Players, PUAs, and Petruchio

Some people in the Reaction complain that players are evil, and therefore should be cast out of the Reaction.  Perhaps, but you cannot cast them out of the Dark Enlightenment, for the Dark Enlightenment is simply truth, unwanted and unpleasant truth, and no one has better cause to know the unwanted truth than players.

As for evil, it is not the duty of men in general to protect women in general, but of husbands and fathers to protect wives and daughters.

It is natural and right for men to predate upon feral women.  The problem is that we should prevent women from becoming feral, not that we should protect feral women from their own lusts.

It is not the man’s job to control the woman, it is a husband’s job and a father’s job.

In so far as we need collective social action, we need collective social action to uphold the authority of husbands and fathers to discipline badly behaved women, not to restrain players from taking advantage of feral women.

Now I hear someone saying “Well, it is natural for men to predate upon feral women, but is it right?”

And, as evidence that it is indeed right, I review “The Taming of the Shrew” 

Shakespeare makes it clear that Kate’s seeming hostility to men, her shrewishness, arises from sexual desire, sexual interest, and her fervent desire to get married.

In the modern adaptations, Kate behaves badly to men because she hates men. In Shakespeare’s play, she behaves badly to men out of excessive desire.

Heartiste tells us that women fitness test men the way men look at women’s breasts.  Kate is fitness testing men at psychotic intensity, fitness testing them in a comically exaggerated fashion.  Her comically bad behavior arises out of sexual desire.

Petruchio is a player.  We know that, because his servant Grumio has complete confidence that Petruchio’s wooing will swiftly succeed, implying it has swiftly succeeded many times before, and because Kate suspects Petruchio of being an inveterate seducer, as one would suspect from Grumio’s confidence.

Petruchio has, in comically exaggerated form, the classic dark triad traits so attractive to women, he is a sociopath, a psychopath, arrogant, an asshole, is wealthy and powerful, and uses the classic player tactic, again comically exaggerated, of assuming the sale.

Petruchio passes Kate’s fitness tests effortlessly, which, realistically, would turn her on, and does turn her on, which only makes her fitness tests more extreme.

Kate says she does not want to marry Petruchio, that she loathes him, though she physically attacks him, which naturally results in him touching her a great deal.  The dialog about a wasp’s sting implies he touches her intimately, though the fact that the dialog implies it would suggest that the intimate touch is not directly visible to the audience for reasons of decency.

Kate’s father interrupts the activity while his daughter’s chastity is still more or less intact. From the dialog, it sounds as if he is in the nick of time. When her father interrupted them she was about to jump Petruchio’s bones and ride him like a motorcycle over nine miles of bad road.

Petruchio tells Kate that he will tell her father she has agreed to marry him, and that she is not to contradict him.

And she does not contradict him which makes the lie the truth.  Obviously, in the case of Kate, “no” does mean “yes” because her “no”s are merely a fitness test.

And this fact, so obvious from Shakespeare’s dialog, is something that no twentieth century production of “The Taming of the Shrew”, has dared depict.

And then, Petruchio tames the shrew, restores the rightful social order that she has disrupted with her psychotically severe fitness tests.

Female emancipation was a fitness test that we failed, leading to massively bad female behavior.  Let us not criticize those that train themselves to pass fitness tests gracefully.

Men who behave traditionally towards women and children – which is to say protect and support their wives and children – get very badly treated. So, fewer and fewer men are inclined to act like that.

The reason women are finding male authority in pick up artists rather than in husbands and fathers is because the state and the wife uses the husband’s children against him to destroy his authority, threatening to take him away from his home and his children for any attempt to exercise his authority. Thus a man who invests in his family is made weak, and, being made weak, fails to provide the authority, command, and leadership that women crave, so they turn to players, for the authority that women need, which authority is of course abused.  To properly exercise family authority for the good of his family, a man needs some degree of assholery, impudent defiance of the social consensus, and a reckless will to power.  In other words, in today’s hostile circumstances, he needs to be a bit like Petruchio.

It is not only natural for a man to predate on feral women, it is right. The problem is not predation, but that women should not be allowed to become feral in the first place, that they should submit to the authority of those males who have incentive to use that authority rightly.

87 Responses to “Players, PUAs, and Petruchio”

  1. I’m a biracial girl, so I don’t know if my comment is applicable, but I’m just giving my 2 cents.

    The problem with PUA’s is that they are a weird sector of the Dark Enlightenment and basically are aping a weird version of NAM sexuality.

    Both Neoreactionaries and Orthospherians have their disagreements, both but are full of controlled and chaste men. Both are part of the Dark Enlightenment.

    PUAs just remind me of NAM ape-like sexuality. It’s primitive, regressive, impulsive and ugly. Did I mention impulsive? Well, it is…

    • jim says:

      Men go where the pussy is.

      What I say is that the remedy is that men behaving in a civilized manner should get pussy, rather than men behaving like apes. This requires that female sexual choice be constrained to the advantage of well behaved men and the disadvantage of badly behaved men, to the advantage of dads and the disadvantage of cads.

    • peppermint says:

      Specifically, West African. The way people lived in West Africa is that women were pretty much independant; both sexes did certain farming activities, and with so much sunlight available, women didn’t need a man and a horse to provide for them. As a result, women would choose the sexiest man; in Muslim parts; men were limited to four wives with easy divorce.

      In the White world, women need men, and there are Western marriages.

      Human sexual behavior is highly variable; we have an African-style sexual market so we see Whites acting like Africans.

      Anyway, so my theory is that a lot of the differences between Whites and West Africans can be traced to the selective pressures of the sexual marketplace. However, the Tutsis have been pastoralists for long enough to develop lactase persistance, so accorting to this theory they should act markedly differently.

      Also, the Chinese are known for their passivity. High-ranking Chinese had multiple wives. This is not the practice in Japan; and the Japanese are known to act more like Whites than the Chinese.

  2. Of course, PUAs have all the right in the world if they want to prey on feral women. PUAs and feral women seems like a compatible match.

    • The question remains however whether the density (about 30% by this calculation) of non-feral women is sufficient to maintain civilization.

      • jim says:

        A very good link, except that I find the statistics on underage sex difficult to believe. I think that females massively overstate the age at which they first had sex, and that young girls overstate their virginity, as there is still stigma attached to early sexual activity.

    • Zimriel says:

      They are. Unfortunately for society at large – which is NRx’s concern (as Jim has noted, not the DE’s) – the PUAs and the badgirls breed, and their bastard progeny vote.

    • FoolishPride (@FoolishProud) says:

      There are simply many more feral women than there are effective PUAs.

  3. R7 Rocket says:

    Men won’t commit if women won’t submit.

    To the women out there. If you’re a supposedly equal, strong, independent woman, then you don’t need marriage.

  4. Konkvistador says:

    I think PUA models of attraction and women’s sexuality are correct. But also think that the Manospherians have serious problems:

    1. Many men in the Manosphere being are low human capital, it being a self-help movement after all.

    2. MRAs often basically are just male feminists.

    3. “Feral women” as you say when chased, acquired and then discarded become more feral not less. This increases the difficulty for anyone attempting taming in the future. Explicit gaming to tame is perfectly acceptable, but simply pursuing has undeniable negative externialities.

    4. But on point 3, attempting to reduce sociosexual fallout our society is endouring by discouraging PUAs is like being worried about bringing radium dial watches to your Chernobyl trip. We don’t want the socon failure. I’m more worried about the damage it might cause to men. Many as a result of simple conditioning and community esteem, endorse sexual hedonism as the proper goal in life and don’t aspire to anything else. This value norm not conductive to civilization or reactionary ideology. If someone chases feral women on the side but focuses his main energy on a larger purpose this is a private vice and not of great concern. A community dedicated to the vice is problematic.

    Pushing them away as long as this doesn’t mutate into pushing away PUA knowledge can be desirable. In my mind the best of both worlds is someone like Dalrock. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/

    A realist on sex, more importantly on women’s sexuality, yet a traditionalist in values. The two actually go together quite well once we remember Victorian delusions on women aren’t traditional.

    • Konkvistador says:

      What would be an example of MRAs being male feminists?

      Their complaints about male expendability for example are completely analogous to many feminist complains about women being objectified. As well as their explanation of it being the result of a misandrist culture. (What we have isn’t a misandrist culture it is an anti-authoritarian culture, that as a side effect cuts off fathers and husbands at the knees.)

      It is a source of some suffering yes. But there is no way this can ever change. It has been pressed into the clay of our mind by evolution and thus at least as shadow of that also into the clay of our terminal values. Women are not just people women are also valuable objects because of their wombs. Men are not valuable in themselves despite being people, they need to display some value some use before we care about their suffering. Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear.

      Changing either of these is not something men or women actually want.

    • jim says:

      MRAs are not PUAs. It is hard to be both a successful PUA and an MRA, because MRAs have unrealistic beliefs about women.

  5. spandrell says:

    This requires that female sexual choice be constrained to the advantage of well behaved men and the disadvantage of badly behaved men, to the advantage of dads and the disadvantage of cads.

    Quite right.

    Yet PUAs aren’t advocating that, are they? Constraining female choice is a bad deal for players. You don’t see them moving to Egypt instead of Ukraine or Thailand.

    Men go where the pussy is of course, that’s hard to blame. But there’s something to be said for self-control. Bragging about harems and rotations and trips to the Philippines.

    But yeah we are moving into African mating patterns and one characteristic of that is male competition becomes more violent and bombastic. Can’t be helped I guess.

    • jim says:

      Yet PUAs aren’t advocating that, are they?

      Heartiste is advocating that. Every PUA blog tells us implicitly, and usually explicitly, that women are apt to make sexual choices that are bad for themselves, bad for their children, and bad for society.

  6. […] Players, PUAs, and Petruchio « Jim’s Blog […]

  7. Ron says:

    Jim, in all this you have not addressed the true source of the problem.

    Not the women, who simply follow the power, but the men who have the power. The men with the guns. The men who command the men with the guns. The men who write the laws, that is to say, the men who have power over other men. Our nobility.

    These are the men who pass the laws that estrange us, give the money to the women’s groups, encourage women to take our jobs, enfranchise women thus disenfranchising men making the vote worthless, etc etc, ad nauseam.

    It is these men who have betrayed us and disempowered us, putting us at the mercy of the women. And if we say a word, they use it as an excuse to break down our doors with boots and guns and clubs and throw us into a cage.

    Aristotle on tyranny

    “Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time.”

    • jim says:

      True. I have not addressed the true source of the problem.

      But the true source of the problem is not players.

      • Kgaard says:

        Ron … Yes, one could blame powerful men, because they wanted (and want) more than one woman (simultaneously or in succession). But can you blame them? Once Christianity was debunked there was no reason to stick with a woman who a) you no longer desired and b) did not desire you.

        The logic in Sex at Dawn is pretty hard to refute. Man is not even close to being a lifelong monogamous species.

        The problem is exacerbated by the relative scarcity of attractive fertile females. There is GOING to be competition for hot women.

        Ultimately I think a big reason we are experiencing a degree of social breakdown is that we can afford it. Society can function with fewer able-bodied men, so we allow more chaos at all levels.

        • jim says:

          See West Hunter debunking “Sex at Dawn

          He says:

          Chimps are highly promiscuous, and have specific adaptations for sperm competition, for example a protein that causes ejaculate to form a plug. Humans have a non-working version of that protein, which shows that sperm competition used to matter in our ancient ancestors, but hasn’t for a long time.

          Polygyny, a small number of males monopolizing females, is pretty normal for our species, but women having sex with multiple men within a short period has been rare for a very long time.

          I would guess that as soon as proto humans figured out the connection between sex and reproduction, the leading males prohibited sexual activities likely to render fatherhood uncertain.

        • jim says:

          Don’t think we can afford it. Government is making unsustainable promises and we are not reproducing.

        • FoolishPride (@FoolishProud) says:

          Sex at Dusk easily refuted Sex at Dawn. Sex at Dawn didn’t even get their sources’ takes correctly.

    • Andre says:

      What is power? Power is the ability to manipulate the will (or more fundamentally, the body, which is manipulated by the will) of another. A gun is simply a tool of psychological manipulation (except in the rare cases when it is used to actually kill). So no, women are not powerless. They pretty much are the nobility, with a few men reaching even higher levels of skill and competence at manipulation. An sickly old woman can easily have more power, through her social alliances, than a strong young man.

  8. josh says:

    Jim,

    Women did not “emancipate” themselves. This was a result of the rationalized lust that accounts for so much of modernity. It was not a fitness test, it was a conspiracy of cads in which women and beta men were willing participants and unwitting victims. Why? Because Alpha men want sex and women and beta men will kiss Alpha mens’ asses in a retarded effort to gain their favor. In other words, they did exactly what you are doing right now!

    “We have no moral responsibility not to be predators” is an utterly insane rationalization on its face.

    • josh says:

      We have a moral obligation to love even our enemy, ie to will the good of our enemy. The good society is the society where one can obtain the things that are good for us. What is good for us is neither being a cad nor a slut, not living according to appetite, but according to reason, which can help us harmonize our appetites with the natural law. Polygyny is not even good for the cads, it makes them a slave to appetite, libido dominandi. This is the wisdom of the ages and is clearly observable today, where social control is exercised mostly through control of appetite, especially wrt sex!

      We should be telling cads the truth, that they have been had, bamboozled, suckered as much as the sluts. They thought this was their conspiracy, but it was of the devil. Not that they will listen, but the system required people have your attitude. Men want to be cads because other men place cads on a pedestal, which makes women want to sleep with cads. If being a cad made you a loser, natural alphas would not be cads (they would get the hottest wife, but would not ruin so many women), they would shame cads, and their wouldn’t be so damn many cads.

      • jim says:

        We have a moral obligation to love even our enemy, ie to will the good of our enemy.

        Christendom contributed substantially to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and in that period was left wing in ways that disturbingly resemble modern leftism. Charles the Hammer reinterpreted Christianity so that willing the good of one’s enemy did not mean allowing the Saracens to overrun the west, and for the next several hundred years Bishops tended to wear armor and were apt to morally improve the Saracen by hitting him on the head with a big hammer.

        The command is primarily to love your neighbor, as a man’s heart is not big enough to love the entire world, and should he attempt to do so, the resulting love is apt to be disturbingly chilly. Charity begins at home. See Saint Paul’s limits on charity to widows and orphans. He strongly discouraged the kind of charity that is apt to freeze one’s toes off.

        Polygyny is not even good for the cads, it makes them a slave to appetite, libido dominandi.

        Nothing very wrong with polygyny, check your old testament. The problem is not polygyny, but rather leking, in that there is no continuing relationship between the woman and the men she has sex with, with the result that children are not born in the first place, or are born without fathers.

        The purpose of rules on sex and sex roles is not to prevent sex, but to ensure that children are produced and raised by a father and a mother. Due to abundance of sperm and the shortage of eggs, that means rules that have to be enforced primarily on women, rather than on men, that female lust undermines society in ways that male lust does not, or not to the same extent.

        Men want to be cads because other men place cads on a pedestal, which makes women want to sleep with cads.

        It has been well known that women are attracted to cads for at least the past several hundred years. The female perception of status is childlike (“my daddy can beat up your daddy”) By and large, successful players are low status in the male hierarchy, tending to be unemployed, under employed, or employed in jobs that are not very high wage. If females reliably accepted the male status hierarchy, the result would be a major improvement, as males usually award each other status for productive behavior, while females award males status for destructive behavior.

        The chronic failure of women to accept the male status hierarchy is visible and deeply disruptive in business.

        Players give women what they want, but should not want, do not want to want.

        • josh says:

          “Nothing very wrong with polygyny, check your old testament”

          Check your Africa. I’ll respond to the rest later.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            The problem with Africa isn’t the polygyny – it’s that women are choosing their mates.

            The actual problems with polygyny are more like “check out China” – which is worse than Western civilization but is still civilization.

            I’d say “check out the Middle East” but that has the confounding variable of gene flow from Africa – so it’s hard to separate out the causes of shithole-dom.

          • josh says:

            All right, I’ll take the last part first:

            “It has been well known that women are attracted to cads for at least the past several hundred years.”

            A cad is man who is attractive enough that multiple women want to have sex with him. If he is not so attractive he is not a cad. Hence, all cads are attractive; women are attracted to cads. Yes, I agree that social proof is a thing and women have evolved to be attracted to cads in part because being a cad is a sign of attractiveness, but still. It’s less that women are attracted to cads per se than that men can be cads is women are attracted to them.

            Thus, women are not going to solve the slut problem because somebody must be considered attractive and said attractive person will have the ability to be a cad. Slut shaming won’t change the general arms race nature of the situation. Monogamy will.

            Women may not care about male status heirarchy, but men do. If it were low status in the male heirarchy to be a cad, it would lead to few high status male cads. The overlap is a lot stronger than you suggest. High status women don’t want to sleep with Joe the Pimp, the want to sleep with Leo DeCaprio. Joe the pimp has high status within his low status community among both men and women.

            • jim says:

              A cad is man who is attractive enough that multiple women want to have sex with him. If he is not so attractive he is not a cad. Hence, all cads are attractive; women are attracted to cads

              Women are attracted to the Dark Triad, and equate it with status. Hence Petruchio.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Women may not care about male status heirarchy, but men do. If it were low status in the male heirarchy to be a cad, it would lead to few high status male cads. The overlap is a lot stronger than you suggest. High status women don’t want to sleep with Joe the Pimp, the want to sleep with Leo DeCaprio.”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2568763/Kate-Rothschild-heiress-rap-star-lover-photo-thats-alarmed-friends.html

            You sure?

            Anyway, the popular idea of women sleeping with the pool boy is pretty good evidence that people understand and notice this pattern in women. They don’t give a damn for the male status hierarchy.

          • josh says:

            I saw that a while back. That’s pretty much the definition of the exception that proves the rule, isn’t it?

          • josh says:

            And no, I’m not sure.

          • josh says:

            “Women are attracted to the Dark Triad, and equate it with status. Hence Petruchio.”

            Hence, the only disapprobation that will stop Petruchio from cadding must come from men.

            • jim says:

              Firstly women seem to oblivious to the male status hierarchy, to male views as to who is high status. If they paid attention to male views on status, the guy in the corner office would get hot letters from hot chicks he has never met, instead of the guy serving life for kidnapping, rape, torture, and cannibalism.

              Secondly we don’t want to stop Petruchio from cadding. Petruchio restores the social order that Baptista Minola is too indulgent to himself properly uphold, while romantic nice guy Lucentio undermines it.

          • josh says:

            But if there are no cads, there are no sluts, right?

            • jim says:

              As far as anyone knows, Kate Gosselin destroyed her life and her children’s lives for the prospect, rather than the actuality, of sex with males more alpha than her husband.

          • josh says:

            You overstate, btw. Tiger Woods is a dork whose attractiveness was wholly due to hist success in the male status hierarchy. There is a lot of overlap.

          • josh says:

            I agree its a problem. We need to get rid of no fault divorce, mandatory child supports, our rigged justice system, etc. etc. We need to shame sluts for their shameful behavior and we need to shame cads for their shameful behavior.

            My original disagreement was with your comment that we have no moral responsibility not to be predators. Predation is natural in a sense, but it is also unnatural in the sense that it violates the moral law.

            • jim says:

              We have lesser obligations to non kin and non neighbors. If cads were going viking and abducting women, you would have a point, but they are giving them what they want, and should not want.

        • tryptophan says:

          “Christendom contributed substantially to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and in that period was left wing in ways that disturbingly resemble modern leftism. Charles the Hammer reinterpreted Christianity so that willing the good of one’s enemy did not mean allowing the Saracens to overrun the west, and for the next several hundred years Bishops tended to wear armor and were apt to morally improve the Saracen by hitting him on the head with a big hammer.”

          That’s a fantastic paragraph, I was thinking of submitting an article to dark matter with the same sort of conclusions as I’ve been reading Decline and fall recently. Have you got any more material that you could point me in the direction of?

        • Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) says:

          “The chronic failure of women to accept the male status hierarchy is visible and deeply disruptive in business.”

          Could you expand on this?

        • J.M. says:

          “Nothing very wrong with polygyny, check your old testament. The problem is not polygyny, but rather leking, in that there is no continuing relationship between the woman and the men she has sex with, with the result that children are not born in the first place, or are born without fathers.”

          Normally your comments are intelligent but your anti-christian bias just got the best of you. First the Roman empire was dying BEFORE christian teachings began, check the last resource methods Caesar Augustus had to implement in order to preserve social order that was already crumbling that is a few decades before Christianity. His measures probably gave the empire a few centuries and slowed down the decadence and fall.

          Second polygyny can only work in societies with HIGH male mortality, hence in the Old testament due to the constant wars, polygamy became common and accepted. However even with mortality rates higher than ours, if they are not very high, imbalance and social strife begins, that’s a fact.

          Third, your genetic determism and pagan bias doesn’t let you see that without Christianity (the catholic/Orthodox kind), the West most likely would be either Mongol-Turk Land, Dar el Islam or both given the low level civilizations our Germanic ancestors were able to build before their christianization.

          • jim says:

            check the last resource methods Caesar Augustus had to implement in order to preserve social order that was already crumbling that is a few decades before Christianity. His measures probably gave the empire a few centuries and slowed down the decadence and fall.

            Extraordinary methods of raising revenue did not begin until around 100-200 AD, well before Christianity became powerful, but well after Emperor Caesar Augustus. But what I had in mind as an example of the baleful effects of Christianity were the writings of Prudentius (400AD).

          • koanic says:

            John glubb argues prudentii are a feature of every decline empire, thus not specific to christianity

            • jim says:

              Prudentii?

              Looking up Prudentii, I find two meanings:

              1. A fictitious political party supposedly from the greatest days of the Roman Republic, which argued for less imperialism, in that too much and too successful imperialism was undermining the Roman Republic.

              2. People like Prudentius, who in the last days of the Roman Empire in the west, argued that everything was going fine, and no change of course was needed.

          • koanic says:

            Meaning 2. Your response?

            • jim says:

              Civilizations tend to collapse when they move left, hence people like Prudentius. This is consistent with the proposition that Christianity is vulnerable to leftism: (At which point B will undoubtedly tell us he told us so, which argument would be more persuasive if left wing Jews were not busily trying to destroy Israel)

              Civilizations tend to collapse when they fail to respond to a crisis or a challenge, and they usually fail to respond because they deny it, because they just cannot see it. Hence people like Prudentius.

          • koanic says:

            What undermines gibbons anti christian thesis the most is the similar pattern of leftism during decline phases of Muslim empires. Christianity has been the new religion symptomatic of decline, and the old religion preserving empire. To say that Christianity is vulnerable to leftism is to imply this is a fault of Christianity rather than man. It implies there is some religion that isn’t vulnerable.

            The correlation between civilizational achievement and Christianity in charles Murrays human achievement is ridiculously high, and clearly causal.

            • jim says:

              Plausibly causal, but why clearly causal? The Vikings seemed to be pretty high achievers. Icelanders did not accomplish much after they converted.

          • koanic says:

            Iceland lacks critical mass for cosmopololitan ferment. Christian Americans did fine as raiding pioneers. Read his book for full argument. basically, seeds of rationality justice cooperation law etc. Resistant to mutation, relative to other options.

        • B says:

          >The command is primarily to love your neighbor, as a man’s heart is not big enough to love the entire world, and should he attempt to do so, the resulting love is apt to be disturbingly chilly. Charity begins at home. See Saint Paul’s limits on charity to widows and orphans. He strongly discouraged the kind of charity that is apt to freeze one’s toes off.

          Even though you already know what I’m gonna say, I’ll say it anyway-when you water down the Torah just a bit for your own purposes, the next guy will come along and water it down a bit more, and maybe throw some antifreeze in there to keep the taste sweet. Eventually, you get Prudentius. Of course, there are remissions, of ever-briefer spans.

          >Nothing very wrong with polygyny, check your old testament.

          Well. It depends. We see that Moshe had one wife whom he separated himself from eventually, that Aaron had one wife and four sons, that Abraham had one wife and a female servant whom he’d taken strictly for having children, that Itzhak had one wife. Yaakov had two wives and two female servants, but he certainly hadn’t planned for it-they were forced on him by his father in law’s scheming to marry off both his daughters (or all four, if you believe one of the interpretations that says Bilha and Zilpa were sisters to Leah and Rachel.)

          David and Shlomo had many wives and concubines, but their women troubles caused them very serious problems, leading eventually to the split and collapse of the kingdom.

          We can say that polygamy might be ok, sometimes, but licentiousness is always destructive.

          >If females reliably accepted the male status hierarchy, the result would be a major improvement, as males usually award each other status for productive behavior, while females award males status for destructive behavior.

          In some societies, where males’ aspirations are directed towards doing G-d’s will, they award each other status for productive behavior. In other societies, they award each other status for number of heads gathered, number of women seduced, number of pigs eaten at a potluck, etc. In short, it depends.

          In some societies with a matriarchal substructure, older women put a check on younger women’s behavior.

          The issue is that today’s West is the result of systematic destruction of all substructures standing between the individual and the state/corporation. What is left are solitary bodies bobbing around aimlessly. Their interactions are animalistic and destructive, mostly. This goes for both men and women.

          • jim says:

            In some societies with a matriarchal substructure, older women put a check on younger women’s behavior.

            I don’t think so. Although anthropologists love matriarchies for political reasons, they all feature very large numbers of children of unknown fathers, very large numbers of women engaged in sex work, and the males are disinclined to do any useful work, but rather live by crime, pimping, and shaking down women.

            No patriarchal society awards status for eating pigs, though they frequently award status for throwing big parties at which numerous pigs are fed to the guests, a very different thing. They also frequently award status for killing enemies, with enemies sometimes being defined alarmingly broadly. But destroying enemies and throwing big parties are constructive activities, while matriarchal societies award status for destroying stuff and beating up women and children, for violence directed inwards at the society, rather than outwards at its external enemies, for destruction rather than production, for taking rather than giving.

            A patriarchal society always issues status to reward the behavior it wants (which may be behavior you disapprove of, such as head hunting) Women, on the other hand award status to bad boys, and, to a lesser extent, to bad girls.

          • B says:

            Korea is like this, from what I recall-the older women get to basically do whatever they want and boss the younger women around.

            Throwing big parties (which is what I meant) is not a constructive activity, in the sense that afterwards, while your status has increased, you have a hangover and fewer pigs.

            Killing enemies in the potluck society sense is also not very productive, except insofar as that, also being potluck society dumbshits, they will kill you if you don’t kill them first. Which is important, but you can go around like this ad infinitum, and it doesn’t really strike me as much different than projects life.

          • B says:

            I can’t tell the difference. What’s a big party without some whores, and what are whores without a party?

            • jim says:

              Supposing the guy throwing the party hires a stripper, better that he be high status than her pimp. Black rap videos show white people giving dollar bills to a stripper, and the rap character snatching them away from the stripper, to show that the rap character is high status. Better that giving is high status rather than taking.

        • Andre says:

          “The purpose of rules on sex and sex roles is not to prevent sex, but to ensure that children are produced and raised by a father and a mother.”

          I have reached the conclusion that mothers are for the most part superfluous. I mean yes, they can breatfeed and the father can’t be expected to watch a baby while chopping wood, but they do not, in fact, add psychological benefit to the rearing of children. Women are by and large narcissists who should be kept as far away from children as humanly possible.

          • jim says:

            I think it is the fathers job to turn a child into a civilized human being, but the mother does a hell of a lot of work feeding the child, keeping it warm, etc, which fathers just do not do as well.

          • Andre says:

            Fathers absolutely can feed and keep a child warm just as well, and in fact better, than mothers. I’m 100% sure that stay at home fathers raise better children than stay at home mothers. The problem is, they usually cannot “stay at home” because there is nobody to support them, though I suppose a man could save enough resources for the few years that children require the amount of care that makes working nearly impossible.

          • Andre says:

            Or well, they could if they didn’t have to support the massive welfare machine of the modern democratic state.

      • B says:

        >We have a moral obligation to love even our enemy, ie to will the good of our enemy.

        What do you mean “we,” white man? I have no such obligation. My obligation is that if someone comes to kill me, to kill him first. Your position is a typically Christian inversion of moral values. We see it over and over again, from the below-mentioned Prudentius gushing over the barbarians who, in his mind, were a skip away from being his fellow Roman Christians, to Tolstoy sighing tenderly over the Russian peasants’ inner goodness, to your pity for the cads. News: the barbarians wanted to eat Prudentius’ liver with a nice Chianti and some fava beans, the Russian peasants, when set free, killed off the aristocracy, desecrated the churches, then cheerfully participated in the purges (who do you think wrote all those denunciations?) and the cads do not give a fuck about you, and would gladly bang out your wife and teenage daughter, given the opportunity.

        Now, it’s true that in theory, the ideal state is that our enemy sees the light and becomes our friend. But that is his problem-our problem is how to safeguard ourselves from him as he currently is, preferably in some permanent way.

  9. JS says:

    The ultimate solution is that women should not be allowed to own property, as was traditional. When they need a provider you get civilization, when they can provide for themselves, they chase alphas and men compete over who can be the biggest alpha.

  10. zhai2nan2 says:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/cdc_the_rise_of_antibiotic_resistant_gonorrhea_appears_imminent/

    I’ll just leave this link right here and let the rest of you figure out how a reactionary society should deal with antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      This supposed to be a hard problem for an NR society?

      As long as noticing things isn’t illegal it’s a really short trip to finding out how to stop new STDs.

    • Erik says:

      DNLS. http://unvis.it/www.salon.com/2014/03/12/cdc_the_rise_of_antibiotic_resistant_gonorrhea_appears_imminent/

      What is there to deal with? Stupid people did stupid things, got subsidised out of consequences, eventually subsidies run out or stop working, stupid people take consequences for doing stupid things. “We must do something” – no we mustn’t.

      To the extent I would do something, I wouldn’t even regard antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea as an independent problem. It’s on a similar level to getting a bottle cork lodged in your anus, something that usually happens to frat boys (which I don’t give a fuck about) doing drunken things with beer bottles. These are mostly side effects of people behaving stupidly in some manner, which is the real problem.

      Which leaves two major classes of options. One is to let the stupid people go on being stupid. The other is to clamp down on stupid behavior. Can’t really say what a reactionary society “should” do of these two because it depends a lot on the specific society and its composition, though.

    • Thales says:

      I’m guessing you’re just making a funny, throwing softballs like that and all…

    • jim says:

      Drug resistant Gonorrhea is at present a homosexual problem. You get it in Seattle, not Cleveland.

      If we socially exclude homosexuals so that they all fuck each other in a great big pile, but don’t get to have sex with normal people, not a problem.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Was I not obvious enough?

        Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn’t know that all new STDs and drug resistant STDs come from catamites?

        • zhai2nan2 says:

          I’m sorry that I neglected to read the blog for a few days and thus I am late in responding to those comments.

          @Steve Johnson:

          >Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn’t know that all new STDs and drug resistant STDs come from catamites?

          Sorry. I had not realized that the data was getting skewed by homosexuals. However, I worry that an outbreak could start in a homosexual community and spread to heterosexuals, greatly endangering the gene pool.

          Yes, I really am that clueless. Biology isn’t my specialty.

          @Erik:

          “We must do something” – no we mustn’t.

          I think this is one approach, but it is contradicted by Jim’s response:

          Jim wrote:
          >If we socially exclude homosexuals so that they all fuck each other in a great big pile, but don’t get to have sex with normal people, not a problem.

          That is pretty much the conclusion I would have expected.

          So there are two approaches – Erik’s non-interference and Jim’s isolation of problematic populations.

          The isolation of problematic sub-populations, so far as I can tell, is nearly impossible under current Western laws. Russia or China might be able to do such a thing.

  11. […] Jim is at his magisterial best with All I Ever Needed to Know About Game, I Learned in Shakespeare. It really is a wonder that Taming of the Shrew is performed at all these days. The slightest hint […]

  12. Glenfilthie says:

    Ya ask me – and I say your ‘predators’ and ‘feral women’ are simply idiots fucking other idiots.

    Why burden yourself with stupid people by having sex with them?

  13. DD says:

    I think the Romans had the right idea about sluts. Most of the degenerate professions that attract women-actors, gladiators, dancers, etc.-held the social status of infamia under the Roman law. This meant that if members of these professions were caught in the act of adultery they could be killed on the spot by a Roman husband. Infamiae were also subject to more extreme punishments for crimes. Convicted adulterers and adulteresses also became infamiae

    There were prohibitions against the marriage to infamiae, so no alpha fux beta bux. An adulteress or adulterer who was not killed or banished could expect a harsh life of near-outlawry. The adulteress would probably be forced into prostitution.

  14. […] Players, PUAs, and Petruchio « Jim’s Blog […]

  15. Red says:

    @J.M.
    “Third, your genetic determism and pagan bias doesn’t let you see that without Christianity (the catholic/Orthodox kind), the West most likely would be either Mongol-Turk Land, Dar el Islam or both given the low level civilizations our Germanic ancestors were able to build before their christianization.”

    Your own pro-Christan bias leaves you unable to see that pre-fall of the western roman empire Christianity was a very different beast than it was post fall. The first Christan age was marked by total failure and collapse. The second was the greatest success story of any peoples in history.

    This is why when today’s christens try to imitate early Christianity it creates far more problems than it solves.

  16. […] Players, PUAs, and Petruchio « Jim’s Blog […]

  17. […] Men’s predation on women is not the problem, women becoming feral is. […]

  18. […] Players, PUAs, and Petruchio « Jim’s Blog […]

  19. […] Players, PUAs, and Petruchio « Jim’s Blog […]

  20. Shenpen says:

    Jim,

    Are you trying to parodize the liberals overly niceness by trying to be as un-nice as possible? There is such a thing as compassion and empathy. It is not the “duty” of all men to protect all women, but if we want to feel have soul we should feel like it is our duty, because there is no point in being callous and selfish.

    I mean on one extreme liberals don’t want to accept the reality of that the world is harsh, on that other extreme people like you say it is not only harsh, it ought to be harsh. That is overly callous.

    The is-ought difference, that the world is harsh, but not ought to be, that people are evil, but not ought to be, is the essence of actually civilized, well-meaning and gentlemanly conservatism.

Leave a Reply