy. Critics make the idea men work a little harder, and force some circumspection on the occasionally grandiose.

    But here’s the problem in that dynamic when applied to this blog: jim’s readers are (I’m doing some large assuming here) probably convinced (I know I am) that the world today, the West in particular, is in steep decline. It may not even be savable. We see a real crisis in Western thought, and are appalled at the self-destructive tendencies we see championed by those with the largest megaphones.

    So, the sense of urgency is perhaps greater than that of some group dedicated to understanding and discussing the nuances of fly fishing, and arguing over the best lures. We feel the sense of urgency of a people facing the precipice.

    jim writes about dangerous thinking pitfalls for just such a serious scenario. He alerts us to downright deadly ways of looking at life when it comes to our racial survival.

    So, when someone like you says “well, all women aren’t like that”, it creates friction because the perceived stakes are high, and the tolerance for anecdotal evidence that tends to be dismissive of the larger message seems trivial by comparison.

    Actually, you are right about a lot of things. All women really aren’t like that. But the message jim is preaching is more vital than the “correct” acknowledgement that well, yes, there are exceptions. To state it bluntly, the big, crucial idea is more important than the small, corrective minutiae.

    The other factor could be called the “messaging” dynamic. Imagine a blog in which some cautiously worded generalities were stated, followed up by as many anticipated objections and exceptions as the author could conjure. No one would read it.

    If “Anna Karenina” was about pro-actively realizing that infidelity was a bad idea, and temptation should be avoided, and it was avoided, with no resulting turmoil, no sweeping emotions, and no recriminations- who would read it?

    What if Spengler had said “Civilizations are cyclical, but well, they’re not THAT cyclical, I mean, here’s some non-cyclical stuff that must be acknowledged…in fact maybe some aren’t all that cyclical, really. But sometimes they can seem really cyclical, unless I’m misreading here…”

    Who would care about him today?

    I guess I would say, we all know that there are oddball exceptions to every rule. That fact doesn’t wipe away the larger truths. In fact, the very linguistic formation “larger truths” should tell us that we needn’t obsess over every small objection, if we’re on to one of these “larger truths”.

    • JRM says:

      p.s. – The “cutting” post jim links to above is a good example of his best writing.

      It’s bold, makes an almost startling assertion in an age of pitiful politically correct mealy-mouthed white noise, and even notes the “exception” of a very small number of boys who cut (and then stop immediately, as opposed to the girls).

      NAXALT talk, as in “all blacks aren’t like that”, “all women aren’t like that”, in addition to being somewhat of an intellectual dead-end, is a breeding ground for cultural paralysis and decadence.

      As opposed to looking at last night’s riots in Charlotte and saying “not all blacks are like that”, a far healthier course of action would be to say: “niggers are not compatible with our society; they need to go.”

      Is it true all black riot? No. But the second proposition is the culturally *healthier* one. NAXALT is a recipe for slow death.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “NAXALT talk, as in “all blacks aren’t like that”, “all women aren’t like that”, in addition to being somewhat of an intellectual dead-end, is a breeding ground for cultural paralysis and decadence.”

        Bullshit.

        It’s worse. It’s the rectification of names in reverse – similar to what Orwell described as the purpose of newspeak in 1984. A NAXALT is using protective stupidity to avoid confronting their own destructive ideas.

        Almost every member of group A has characteristic X; almost no member of group B has characteristic X
        Society can’t function when the expectation is that anyone could have characteristic X unless social controls are in place to dampen the effects of X
        All practical social controls to dampen the effects of X make distinctions between group A and group B

        Crow shit is revolted by treating group A and group B differently – even when the distinctions between group A and group B are demanded by the book he alleges to have as his holy book – because he’s a modern day prog cuck and the most holy progressive commandment is “thou shalt not notice differences between groups”.

        He’s not picking at ideas for intellectual reasons.

        “As opposed to looking at last night’s riots in Charlotte and saying “not all blacks are like that”, a far healthier course of action would be to say: “niggers are not compatible with our society; they need to go.””

        It’s more like he’s in the passenger seat of your car when the mob is ahead blocking the road. If you decide to plow through them so you don’t get murdered he’d point out that not ever member of the mob would rip you to shreds given the chance – as if you getting ripped to shreds by a mob only happens if every member of the mob comes to unanimous agreement.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Almost every member of group A has characteristic X; almost no member of group B has characteristic X”.

          Almost every member of race realists are toothless, uneducated Southrons; almost no member of those whites who make their own racial decisions are inferior in intellect.

          
Sounds logical to me.

          “Society can’t function when the expectation is that anyone could have characteristic X unless social controls are in place to dampen the effects of X. All practical social controls to dampen the effects of X make distinctions between group A and group B”



          What are you even talking about here? What is your point? Are you able to offer an example for clarification purposes?

          “Crow shit is revolted by treating group A and group B differently – even when the distinctions between group A and group B are demanded by the book he alleges to have as his holy book – because he’s a modern day prog cuck and the most holy progressive commandment is “thou shalt not notice differences between groups”.



          Again, as I correctly noted, it is easier for you to refer to me in terms that observably mean little to me, making it appear your logic is far superior. Except, when we strip it down to the struts, it amounts to something other than level headed statements on your part.

        • JRM says:

          @ Steve:”A NAXALT is using protective stupidity to avoid confronting their own destructive ideas.”

          Good form and interesting.

          “He’s not picking at ideas for intellectual reasons.”

          If he is here to virtue signal, it seems he has picked out a place with a particularly low chance of winning converts. Martyr complex, then?

          “It’s more like he’s in the passenger seat of your car when the mob is ahead blocking the road. If you decide to plow through them so you don’t get murdered he’d point out that not ever member of the mob would rip you to shreds given the chance – as if you getting ripped to shreds by a mob only happens if every member of the mob comes to unanimous agreement.”

          More forcefully stated than my examples, and the point is excellent. Well said.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Again, you base EVERYTHING on the notion that certain groups of people are knowingly avoiding confronting ideas that, from your vantage point, are willfully destructive.”

            In other words, you unilaterally create the position, offer reasons for that position, ignore reasonable arguments to the contrary or dismiss them entirely, and declare that position to be “the truth”. Except the premises based on that position wreak of solipsism and confirmation bias.

            That is the telltale sign of an intellectually stunted individual.

    • peppermint says:

      yeah, no, Corvinus isn’t a skeptic, he’s a progressive christcuck, and his usefulness here is to bring the official party line to the table and keep us updated on changes in it, for example his recent comment that Whites are officially acknowledged as a racial group but Western civilization is not acknowledged and each White people has their own civilization.

    • Corvinus says:

      “He thinks and writes in big sweeping arcs. His ideas have form and content and imply consequences. He’s like an Oswald Spengler, or a Charles Darwin.”

      First, Jim is nowhere near the intellectual horsepower that these two scientific-minded titans possessed. Second, big sweeping arcs = overgeneralization. This line of thought usually entails a person being prone to confirmation bias.

      “You expect to be fully convinced of any proposition, and your mind runs to immediate exceptions to any overarching idea you encounter. You are more like the critics of idea men, those who review theories, examine evidence, isolate individual assumptions, demand proofs, and lodge objections.”

      What I expect is for my adversaries to refrain from making propositions which are broad in nature and to demonstrate a willingness to account for observed nuances, rather than outright dismiss my contentions on the basis that he/she has the complete upper hand of the situation.

      “We see a real crisis in Western thought, and are appalled at the self-destructive tendencies we see championed by those with the largest megaphones.”

      What are these self-destructive tendencies? Who have these “largest megaphones”?
      Please be specific. Otherwise, you are falling prey to the composition fallacy–assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some or all of a group applies to the entire group.

      “He alerts us to downright deadly ways of looking at life when it comes to our racial survival.”

      
Assuming that after careful analysis those ways are indeed deadly. What are these things that you claim have dire consequences to YOUR racial survival, since a number of whites may not necessary share your concern?

      “Actually, you are right about a lot of things. All women really aren’t like that. But the message jim is preaching is more vital than the “correct” acknowledgement that well, yes, there are exceptions.”

      Exactly, all women really aren’t like that. There is nothing then more to say on the matter.

      “To state it bluntly, the big, crucial idea is more important than the small, corrective minutiae.”

      Except if that big, crucial idea rests on a false premise or a sweeping generalization.
      The big crucial idea that is being touted–all women want to be dominated–is observably false. When a person argues from that premise, and outright refuses to consider those details you deem “minutia”, one asks themselves to what extent is the argument valid?


      “That fact doesn’t wipe away the larger truths.”

      

Assuming the larger truth is, in essence, the truth.

      “As opposed to looking at last night’s riots in Charlotte and saying “not all blacks are like that”, a far healthier course of action would be to say: “niggers are not compatible with our society; they need to go.”

      
First, how does one define “healthier course of action”? From what perspective are you taking here? Second, that course of action is merely an opinion. It may be rooted on facts gleaned from observation, but those facts are subject to scrutiny. One could easily make the claim that race realists or white nationalists are incompatible with American society; they need to go. Imagine that a white person made that comment. Would he or she be considered a traitor to whites? By what metrics?

      “Imagine a blog in which some cautiously worded generalities were stated, followed up by as many anticipated objections and exceptions as the author could conjure. No one would read it.”



      YOU would not read it. Others, however, may be interested in such an objective approach to the subject.

      “If “Anna Karenina” was about pro-actively realizing that infidelity was a bad idea, and temptation should be avoided, and it was avoided, with no resulting turmoil, no sweeping emotions, and no recriminations- who would read it?”

      Someone.

      • JRM says:

        Corvinus, you have exhausted even my patience. Perhaps I was giving you too much credit when I classified you as a critic. This most recent volley seems closer to Clintonian nihilism, i.e. “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, ‘is'”.

        Thought experiment: The Corvinus Deconstruction Method as Applied to the Gettysburg Address. Let’s listen in as the Great Emancipator gets started:

        “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

        CORVINUS: “Four score and seven years by what calendar? Exactly, or are you rounding off? If you are rounding off, why? How can you prove the time period you state? Show your work…this is already sounding like more of your bs…”

        “Our Fathers? Whose fathers? Is this more sweeping speechifying, or do you have a point? And what about our Mothers? Did they contribute nothing? These generalizations aren’t only non-specific, they leave out critical details by which the truth of your statement could be judged. What DO you have against Mothers? Sounds like a personal problem; you must have sexual problems. Prove that you don’t. Prove you had a Mother.”

        “Brought forth on this continent a new nation? What new nation? Was this truly a nation? Give proof. Also, what exactly does ‘brought forth’ mean? Is it just a metaphor? Why can’t you speak plainly without all this pretentious babble? What about the Indians? You speak as if this whole area was unpopulated. How would you like it if an Indian implied that your people didn’t qualify as a resident population? Where are your examples of other new nations so that we can compare them??? Try giving us examples.”

        “Conceived in liberty? Conceived how? Biologically? Or is this another one of your obfuscating metaphors? Liberty? How do you define that? Is it some kind of absolute value that you are saying didn’t exist before this ‘conceiving’? Which sounds like you are talking about yourself and your sexual frustrations again. How do you exactly conceive something in liberty? Examples please. You just make these statements with no support whatsoever, and we’re supposed to just roll over for it huh??? Huh???”

        ad nauseaum.

        @jim: I apologize for wasting so much space on your blog. Mea culpa.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Corvinus, you have exhausted even my patience. Perhaps I was giving you too much credit when I classified you as a critic. This most recent volley seems closer to Clintonian nihilism, i.e. “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, ‘is’”.”

          In those situations where terms have been created out of thin air (cuck, virtue signal, anti-white) in support of a position, or when wild generalizations have been offered (all Jews are evil, all women want to be hit with a stick), there is a mandatory vetting process by those who have extreme doubts as to the speaker’s credibility.

          In those situations where ideas are absolutely clear, such as the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence, there is no need to ask for clarification. The meaning is is self-apparent.

          Thus, your thought experiment was an exercise in futility. Apparently you have precious digital ink to waste.

          You stated “a far healthier course of action would be to say: “niggers are not compatible with our society; they need to go.” Your statement requires a dialectic approach. I asked you the appropriate questions for additional commentary on your part. You subsequently avoided that line of inquiry.

          Ponder this statement—The big crucial idea that is being touted–all women want to be dominated–is observably false. When a person argues from that premise, and outright refuses to consider those details you deem “minutia”, one asks themselves to what extent is the argument valid?

      • jim says:

        Exactly, all women really aren’t like that. There is nothing then more to say on the matter.

        Not all women are like your caricature of my position.

        All women do desire that they be with a man that might potentially employ coercion to keep them in line. It is not so much that they like being hit with a stick, it is that they like that they could be hit with a stick. And some of them, by no means all, but quite a lot, will manipulate their man so as to ensure that they actually do get hit with a stick.

        • Corvinus says:

          “All women do desire that they be with a man that might potentially employ coercion to keep them in line.”

          Now your backtracking. You were insisting that all women desire to be with a man who WILL use force to keep them in line. Now you are stating all women prefer to be with a man who COULD use force to keep them in line.
          Because tingles.

          “It is not so much that they like being hit with a stick, it is that they like that they could be hit with a stick.”

          Nope. Most women do not want to be hit with a stick nor want the possibility to be hit with a stick by a man. That is your imagination running wild.

          “And some of them, by no means all, but quite a lot, will manipulate their man so as to ensure that they actually do get hit with a stick.”

          So, which is it, some of them or quite a lot, because these are two different ranges.

          Regardless, you are only able to speculate that women COULD manipulate men to get hit with a stick.

          Tell us, how did your supposed wife and current girlfriend manipulate you to get hit by your stick?

          • jim says:

            Now your backtracking. You

            You are being silly. You refuse to understand plain and clear statements, hence clarifications look like backtracking.

            Women want to be coerced. They are attracted to men with the will and ability to keep them in line. This does not necessarily involve actual physical violence. As I said in the article, I never struck my wife – and I am finding it tiresome that I need to strike my girfriend so often, and feel she is manipulating me into doing so.

            • Corvinus says:

              “You are being silly. You refuse to understand plain and clear statements, hence clarifications look like backtracking.”

              It is absolutely clear that you are lying.

              “Women want to be coerced. They are attracted to men with the will and ability to keep them in line. This does not necessarily involve actual physical violence.

              SOME women want to be coerced. SOME women are attracted to men who desire to be kept in line. It may be verbal or physical in nature. All you do is double and triple down on overblown generalizations.

              “As I said in the article, I never struck my wife – and I am finding it tiresome that I need to strike my girfriend so often, and feel she is manipulating me into doing so.”

              If you are hitting her repeatedly, it is because she is exercising her free will one too many times for your liking. If she sitting there and taking it, and not leaving you, she is “asking for it” not because she “enjoys” it, but because she has serious emotional issues that you clearly playing on. She doesn’t know that she is with someone who is just as mentally damaged.

              • jim says:

                If you are hitting her repeatedly, it is because she is exercising her free will one too many times for your liking.

                I am pretty sure it is because she wants me to hit her a lot more than I want to hit her, likes drama more than I like drama. I would be fine with hitting her lots if only it was drama free. But girls just love drama.

                If I have had more success with women than some men, it is because I am a bit of a bad guy. But not really bad enough. Would do better, would have done better, if I was a really bad guy.

            • Dan says:

              Following from this though is one thing I would like to see discussed here:
              As you have previously discussed the tendancy of women to choose the worst of males who they mistake for ‘alphas’ (ie. violent, low iq, criminals etc), is there also a correlation in this domestic violence setting? Ie. True alphas can impose a threat of violence, employ it if necessary, but rarely need to resort to it. Conversely, some men are not at all alpha, but simply use violence on any occasion as it is their only resource? Further, some of the women seeking to leave violent men are not ‘kidding themselves’ or partaking in ‘wishful thinking’, but rather the true value of their partner.

              tl/dr: Just because strong men can/will/should use violence if necessary to control the family and know when to do so, doesn’t mean ALL violent men are good patriarchs.

              • Dan says:

                *Should read: ‘but rather SEE the true value’

              • jim says:

                Sure, obviously.

                But do not have excessive faith in the ability of even a good woman to recognize and be attracted to a good man.

                The correct solution is legally and socially empower good men to discipline their wives, and trust that good men will not in fact find it necessary to actually punish good wives. When we disempower good men, women will despise them even more than they otherwise would.

  20. Dan says:

    An interesting take on things and to an extent true. But also irrelevant in modern western society. Striking a woman…ANY woman, for ANY reason in ANY fashion is an invitation to immediate arrest and all the horrific consequences of being charged, tried and found guilty by default. You lose your house, your kids, your civil rights, your job AND of course your wife along with your future. So while part of a female may desire the kinky joy of being struck the other half controlled by her peers will require her to have you arrested. Better off NEVER getting married under the current paradigm.

    • Corvinus says:

      “An interesting take on things and to an extent true. But also irrelevant in modern western society.”

      Completely irrelevant.

      “You lose your house, your kids, your civil rights, your job AND of course your wife along with your future.”

      For just striking your wife or girlfriend? Those things lost depend on the nature of the striking.

      “Better off NEVER getting married under the current paradigm.”

      You do realize that by choosing that route that, as a white man, you are not doing your part to have four or more white children as required to stem the tide of white genocide, right?

  21. Krillas says:

    Jim, you like being hit. No you say? Well, you’re Jim, who you are means you want to be hit. After all, every Jim I’ve met has liked being hit. There’s loads of evidence. What’s that, you as an individual aren’t part of the group of Jims that like being hit? You’re wrong, and if you ever say that again, I’ll hit you until you agree with me. If you keep saying it, you’re asking to be hit; so I guess you like it.

    You’d be insane to fly those planes. But if you use that as a reason not to fly them, you’re no longer insane, so you have to fly.

    • jim says:

      If you want to get laid, you have to dance to the tune that women call. Which is hard, because they mislead you about what tune they are calling. Nonetheless, I get laid now and again, so pretty sure I can detect the the tune.

      Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. By nature, women have all the power, though it is difficult for anyone, male or female, to reproduce successfully unless men collaborate to disempower women. Spandrell has some entertaining tales of just how hard it is to make a supposedly patriarchal society actually patriarchal. If you are telling yourself a story in which a woman is the poor oppressed victim, you might as well be telling stories of flying saucer landings. If she is not permanently chained to the wall, she is calling the shots.

      • Krillas says:

        You don’t see my point, it seems. You’ve set up a catch-22 for women; discrediting all over a generalization, and using that lack of credit as a means to eliminate the exceptions. In a real situation, even a single exception to a generalization means that generalization is flawed.

        Let me put this to you another way: there is no “tune”. No one rule applies to everyone. You seem to think that because some women like a person like you, all women like a person like you. When you go out to the real world though, not all women like you, a lot of them dislike for the reason you think they like you. Rather than changing your view and seeing individuals, you instantly assume lies. This is a common fallacy; it’s starting with the conclusion. No evidence can disprove you, because any evidence is what proves your point about the lying

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “In a real situation, even a single exception to a generalization means that generalization is flawed. ”

          This is the statement of an insane person.

          The last glass of water you drank almost certainly contained at least one molecule of heavy water. Your body contains about enough deuterium for 5 grams of heavy water – in that amount, it’s harmless. However, heavy water has different enough chemical properties in reactions that if you drank nothing but heavy water, you’d die.

          Biological and social systems have tolerances for exceptions or they wouldn’t survive.

          In contrast to a healthy system which has tolerances for exceptions but also recognizes that exceptions are exceptions, you think systems should be agnostic to whether exceptions predominate – in the same way that if you treated every drop of water as if it was pure heavy water, you’d die of dehydration because there’d be no safe water to drink – society would die if it treated everyone as if they were an exception. To be consistent, I guess you’ll have to stop generalizing about water molecules because there are exceptions; too bad – I hear dehydration is a miserable death.

          • Krillas says:

            Have you ever taken a statistics class? What I’m talking about is standard deviation, the bell curve, which is a portion of a sine wave. The water does not function the same way. A bell curve has a line of normality at the top, which you cannot pass. But the important part of a bell curve is that even if you cut off the ends, you won’t have less deviation, you’ll have the same amount of deviation on a smaller scale. With your water, you don’t shrink the scale, you shrink the graph itself.

            You see, everyone is an exception. While some generalizations are useful, it’s foolish to forget about the bell curve. There is as much deviation from the norm as the is acceptance of it; otherwise, it wouldn’t be the norm.

            Just in case you still don’t understand, I’m not talking about an actual thing, I’m talking about differences. When you cut off the ends of the water, you’re not talking about the difference of the subject from the drinkable water; you’re talking about a different thing from the water.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              I got this far:

              “What I’m talking about is standard deviation, the bell curve, which is a portion of a sine wave. ”

              No, it’s not.

              ƒ(x, µ, sigma^2) = (1/ sqrt(2 sigma^2 * pi))*e^-((x-µ)/2sigma^2)

              You have no idea what you’re talking about.

              For anyone reading who might have more of a clue:

              Traits are often normally distributed. Social systems are built for people within 2 or 3 standard deviations from the mean. The “exceptions” are people more than 3 standard deviations from the mean – 2% of the population at the most. You make rules and social expectations based on the 98%. If you don’t (because there are (ooooo…) exceptions) then you also die of thirst because there are occasional heavy water molecules in a glass of water and a glass full of exceptions would kill you.

              The whole point of the normal distribution is that you know to a pretty good approximation how many exceptions there are for a given amount of deviation from the norm.

              • Krillas says:

                You’re right. I don’t know what I’m talking about, the bell curve wasn’t the concept I was thinking of, but it’s similar. I’m sorry. However, let me use a different idea, one I know more about, to explain my point to you.

                It’s rare to be a genius; it’s rare to be really stupid. Yet, we try to teach students to be smarter than average. Should we not teach them to be average, because most of them will be average? We teach them to be smarter, because that’s how change works. Likewise, would you want your water to have less or more heavy water in it?

                When it comes to beliefs, though, there is no good and bad. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they’re wrong; it means they are within your definition of bad. When you start eliminating “bad”, you end up destroying any possibility of opposition. Just because someone’s belief is the minority of the population doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Similar to how we have regulations to democracy to prevent people from voting away their freedoms, the only “bad” beliefs occur when you force it upon someone else. You may think murder good, but you should not be able to force murder upon me. Does that mean you shouldn’t be able to believe murder good?

                This is what I mean by even a single exception. If even one person disagrees with something, you can’t force them to follow the agreement of everyone else. Laws exist (or should) to prevent someone from forcing their beliefs on others. This may be a bit confusing, because most laws are people trying to do good. Good is something that doesn’t exist; we can only hope to prevent someone from forcing their own idea of good on others, even if it’s the majority’s.

                All of this should be your argument, though. If I were to do a survey of women, almost all of them would say, “No, I don’t like being hit.” The women who are willing to be hit are the heavy water. But does this mean that those who like being hit shouldn’t be allowed to be hit? When you use it to “teach” someone, though, and they say they don’t like it, you’re forcing them into your beliefs.

                Eventually every ideology will start to fight science; so we cannot give any ideology the power to destroy opposition.

                • peppermint says:

                  » Yet, we try to teach students to be smarter than average

                  what the fuck does this even mean

                • jim says:

                  When the state throws a man out of his house and forbids him to go near his children, are feminists not forcing their beliefs on him?

                  And indeed, suppose someone invades a house with the intent of murdering the male inhabitants, raping the female inhabitants, and robbing the house. If we prevent him, are we not forcing our beliefs on him? In the recent raping and looting, Obama did not want us to impose our beliefs on black lives matter protestors who were protesting by arson, rape, and murder.

                  You really have to have certain official beliefs, and impose them on everyone, and kill or expel anyone who defies those beliefs.

                  That said, we then ask what are the consequences of imposing the beliefs of feminists and the black lives matter movement?

                  Liberalism is far less tolerant of competing belief systems than Islam, for Islam allows Christians a place as second class citizens, whereas liberalism cannot tolerate the continued existence of one Christian anywhere in the entire world and is working itself up to nuclear war with Russia because in Russia, Russian orthodoxy is permitted to be Russian Orthodox.

                  Either patriarchs get to impose their beliefs, or feminists. Either white property owners, or black lives matter protestors. Someone has to win, someone has to lose. The heretics must be defeated, and exterminated. The true faith must be triumphant. The inquisition must root out the doubters. That is just the way it is.

                  The only question is which orthodoxy is to prevail, and what rules does the inquisition operate under.

        • jim says:

          I just don’t see hot fertile age women getting laid except by men that progs would supposedly regard as very bad men.

          If you read the PUA blogs, some of them are progs, but the ones that are progs have a bad case of cognitive dissonance – they realize that at some level they are saying “don’t act the way progs are supposed to act” and “progressivism is wrong, evil, and hurtful”.

          PUAs are explaining to men what women are really like:

          What PUAs teach

          Sooner or later, PUAs usually come explicitly to the conclusion that is already implicit in their writings, that women are not equal, are not comfortable being treated as equals, do not really want to be equals in their hearts, and that society can maintain the pretense of female equality only by enormous subsidies paid at the expense of men to women, and affirmative action in favor of women at the expense of men.

          • Alfred says:

            PUA begat the manosphere begat reaction. For me at least.

            Popular PUA has no teleology ergo consists mostly of half-truth sayers like RSD who will greatly fear false rape accusations. Which is why Krauser is cool.

  22. Bob says:

    Patriarchy is a necessity for a healthy, vibrant culture. In the West patriarchy has been under assault for 60+ years. Feminist dominance of the education system, and increasing presence in government bureaucracy, the military, has led to weakening of the moral fabric of Western culture. HR departments are staffed almost entirely by women, as is social service programs. Most of our children are being raised by women from pre-k right into and out of high school. My nephews’ are beginning to resemble pubescent cockcolds, taking a backseat to female dominated classrooms.
    I made the mistake of letting my woman run free without a patriarch in our family. She replaced my lack of captaining with a consuming interest in a biblical patriarch when she couldn’t get the guidance she wanted out of me. She craved direction. I made the foolish assumption that we could guide our ship together. But a ship must have one captain. When she called me sir I used to cringe, but she was sending me a signal I did not pick up on for some time. She was acknowledging my masculinity & her need to submit.
    We have mutual respect but I have come to understand that if she could not get direction she craved from me, she would seek it elsewhere. She will shit test me often nowadays to see if I’m picking up on her need to submit, to please. She does it incessantly with that damn iPhone of her’s. I have to take it away & lock it my gun safe. After a couple hours I let her have it but she knows she has to drop to her knees to get to it. There is the thing, too. I came to realize she enjoys that. She wants to look up at me, standing over her, making her submit. That’s the only way it works for her, otherwise she could care less. If I tell her to do something for she gets excited, she doesn’t tell me to fuck off.
    I lot of these girls today need training. They will fuck everything in sight until they find a man who will take charge & train them to temper their biology for a more a constructive purpose, which is raising strong children & setting a good rewarding home. Girls, & women today equating feminism with liberty. They have been brainwashed by a culture that has a deep seeded hatred for men & it is infecting everything. There is a reason our country recoils when 3 or 4 of our soldier’s are killed in battle. It is because we have let our masculinity be sacrificed on the alter if equality. The jihadists will sacrifice themselves by thousands, their children, too, and not slow down or recoil at the loss of a few comrades.
    We have to take back or masculinity & leadership roles, delineate firmly the lines between men & women, & make it understood most women, if allowed to choose, will vote for the destruction of Western man, until they are overrun by hordes of misogynistic savages of raped into submission & total oblivion.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Patriarchy is a necessity for a healthy, vibrant culture. In the West patriarchy has been under assault for 60+ years.”

      What is necessary are strong families led by men and women.

      “Feminist dominance of the education system, and increasing presence in government bureaucracy, the military, has led to weakening of the moral fabric of Western culture.”

      The education system has been the creation of white men, like everything else.

      “HR departments are staffed almost entirely by women, as is social service programs. Most of our children are being raised by women from pre-k right into and out of high school.

      “My nephews’ are beginning to resemble pubescent cockcolds, taking a backseat to female dominated classrooms.”

      Why don’t you offer to homeschool those kids? Then again, what makes you believe that your nephews are cuckolds? Do not their parents know what is best for their own children?

      “I made the mistake of letting my woman run free without a patriarch in our family. She replaced my lack of captaining with a consuming interest in a biblical patriarch when she couldn’t get the guidance she wanted out of me. She craved direction. I made the foolish assumption that we could guide our ship together. But a ship must have one captain. When she called me sir I used to cringe, but she was sending me a signal I did not pick up on for some time. She was acknowledging my masculinity & her need to submit.”

      Cool story, bro.

      “We have mutual respect but I have come to understand that if she could not get direction she craved from me, she would seek it elsewhere. She will shit test me often nowadays to see if I’m picking up on her need to submit, to please. She does it incessantly with that damn iPhone of her’s. I have to take it away & lock it my gun safe.”

      Call Vox Day. He is looking for a science fiction writer.

      “I lot of these girls today need training. They will fuck everything in sight until they find a man who will take charge & train them to temper their biology for a more a constructive purpose, which is raising strong children & setting a good rewarding home.”

      You are clearly brainwashed.

      “We have to take back or masculinity & leadership roles, delineate firmly the lines between men & women, & make it understood most women, if allowed to choose, will vote for the destruction of Western man, until they are over.”

      So, how are YOU doing your part to reclaim masculinity? Are you front and center in your community in this regard? Are you going door to door to spread this Gospel? Are you active in your church or Boy Scout troops?

      If all you do is complain, and not seek solutions, YOU are part of the problem. Grow a pair then and become actively involved.

      • jim says:

        We observe plenty of families led by woman. They are disasters. For the most part the boys grow up criminals, the girls grow up as whores.

        Women are demonstrably incapable of leading families, and should never be permitted to do so.

  23. Dave says:

    Jim says that patriarchy is hard because all the pieces have to fit together perfectly like a well-tuned engine. I suppose that’s true if your standard of patriarchy is England at the cusp of the Industrial Revolution.

    I tend to think that feminism is hard, and viable only as long as the government can print, borrow, and tax trillions of dollars to pay for it. When that government becomes insolvent, something very patriarchal naturally takes its place. Gainfully employed men then “adopt” fatherless young virgins and start families with them while aging feminist hags beg on the streets for scraps of bread.

    Isn’t that pretty much what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed? Even today a man in Russia can divorce his wife in half an hour, giving the judge an envelope of cash and the wife a suitcase and a bus ticket back to her mother’s village.

    • jim says:

      Women, and total fertility, are disturbingly unresponsive to economic incentives. Abolish handouts to single mums and what you get is far too many women giving birth in dark alleys in the rain.

      Women are like children. You don’t expect children to make rational and efficient choices in response to economic incentives. If you allow women to make decisions, they make bad decisions, and the results are so disturbing that men end up paying for women’s decisions.

      • peppermint says:

        you say disturbingly many, but the men raised by parents and school teachers who look away when niggers are victimizing them are hard men willing to see anything happen

      • Dave says:

        I don’t ever expect women to respond to economic incentives. I expect men to respond to economic incentives by taking young girls as wives, just as soon as the government is too weak to prevent them from doing this.

        If unmarried women are giving birth in dark alleys in the rain, I will be too busy to care, as I forage to feed myself and my family. Even if she offers me a free blowjob, I’ll keep walking, because her STDs probably have STDs!

        • jim says:

          Why would young girls want to be wives when they can ride the cock carousel until thirty?

          There are plenty of young men who would love to marry a sixteen year old virgin and have the financial means to do so. They are not getting any takers.

          Women who were planning to ride the cock carousel until forty and then get married are finding their plans are not working out, but fucking rockstars, millionaires, sports heroes, criminals, gangsters, thugs, googles, and motorcycle gang leaders till nearly thirty, then getting married, still works fine. Further, we see plenty of girls having a baby for some google who does not hang around, and then finding a white sucker desperate enough to father some demon spawn.

          • Dave says:

            You think this girl wants to ride the cock carousel?

            http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2009/04/barbarita.html

            Her mother’s going to say, sweetie, go stay with this man and he will give you plenty of food. And when he asks you to do something for him, you’ll be a good girl and do it, you understand?

            • jim says:

              She is eight. When menarche hits, she will go crazy and ignore her relatively sane mother.

              • Dave says:

                By the time menarche hits, she will have lived with this man away from her mother for several years. If he spanks her firmly every time she steps out of line, she’ll be good to him, and bear him many children.

                • jim says:

                  Well that was a popular, effective, and successful approach during the eighteenth century, but some time during the late nineteenth, they came to disapprove strongly of it.

Leave a Reply