How to implement patriarchy

Implementing patriarchy is a lot harder than it looks. There are a lot of moving parts that have to work together right.

The problem is that nature has given women so much power, that it is very hard for law to take it away from them. Spandrel has plenty of amusing tales of women disruptively exercising power from the bottom in a system where they were theoretically completely property.

If I beat a woman, it is because she wants me to beat her. If I don’t beat a woman, it is because she does not want me to beat her. If I dump a woman, it is because she wants me to dump her. We men are all dancing monkeys on a chain, and just as much a dancing monkey when administering a beating.

Back when husbands theoretically had absolute power over their wives, and Kings theoretically had absolute power over their subjects, Kings mistresses tended to be their wives of their courtiers. Now you might suppose the King was shaking down his courtiers – but hang on there. The wife screws the King, and goes back to her beta orbiter husband’s bed, where presumably they chastely cuddle while she weeps on his shoulder about how badly the King treats her. If the King’s power can reach into the courtier’s home and stop him from whipping his wife, how come it cannot reach into the courtier’s home and stop the wife from cuddling her beta orbiter husband? Further, how come the King’s mistresses have already had children with other men? Who wants seconds? Yes, the King was shaking down his courtiers, but he was being manipulated into shaking down his courtiers, and his courtiers were being manipulated into letting him shake them down.

Obviously what happened was that the lord on his own domain is the ultimate alpha male, lord of the manor, everyone grovels to him. His wife thinks she has hit the jackpot. Then they go to court, he grovels to the King, she despises her husband, stops fucking him, and fucks the King. Her husband is definitely not getting his way. The King is not really getting his way. She is getting her way. It was unrestrained hypergamy. She gets fucked by the King, cuddled by her beta orbiter husband.

To protect Odysseus from the sirens we need to tie him to the mast.

So:

If a man sleeps with another man’s wife, the offended husband may kill him, or the state will execute him. The wife may be punished according to the husband’s discretion.

If a man prostitutes his wife or girlfriend, makes her sleep with another man, he shall be executed by the state. If a man allows himself to be cuckolded, allows his wife to sleep with another man, the state shall execute both of them.

We do this not to punish the wicked husband, but to protect the husband from the wiles of woman, as Odysseus had himself tied to the mast, and ordered his men to slay him should he break free.

If a man gravely wrongs his wife, the state may relieve her of the duty of always being respectful to him, always obeying him, never speaking back to him, and always being sexually available to him, while requiring him to continue to support her, which is to say, allow her divorce for grave wrongs, but the state should not relieve her of the duty to never be sexually available to another man, because otherwise she will concoct fictitious grave wrongs, or manipulate her husband into genuinely committing grave wrongs, as soon as she encounters a man seemingly more alpha than her husband. If she does sleep with another man after divorce, her husband can stop supporting her, or he can forcibly take her back and punish her at his discretion.

Women should be fully under the authority of the male head of household, and should remain legally children until menopause. The head of household should have authority to physically discipline wife and children.

Normally marriage should be romantic, consensual, monogamous, should reflect erotic love and should be permanent. Normally couples should not be allowed to date unless engaged, where engagement consists of a promise to marry, understood as a promise to marry if they have sex.

However, due to various forms of misconduct, we often have to break from this ideal one way or another. We should break from the ideal not by dissolving the marriage, but by coercing people to marry and to stay married, by enforcing both the man’s duty to support the woman, and the woman’s duty to obey him, respect him, be always sexually available to him, and never sexually available to anyone else.

Female consent is foolish, irresponsible, reckless and easily manipulated. So the first principle to be laid aside should be female consent, and permanency the last principle to be laid aside. Female consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong.

Varying degrees of shotgun marriage should be applied for misbehavior. For example, if a woman gets pregnant, and the father is marriageable, they should be forced to marry. If he refuses to marry, he gets a support order. If she refuses to marry, she gets concubinage – the duty to obey him, respect him, provide domestic and sexual services to him and never to anyone else, the duties and obligations of marriage without the honor and protections of marriage. (That is how they did it in Australia at the end of the eighteenth century)

If she sleeps with a non marriageable man, she should be required to get married to someone marriageable, anyone, in a hurry, under threat of being assigned to someone in concubinage. Again, in Australia in the late eighteenth century, a lot of women somehow managed to find good husbands with amazing swiftness, usually in days, sometimes in hours.

115 Responses to “How to implement patriarchy”

  1. glenfilthie says:

    What? Nonsense. The matriarchy is self-defeating; in fact all liberalism is. The trick lies in not going down with the the ship when these societies inevitably capsize and sink…

    • Alfred says:

      Nah Jim’s right. I can’t even get my gf to vote for a non-cucked party.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Get a new girlfriend before she cucks you next.

        • Alfred says:

          I’ve very little fear of being cucked. The problem is not that we have a matriarchy, its that patriarchy is illegal and most men have forgotten how to be a patriarch. Until patriarchy gets their shit together women will continue to successfully exercise disruptive power because that is how women are wired.

          • glenfilthie says:

            Everything in life is a choice, fellas, right up to and including slavery. If you live in a matriarchal household, it is because you chose to do that.

            They use that disruptive power because you submit to it. Don’t submit to it. It’s literally that simple. Reject women that try. walk away. Do it before they can use that power against you.

            It’s easy unless you think with your balls instead of your noggin. Hate to break it to Ya boys, but no, women aren’t that smart and they aren’t that powerful. Sheesh – yer all a bunch a whiny faggots, HAR HAR HAR!

            Use your heads, guys.

            • lalit says:

              If the Military submits to Civilian orders, it is because they chose to do that

              Bureaucrats and politicos command the Military because the Military submits to it. If the Soliders feel that they are being sent to die in far of conflicts which have nothing to do with them, it’s because they submit to Civilian authority. They should reject it. They should walk away from the military.

              Clearly the Soldiers are all a bunch of whiny faggots. hate to break it to the Soldiers, but ain’t no bureaucrat or politico be that smart. Hahahaha!

              Use your Guns, soldiers

            • Alfred says:

              > Everything in life is a choice, fellas, right up to and including slavery.

              You really believe that? If so, good to see you have found liberty in an unfree world.

              • lalit says:

                @Alfred I’m being sarcastic mate. What I am trying to point out to Glenfilthie is that the power of men is the power of the soldier. The power of women is the power of the priests.

                The power of men is the power of young men. The power of women can be likened to the power of old men. We find young men dying in the wars declared by old men

                I agree with Jim. Women exercise power indirectly by playing one man against another. It is not to be underestimated as this Glenfilthie fellow seems to be doing.

                • Alfred says:

                  Lalit I agreed with you post. I was quoting Glenfilthie and responding to him. This is the 2nd time such a misunderstanding happens tho so I’ll be clearer in the future.

                • Genfilthie says:

                  LOL.

                  You are an idiot. You submit to women because you even think like them. Faggots in the military? We’ll get to that.

                  The power of man is in his spirit. If it was in soldiers, empires would not fall as ours is obviously doing now. My point is that if things get so dire that the state offers you the choice between dying on your feet or living on your knees, women (and guys like this) will CHOOSE to live on their knees while trying to posture and pose as men. Pull my other finger, kid. For the record I am more proficient than the average infantryman with my M1A and AR15 which I own and have stockpiled ammo for. I may not hold against a determined assault – but I will not be taken with impunity as your averge Brit or Euro will. Guys like this are voting for Hillary Clinton in droves as we speak.

                  As far as whiny faggots in the military? Well you brought it up, so here goes: yes, the military is actively recruiting and promoting women, minorities, queers and sexual degenerates. The proof of the pudding in the military decline can be seen in Syria where Obutthole has already conceded air superiority to the Russians. Soldiers are nothing but a rabble without good men to command them, and the US military is under the command of an effeminate nigger and will probably answer to Cankles next. It is not being noticed by your Cathedral – but America’s top military men have been resigning and retiring in droves. They’re being replaced by (if I may borrow our host’s lexicon) Googles, fishbuckets. The Euros are in even worse shape.

                  Like it or not, the rebellion starts with you. Don’t fuck crazy women. Don’t get involved with them and don’t submit to them. Hold out for a good woman. They do exist and there’s one out there for you.

              • lalit says:

                My Bad, mate! Now that I look a little more clearly, you were indeed responding to him and not to me. Guys like GlenFilthie are in the majority and for that is reason it has been said in some cultures that, the natural state of man is Slavery …. To women”

    • pdimov says:

      The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy. It’s lack of patriarchy (and civilization).

      • Glenfilthie says:

        I didn’t say that it was; I am saying that women cannot run a viable family, much less a viable civilization. When all this falls, women will go back to being women, niggers will go back to being niggers, and money will become meaningful again.

        • Brandon Francis says:

          ” niggers will go back to being niggers,”

          They have already done that. I directed you to your nearest black neighborhood to see for yourself.

          • glenfilthie says:

            My apologies, Brandon. You are of course correct. Fact is they never stopped being niggers. What will change, is that we will start treating them like niggers just as our forefathers did. They were not hatey bigots or sadists; they were practical men that saw the black man for what he is and acted accordingly.

        • peppermint says:

          “What exactly was the “Great Emancipator” emancipating the Negro from? From his daily bread. From the nobility of honest work. From wealthy patrons who sponsored them from cradle to grave. From clothing and shelter. And what have they done with their freedom? Why, go to Finkton, and you shall find out. No animal is born free, except the white man. And it is our burden to care for the rest of creation.”

          — Zachary Hale Comstock

    • Gilberto Carlos says:

      Yes, it’s self defeating, but it’s always trying to reappear, requiring constant effort to suppress it.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    You’d have to first know what a patriarchy is… The realisation that it has as much to do with handling “illegitimate” males as much as women remains scornfully undigested…

    A.J.P.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      AJP speaks Truth. Until we men start regulating each other, putting the playas and cads under our boot-heels, there will be no patriarchy.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Until we men start regulating each other, putting the playas and cads under our boot-heels, there will be no patriarchy.”

        Would one regulation be curb stomping, i.e. physical force, any and all men who are married and have sex outside of marriage, whether it be with a single woman or a married woman? A simple yes or no would suffice.

        How do you propose to get such “playas” and “cads” in line when they flock to Roissy’s and Roosh’s blogs that promote the single lifestyle, i.e. “pump and dump”? Even a rudimentary plan of action would suffice.

        How do you propose restricting the liberties of men who make their own decisions regarding how they how they form relationships with women? Even a rough step by step plan would suffice.

        Interesting how no one hear who has a disdain for race mixing even mentions the fact that Jim supposedly has an East Asian girlfriend. I thought white males around these parts are only to date and mate with white females.

        • Mackus says:

          > How do you propose to get such “playas” and “cads” in line when they flock to Roissy’s and Roosh’s blogs that promote the single lifestyle, i.e. “pump and dump”? Even a rudimentary plan of action would suffice.

          Patriarchy and marriage are illegal. Roissy and Roosh are offering men an alternative healthier to anime waifus. If patriarchy is reintroduced and marriage legalized, and they’ll continue to promote such lifestyles even if more moral an healthy options will be available, then and only then we will even consider fighting them.
          They didn’t introduce degeneracy, they just teach men how to live in world full of it.
          If we fight them now we’d be Judean Peoples Front fighting with Peoples Front of Judea, when Romans hold strong.

          • trident says:

            No 16-18 year old man goes to Roosh’s website looking for the lifelong key to a poooosy paradise.

            They go their after getting their idealistic hearts ripped out when some young slut flips on a dime and their worldview gets injected with such cognitive dissonance that things fracture.

            Men are told to be good boys and all societal programming from birth props this up. Mommy knows best, women are angels, daddy gets browbeat by mommy, “Don’t be judgemental!”, etc, etc.

            Women get fed the polar opposite on a overt level from 12 on with Sex in the City, Girls, Broad City, those shitty rags, reality tv, gilmore girls, and mommies wine nights. Prior to the overtness, they’re covertly told they know best from infancy with the “princess” sham being thrust upon them.

            So when these two mentalities meet, the boys have been primed for being devastatingly gutted. The only way to make sense of this is to learn how it happened.

            Most guys in roosh’s sphere of influence would prefer a LTR with a stable chick that is pleasant then going out cruising for pussy amongst models with a lot of mileage on them.

            BUT society doesn’t allow this.

            Patriarchy isn’t controlling for women’s sexuality. It’s controlling for mens discernment of slut behavior and a culture that reinforces shame on whores.

            Men are never taught the true nature of women proactively, its reactive hence the Roosh’s and Roisys of the world.

            Their dads failed them. And its because their dad’s believe their own wives are infallible.

            Show me a female who is accountable and I’ll show you a mannequin.

            This experiment has reached its 8th or 9th inning. Women are miserable and men are fed up, CHANGE IS COMING.

            • Corvinus says:

              “No 16-18 year old man goes to Roosh’s website looking for the lifelong key to a poooosy paradise.”

              Great, another person who overgeneralizes. Yes, 16-18 year olds go to that website to get information about how to score trim.

              “They go their after getting their idealistic hearts ripped out when some young slut flips on a dime and their worldview gets injected with such cognitive dissonance that things fracture.”

              OR, they go there because they seek knowledge to get virginal women to perform graphic sexual acts.

              “Men are told to be good boys and all societal programming from birth props this up. Mommy knows best, women are angels, daddy gets browbeat by mommy, “Don’t be judgemental!”, etc, etc.”

              Not all families act in this manner.

              “Women get fed the polar opposite on a overt level from 12 on with Sex in the City, Girls, Broad City, those shitty rags, reality tv, gilmore girls, and mommies wine nights. Prior to the overtness, they’re covertly told they know best from infancy with the “princess” sham being thrust upon them.”

              Not all families act in this manner.

              “So when these two mentalities meet, the boys have been primed for being devastatingly gutted. The only way to make sense of this is to learn how it happened.”

              Assuming that these mentalities are accurate.

              “Most guys in roosh’s sphere of influence would prefer a LTR with a stable chick that is pleasant then going out cruising for pussy amongst models with a lot of mileage on them.”

              Prefer, yes. But in the meantime, it’s “pump and dump”.

              “BUT society doesn’t allow this.”

              What society are you referring to? Because there are tens of thousands of new LTR’s in the States every year.

              “Patriarchy isn’t controlling for women’s sexuality. It’s controlling for mens discernment of slut behavior and a culture that reinforces shame on whores.”

              You mean sexual deviancy by single men and women.

              “Men are never taught the true nature of women proactively, its reactive hence the Roosh’s and Roisys of the world.”

              Men are taught how women act. Roosh and Roissy would lead you to think otherwise.

              “Their dads failed them. And its because their dad’s believe their own wives are infallible.”

              Another overgeneralization. You are shaming dads. They themselves make their own decisions, not you, how to raise their kids.

              “This experiment has reached its 8th or 9th inning. Women are miserable and men are fed up, CHANGE IS COMING.”

              Best wishes on your endeavor.

        • Cavalier says:

          “Would one regulation be curb stomping, i.e. physical force, any and all men who are married and have sex outside of marriage, whether it be with a single woman or a married woman?”

          Patriarchy is not the control of male sexuality, but the control of female sexuality. To re-establish patriarchy, permit the patriarch the power of life and death over his wife and his daughters, and the power of life and death over the man who might violate his property rights in his wife or his daughters.

        • Corvinus says:

          Mackus…

          “Patriarchy and marriage are illegal.”

          That is observably false. There is no federal nor state law 1) denying men the opportunity to be the unequivocal head of their household and 2) denying men and women the liberty to be officially recognized as a union.

          What you are referring to is YOUR definition of what you believe ought to constitute patriarchy and marriage. You shame men into thinking that their freedom to define the relationship with women is other than normal. What you propose is to seize the liberty of men for your own purposes. Do not men have the freedom to choose their own courses of action? Why must you insist on fascism?

          “Roissy and Roosh are offering men an alternative healthier to anime waifus.”

          No, they are offering single men, in particular Christian men such as yourself, an opportunity to have sex outside of marriage, which is clearly unhealthy.

          Hitching your wagon to them destroys your credibility as a Christian. They despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy.

          Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back. I thought men claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, men label them “cold”. When they succumb, men call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees.

          Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roissy’s and Roosh’s abject immoral conduct merely because they are anti-SWJ. They are similar to our favorite uncle who is a leech, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way.

          Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from men who essentially packages liberalism–the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

          Now, let us assume that YOUR version of patriarchy and marriage was miraculously implemented over the objections of millions of men by your iron fist. The questions still stand that you conveniently sidestepped.

          Would one regulation be curb stomping, i.e. physical force, any and all men who are married and have sex outside of marriage, whether it be with a single woman or a married woman?

          How do you propose to get such “playas” and “cads” in line when they flock to Roissy’s and Roosh’s blogs that promote the single lifestyle, i.e. “pump and dump”?

          How do you propose restricting the liberties of men who make their own decisions regarding how they how they form relationships with women?

          “If patriarchy is reintroduced and marriage legalized, and they’ll continue to promote such lifestyles even if more moral an healthy options will be available, then and only then we will even consider fighting them.
          They didn’t introduce degeneracy, they just teach men how to live in world full of it.”

          Teaching Christian men to live in this world requires men to NOT fuck sluts, to use their superior intellect to outright refuse to pursue in carnal pleasures until they are married. Note you are also employing moral relativism here. Either sex outside of marriage is moral or immoral. I thought only SJW’s engaged in such chicanery. The introduction of “pump and dump” is the essence of perpetuating degeneracy. Your lack of agency in this regard to directly fight against Roissy and Roosh only demonstrates your abject immorality. As a Christian you have the duty to take sin head on, rather than skirt your responsibility.

          Cavalier…

          “Patriarchy is not the control of male sexuality, but the control of female sexuality.”

          Corrected for accuracy, patriarchy is the control of male and female sexuality. Men in this type of society had specific rules of conduct for their single sons–no sex outside of marriage.

          “To re-establish patriarchy, permit the patriarch the power of life and death over his wife and his daughters, and the power of life and death over the man who might violate his property rights in his wife or his daughters.”

          Would not, under this system, Roissy and Roosh and their acolytes be hung until dead since they had sex with women outside of marriage AND neglected to consult with their fathers regarding their marriage availability?

          Tell us, are you married? How do make your wife “properly behaves”? How do YOU instill patriarchy in your family, especially if you have daughters? Do you have that ultimate authority, i.e. the power of life and death? Be specific in your response.

          • jim says:

            That is observably false. There is no federal nor state law 1) denying men the opportunity to be the unequivocal head of their household

            Yes there is. It is domestic abuse.

            • glenfilthie says:

              sorry Jim, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time. Frivolous domestic abuse accusations require two things:
              – a cunned stunt willing to indulge in them
              – and a court willing to entertain them.

              The former is easily avoided; and the latter is by no means as common as you would like to think. Courts are starting to take this shite very seriously.

              • jim says:

                You are being silly on several grounds.

                Firstly courts are required to believe all accusations made by a woman against a man, no matter how outrageous, improbable or unreasonable. It is right there in the VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act

                Secondly, when women fall out of love, which they will do if hubby turns beta, being weakened by the fact that his children can be used as hostages against him, no depravity is beyond them. All women are like that. A woman is only capable of virtue by submitting to a strong man, and current laws make it hard to be strong.

                The actual behavior of the courts show they don’t actually believe this stuff, but are required to go through the motions of believing it.

          • jim says:

            Would not, under this system, Roissy and Roosh and their acolytes be hung until dead since they had sex with women outside of marriage AND neglected to consult with their fathers regarding their marriage availability?

            Women should not be allowed to wander off. If runaway daughters, or ex wives, are allowed to wander off, then like a deer in the woods, should belong to the first man who catches them.

            The problem is not Roosh or Heartiste, the problem is feral women. We need to restrain women from going feral, not restrain men from exploiting them.

            Hence my proposal that sleeping with another man’s wife without her husband’s permission should be punished by death, but sleeping with another man’s wife with his implicit or explicit permission should be just fine – except that the husband and wife get executed instead.

            I have something similar in mind for fathers. If his daughter engages in immorality, the father should be disgraced, but not executed, and daughter married off or shotgun married.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “The problem is not Roosh or Heartiste, the problem is feral women. We need to restrain women from going feral, not restrain men from exploiting them.”

              Precisely. This is a reshuffling of the anarcho-tyranny formula in disguise.

              Restrict women’s sexuality and patriarchy follows.

              Restrict men’s sexuality while leaving women feral and men with nothing to lose will fuck all the women.

              • Corvinus says:

                No, fuckface. Restrict women’s sexuality AND men’s sexual perversions, per the Bible, which includes married men sleeping with the wives of other married men, and perhaps patriarchy would follow, provided that society is essentially “rebooted”.

          • jim says:

            Tell us, are you married? How do make your wife “properly behaves”? How do YOU instill patriarchy in your family,

            I and my wife were together since she was very young. I loved her dearly all her years. She recently died. She simply obeyed me, except for a propensity to backseat drive. I had no very great difficulties in being head of the household.

            Other women have given me varying degrees of trouble, sometimes resulting in me beating them.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Yes there is. It is domestic abuse.”

              It is NOT domestic abuse if a man has complete control of a household by exerting his dominance. A man who strikes his wife is a completely different matter and is NOT required for men to show “who is boss” in the relationship, NOR is it a requirement for the implementation of a patriarchal society.

              “Firstly courts are required to believe all accusations made by a woman against a man, no matter how outrageous, improbable or unreasonable. It is right there in the VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act.”

              Law enforcement, not courts, is REQUIRED to investigate, with the police vetting the accusations. Stop lying.

              “Secondly, when women fall out of love, which they will do if hubby turns beta, being weakened by the fact that his children can be used as hostages against him, no depravity is beyond them.”

              
SOME wives may fall out of love. They COULD “turn” against their husband if they act “beta”. Again, you are making a wild generalization.

              “All women are like that. A woman is only capable of virtue by submitting to a strong man, and current laws make it hard to be strong.”

              

No, SOME women. Strong men need not the law, but a strong backbone, one with the temperament and guile–something you lack–to ensure it is your way or the highway. Men who lack this trait are unworthy for marriage.

              “The actual behavior of the courts show they don’t actually believe this stuff, but are required to go through the motions of believing it.”

              Citations?

              “The problem is not Roosh or Heartiste, the problem is feral women. We need to restrain women from going feral, not restrain men from exploiting them.”



              Nope. Heartiste and Roosh are also part of the problem as feral men, just like yourself. Men must be restrained when single and when married from sexually plundering women for their own gratification.

              “Hence my proposal that sleeping with another man’s wife without her husband’s permission should be punished by death…”

              Which is clearly dyscivic.

              “but sleeping with another man’s wife with his implicit or explicit permission should be just fine – except that the husband and wife get executed instead.”

              You are bananas. If you seek to maintain logical consistency, both the husband who offers his wife to another man for sex and the man who takes up the offer would be executed, since this transaction breaks the sacred covenant God laid out. It is immoral for a husband to have his buddies shack up with his wife. Please cite the relevant Biblical passages by which God would
              approve of a husband enabling his wife to sleep with his single or married friends or retract.

              • Mackus says:

                Wow, you’re hallucinating pretty hard!

                You quote Jim saying that husband who forces/allows his wife to sleep around should be killed.
                Then you demand he provide citation of God approving husbands forcing/allowing their wives to sleep around.

                Stop so angrily agreeing with Jim. You’re only criticizing your own hallucination.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit, Mackus.

                  If Jim seeks to maintain logical consistency, both the husband who offers his wife to another man for sex and the man who takes up the offer would be executed, since this transaction breaks the sacred covenant God laid out.

                  Jim fails to take into account that it is immoral for a husband to have his buddies shack up with his wife.

                  That is why Jim must cite the relevant Biblical passages by which God would approve of a husband enabling his wife to sleep with his single or married friends or retract.

                  One more time-Jim states that God commands that he, as a married man, is able to sleep with other women, single or married, provided that he is able to secure the permission of the father or husband. It is now up to Jim to cite the relevant passages from the Bible of this exact transaction, in light of:

                  1) Matthew 5:28
                  2) The Biblical standard that a married man or woman is barred from having sex outside of marriage.
                  3) Timothy 3:2, Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6

                  Try to keep up.

                • jim says:

                  If Jim seeks to maintain logical consistency, both the husband who offers his wife to another man for sex and the man who takes up the offer would be executed, since this transaction breaks the sacred covenant God laid out.

                  But who is it that breaks the covenant? If one man consents to allow another man his wife, it is the cuckold who is breaking the covenant, not the cuckolder.

              • jim says:

                It is NOT domestic abuse if a man has complete control of a household by exerting his dominance. A man who strikes his wife is a completely different matter

                Back when I was watching television, I saw ads on domestic abuse. Domestic abuse included such acts as saying “Make me a sandwich”, and “You throw like a girl” Indeed 100% of the domestic abuse I saw depicted on television during a campaign against domestic abuse was stuff like that.

              • Cavalier says:

                “A man who strikes his wife is a completely different matter and is NOT required for men to show “who is boss” in the relationship”

                Why do the police need batons, pepper spray, and guns?

                • Corvinus says:

                  Jim…

                  “Back when I was watching television, I saw ads on domestic abuse. Domestic abuse included such acts as saying “Make me a sandwich”, and “You throw like a girl” Indeed 100% of the domestic abuse I saw depicted on television during a campaign against domestic abuse was stuff like that.”

                  You have knack for making shit up. Those examples are NOT domestic abuse, which has been defined by society, including men and women, as being “willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against another”.

                  Cavalier…

                  “Why do the police need batons, pepper spray, and guns?”

                  To protect themselves from men and women who break the laws as defined by the citizens of a given area.

                  I learned that in 2nd grade. Take a remedial class on civics.

          • Cavalier says:

            “Corrected for accuracy, patriarchy is the control of male and female sexuality. Men in this type of society had specific rules of conduct for their single sons–no sex outside of marriage.”

            Incorrect.

            Patriarchy controls male sexuality only inasmuch as it controls female sexuality. Suppose a city separated perfectly down the middle by a railroad. On the east side, full matriarchy is practiced. On the west side, full patriarchy is practiced. Naturally, the east side will have no intact families, all of the women will be raging sluts, and every child will be a bastard. In contract, the west side will have every family an intact family, every wife obedient and chaste, and every man the ruler of his household. Imagine the white picket fence, 2.1 children, and Golden Retriever, except make it 4.8 children and purebred obedience-competition-winning Golden Retriever, just because.

            Naturally, the patriarchs of the patriarchal half exert authority over the sexual activity of their wives in perpetuity and their daughters until married off, and all men from either half who might trespass their daughters or their wives.

            The men of both halves, including the sons of the patriarchs, are free to sport-fuck the women of the matriarchal half, as there are no patriarchs to protect those women from riding every dick from one side of the county to the other.

            And that’s it, because men don’t have hymens because male chastity does not matter, has never mattered, and will never matter, as males are physiologically unable of creeping back home with a bastard baby in their belly, and nobody gives a shit about sluts.

            “Roissy and Roosh and their acolytes be hung until dead since they had sex with women outside of marriage AND neglected to consult with their fathers regarding their marriage availability”

            If they violate a woman under a patriarch.

            “Tell us, are you married?”

            No. I cannot find a marriageable girl, a girl who is not one of ugly, stupid, slutty, or old. Of these, the single biggest reason that I cannot find a marriageable girl is that there are no patriarchs to keep a pretty, intelligent girl chaste long enough for me to come across her. And let me tell you, I’m pretty pissed off about it. To express my frustration, I may have to fuck my way across Latin America and back, but that doesn’t solve my root problem, which is securing the integrity of my bloodline and a future for my Aryan children.

            • jim says:

              Suppose a city separated perfectly down the middle by a railroad. On the east side, full matriarchy is practiced. On the west side, full patriarchy is practiced. Naturally, the east side will have no intact families, all of the women will be raging sluts, and every child will be a bastard. In contract, the west side will have every family an intact family, every wife obedient and chaste, and every man the ruler of his household. Imagine the white picket fence, 2.1 children, and Golden Retriever, except make it 4.8 children and purebred obedience-competition-winning Golden Retriever, just because.

              Naturally, the patriarchs of the patriarchal half exert authority over the sexual activity of their wives in perpetuity and their daughters until married off, and over all men from either half who might trespass upon their daughters or their wives.

              The men of both halves, including the sons of the patriarchs, are free to sport-fuck the women of the matriarchal half, as there are no patriarchs to protect those women from riding every dick from one side of the county to the other.

              And that’s it,

              Exactly so.

              Well said.

              Patriarchy should be implemented to provide substantial advantage to those men who play by the rules, who work and fight for that society. The point is to offer productive beta males a good deal, rather than to give alpha males a bad deal. The costs get imposed on women, and on men who do not work, do not play by the rules, and do not defend that society. The society rewards the prosocial alphas and prosocial betas with faithful, virginal, and obedient women. We don’t impose costs on alpha males, though I expect we will have substantially fewer of them when a beta can get young virgin wife by working hard and playing by the rules. The point is to offer a fair deal to betas, not a bad deal to alphas.

              If you are a prosocial male, patriarchy should be all gravy, all the way. Even if you are Heartiste, minion of Satan.

              And when you said “railroad”, and “west side” I suspect you are thinking of a particular city where the railroad runs from North to South.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Patriarchy controls male sexuality only inasmuch as it controls female sexuality. Suppose a city separated perfectly down the middle by a railroad. On the east side, full matriarchy is practiced. On the west side, full patriarchy is practiced. Naturally, the east side will have no intact families, all of the women will be raging sluts, and every child will be a bastard. In contract, the west side will have every family an intact family, every wife obedient and chaste, and every man the ruler of his household. Imagine the white picket fence, 2.1 children, and Golden Retriever, except make it 4.8 children and purebred obedience-competition-winning Golden Retriever, just because.”

              You are also bananas. You make up a completely unrealistic scenario and claim that certain outcomes will “naturally” occur. Are you even able to offer a remotely historically accurate situation similar to your effort at nirvana?

              “The men of both halves, including the sons of the patriarchs, are free to sport-fuck the women of the matriarchal half, as there are no patriarchs to protect those women from riding every dick from one side of the county to the other.”

              Please cite the Biblical passages that call for “sport fucking” or retract.

              “And that’s it, because men don’t have hymens because male chastity does not matter, has never mattered, and will never matter, as males are physiologically unable of creeping back home with a bastard baby in their belly, and nobody gives a shit about sluts.”

              Male chastity does not matter to heathen bastards such as yourself. Matthew 5:28—But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

              “No. I cannot find a marriageable girl, a girl who is not one of ugly, stupid, slutty, or old. Of these, the single biggest reason that I cannot find a marriageable girl is that there are no patriarchs to keep a pretty, intelligent girl chaste long enough for me to come across her.”

              Sounds like you have physical and emotional problems similar to SJW’s. Always playing the blame game for your own inadequacies.

              “And let me tell you, I’m pretty pissed off about it. To express my frustration, I may have to fuck my way across Latin America and back, but that doesn’t solve my root problem, which is securing the integrity of my bloodline and a future for my Aryan children.”

              You are a biological dead end due to your own ignorance unless you repent before God.

              Besides, if you are having sex with other than white women, you are a disgrace to the Aryan race.

              • jim says:

                “Patriarchy controls male sexuality only inasmuch as it controls female sexuality. Suppose a city separated perfectly down the middle by a railroad. On the east side, full matriarchy is practiced. On the west side, full patriarchy is practiced. Naturally, the east side will have no intact families, all of the women will be raging sluts, and every child will be a bastard. In contract, the west side will have every family an intact family, every wife obedient and chaste, and every man the ruler of his household. Imagine the white picket fence, 2.1 children, and Golden Retriever, except make it 4.8 children and purebred obedience-competition-winning Golden Retriever, just because.”

                You are also bananas. You make up a completely unrealistic scenario and claim that certain outcomes will “naturally” occur. Are you even able to offer a remotely historically accurate situation similar to your effort at nirvana?

                Late 1950s were pretty close to that – down to the railway running from north to South, except perhaps for the Golden Retriever. I know the town to which he refers.

                Late 1700s were pretty much exactly that

                • anon says:

                  Jim, for the benefit of the white youth who have been robbed of their history, could you specify what city is being referred to here?

              • Cavalier says:

                “You are a biological dead end”

                Not if I blaze my way through the jungle monkeys of Latin America, leaving a trail of brown bastard babies in my wake.

                “due to your own ignorance unless you repent before God.”

                I’ll repent before God when God promises me a pretty, intelligent virgin bride with long blonde hair and clear bright eyes and long legs, very long legs.

                “Besides, if you are having sex with other than white women, you are a disgrace to the Aryan race.”

                You clearly are not familiar with the actual actions of the actual Aryan race.

                “Please cite the Biblical passages that call for “sport fucking” or retract.”

                I’m a fan of Deuteronomy 22.

                13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

                20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

                22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

                23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

                25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

                28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

                Normally I would let such an exquisite text speak for itself, but in your case I will translate: only virgins are legitimate brides, a bride found to be non-virgin can be stoned at her husband’s whim, any fines paid for sexual trespass go not to the girl but to the father, sleeping with a patriarch’s wife or unwed daughter is to be punished by death, and rape is not lack of female consent—”because she was in a town and did not scream for help”—but lack of that female’s father’s consent.

                Significant is 28, “if a man _happens_ to meet a virgin who is not pledged”, implying that Biblical patriarchs traded daughters just as European aristocrats traded daughters, and it was an unusual event that one was _not_ claimed, claimed probably years beforehand, which roughly corresponds with my predicament, in that there are no patriarchs around with daughters kept chaste, and the institutions which might preserve female chastity in the absence of such strict _private_ patriarchal authority are not just absent but work assiduously to eradicate in every country, in every culture, in every faith, in every race, but above all and especially the White race, any and all traces of patriarchy still stubbornly extant in every remote corner of the globe.

                Oh, and lest we forget the definition of adultery: “if a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife”. What is not forbidden is permitted, and I don’t notice anything prohibiting every man within trekking distance from riding an unowned woman like a rented mule.

                You’ve been pwned by purity.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Not if I blaze my way through the jungle monkeys of Latin America, leaving a trail of brown bastard babies in my wake.”

                  At the expense of the white race. Traitor.

                  “I’ll repent before God when God promises me a pretty, intelligent virgin bride with long blonde hair and clear bright eyes and long legs, very long legs.”

                  Doesn’t work that way, heathen.

                  “Besides, if you are having sex with other than white women, you are a disgrace to the Aryan race.”

                  “You clearly are not familiar with the actual actions of the actual Aryan race.”

                  Clearly, I am cognizant of Aryans, who stand for racial purity. You are no Aryan if you mix your blood with Latin Americans.

                  “Please cite the Biblical passages that call for “sport fucking” or retract.”

                  Deuteronomy 22 contains nothing about “sport fucking”.
                  You clearly twisted 28 to suit your own purposes. There is NO implication that Biblical patriarchs traded daughters just as European aristocrats traded daughters for carousel sex for a man’s whimsical pleasure. There was sex with ONE woman who was YOUR wife, or you received death for violating God’s commands on this issue. Stop lying.

                  “it was an unusual event that one was not claimed, claimed probably years beforehand, which roughly corresponds with my predicament, in that there are no patriarchs around with daughters kept chaste, and the institutions which might preserve female chastity in the absence of such strict _private_ patriarchal authority are not just absent but work assiduously to eradicate in every country, in every culture, in every faith, in every race, but above all and especially the White race, any and all traces of patriarchy still stubbornly extant in every remote corner of the globe.”

                  Here is a virtual brown bag, you are hyperventilating.

                  “You’ve been pwned by purity.”

                  That would be ALL you, dear.

                • Mackus says:

                  Wow, Corvinus is hallucinating again!

                  >>You clearly twisted 28 to suit your own purposes.

                  And projecting too. SJWs always project.

                  >>There is NO implication that Biblical patriarchs traded daughters just as European aristocrats traded daughters for carousel sex for a man’s whimsical pleasure.

                  Cavalier talks about arranged marriages, and Corvinus doesn’t even bother to twists this text to construct a strawman, but goes straight to hallucinating that Cavalier said bible condoned fathers prostituting their daughters.

                  >> There was sex with ONE woman who was YOUR wife, or you received death for violating God’s commands on this issue. Stop lying.

                  So everyone who read in bible about patriarchs having more than one wife (Jacob), or having sex with their their slaves (Abraham), or bible allowing Israelites to rape women of defeated enemies, just hallucinated it all.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “but goes straight to hallucinating that Cavalier said bible condoned fathers prostituting their daughters”

                  I got a pretty good chuckle out of that one.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Cavalier talks about arranged marriages, and Corvinus doesn’t even bother to twists this text to construct a strawman, but goes straight to hallucinating that Cavalier said bible condoned fathers prostituting their daughters.”

                  Cavalier talked about “sport fucking”, as in a married man having sex with multiple women other than his wife. That so long as he secures permission from the father to fuck his daughter, without marriage, or secures permission from the husband to simply fuck his wife, he is “safe” from God’s wrath.

                  So offer the specific citation in the Bible by which this practice is condoned.

                  “So everyone who read in bible about patriarchs having more than one wife (Jacob), or having sex with their their slaves (Abraham), or bible allowing Israelites to rape women of defeated enemies, just hallucinated it all.”

                  Context, which escapes you.

                  http://creation.com/does-the-bible-clearly-teach-monogamy

                  Polygamy’s origins and consequences

                  A very important point to remember is that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated—first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Gen. 26:34).

                  God also forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives (2 Samuel 13, 1 Kings 2); and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

                  What about godly men who were polygamous?

                  Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife—note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42–43).

                  Why did God seem to allow it, then?

                  It is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional: ‘If he takes another wife to himself …’ (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. In view of the problems it causes, it is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

                • jim says:

                  Rather, the issue is unowned women, feral women – women with no real fathers or husbands, or with fathers or husbands unwilling or unable to control them.

                  They are up for grabs, and you can and should ride them like a rented mule.

                  Sports fucking is only wrong if it is a violation of another man’s property rights.

                • peppermint says:

                  speaking of Abraham’s sex life, let’s talk about the parts where Abraham has Sarah turn tricks

                • peppermint says:

                  » monogamy was instituted by God and polygamy appears with certain bad people in the Bible

                  no, monogamy was developed by proto-Whites and is what made them White, while polygamy is pretty clearly the default since it’s seen in every other race

                • jay says:

                  @Corvinus

                  Here is one passage then that seems to disprove the fact that polygamy is a sin. The fact that God gave David the wives of Saul.

                  If polygamy were sinful then why would God make a gift of sin?

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Here is one passage then that seems to disprove the fact that polygamy is a sin. The fact that God gave David the wives of Saul. If polygamy were sinful then why would God make a gift of sin?”

                  Again, it’s context…

                  “ONE MIGHT SAY: Doesn’t the Bible say that God gave David many wives according to 2 Samuel 12:8? Let us read the passage:

                  And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Samuel 12:8)

                  Yes, God gave David his master’s wives (King Saul’s wives). But what does it mean? Does that mean God gave David the wives of Saul to be his wives now? No, it doesn’t say that.

                  Let us get the background of the text. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered Uriah, her husband. He tries to hide from the people, but the all-seeing God catches up with him at last. God sends Nathan the prophet with a parable. David does not realize that it is about him. He pronounces his own curse. The parable is about a poor man and a rich man.”

                  http://clearbibleanswers.org/understanding-difficult-texts.html?start=7

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Rather, the issue is unowned women, feral women – women with no real fathers or husbands, or with fathers or husbands unwilling or unable to control them. They are up for grabs, and you can and should ride them like a rented mule. Sports fucking is only wrong if it is a violation of another man’s property rights.”

                  The issue has been and always will be that Christian men and women MUST be virgins before they get married. Having sex outside of marriage is sinful.

                  Moreover, look at how Jim talks about “real” husbands and fathers. You had sex outside of marriage with single and married women without securing the permission of the patriarchs of the their families. Based on what YOU wrote, you would be subject to death.

                  Furthermore, you have yet to supply the Bible passage by which patriarchs are able to enable their single daughters to have sex with a married man that results in NO marriage taking place, i.e. “sport fucking”.

                  And, of course, “feral women” are NOT “up for grabs” since they are NOT your property, they remain in the control of their fathers regardless if you believe the fathers have failed to exert proper authority over them. You are still required to seek their permission to fuck them AND subsequently marry them.

                  You lose.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “You lose.”

                  Is this backpfeifengesicht a moron or a troll?

  3. Hostem Populi says:

    Matriarchy is a function of wealth, as it requires cheap resources in order to be implemented, whether the society be bonobos, sub-saharan africans, or post-War Boomers. The problem is that there’s an incentive during the patriarchal stage that creates the wealth for allowing women more lee way, since it’s easier to just burn resources than keeping them under control. It’s not unlike children, where disciplining a child is hard, but just giving them toys and candy until they shut up is easier in the short term.

  4. Robert says:

    I have some practical examples that may or may not apply to all, but they have worked for me. No 1 would be controlling the money. I am the primary breadwinner, and my money goes into my bank account, which my wife is not connected to, she has to ask me for money. All the cars and property is in my name only. When we refinanced the house, we did so as my sole and separate property, same with investment properties. We have much more contact with my family and my friends, with people who are more pro me than pro her. We vote absentee, so I fill out both cards. We do not have cable TV, and I control the movies we watch, if she buys a bad movie I throw it in the trash, same with books. We go to a conservative church, but even then I wouldn’t let her go to womans bible study when they had a liberal leaning teacher. I make it very clear in my actions and my behavior that we are not equal, that I am the leader and she is to follow me, if she doesn’t like it she can leave.

    With all of this, almost every step of the way, there has been fighting and whining and threats and violence from her, but so what. Women, like children, will push you as far as you will be pushed. She has threatened divorce a thousand times, every time my response is the same, “go ahead”. She hasn’t divorced me yet (8 years married) and this morning, like every morning, she woke up with me, made me lunch, and was hugging and kissing me as I was walking out of the house. Many times she would have done something stupid that she would have regretted if she had more control, and she knows this, and she appreciates me controlling the situation. She has respect for me because she knows she can’t just push me around. She, like every woman, still shit tests me, still threatens, but it doesn’t phase me, and so far that method has worked.

    • averagechump says:

      Very interesting. I’m not married, still in college, but my guess of your guideline is:

      – Be the primary breadwinner
      – All money goes to your bank account, which your wife is not connected to
      – All cars and property is in your name only
      – Have more contact with your family and friends, who generally support you more than her, than she has with her family and friends
      – Control the media and entertainment enjoyed in your home and in general
      – Go to a conservative church
      – Keep her from bad influences at church and in general
      – Make it clear that you are not equal with her
      – Make it clear that you are the leader and she is to follow you
      – if she doesn’t like any of the above, she can leave

      Is that about it?

      • Dave says:

        You also need to turn around the “ex-wife gets everything” threat point. Be clear that in case of divorce, you will quit working and go into hiding or prison. The house will be foreclosed and she and the kids will get Section 8 housing in a neighborhood full of drug pushers and child molesters.

        The plunder will stop when men stop enabling it. Instead of handing his savings over to the ex-wife, one guy converted them into gold bars and tossed them in a dumpster. Welcome to WIC, bitch!

        • Robert says:

          averagechump, there is more to it, but control of the money is a big one.

          Dave, quitting work doesn’t work. Some laws say that you have to pay in relation to your “potential earnings”, so if you have a degree they figure what you should be making, so even if you work at McDonalds, you still have to pay, don’t know about prison though. Also, most of us don’t want our kids living in a diverse neighborhood. There is such a thing a a post nuptial agreement, I am not sure how well they hold up in court, but I would say they have to help.

          • jim says:

            Dave, quitting work doesn’t work

            Make sure your passport is current. Get a ticket out of the country. Burn the house down, blow up the car, credibly threaten to murder her, her lawyer, and her judge, place a mine on her lawyer’s driveway, then flee the country.

            • Cavalier says:

              If actually making it out of the country is intrinsic to this strategy, head to Fort Lauderdale and thumb a ride aboard a sailboat.

            • Dave says:

              Or back up and find a reproductive strategy that doesn’t empower a woman to ruin your and your kids’ lives. E.g. buy eggs from a high-quality woman of your race, fertilize with your sperm, and plant them in an inexpensive rented womb, all in a non-ZOG country. Then get your mother to look after the babies, or hire a nanny. Cancel all objections by implying that you’re gay and the questioner is a homophobe.

              This is of course contradictory to male instinct — “Now you can have children without having sex!” is not an attractive proposition to most young men.

            • Brit says:

              And I suppose if you know how to keep savings in bitcoin, they cannot freeze your accounts, or even reasonably prove you own them.

  5. Brandon Francis says:

    That is because beta males can not ever actually control women regardless of how legal authority he has over her.

    • pdimov says:

      That’s a bit of a chicken and egg issue; it’s not clear whether the faggottification of males is a cause, looks more likely to be a consequence.

      It’s also not quite correct, most women can’t even ‘alpha’ a small dog.

      • peppermint says:

        i’m assuming that faggotification is primarily the result of intentional policy decisions by ((someone or other)) to reward faggots with power over straightfags with the result that mimicking faggots is a way for certain weaker men, or cultists, to score pussy.

    • Cavalier says:

      What is the power of life and death?

    • lalit says:

      Yes, a Beta male may not be able to actually control a women regardless of his legal authority, But he can have her committed to a Mental Asylum or else he can tell her to pack her bags and leave…… without the Kids.

      That’s how it used to be in India until someone figured out that the way to reduce India’s population was to go full Cathedral which we did over the last decade. And somehow they managed to implement these laws on Muslims as well with the result that even Muslim Men are committing suicides due to bogus domestic violence claims made by their wives. I have no idea how Muslim men meekly accepted this. Perhaps as Spengler at Asia times says, The Muslims are losing their assabbiyah too!

      I wonder if Britain’s draconian domestic violence laws cover Muslims the way India’s do?

  6. lalit says:

    “Back when husbands theoretically had absolute power over their wives, and Kings theoretically had absolute power over their subjects, Kings mistresses tended to be their wives of their courtiers…”

    WHOA!!!! Wait, What? When exactly did this happen? Can you give me references? *Shaking my head*

    • jim says:

      There are more of them than I can shake a stick at, but I was thinking in particular of Elizabeth Conyngham, who was thirty one when she became the King’s mistress, had had numerous children, and continued to be intimate with her husband. (We don’t know if they were sexually intimate, but they continued to be together. My wild assed guess, based on human psychology is that he beta orbited, and she chastely cuddled him.)

      If I was King, could do better than that. Hell, I am not King, and I do do better than that.

      • lalit says:

        Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. This throws up so many questions. This is blowing my mind. Jim, this is not a topic that has been covered any where in any book or web page. I’m hearing this for the first time as I am sure almost all readers of your blog.

        We all knew Kings have platoons of mistresses. But the fact that these could be courtier’s wives is blowing my mind. I guess these courtiers were not useful to the king in any way except as amusement? So the king can afford this sort of toying with them?

        Surely the king would not take his commander-in-chief’s wife as a mistress, would he? Or of his spy chief’s wife? Would a Roman Emperor dare take a mistress from among the wives of the praetorian guard? That’s playing with fire ain’t it? If you show me instances like this, dare I claim that I could show you an assassinated king?

        • jim says:

          I think the problem was scheming manipulative lecherous women, not arrogant lecherous kings. If the problem was arrogant kings, the king would have had hotter mistresses.

          The Kings that had courtier’s wives as mistresses did not have the hottest mistresses. One of George’s mistresses was 41. OK, she was a good looking 41, but not that good looking. Conversely, Kings that had lots of hot mistresses did not take their courtier’s wives.

          The problem is not that the King wants to fuck his courtiers wives. He wants to fuck young virgins, or at least fuck women who have not yet given birth to other men’s children. The problem is that his courtier’s wives want to fuck him.

          Thus, for example, King David saw Bathsheba bathing. Funny thing that. How does an officer’s wife just happen to be bathing naked where the King can see her?

          To make patriarchy stick you have to control women. And controlling women is hard, even if the law is on your side, even if you are King.

          You have to make the law so that the men keep up a united front against the women in their lives, so that women cannot play one man against another. Hence it needs to be legal and socially acceptable to personally and individually kill a man who is having sex with your wife or daughter. There needs to be just one guy who clearly a woman’s keeper, and if anyone else messes with her, that is legitimate grounds for lethal violence, just as if someone intrudes into my house in the middle of the night, that is legitimate grounds for lethal violence. My house, my woman, my rules.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            Heartiste refers to these sort of kings as “situational alphas” rather than natural alphas. They are alphas by reason of their position, but beta by nature. See comedian Bill Burr on what it’s like.

            https://youtu.be/9onauqdci_g?t=7m53s

          • lalit says:

            Jim, I can’t argue with anything you said given my own experience out in the field. Yet, your comments leave questions in my mind.

            Why would the king mess up his relationships with his courtiers by “allowing” their wives to become his mistresses? They are not very attractive at any rate compared with what he can get. Why would be antagonize his courtiers for mediocre pussy when he knows he can do much much better with much less antagonism? This makes no sense to me. Is the King insane like Nero and Caligula?

            Say what you will Jim, but I think these kings wanted to humiliate their courtiers or else there is always the thrill of the quasi-forbidden fruit. Kings don’t seem to like any sort of boundaries a whole lot.

            Speaking of misandry, I was wondering if you ever read this article and have ever browsed through this blog

            http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

            • jim says:

              Yes, I read that blog.

              Why would the king mess up his relationships with his courtiers by “allowing” their wives to become his mistresses? They are not very attractive at any rate compared with what he can get. Why would be antagonize his courtiers for mediocre pussy when he knows he can do much much better with much less antagonism? This makes no sense to me. I

              You may not have not had the experience of being targeted by designing and manipulative women.

              • lalit says:

                Good catch. I have never been with any woman long enough for her to manipulate me. When she acts up, I dump her. Sometimes, to get her to dump me, I act super-beta. I am not particularly good looking or rich. So I never get targeted by women for anything. All my lays have been women I have approached. And now that I think of it, I do not have any friends who have been manipulated by women either.

                Let me ask you. Do you have the experience. Or have you seen your acquaintances getting manipulated.

              • lalit says:

                Then it is very possible that I have been manipulated and just don’t know it. Either that or the women I have been with just do not have the skills to manipulate men.

                Jim, it seems that modern, office going women simply do not have the skills to manipulate men. And those are the only women I have ever been with. I have never laid any traditional women as they are notoriously hard to get into bed with the level of Game I possess and with the amount of time at my disposal.

  7. Daniel says:

    Non-idiots may wonder why the estrus is cryptic in human females.

    The obvious answer is – to confuse paternity.

    In simple words that you idiots can understand – human are hard-wired to fuck around.

    This bullshit is as realistic as the Communist Manifesto.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      *Females are wired to fuck around.

    • peppermint says:

      …so yeah, how have the last 50 years been treating you?

      Maybe cryptic estrus and wife goggles and that pesky jealousy the Cathedral keeps telling people is bad works for long-term pair bonding.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      If women only sleep with one man in their life, they don’t really know what they are missing.

      They can still be seduced by roving alphas, and shown what they are missing. But jim makes being a roving alpha a capital crime, so your wife being shown what she is missing by a roving alpha is about as likely as her being hit by a truck.

      • peppermint says:

        If a woman only sleeps with one man in her life, she isn’t missing anything. She will be completely satisfied as the wife of a man, though, of course, not as the wife of a cuck or cuckservative.

        Women don’t derive satisfaction from their partner’s looks. Men derive satisfaction from their partner’s looks because they want healthy children but also because they want bragging rights. Women get bragging rights from their partner’s power, and want children well positioned to get power.

        Coalburners are not impressed by the way the fat ugly old googles they fuck look, even though due to evolution googles both male and female are more masculine looking than humans. They are impressed with the power that googles have in society – though HA or Corvinus will be sure to say that googles have no power while simultaneously mocking Whites for being powerless even to say a politically incorrect word about losing their women.

      • Daniel says:

        Like I said – your glorious vision of the future is as realistic as Communism.

        Moron.

        • jim says:

          The future will be patriarchal. Because peoples that are not patriarchal do not reproduce.

          The only question is whether our descendants will be around in the future.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Isn’t Africa the east side of the railway? They’re reproducing like crazy. (Though opinions differ on whether they are people. And of course, I’m not endorsing African behavior for Eurasians.)

            • Dave says:

              Africans cannot survive on a seasonal food supply. Take away their EBT cards and affirmative-action jobs, and they’ll all starve or be shot trying to raid the stockpiles of non-Africans.

              Africans never think to amass their own stockpiles; if you did that in Africa it would just rot or get stolen. Women can’t guard a stockpile, men won’t guard what isn’t theirs, and when men can’t own women, they see little reason to own anything else.

          • Daniel says:

            I do not question the necessity of patriarchy.

            I am saying that your bloody fantasies of killing people who fuck around are bullshit.

            • jim says:

              If someone fucked my wife when she was fertile age, would probably kill him, law or no law. Pretty common behavior. Hardly a fantasy. To ban such behavior is a foolish law, because it is likely to be broken, and because law banning such killings legitimizes behavior that is destructive to society. The man who kills the adulterer, like the man who kills a burglar, is upholding order and good behavior.

              A law against killing adulterers is as stupid, and as ineffective, as a law against killing burglars. Men are going to do what they do, and the law be damned.

              Where marriage is outlawed, only outlaws have wives.

              Selection for law abiding men has been reversed, since only men capable of breaking laws are reproducing successfully. It is dangerous in the long term to have laws that ban behavior that leads to reproductive success. Instead, the law should execute the adulterer if the husband is unwilling or unable to do it – and such weakness should be despised, though not punished.

              • Daniel says:

                “the law should execute the adulterer if the husband is unwilling or unable to do it”

                So you kill the fitter individual and reward the less fit.

                Makes perfect sense. Just like Marx.

                “Selection for law abiding men has been reversed”

                You should try thinking things through a bit more – the domestication of Western men has been so succesful, they’ve become unable to fight.

                Gnon is merely reasserting itself.

                Funny thing, the people who can’t compete in the free market demand socialism.
                The men who can’t compete for pussy demand its socialization.

                Good luck with your mental masturbation.

                • jim says:

                  So you kill the fitter individual and reward the less fit.

                  Civilization is possible by high levels of cooperation. We need to kill off successful non-cooperators, which, in the language of prisoner’s dilemma, successful defectors.

                  We resolve zero sum and negative sum conflicts by propertizing valuables – in this case, propertizing women’s sexual and reproductive services.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Get rid of law, and we see just how fit you are when you do not have men with guns to protect you from the consequences of your actions. Men who cooperate and trust one another because every man’s woman is his and his alone will show their fitness by eliminating freeloaders and traitors from the gene pool. The free market kills men who fuck with other men’s women. It is the socialists that prevent men from defending their claim to their women.

                  The Shadowed Knight

        • peppermint says:

          Races whose individuals fail to reproduce is a self-correcting problem. Races whose individual males fail to reproduce through ((voluntarily)) giving up on their reproductive strategy are a self-correcting roles.

          ((Daniel)), you’re literally saying that marriage doesn’t work. Do you understand that marriage has worked for thousands of years? Do you understand that it took decades of cultist controlled government and intensive propaganda from preschool to beat marriage out of my people, but the women continue to sing about marriage all day?

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          Funny. Most of the word is pretty much as Jim describes

          In any location with a TFR above 2 at most, is heavily patriarchal. It may not be quite as strong as Jim suggests but any society with population growth is male centered

          And yes this included the USA during the baby boom. It wasn’t as patriarchal as some places but men were in charge, made the choices and women were limited in what choices they could make.

          When they made a show called father Knows Best the meant just that. He did know best and truth is, Men almost always do

          Truth is very few women invent anything of worth or are terribly bright . For the tiny number that exist, any society in West can still manage to have them accomplish things and meet at least some expectations

          I can name one offhand Admiral Grace Murray Hopper who invented the first compiler (she’s credited with COBOL but only helped on that and the compiler is more important) That is the genuine, holy crap is she smart female . Rare as hens teeth or unicorns

          Note that she married and retained her husbands name through her life. Patriarchy indeed. Too bad no kids but weighed against inventing the 1st compiler, its not a total loss

          The choice is pretty clear, homogeneous patriarchal society or extinction of the culture,

          Now Jim and I disagree a little on how much patriarchy is needed and on the effect of economics and automation on fertility (I say yeah, he says nay) but on the core view, patriarchy or death he is 100% correct and in the end future belongs to those who show up and the only people who show up are patriarchs and usually highly religious as well.

          • peppermint says:

            Yeah, funny thing about great woman scientists. They only seem to appear in patriarchal cultures lol

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              Yep. And note the next great female scientist Elizabeth Holmes of Theranon turned out to be full of crap.

              This isn’t a “female” thing but a society desperate to prove egalitarianism works selecting a flawed candidate based on her gender

  8. urquhart says:

    http://archive.is/QOgWR

    WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    No, I’m pretty sure that patriarchy is about fathers _of_ society, rather than fathers _in_ society as this blogpost assumes. Imagine some-one being your patriarch, or metaphorical father, who was not even biologically part of your immediate or extended father. Doesn’t it seem strange to have a relationship that resembled a father-son relationship with somebody who was not your father? But, so it is with patri-ots who are sacrificing some of their own autonomy for that common purpose, that common good…

    That strangeness, mentioned above, is what has been lost by the year 2016. It’s lamentable.

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      No, I’m pretty sure that patriarchy is about fathers _of_ society, rather than fathers _in_ society as this blogpost assumes. Imagine some-one being your patriarch, or metaphorical father, who was not even biologically part of your immediate or extended father. Doesn’t it seem strange to have a relationship that resembled a father-son relationship with somebody who was not your father?

      If I want his daughter, completely normal that I should have a son in law/father in law relationship to him.

      Otherwise, I indeed have no relationship to him.

  10. Alfred says:

    Wait this post suddenly got a lot bigger

  11. armenia4ever says:

    As long as the world is as safe as it is – in one sense – and there isn’t a 25% chance of being killed by conquering invaders, I wonder if Patriarchy will ever return.

    The church is weak and infested with feminist ideals – even the complimentarians. I see it in my wife all the time. The only way I can ever see a return is for a system crash, and that is when women will need protectors once more.

    Thoughtful post though Jim.

    • jim says:

      Patriarchy is certain to return. The only question is whether whites and western civilization will still be around at the time.

  12. Eli says:

    One more thing to advocate for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water

    Just replace “potion” with scopolamine.

  13. SFC Ton says:

    If a man gravely wrongs his wife, the state may relieve her of the duty of always being respectful to him, always obeying him, never speaking back to him, and always being sexually available to him, while requiring him to continue to support her, which is to say, allow her divorce for grave wrongs, but the state should not relieve her of the duty to never be sexually available to another man, because otherwise she will concoct fictitious grave wrongs, or manipulate her husband into genuinely committing grave wrongs, as soon as she encounters a man seemingly more alpha than her husband.

    That gives women a shit ton of power. Thet create those fictions or enginer situations so she can talk back, not oby him etc etc.

Leave a Reply