The urban gene shredder

The discussion on the Jewish question raised several interesting and important issues, which tended to be drowned out by obsessive and repetitious discussion of the kill-them-all-and-take-their-stuff option.  (If you think too much about outgroups, it is bad for your mental health.)

One of which is that Latin America browned out and went down the shithole because brownish people in the countryside reproduced and whitish people in the cities did not, and were replaced by brownish people from the countryside.   Failure of elite reproduction.

But failure of elite reproduction is going to make us stupid even if the city imports fresh elites from a white countryside.  Pretty soon we will need Jews to rule us (descended from rapidly reproducing orthodox urban Jews) just to keep the electricity and water going, just as Nigerians need whites and Chinese to keep the electricity and water going.

Mormons manage to reproduce in the cities.  Right wing Jews manage to reproduce in the cities.

Men and women want to form families, but fail because of prisoner’s dilemma.  There is an obvious state level solution to this:  Empower husbands, disempower women.  Authorize more violence by husbands, both in that they should be allowed to physically discipline wives and children, and in that they should be allowed to kill adulterers.  Also death penalty for sleeping with another man’s wife, regardless of who carries the death penalty out. Enforce chastity on women, with “Homes for Wayward Girls”, similar to the female factory in late eighteenth century Australia.  Lower the legal and social status of women.  Prohibit women from exercising authority over men, other than their sons.  Generally encourage manliness.  Legalize dueling.    Give property owners broader police authority. Videos should depict feminine women, manly men, patriarchal families, and obedient and respectful children.

Orthodox Jews and Amish are successful in reproducing in substantial part because they keep their kids out of an education system hostile to males, manliness, and household formation.  Reversing credential inflation is important.  Girls should finish formal education at puberty, and men not long thereafter.  Engineers educate themselves informally all their lives.  Everyone should do the same.  It is easy now in the age of the internet.   Unfortunately businesses are legally compelled to rely on educational credentials.

Trump’s family successfully reproduced in a society hostile to males and family formation, possibly because the Trump dynasty is uncomplicatedly and straightforwardly patriarchal.  A large part of this is sheer force of personality, which men can and should cultivate.  Be like Trump.  Trump Trump Trump.

But force of personality will not do you much good if there are no marriageable women, and there are no marriageable women in Silicon Valley.  Look at Zuckerberg’s wife and Bill Gates’ wife.  In Silicon valley, the pump and dump lifestyle is simply the only viable strategy, because we have a social order dedicated to making women unmarriageable.

Fathers need to protect daughters from this social order, but it is hard for them to do so.  If you are a silicon valley engineer, and you want to get married, need to take a year off and go for a trip around the world.

152 Responses to “The urban gene shredder”

  1. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim you sure Latin America browned out? My impression was that they were ruled and still are ruled by white elites that reproduce endogamously and above replacement. The majority of the population were always indios, blacks, mestizos and mulattos, if anything the whites have done a good job of snuffing out all the racial animosity considering anglos are constantly intervening to impose New deal democracy on them. Pretty sure they declined due to accepting leftist ideas from Anglos, not genetic decay.

    • jim says:

      Venezuela

    • TheBigH says:

      Not enough high IQ whites left to rule.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        ? With the exception of Venezuela and Bolivia it looks like they are all ruled by whites, even Cuba.

        • jim says:

          Yes, Cuba is ruled by whites, but Cubans tell me it has turned brown – that when older people go back, the white community that they remember is not there any more.

        • TheBigH says:

          The top is ruled by whites but not the middle. Without white administrators, formen, and leads things fall apart.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Colonies like Belgian Congo worked fine with white rulers and a native administrator class. I think ideology and structure of the elite is the main problem here with Cuba being the biggest example, the Mestizos and blacks in Hispanic countries are significantly better than in US while the white are worse.

            They seem to worship whites though. When I was vacationing there recently noticed all the actresses in the leading dramas were blue eyed blonde big breast aryans.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    In the Old Testament Law, there were provisions to make sure it was the immigrants who ended up in the city gene shredders. Agricultural land, in fact any land outside the city cores, was reserved to the natives. The Philippines and Mexico practice this system today, so Duterte wasn’t joking when he offered to allow ALL refugees to flood into the Philippines. They have the legal infrastructure so prevent it from being a problem. Land ownership for natives only, elected office for natives only, and no birthright citizenship. In Hebrew this status of foreigners is known as “ger” or “resident alien”. It persists for generations. 3 generations for kindred people, 10 generations for really alien people. With such rules, you don’t have to be like China, which makes it hard for the ethnic minorities to get legal jobs.

    • jim says:

      Land ownership for natives only, elected office for natives only, and no birthright citizenship. In Hebrew this status of foreigners is known as “ger” or “resident alien”. It persists for generations. 3 generations for kindred people, 10 generations for really alien people.

      Works. Everyone should do this.

      But you still have the problem of the city sucking in high IQ natives. So even if you will not turn brown, will still turn wigger.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        There are other things that come into play to keep the high IQ natives going back to the countryside after their college years. For instance, Old Testament inheritance laws couple power and status to land ownership. So, sure. Lower class natives will go to the city and hit the shredder. The landed gentry will do what they always do, recruit them to come back to the countryside, with status and wages, etc. But for this to happen, the gentry themselves have to be tethered to the land; it must be their source of status and power. The big problems come when land is a commodity rather than an inheritance, an asset rather than a sacred trust. The King benefited in the short term by bumping the aristocrats from their land, but long term it was an extremely bad move.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Up until recently, (up until the smartphone) smart natives could go to the countryside, and very quickly be sucked up in the social life, some sweet eyed young thing would rope him into a marriage, job openings would magically appear, and the high IQ native would find himselve back in the countryside, raising a family, and liking it. In a nation of whores, this just doesn’t happen. So people stay in the city.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Another Old Testament law is “you shall not run up and down in the land as a talebearer”. We communicate too much. The eyes of everyone have become greedy. Any good looking girl leaves the countryside as soon as she can, to open her vagina and find her fortune in the city. That didn’t used to happen nearly as much. Instead, good looking girls would marry high IQ tradesmen, or become to the mistress of the local Lord, or some such. Good genes propagated.

            Do you know how much Arab Muslim girls idolize Beyonce? A lot. The world is close to maximum permeation with this stuff.

            The Muslim warlord in Mindanao who forbade his wives to use the telephone was smart. Female telephone and internet usage needs to be limited, just as female reading and writing used to be limited.

            • Dave says:

              So true. Back in the 70s/80s my sister could contact her best friend only by walking to her house because her mother was *always* on the phone!

        • Cavalier says:

          Precisely.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Wiggers can turn into decent people pretty quickly once the social environment around them changes. The key is returning the aristocracy to their estates. In fact, the Old Testament system of property ownership.

        There are two or three ethnic groups there were never conquered by European colonialism. The Masaai in Kenya. The Kingdom of Tonga. Maybe a few others. What do they have in common? Land ownership restricted to men, and inheritance laws straight out of the Old Testament. And of course, polygamy.

        Think about that. Property laws are important. Get them wrong, and everything else is on a weak basis, you would just be shoveling sand on a beach with a rising tide.

        • jim says:

          What exactly are Tongan property laws.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            From Infogalactic:

            Tonga has never lost its sovereignty to a foreign power.[6] In 2010, Tonga took a decisive step towards becoming a fully functioning constitutional monarchy, after legislative reforms paved the way for its first partial representative elections.

            Tongans have universal access to a national health care system. The Tongan constitution protects land ownership: land cannot be sold to foreigners (although it may be leased). While there is a land shortage on the urbanised main island of Tongatapu (where 70% of the population resides), there is farmland available in the outlying islands. The majority of the population engages in some form of subsistence production of food, with approximately half producing almost all of their basic food needs through farming, sea harvesting, and animal husbandry. Women and men have equal access to education and health care and are fairly equal in employment, but women are discriminated against in land holding, electoral politics, and government ministries.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              What I take away from that is, get the land laws right, and you can afford a few indulgences like education and health care.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Property laws are part of it but the main reason Tonga has high fertility is this

            . The majority of the population engages in some form of subsistence production of food, with approximately half producing almost all of their basic food needs through farming, sea harvesting, and animal husbandry.

            Its not a developed nation culturally and its Christian.

            Developed nations, every one of them has at best near replacement fertility basically urbanization . and development is an IQ shredder.

            And note Afghanistan certainly got its fertility up but at the expense of no longer being developed. Its 4th tier when it was in places 2nd.

            As an aside there are only two States in the US with significantly above replacement fertility Utah where its mostly White Mormons (its 2.375 or so) and South Dakota also White though Amerinds also contribute 14% (2.26)

            Others have at/above rates (Alaska , North Dakota, Kansas, Idaho) all are mostly White. Oklahoma is close (just under 2.1) as well

            The only surprises in the lot are South Dakota to be honest. I’d expect higher fertility in Utah and Utah, South Dakota is higher than I’d expect and Utah given its the religious homeland of the LDS a bit higher .

            • peppermint says:

              This is because for leftism to work you need an accumulation of wealth, otherwise it’s not a viable strategy for young men to get their dicks wet and lord it over their peers. If leftism was prevented from being viable by other means, like strictly enforced monogamy, widespread disdain for protesters and activist “work”, no foundation and government jobs and city apartments not having their prices kept down by niggers, mandatory abortions for unmarried people, fathers personally punishing men who seduce their daughters and state punishment for beastiality – we could go on – leftism will be dead and every young man will try to get married and have kids.

              By the way with Facebook and LinkedIn everyone knows that leftists are worthless garbage, eliminating their ability to signal, while fathers can know who their daughters are hanging out with. All we need is the will to use these tools and we can have cities that do the opposite of shredding genes.

            • jim says:

              Developed nations, every one of them has at best near replacement fertility basically urbanization . and development is an IQ shredder.

              Japan before, during, and immediately after World War II was a developed nation, and had far above replacement fertility. The problem is that every developed nation also has female emancipation, which is not a necessarily correlate of economic development, but the result of English and American military victory.

              Before female emancipation, japanese fertility rock steady at four to four and half children per woman. After female emancipation, fertility instantly dropped to typical western developed country levels.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                A brief post war surge is expected same as we have. Timor Leste has a similar thing after a near genocide IIRC

                Also post WW2 had a HUGE demand for male labor and jobs that paid well for every social class.

                This is not the case now, the demand for male labor is too low to support a patriarchy of any kind and its only partially do to women in the workplace .

                We could discourage women from working if we eliminated the franchise and higher education but we still won’t have any way for men to earn a decent living

                While automation reduces labor costs and some material costs, its not a molecular assembler and stuff still has a baseline cost . If you don’t have a job is too much.

                Basically until we control automation and how its used either through regulation or by a collapse, automation reduces fertility

                We probably could get it up to 2 and change with big cultural changes but “baby boom” style growth is not likely

                Frankly if the US were basically 90% White it would be moot anyway . We could lose half the population over time and thrive . To paraphrase Edward Abbey Constant growth id the creed of the cancer cell

                • jim says:

                  Economics is irrelevant. People do not decide to have children because they can afford them. They decide to have children, and then find a way to afford them. Fertility is not much effected by economic forces, short of dire famine. Men much poorer than Americans have no great difficulty affording a wife, two mistresses, and eighteen kids.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Its funny though that the US fertility rate declines in lock step with the economy

                  You can see the results in the great depression where the US was not feminist, divorce was rare and scandalous, little birth control or abortion and a religious homogeneous society oh and and there was no Cultural Marxism (its a 1950’s thing) either

                  TFR was below 2

                  In 1973 when the economy tanked very few States (California and a couple of others) had no fault divorce and while there was some feminism and Cultural Marxism, in general the culture wasn’t female lead . Heck the working girl was still a novelty c.f Mary Tyler Moore . The TFR was 1.8 about the same as it is among Whites now

                  Its granted not always economic but the economy is a big contributor as it delays family formation and makes patriarchy harder

                  My opinion here but I think you overestimate the desire for children. Its perfectly possible that modernity offers enough things to do that people don’t want more than a couple, sometimes just one.

                  The elite especially are hit by this, anyone who is on the high end of working or middle has a plethora of choices, nearly everyone more satisfying than parenting

                  Now people certainly want some, well most people do and I think they want a few more than current or maybe to start earlier on family formation (the economic angle) but I am not sure that people desire children to the level you do

                  If they did Utah which has social support for large families baked in would have a higher TFR

                  So money and distractions both count in differing measures.

                  You can’t fix the money issue, I expect in a few decades unemployment and underemployment to hit around 60% mainly because of automation and the feedback loop from that means people turn to distractions and thus lower the fertility rate.

                  We should be hitting around 2 maybe 2 and change, we’ll get 1.8 maybe lower

                  Because of that we need to plan for lower fertility and not cling to pre industrial or even industrial age ideas in a rapidly growing automated era

                • jim says:

                  Its funny though that the US fertility rate declines in lock step with the economy

                  You can see the results in the great depression where the US was not feminist.\

                  You are making up your own history.

                  Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie. Feminism caused the fertility rate to drop before the great depression started. When the great depression actually hit, and people had other things to worry about, fertility stopped falling.

                  When World War II began, and the government decriminalized masculinity, fertility started to rise again.

                  Fertility started to tank again in 1963 when good guys in the movies were no longer allowed to physically discipline badly behaved women.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  A few women with early feminism and the assorted stupid ideas is not indicative of a decline.

                  Women were after more feminist in the 1950’s but fertility was way up then

                  In any case there really aren’t any developed societies or at least sizable ones that don’t have female empowerment.I suspect they go hand in hand, not cause and effect at all but a natural property of advanced urban life

                • jim says:

                  No, women were not more feminist in the 1950s than in the 1930s, to judge by women in the movies. Looks to me that feminism maxed around 1922-1928, went into abrupt and rapid decline at the start of world war II, and then got going again in 1963.

                  Example: “I love Lucy” “Father knows best”. You will not find equivalent movies in the 1930s.

                  In any case there really aren’t any developed societies or at least sizable ones that don’t have female empowerment.

                  This is not a result of the inherent nature of development, but of the export of female emancipation at gun point by English speaking armies. Japan was a developed society with low female status and correspondingly high fertility (TFR of four to four and half) until the US army imposed female emancipation and female empowerment.

                • peppermint says:

                  » In any case there really aren’t any developed societies or at least sizable ones that don’t have female empowerment.

                  haha yeah

                  » I suspect they go hand in hand, not cause and effect at all but a natural property of advanced urban life

                  yeah no

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Property laws in Tonga are the REASON that people are staying closer to the land and they aren’t being shredded by urbanization!

      • thinkingabout it says:

        This is very close to the system in the Middle Eastern Arab countries. Win Win situation. The immigrants do the work the natives can’t or won’t do, whether manual labor or high tech engineering and medicine. They make good money, but the natives keep their power structure intact and do not admit any immigrants in.

        • peppermint says:

          Haha no. Those countries exist because the White countries permit them to. If a White country let foreigners run its infrastructure, it would basically be a protectorate, too.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      What are you talking about? Plenty of expats with jobs in China. Non-Chinese minorities get affirmative action, it’s the same set up as here, just a bit more right wing.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Not talking about expats in economic free zones. Ethnic minorities. non-Han minorities that have always lived on their home turf, but are now under Han overlords.

        http://www.cecc.gov/publications/commission-analysis/job-discrimination-against-ethnic-minorities-continues-in-xinjiang

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        As someone who can read Chinese language sources I am telling you straight up that the Chinese government gives affirmative action to all non-Han minorities. Even children of mixed couples identify as non-Han to get preferential treatment (higher scores on Gaokao, preference for government jobs etc).

        Some government jobs are reserved for Han but that’s because giving police and education jobs to Muslims when they’re committing terrorist attacks is insane and China is not that insane (yet). On net they get affirmative action, there is literally no dispute over this.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          And why is affirmative action necessary, if they aren’t being discriminated against.

          • jim says:

            Affirmative action is never given to people who are being discriminated against. It is always given to those who receive unearned benefits and privileges.

            • Orthodox says:

              Chinese minorities, with a couple of exceptions, are like American Indians: on the verge of extinction.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                As extinct as Hispanics in the US population. They were exempted from the recently repealed one child policy and their % of the population have been increasing. China has the same set up as the Cathedral, only a bit more right wing.

                • jim says:

                  Whites are like Jews relative to East Asians – in that, Whites are more priestly than East Asians, and tend to hack the East Asian moral code and influence and control East Asians in ways that East Asians don’t understand and fail to effectively resist – they don’t understand that they are being manipulated by outsiders to their disadvantage.

                  Muslims from Bangladesh and from near Bangladesh tried to set up an Islamic Sharia enclave in Burma, pissing off the Burmese, who proceeded to kick them out. The Muslims they kicked out, plus the continuing influx of Muslims from Bangladesh and near Bangladesh, plus Muslims from Syria and near Syria who decided to head east instead of North, resulted in a refugee crisis in East Asia and South East Asia. The US set up an international conference on the refugee crisis, and sent a bunch of diplomats to piously tell the countries of South East Asia to accept refugees. Australia sent their Ambassador for People Smuggling affairs, who told the countries of South East Asia that people smuggling was illegal, and should met with fire and steel on the high seas, that navies should act, separately and together, to halt the movement of refugees. The various East and South East Asian countries at the conference said yes to the Americans, and yes to the Australian Ambassador for People Smuggling Affairs, and proceeded to implement the solution recommended by the Australian Ambassador for People Smuggling Affairs. My feeling is that if their actions had not been blessed by him, they would have felt really guilty about using force to halt the movement.

                  Before the conference, the Thais were physically pushing refugee boats out of Thai waters into international waters. After the conference, they were turning refugee boats around at gunpoint in international waters, and were willing to sink boats or set them on fire if they would not stand to be boarded.

  3. fnn says:

    The Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews models overdo it on the reproduction unless we de-industrialize. Nordic values of wilderness and wildlife conservation (I think NSDAP were first to incorporate (moderate, not SJW) Greenism and animal welfare into a major political movement) are needed for long term survival. The US environmental movement was all to the good when run by right-wingers like Madison Grant.

    • jim says:

      I am primarily worried about elite reproduction. We can worry about curtailing non elite reproduction after we get elite reproduction up.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Elite reproduction will bounce back once women are put back in their place, and polygamy is restored. The mistress system has recently turned into the whore/girlfriend system, so the traditional “polygamy in anything but name” isn’t even practiced anymore by our elites. So of course the birthrate has fallen. Used to be you’d have children by your mistresses as well as your wife. And the middle class dumbkopfs would be satisfied that they were Christian monogamists and every man was equal, and that was that.

        • peppermint says:

          Polygamy is a bad idea because it reduces cooperativeness between men. Furthermore, one reason young swipples love pocs so much is having a bunch of pocs around instead of Whites reduces the competition for the White girls. True story, I’ve been there.

          Monogamy is how we make Whites cooperative and thus winners. The whole point of introducing sexual license was to break down the authoritarian personality.

          Children by a mistress are legally bastards and aren’t allowed to have a last name unless they kill an enemy on the battlefield. No one wants to look at them because doing anything for them implies support for polygamy and thus makes you a cuck.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            swipples may think poc’s reduce competition for white girls, but times have changed. pocs are grabbing white girls more and more. And not just the uglies. It is so bad even swipples are close to waking up… the ones that haven’t gone full tears-in-my-beer cuck.

            Your comments about polygamy are ill-informed. Polygamy is the most sane and humane relation between the sexes. Far from reducing cooperativeness, it increases it. Every marriage is an alliance. If you can make multiple alliances, that enhances your status more than a single alliance. Society becomes more interconnected, building more trust and solidarity.

            Monogamy doesn’t create cooperation. It creates whores and spinsters. Even the monogamous Amish had their mistresses. Great grandpa was an Amish farmer, and he had his wife and mistress under one roof.

            Under polygamy, there are no bastards. Fake monogamy (the mistress system) is insane and inhumane because it takes men who should be contributing members of society, and lowers them to the level of bastards. For more on this, read the Puritan scholar and attorney Martin Madan. (Thelypthora)

            Polygamy is the opposite of cuck. peppermint writes like a virgin or at very least an incel.

            • TheBigH says:

              If Polygamy is a wonder, then why doesn’t Islam create successful civilizations? China under Polygamy was a disaster as well. You can get away with Polygamy during periods of heavy warfare where 50% of the males are dead before they can marry but you can’t maintain a civilization on it.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                The polygamous Goth’s smashed Rome. The polygamous Vikings smashed the Christianized Franks and Goths. China and Japan go through cycles of decadence just like any other society; eliminating polygamy 50 years ago hasn’t lessened their corruption or increased internal trust. As for polygamous Arabs, an Arab is an Arab. Polygamous Iranians became Persia, and even under Islam, created high culture and ran some pretty impressive civilization.

                Polygamy lessens and mitigates many things that happen in a society, including eliminating the most unfair and useless types of bastardy.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Polygamy is also the answer to single welfare mothers popping out sprogs. Welfare is justifiable when women don’t have a reasonable expectation of marriage.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Your land comments were so good…what happened between then and now?

                • TheBigH says:

                  >The polygamous Goth’s smashed Rome.

                  Smashed Rome and then took up Roman ways because it was a superior system for maintaining the civilization they conquered.

                  > The polygamous Vikings smashed the Christianized Franks and Goths.

                  And were almost immediately out breed by the locals. There’s little doubt that polygamy is a superior system when it comes to war but when it comes to building long term civilizations people adopt monogamy in most cases.

                  >China and Japan go through cycles of decadence just like any other society; eliminating polygamy 50 years ago hasn’t lessened their corruption or increased internal trust.

                  China now has the largest economy in the world and you’re arguing that they’re still worse off than they where in 1912? That’s nonsensical.

                  > As for polygamous Arabs, an Arab is an Arab. Polygamous Iranians became Persia, and even under Islam, created high culture and ran some pretty impressive civilization.

                  How’d Turkey’s system of polygamy work out for it? I’m sure the superior gene selection of the sultan must have worked wonders.

                • peppermint says:

                  So basically, you want to get rid of women without husbands and bastards not with mandatory abortion and convents but by turning all the men against each other.

                  What you’re going to select for is aggression and subversion instead of building and thinking about how to build. Before evolution turns us into something like the sand and rice niggers, we’ll be acting like dirt niggers, preening and acting physical aggressive and wearing bling ourselves instead of decorating the one woman to show off to the other men. That is, for the high IQ and autistic men capable of such a radical revision to their behavior.

                  Look at how right wing, monogamous, men behave towards each other, then look at polyamorous liberals.

                  Who started pushing White women to have sex with niggers (other than Jews)? Christcucks started holding events at which niggers would dance with White women because all lives matter, and swingers would prefer if their White women had sex with niggers instead of White men because there would be less risk of losing them that way. This is well documented and, of course, these groups overlapped.

                  Swingers and christcucks both believe that we exist for felicity whether in this life or the next. Only Nazis understand the purpose of our existence: we must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

                  You say the servant girls of the most powerful barons would have sex with those barons, go to the priest for absolution at the cost of a blowjob, then have the baron’s bastard who would be hated by everyone else, and this must be formalized. I have a better idea. No priest, mandatory abortions, and White men who know in the minds as well as in their instincts that the way they have more and better grandchildren is by building.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Agreed. Monogamy is seriously overrated, if it’s even possible. European elites end up fathering bastards with their mistresses who they didn’t care for as much, seems like it would be a better solution to formalize this so children of concubines get parental investment and culture as well.

              Don’t think Polygamy made China worse off. Polygamy creates fiercer selection for high IQ genes (at least in the Chinese environment where IQ matters more than brawn, which is not the case for Muslims) in exchange for a small decrease in trust. Lower-class men’s problems can be solved through prostitution. I would say being next to the Mongols and far away from North America was China’s main disadvantage versus Europe, they were ahead until after the Ming dynasty.

              • TheBigH says:

                >Don’t think Polygamy made China worse off. Polygamy creates fiercer selection for high IQ genes (at least in the Chinese environment where IQ matters more than brawn, which is not the case for Muslims) in exchange for a small decrease in trust. Lower-class men’s problems can be solved through prostitution. I would say being next to the Mongols and far away from North America was China’s main disadvantage versus Europe, they were ahead until after the Ming dynasty.

                You don’t see China’s 400 year decline a problem? I’d hate to see what you define as a success.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                “You don’t see China’s 400 year decline a problem?”

                Why do you attribute the decline to Polygamy? Manchu conquest and increasing neo confucianism are probably the main reasons. Regardless, considering the disasters China has experienced since they adopted western feminism (below replacement fertility, massive slutting up), I’d say the traditional system has performed pretty well. It’s not as if you guys have been improving in the 20th century.

                Western society c.1900 is probably better than Chinese society c.1900 but Chinese society c.1900 is definitely superior to both western and Chinese society now.

                • TheBigH says:

                  >Why do you attribute the decline to Polygamy? Manchu conquest and increasing neo confucianism are probably the main reasons. Regardless, considering the disasters China has experienced since they adopted western feminism (below replacement fertility, massive slutting up), I’d say the traditional system has performed pretty well. It’s not as if you guys have been improving in the 20th century.

                  The large scale Chinese practice of Polygamy came from the collapse of their civilization from before the Manchu and continued after their conquest. China suffered endless strife from young men being unable to obtain wives while family groups retreated into clan systems destroying the public trust.

                  This came to an end in 1948 when Mao who established official monogamy again ending 350 years of social unrest and stabilized China.

                  My point is that polygamy is only common in two types of civilizations: Those in collapse and those who are losing a lot of men in constant warfare. In every other civilization it’s important to have monogamy. Now if our civilization is going into collapse then we’ll see the re-institution polygamy become the norm, along with clans, low social trust, and lots of warfare. Why you’d want to hasten this along is beyond me.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “This came to an end in 1948 when Mao who established official monogamy again ending 350 years of social unrest and stabilized China.”

                  Dude have you read any Chinese history? Mao’s era was the period of peak strife and disaster in China, if that is your poster boys for the greatness of monogamy you’re hard up for poster boys.

                  The Ming dynasty fell because of the Little Ice Age and their inefficient military, nothing to do with Polygamy. Hong Kong had polygamy until 1971 (and still informally practices it) and they are the highest trust Chinese society in the world. The Manchu dynasty stagnated but it wasn’t like per capita incomes collapsed, in fact they were increasing before Sun Yat-sen fucked things up by adopting Western Leftism.

                  Mainland China right now informally practices polygamy. I personally know a couple rich guys who all have several mistresses and kids with them, there’s even a Chinese term invented specifically to refer to mistresses. As I said the traditional system did not result in below replacement fertility, massive sluttery, rich men fucking their concubines instead of having kids, the importation of western feminism has been a disaster.

          • Cavalier says:

            Obviously the answer is to engineer a 2:1 female:male ratio.

            We have the technology.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              No engineering needed. Under polygamy, female birthrates skyrocket. Simulations show that in a polygamous system, every man could have 2 17-year-old virgin wives by the age of 27. Reality isn’t a simulation, so this wouldn’t happen. The point is, there is no shortage of women under polygamy. In fact, the availability of women increases. Counter-intuitive, I know. You have to go through the whole process to uncover this knowledge.

              • Cavalier says:

                The sex ratio in almost every single genetic recombination-enabled species is 1:1, however I am willing to entertain your idea if you explain the scientific process by which changing the allocation of women changes the proportion of females and males born. Be sure to include examples of polygamous societies, historical and current, with not-1:1 sex ratios, 2:1 or greater ratios preferred.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  I don’t have to provide a scientific basis for HOW it happens. It is enough that it happens. Documentation here:

                  https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/polygyny-and-the-beta-apocalypse-fantasy/

                  Not only is it a documented fact, but the most likely mechanism is the fact that a man fathers more daughters as he ages. Also if he is a fighter pilot and some other occupations that affect his sperm. Possibly horse riding warriors, for instance. Think of the English aristocratic cavalry, and Gilbert and Sullivan’s witty song about the Admiral and all his “sisters and his cousins, who he reckons up by dozens, and his aunts”

                  The figure of every man can have 2 17 year old virgin brides at the age of 27, came from plugging in standard population numbers regarding birth, death, puberty, etc into a simulation. And also the data about female birth ratio related to fathers age.

                • jay says:

                  Guy did a study on polygamous and monogamous cultures here is what he found out:
                  https://archive.org/details/b20442580

                • jay says:

                  I think also because of the sexual selection imposed by monogamy on females that such populations that are monogamous have a greater proportion of high quality beautiful women that arises from genetics.

                  As well as overall whitening the skin and diversifying hair colour:
                  http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/puzzle-of-european-hair-and-eye-color.html

                  Quantifies of women may be greater in jn

                • jay says:

                  In polygnous societies but not necessarily quality. How many female descendants of polygnous west africans are hot in proportion to the population for example?

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Unwin’s book is a bit of a joke; many of the societies he claimed as “monogamous” were clearly polygamous, using the descriptions HE HIMSELF provided in his own book! Unwin’s material on monagamy vs polygamy isn’t reliable. At all. If you get past that and read it from the point of view of Patriarchy vs matriarchy or anarchy, his material is more on point.

                • jay says:

                  He claims that such: “polygyny” were breakdowns of the monogamous system as a result of success and wealth. Hence all that social energy is disappated that causes such societies to lose their vigor. In addition even in polygamous societies that are civilizational the rate is typically much lower than those of more primitive cultures like west africa.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Unwin was cucking because he couldn’t afford to shock his audience’s sensibilities too much. The data he provides in his voluminous book clearly shows Patriarchy with polygamy is the ideal system.

                • peppermint says:

                  Shortage of females isn’t the point. The point is to remove males from the sexual marketplace so they have no incentive to sabotage each other.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “The point is to remove males from the sexual marketplace so they have no incentive to sabotage each other.”

                  Polygamy does not significantly or dramatically increase the number of males removed from the sexual marketplace. Even in Moslem countries, only perhaps 10% practice it. You aren’t likely ever to cross paths with the 10% of men who are shorted by it, either.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “reduce” should be “increase”

                • Cavalier says:

                  and other grammatical things, but I trust the meaning is clear

                • peppermint says:

                  yes, but every man thinks he’s in the sexual marketplace at all times regardless. So what you get is, the monogamous Whites train one of the polygamous sand niggers how to do something or other. Thereafter, that particular sand nigger doesn’t teach the others in his unit, because that skill makes him valuable and it’s more important to be valuable than even to have buddies from the unit who depended on you.

                  When Whites go to war, they all help each other so they can go back, marry one woman each, and raise their kids together.

                • Cavalier says:

                  How did polygamy affect the Mormons, behaviorally?

                  Monogamy may be ideal in idyllic times, and may be optimum in harsh-environment-agricultural conditions such as the white man’s ancestral environment, but we live in extraordinary times, in more ways than one. Priority numero uno is maximal elite reproduction, monogamy be damned.

                  I put forth the Mormons as the prototypical model of rapid and extraordinary population expansion. In other words, don’t nigger it as a one-wife man.

                  Relatedly, what’s your lifetime fertility going to be, peppermint?

                • peppermint says:

                  The Mormons fought a war with the US government and agreed to ixnay the olyamorypay and be a state, so we don’t know how it affects Whites over ten generations.

                  But yeah, if all the males are dead, polygamy becomes necessary and obvious for one generation.

                  But we don’t have a problem with lack of males, we have a problem with lack of men.

                • jay says:

                  @Mycroft Jones

                  Oh please your 1st statement has no basis. The 2nd part would have to be backed up by the page numbers with relevant data.

              • Cavalier says:

                I read your link. I’m skeptical, but the old sources do lend some weight to your argument.

                Upon further reflection, whether or not the sex ratios differ, with age differential at marriage of your stated 27M/17F at TFR 4.0, the effective sex ratio will be approx. 1.5:1 F:M assuming intergenerational length 22 years (midpoint of 27 and 17).

                Interestingly, the numbers suggest that the Sexual Revolution corresponded to a large sex ratio imbalance caused by the fertility dips and then spike of the baby boom. I have read anecdotes of American WWII veterans recalling that the effects on the mating pool of the tiny sex ratio difference caused by WWII fatalities were noticeable to many men at that time. It seems that from 1963, when the first women born after WWII came of age, to perhaps 1970, there was a substantial surplus of women peaking at about 30%, assuming a 3-5 year couple age differential. Perhaps this was the gasoline poured on the feminist dumpster fire.

                • jay says:

                  Excess female increases selection for nubile females. And loser females are then recruited by feminists.

            • jim says:

              We will not use it. In a polygamous society with an adequate supply of brides, sons are more valuable than daughters.

              The sex ratio always tends to 1:1, because it is more efficient to produce offspring of the minority sex.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Disagree. sex ratio will tend toward whatever a given society feels is optimum. In polygamy, that means something other than 1:1.

                • jim says:

                  Individuals and families will ignore the society and pursue their own interests unless the most drastic measures are taken to interfere, and the interest of the family is to produce the sex in highest demand. Hence all kinds tend to a 1:1 ratio.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Jim, what I’m saying is, social customs and practices affects the demand, which affects the optimum ratio. So it will trend to whatever is the optimum ratio. Which isn’t necessarily 1:1. In feminine primary societies, demand ratio puts male birthrate above 1:1 consistently. In polygamist societies, more girls are born. The more they try to have sons, the more girls they get. Until you get to infanticide. The Arabs kept their female population in check with infanticide the way Chinese people still do today.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  In refering to Arabs and female infanticide, I’m talking about the time before Mohammed. Once he abolished it, that skewed the trend. And the optimum.

                • Erik says:

                  “The sex ratio always tends to 1:1, because it is more efficient to produce offspring of the minority sex.”

                  “Disagree.”

                  You should agree. The sex ratio always tends to 1:1 accounting for certain very specific caveats, and “what society feels” is generally not one of them.

                  Jim describes the conscious process of producing the sex in higher demand, but the nonconscious selection works the same way. I’ll sketch out the short version here; look up Fisher’s Principle for fuller explanations.

                  Consider a society with a N:1 ratio of women to men, for some N>1. In such a society, EV(man’s number of children) = N*EV(woman’s number of children).

                  This means that a mutation making a person x% more likely to have male children equals a N*x% fitness improvement. Observe that the fitness improvement scales _both_ with the sex ratio and the correction strength. In a society of 10 women to every man, a woman whose vagina “filters” for Y-chromosomal sperm at 10% better than chance has an evolutionary advantage equal to having _twice_ as many children, but without the additional childbirth risk or childcare cost.

                  The further the population is from 1:1, the harder and faster it snaps back. Polygamy changes nothing about this. Evolution dictates it.

                  Caveats do exist. For example, that 1:1 is measured, approximately, over the breeding-age population, while the snapback is in the next generation spawned. One can keep the latter from growing into the former through mass male infanticide (pre or post birth). But you should understand the mechanism at work here, rather than abstract over “customs and practices” as being able to alter the ratio by unspecified means.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Erik, your argument makes some big assumptions. Ones that aren’t justified by history or reality. Social pressure is ever present, and social pressure is shaped by religion and moral codes. We all know how promiscuous Africans are. Yet, from time to time, their chiefs enforce year-long bans on sex for the entire tribe.

                  Your main assumption is that if there is a surplus of women, then it benefits a woman’s genes to produce more males.

                  Next assumption, is that it is SO hard for social pressure to overcome biology.

                  Assumption after: that biology follows after Richard Dawkin’s “selfish gene” explanation of Darwinian Evolution.

                  None of those three things are justified.

                • jim says:

                  Social pressure cannot make water go uphill.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hey jackass, selfish gene is how evolution works because it’s how evolution works. We live in a real world of real actions.

                • Erik says:

                  “Erik, your argument makes some big assumptions.”

                  No, it doesn’t.

                  “Your main assumption is that if there is a surplus of women, then it benefits a woman’s genes to produce more males.”

                  This is not assumed, this is demonstrated. Many women per man means more children per man than children per woman, thus selective pressure for having a higher fraction of male children as it leads to more grandchildren. If you think this is wrong, show your bloody work, rather than make free-floating assertions about how the sex ratio will become whatever Great Leader dictates.

                  “Next assumption, is that it is SO hard for social pressure to overcome biology.”

                  I specifically spelled out an example of means by which social pressure could keep biology in check: mass selective infanticide. Here’s another: sterilization of any woman who bears too high a fraction of male children, and all her descendants. But I want you (or more likely, spectators) to understand the equilibrium mechanism in order to understand what is and is not effective at suppressing it.

                  “Assumption after: that biology follows after Richard Dawkin’s “selfish gene” explanation of Darwinian Evolution.”

                  This is not even wrong. I’ve never read The Selfish Gene, or for that matter any other book by Dawkins. If Dawkins has some special explanation in there, I can’t possibly be assuming it. If he doesn’t, you shouldn’t engage in guilt-by-very-late-association bullshit of trying to discredit natural selection by attacking some guy who began writing about it in 1976. Play the ball, not the man, and certainly not the spectator.

                • jay says:

                  @Erik
                  Then that means polygyny would have worked for the spartans provided the males marry at 25.

                  Since their infanticide targets weak and sickly male babies and the biological incentive is to produce more male offspring.

                  It balance out. There would be no running out of capable male spartans.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Punishing pre and post birth infanticide with death penalty will go a long way towards pushing the sex ratio above 1.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Men and women want to form families, but fail because of prisoner’s dilemma.”

        Men and women are forming families, just not under the conditions you seek to impose. They are exercising their liberty to marry whomever they want and have however many children they desire.

        “Authorize more violence by husbands, both in that they should be allowed to physically discipline wives and children, and in that they should be allowed to kill adulterers.”

        You would have been dead by now. You had sex outside of marriage with single women without procuring permission from their fathers.

        “Also death penalty for sleeping with another man’s wife, regardless of who carries the death penalty out.”

        Roissy and Roosh, your buddies, would also be dead by now.

        “Enforce chastity on women, with “Homes for Wayward Girls”, similar to the female factory in late eighteenth century Australia. Lower the legal and social status of women. Prohibit women from exercising authority over men, other than their sons. Generally encourage manliness. Legalize dueling. Give property owners broader police authority.”

        This is comedic gold. Thank you for the laughs.

        “Videos should depict feminine women, manly men, patriarchal families, and obedient and respectful children.”

        Today’s men and women need not be coerced nor shamed by you and your ilk regarding how they live their lives.

        “I am primarily worried about elite reproduction…”

        No, you are obsessed with it. Regardless, the elites and non-elites will make babies regardless of your proposals.

        • Mackus says:

          >You would have been dead by now. Roissy and Roosh, your buddies, would also be dead by now.
          So you’re saying that if they lived all their lives in alternate world where socio-sexual laws, incentives, and standards were completely different, they’d act exactly the same as they do in this one?

          >Today’s men and women need not be coerced nor shamed by you and your ilk regarding how they live their lives.
          Yes they do, unless you start with premise that women can do no wrong, including that cheating on their husbands being moral and empowered.

          Fucking idiot.

          • Corvinus says:

            “So you’re saying that if they lived all their lives in alternate world where socio-sexual laws, incentives, and standards were completely different, they’d act exactly the same as they do in this one?”

            Strawman. Stay on point. Roissy and Roosh advocate pumping and dumping women, i.e. sex outside of marriage. They promote married men to have mistresses, which is a clear violation of God’s covenant between a man and a woman. Roissy and Roosh are biological dead ends, as they have yet to sire white offspring, which is a necessity to preserve Western Civilization. According to Jim’s own metrics, these two ass-hats would be dead.

            “Yes they do, unless you start with premise that women can do no wrong, including that cheating on their husbands being moral and empowered.”

            Strawman. Stay on point. A number of men and women cheat on their significant others, which is immoral and other than empowering.

            • Mackus says:

              I am on point, you fucking idiot.

              No. They wouldn’t be dead.
              By Jim’s metrics, they should take unowned women they fucked, as they would take unowned fish caught in sea.
              They are legally disallowed from doing so, because they are disallowed from OWN woman. That is deemed evil and illegal sexist misogyny. If mowing your lawn was punishable by jail, we would hardly blame people for having terrible lawns.

              >A number of men and women cheat on their significant others, which is immoral and other than empowering.
              >On the contrary, fathers raise their sons how they see fit, not according to how YOU see fit. That is their liberty.
              >how many children they have and how they raise them. You have no control over their choices, lest you interfere with their personal liberty.

              So, they are allowed to raise their children to do evil. Is that what you say? “Cheating is horrible, but if people raise their kids to hate Christianity, monogamy, and western civilization, who I am to judge?!”
              Cheating is wrong, but to in any way interfere with cheating is wrong because it violates their personal liberty?

              Why don’t you go watch CNN you moron.

            • jim says:

              Roissy and Roosh advocate pumping and dumping women, i.e. sex outside of marriage.

              In practice, men pump, women dump. The woman realizes that she is plate number six in his collection of spinning plates, and booty call number four in his list of booty calls, and switches partners in an effort to move up to number three on her new boyfriend’s booty call list.

              Observe that the number of women who say they have boyfriends is substantially larger than the number of men who say they have girlfriends, indicating that most men who have a girlfriend, have several girlfriends. Therefore in practice, men seldom dump women.

              In a society where men have all the power they don’t put women in a great big brothel and share them around. Instead each woman belongs to one, and only one, man ever. Where women have all the power, they put themselves in a great big brothel and share themselves around.

            • Corvinus says:

              “I am on point, you fucking idiot.”

              Obviously your mother neglected to teach you manners, son.

              “No. They wouldn’t be dead. By Jim’s metrics, they should take unowned women they fucked, as they would take unowned fish caught in sea.”

              Except women are not unowned, nor are they fish. Women are under the jurisdiction of their fathers. Women can whine, complain, bitch, and moan. In the end, despite their protestations, despite their life choices, they remain under the firm grip of their fathers. Current laws to the contrary are irrelevant. Christian tradition trumps liberal legislative lunacy. That is the position taken by Jim, but he wants to eat his cake and have it, too.

              So, in order for these women to have sex, they must be betrothed. Men who are single and have sex with these women are committing sin and thus must be executed. Men who are married and have sex with these women are committing sin executed. Only men who secure permission from fathers for their daughters hand in marriage are able to have sex. This is from Jim. Now he is backtracking because his own logic has been used against him.

              “They are legally disallowed from doing so, because they are disallowed from OWN woman.”

              Nope. Jim has a Christian duty under the command of God to adhere to His word. God’s laws trump human laws.

              “So, they are allowed to raise their children to do evil. Is that what you say?”

              Strawman. I never made this statement directly or indirectly. There are laws in place to punish parents who have their children commit acts that violate the norms of society.

              But, in the end, YOU have NO direct, individual authority over how parents instruct their own flesh and blood. You can offer your advice, you can offer instruction, you can offer your opinion, but parents will raise their kids how they see fit, mindful of legal consequences for what society has deemed to be immoral or unjust.

              Seems to me that you desire to personally intervene to “save the village”. How noble. Why not focus on your own (white) children.

              “Cheating is horrible, but if people raise their kids to hate Christianity, monogamy, and western civilization, who I am to judge?!”

              Of course you may judge them, you just cannot do anything to parents who teach them these things, because parents are well within their legal authority.

              “Cheating is wrong, but to in any way interfere with cheating is wrong because it violates their personal liberty?”

              You can tell someone they are wrong and immoral for cheating, you can work to have society pass laws that will have consequences for cheating. But for you individually to impose your physical will on a family by interfering with their day to day interactions, yes that violates their personal liberty. It’s none of your business.

            • Corvinus says:

              “n practice, men pump, women dump. The woman realizes that she is plate number six in his collection of spinning plates, and booty call number four in his list of booty calls, and switches partners in an effort to move up to number three on her new boyfriend’s booty call list.”

              You are a liar. Roissy and Roosh specifically talk about guys spinning plates and having sex with as many women as possible without commitment. By your own account, they are guilty of having sex outside of marriage, they are guilty of not securing permission from a woman’s father to take their hand in marriage in order to have sex. They must be put to death.

              • jim says:

                You are a liar. Roissy and Roosh specifically talk about guys spinning plates and having sex with as many women as possible without commitment.

                And if they could, they would keep them all.

                We know this because we hear them say so, and because we see what happens in societies where men have all the power.

                Typical conversation: Commenter asks “My girl is posting sex photos on facebook, and soliciting compliments from handsome men. What do I do?”

                Roissy or Roosh answer, “not your girl, nothing you can do, spin more plates.”

                Men pump, women dump.

        • jim says:

          Men and women are forming families.

          We are at well below replacement fertility, and close to fifty percent bastardy, which means considerably less than half of them are forming families. Fewer and fewer men are permitted to raise their sons, or have a wife to comfort them in their old age.

          You would have been dead by now. You had sex outside of marriage with single women without procuring permission from their fathers.

          Feral women, like fish in the sea, should become the property of whoseover first catches them.

          • Corvinus says:

            “We are at well below replacement fertility…”

            Whites, not non-whites. Still, white men and women will make the decision regarding how many children they have and how they raise them. You have no control over their choices, lest you interfere with their personal liberty.

            “and close to fifty percent bastardy, which means considerably less than half of them are forming families.”

            Traditional families, yes.

            “Fewer and fewer men are permitted to raise their sons, or have a wife to comfort them in their old age.”

            On the contrary, fathers raise their sons how they see fit, not according to how YOU see fit. That is their liberty.

            “Feral women, like fish in the sea, should become the property of whoseover first catches them.”

            There is no such thing as feral women. All women are owned by their fathers. A woman can act independent, but in reality she is still under the control of daddy. That is what YOU tout. She has NO agency. So, in order for YOU to have sex with a woman, YOU must secure permission from the father or eldest male relative to marry them first, then you can spill your seed. But apparently you had sex with women other than your wife, which is punishable by death since 1) you neglected to get the permission from their fathers and 2) you broke the covenant of one husband and one wife.

            Again, YOU would be dead according to YOUR own metrics.

            • Mackus says:

              >On the contrary, fathers raise their sons how they see fit, not according to how YOU see fit. That is their liberty.
              That is observably false. When they try, their sons end up on ADHD medication, and if they help them to avoid taking the meds, their sons are taken away.

              >There is no such thing as feral women. All women are owned by their fathers.
              There is no such thing as feral dog. All dogs have owners. Oh, no, wait. Dogs *ought to* have owners, but some observably *do not*.

              >neglected to get the permission
              You cannot be guilty of stealing a dog, if dog in question has no owner. Law prevents women from having owners. Such law shouldn’t exist.

              >broke the covenant
              In most traditional vows, both parties swear to love and cheerish, but only bride swears to obey.

              • Corvinus says:

                “That is observably false.”

                Fathers have the freedom to make their own decisions when it comes to raising their sons. That is definitively true.

                “When they try, their sons end up on ADHD medication…”

                In how many cases? Under what circumstances? Cite sources.

                “and if they help them to avoid taking the meds, their sons are taken away.””

                In how many cases? Under what circumstances? Cite sources.

                “There is no such thing as feral dog. All dogs have owners. Oh, no, wait. Dogs *ought to* have owners, but some observably *do not*.”

                Women today are other than feral.

                Dogs may be owned or not owned.

                But according to Jim, woman are feral and may be owned. Yet, he feels compelled to have sex with them without securing permission from her father. Regardless if she acts in disobedience, she is still owned. That is what Jim has claimed. The father has complete authority over her regardless of her claims to the contrary, regardless of how she acts in defiance to him.

                You are white knighting for Jim. How noble.

                “You cannot be guilty of stealing a dog, if dog in question has no owner.”

                The woman has an owner, her father, in any and all circumstances. This is what Jim swears by. Yet, he failed to ask her father for the right to have sex with her daughter. He should be put to death for his sin.

                “In most traditional vows, both parties swear to love and cheerish, but only bride swears to obey.”

                Key word here is “traditional”. Traditions change. That is the liberty of Americans to make those changes to their laws. Work to change those laws. Best wishes to you.

                Regarding a bride swearing to obey…

                http://christianthinktank.com/not2obey.html

                1. None of the passages explicitly command wives to obey their husbands.
                2. Paul’s departures from the patriarchal household codes of the day are radical, and unsupportive of a male-dominance model.
                3. Paul specifically undermines the absolute authority of the male head of the paterfamilias.
                4. In the Ephesians passage, Paul requires husband and wife BOTH to submit to one another.
                5. This mutual submission is self-chosen, and modeled after the voluntary submission and servanthood of Jesus.
                6. Submission is seen, in the Pauline passages, to be defined/described as ‘respect’ instead of ‘obedience’.
                7. Paul overturns the male’s authority over the household by ‘ordering’ him to serve, in agape love, the wife (and to ‘submit’ to his slaves/servants, as well).
                8. The Pauline passages thus teach a mutual self-giving and self-servanthood for one another.
                9. The word kephale in the Pauline passages do not alter this understanding of the more explicit elements of Paul’s argument (as observed above).
                10. Paul’s injunctions to wives and slaves in these passages do not support a view that he was in favor of slavery or patriarchal marriage structures.
                11. The case in First Peter is different from that in Paul, in that it deals with a mixed marriage as opposed to a Christian marriage.
                12. For practical reasons, the wife is urged to ‘go with the flow’ everywhere possible, but without compromising her Christian convictions and morals.
                13. The submission of the wife was to be freely chosen by her, for the Lord’s sake, and not because of some ‘authority structure’ sanctioned by Peter.
                14. The word for ‘obey’ only comes up in the Sarah example–it is not used by Peter in the imperatives.
                15. The example of Sarah was a half-example; it showed only the wife-side of mutual submission (since the non-believer could not be expected to be living the ‘other side’ yet).
                16. Sarah’s calling Abraham ‘lord’ was a term of deference and respect (the subject of Peter’s injunction here), not of ‘recognition of male authority’.
                17. Using this half-a-verse example in Peter to build a theory that the bible supports Roman-like male-dominance patriarchal marriages (over against the many verses otherwise–including the Pauline ones discussed at the beginning) is exceptionally flawed !
                18. Peter’s instructions are for this special case only (i.e. mixed marriages with a strong/elite Roman male head) and not for Christian marriages; and his few comments on Christian marriages indicates that he held a mutual-submission model of marriage like Paul did.
                19. The resulting view of Christian marriage is one of liberating beauty and equality, and genuine self-giving like-Jesus love for one another–an immense improvement over the Graeco-Roman model, for BOTH partners…

                • jim says:

                  Fathers have the freedom to make their own decisions when it comes to raising their sons. That is definitively true

                  If fathers had the freedom to make their own decision when it comes to raising sons, they would decide to keep their sons. If they try that, police will beat the father up and send him to jail, and take the children and give them to their slut mother to be raped and beaten by mum’s ever changing parade of boyfriends.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “If fathers had the freedom to make their own decision when it comes to raising sons, they would decide to keep their sons.”

                  Fathers ARE exercising their freedom. They are choosing to raise their sons along with their mother if there is a divorce. They keep their sons, just not in the prescribed manner you insanely insist.

                  “If they try that, police will beat the father up and send him to jail, and take the children and give them to their slut mother to be raped and beaten by mum’s ever changing parade of boyfriends.”

                  Now you are just making shit up again. That’s your M.O. when you’re position has been thoroughly trashed.

            • jim says:

              white men and women will make the decision regarding how many children they have

              It takes two. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues. You cannot make the decision because the other person in the deal is likely to double cross you.

              • Corvinus says:

                “It takes two. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues.”

                Now you’re making up shit again. There is no prisoner dilemma taking place. Men and women are of their own volition in their relationship. YOU do not dictate terms here.
                That is NOT your place.

                “You cannot make the decision because the other person in the deal is likely to double cross you.”

                You’re projecting your fears onto everyone else. It is possible that ANYONE in a marriage will double cross you. The percentages in each relationship are different based on the dynamics. YOU are in no position to determine what are those numbers in every single marriage.

                • jim says:

                  “It takes two. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues.”

                  Now you’re making up shit again. There is no prisoner dilemma taking place.

                  It is a woman’s interest to destroy her husband and ruin their children’s lives, and a man’s interest to do it to his wife before she does it to him.

                  This is the classic prisoner’s dilemma.

                  If both cooperate, both benefit.

                  If one defects when the other cooperates, the defector gets a slightly larger benefit, while the cooperator is ruined – particularly if the cooperator is the man.

                  Both defect, everything really is really bad, but not as bad as being the fall guy who cooperates when the other defects.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Here comes Corvinus to tell us that law of contract was just a useless scam invented by racists.

              • Corvinus says:

                “It is a woman’s interest to destroy her husband and ruin their children’s lives, and a man’s interest to do it to his wife before she does it to him.”

                Assumptions are not facts. You do not know what is the interest of every man and woman when it comes to their relationship. To state that you are able to speak for themselves without question is irrational and illogical on your part.

                • peppermint says:

                  Corvinus, do you pretend to know anything about human nature?

                  You’re really boring now, but thanks for convincing me last year that Christianity is inevitably anti-racist at least if not also vaguely feminist in the sense of imputing moral responsibility to women.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Who let this moron on the blog.

  4. Dave says:

    How does Trump count as an example of successful reproduction? If you had three young wives in your lifetime and 1/1000 as much money as Trump, you could knock out at least fifteen children, not five! Marla and Melania are genetic failures, with only one child apiece.

    • Dave says:

      I was too harsh, Trump’s older kids seem pretty capable, and none have embarrassed their dad as rich kids so often do. Maybe for a woman born poor, one child with an ultra-high-status man counts as success. Still, why not have more?

  5. thinkingabout it says:

    The problem is that without a hardcore value system that encourages family formation and breeding, most young people would prefer to avoid the responsibility of childrearing. Which, from the individual perspective in the current societal situation, probably is the rational choice.
    More children from your ethnic group is a good thing for future generations and for your civilization in general. But less children in your family means more time and money for vacations for you and the wife.

    • thinkingabout it says:

      I’m trying to pester my wife into agreeing to have a large family. Though she reluctantly agrees from time to time, her personal preference is for one or two kids, like most of her chick friends.

      • peppermint says:

        Start with one or two, then accidentally break a condom.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          That doesn’t work anymore. First, the doctors and nurses pressure the woman into a c-section so they can go play golf. Then, since the woman is already open “oh, how about we tie your tubes, since we already in here, it would just take a few more minutes, you won’t feel a thing…” and then you can dispense with the condoms entirely, the woman has taken your entire reproductive future away. Don’t think this is speculation. It has been and is happening.

          • Brit says:

            I have a contract of permanent sexual consent, will never need to pester my wife. We need to teach our kids to do this

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              I was talking about tubal ligation in the context of limiting reproduction. What are you talking about?

            • Cavalier says:

              “I have a contract of permanent sexual consent”

              Marriage is illegal; how do you intend to enforce that contract?

              • Corvinus says:

                “Marriage is illegal; how do you intend to enforce that contract?”

                What planet do you live on? Marriage is legal on Earth.

                And thinkingaboutit, if you have to “pester your wife” to “have a large family”, then you are a gamma and a cuck according to the Alt Right. May I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset? It WILL make you more manly.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Marriage is a contract of permanent sexual consent. Permanent sexual consent is illegal. Therefore, marriage is illegal.

                  If you think otherwise, consider very carefully what would happen if your wife were to call 911 and accuse you of rape, domestic violence, or some other such thing.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Marriage is a contract of permanent sexual consent. Permanent sexual consent is illegal. Therefore, marriage is illegal.”

                  You are narrowly defining marriage. Marriage is the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. In the modern age, the state, with the consent of the people, define marriage. That is the current reality. Permanent sexual consent exists except in instances where there is overt and brute force. Rarely do such cases come to court.

                  “If you think otherwise, consider very carefully what would happen if your wife were to call 911 and accuse you of rape, domestic violence, or some other such thing.”

                  The accusation would have to be vetted by the authorities.
                  We no longer live in a barbaric age when savage men like yourself merely take their wives and if they fail to submit, force them to have intercourse because you want to.

                  In 99% of the circumstances, men and women have sex that is consensual. In cases where a man or woman says no, for whatever reason, that is prerogative.

                  YOU are not part of that relationship. YOU do not dictate terms.

                  Marriage is legal. Get that through your thick skull.

                • jim says:

                  What planet do you live on? Marriage is legal on Earth.

                  Marriage, as marriage was understood through all of history up to around 1950 or so, is illegal. Traditional marriage is now defined to be rape, psychological and physical abuse, etc.

                • Erik says:

                  *A thing called ‘marriage’* is legal on Earth.

                  That thing would have been classed somewhere between whoredom, concubinage and enslavement in most of recorded history.

                  That thing is one where Western governments not only set the terms and forbid other terms, but also declare the power to retroactively alter the terms after you’ve agreed to them.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Jim…

                  “Marriage, as marriage was understood through all of history up to around 1950 or so, is illegal.”

                  Marriage, as marriage was understood under the strict context of Biblical marriage, has been redefined by citizens of a given area to reflect their morals and values. It pains you to admit that people have the liberty to make those changes.

                  “Traditional marriage is now defined to be rape, psychological and physical abuse, etc.”

                  Marriage is defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.
                  Different religions and different cultures have their own criteria, standards, and customs regarding this institution, which may or may not have been altered over time.

                  Erik…

                  “That thing would have been classed somewhere between whoredom, concubinage and enslavement in most of recorded history.”

                  Perhaps. But that’s the beauty of personal liberty. Hundreds of millions of people have been involved with and supported these changes.

                  “That thing is one where Western governments not only set the terms and forbid other terms, but also declare the power to retroactively alter the terms after you’ve agreed to them.”

                  Not quite.

                • peppermint says:

                  See, the problem was when we decided that lawyers and contract law are so great they should be allowed to reinterpret marriage.

                  Marriage is
                  * pairbonding, which exists between Whites and penguins, but not between bears and niggers
                  * the social recognition and enforcement of that pairbonding, which was reinterpreted as a contract between equal parties and then unenforceable against the “weaker” party

                  Marriage pre-exists civilization and thus property and contracts.

                • peppermint says:

                  We love law and entrepreneurialism, but soldiers and marriage – fighting for the nation and working for the family – must come first.

                • Erik says:

                  “Perhaps. But that’s the beauty of personal liberty.”

                  Bullshit and duckspeak. It’s been the beauty of the liberty *to do as the state wills* and not otherwise. One cannot make the older agreements. One cannot make many kinds of enforceable voluntary agreement.

                  “Marriage is defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.”

                  This is the most uselessly vague and overbroad definition I’ve heard in quite some time, and it manages to *still* be wrong. Marriage is now the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a State relationship subject to the constant alteration of the State at the State’s convenience, and *by no one else*.

                  But this is perhaps a bit abstract. Let’s look at the specific case of Diosdado v. Diosdado.

                  Man and woman are married. Man cheats. Woman gets them both to sign an agreement reading in short “if one of us henceforth cheats while we’re married, that one pays a fine and eventual lawyer costs”.

                  Man cheats again some years later. Woman attempts to call in the fine. Man denies it, gets divorce. Woman takes him to court to make him pay the fine. Court issues ruling to the effect of “we have no-fault divorce here and this contract looks like at-fault divorce. tearing up contract!”

                  This is why I make a comparison to an element of whoredom. One does not expect fidelity of a whore. Here the court rules that one cannot expect fidelity of a spouse, either. One cannot even voluntarily sign a contract of fidelity with one’s spouse and have it be enforced – “marriage” in this court’s eyes is an overriding principle of infidelity that overrides any contract otherwise.

                  Stark. Raving. Madness.

                  Behold your “liberty”, if liberty indeed it be to live like an infant whom no one expects to keep their promises and no one faults for breaking them.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Bullshit and duckspeak. It’s been the beauty of the liberty *to do as the state wills* and not otherwise.”

                  The State in this particular case (when it comes to marriage and having children) reflects the will of the people. Today, white people are able to marry non-whites and sire mixed offspring. Southern white fascists had denied their brethren who believed in personal liberty the right to procreate with other than whites.

                  “Marriage is now the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a State relationship subject to the constant alteration of the State at the State’s convenience, and *by no one else*.”

                  Nope. The State merely recognizes the union from a legal perspective, with the man and woman through the social contract acknowledging certain responsibilities.

                  “This is why I make a comparison to an element of whoredom. One does not expect fidelity of a whore. Here the court rules that one cannot expect fidelity of a spouse, either. One cannot even voluntarily sign a contract of fidelity with one’s spouse and have it be enforced – “marriage” in this court’s eyes is an overriding principle of infidelity that overrides any contract otherwise.’

                  That is one specific instance. You make it appear that it is the rule rather than the exception.

                  “Behold your “liberty”, if liberty indeed it be to live like an infant whom no one expects to keep their promises and no one faults for breaking them.”

                  You’re flailing. In the end, our blog host by his own reasoning should be put to death for having sex with women outside of marriage and for having refused to secure the consent of their father since all women are owned regardless of a women’s protestations.

                • jim says:

                  The State in this particular case (when it comes to marriage and having children) reflects the will of the people.

                  None of these changes were ever voted on, and were preceded by enormous and prolonged government propaganda campaigns. No politician ever put the abolition of marriage as it has been known for the past few thousand years in his election platform. Rather, like the TPP, it just mysterious happened, caused by persons unknown. No one wanted to take the credit. What politician, and what party, abolished marriage? It was one of these bipartisan things that no one wants their fingerprints on.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Will of the people – marriage today simply corresponds to not being married in past times. In 1750, if you wanted to live with a woman you didn’t marry and give her title to your property and children, you could. Abolition of marriage is an imposition and curtailment of liberty: the removal of possibilities that used to exist, without the creation of any new ones.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 Southern white fascists had denied their brethren who believed in personal liberty the right to procreate with other than whites.

                  1) White supremacy has been around for longer than the specific tactic of fascism
                  2) go get yourself raped to death by the niggers you love so much. Have you ever attempted to commit beastiality? I bet she didn’t let you past first base and you cheered for her rejection of White privilege.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “None of these changes were ever voted on, and were preceded by enormous and prolonged government propaganda campaigns.”

                  More shit flung by Jim. Changes in marriage laws were voted on in state legislatures, with those reforms coming directly by the people.

                  “No politician ever put the abolition of marriage as it has been known for the past few thousand years in his election platform.”

                  There is no abolition of marriage, Jim. But if it makes you feelz better about yourself to state otherwise, go ahead.

                  Oliver Cromwell…

                  “In 1750, if you wanted to live with a woman you didn’t marry and give her title to your property and children, you could.”

                  Source?

                • jim says:

                  Changes in marriage laws were voted on in state legislatures,

                  But you cannot name the party or politician responsible. No politician ever stood up in front of the people and said “vote for me and my party, I am going to destroy marriage”. Somehow the laws were changed with no one getting their fingerprints on the laws, with no one wanting to get their fingerprints on the changes.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “But you cannot name the party or politician responsible.”

                  Because no one destroyed marriage. It’s all in your feeble mind.

                  “No politician ever stood up in front of the people and said “vote for me and my party, I am going to destroy marriage”.”

                  Exactly. Because marriage has not been destroyed, just changed to reflect the will of the people.

                  “Somehow the laws were changed with no one getting their fingerprints on the laws, with no one wanting to get their fingerprints on the changes.”

                  One more time–the laws reflected the will of the people.

                • peppermint says:

                  Book-reader cucks have been arguing for the destruction of marriage arguing that this and that character from this and that play or this or that Bible passage implies that women are exactly the same as men and therefore the ancient biologically-ingrained customs of our people need to be changed, and that every man of our ancestors was a tyrant. They forced these reforms through by the weight of their institutions of “higher learning”.

                  The only specific named politician is Ronald Reagan. Female equality was always in the Republican Party platform.

                  Fortunately the book-readers have gone so insane now in their competition with each other that they aren’t even covering their asses when they call for violence. Now these pigs can get their public money trough shut down.

                • peppermint says:

                  Corvinus means by “will of the people” exactly the same irony as George Soros and Karl Popper’s “open society”.

                • peppermint says:

                  George Soros is going to get prosecuted under RICO for running a terrorist network, but His Majesty is probably waiting for more college administrators and faculty to lose their heads committing sedition and lese-majeste.

                • Erik says:

                  The people explicitly rejected by vote sodogamy in the majority of states. Then it was retroactively read into an 1868 law, and Corvinus calls this “the will of the people”.

                  Corvinus is duckspeaking. I pray his tombstone reads “Sentenced to death by the will of the people” regardless of cause of death, as that appears on evidence to be his use of the phrase: whatever happens, it was the will of the people!

                • Corvinus says:

                  Erik…

                  “The people explicitly rejected by vote sodogamy in the majority of states. Then it was retroactively read into an 1868 law, and Corvinus calls this “the will of the people”.

                  Sodogamy is a made up word. Try living in the real world.

                  Praytell, how many white children do you have? Better be at least 5.

                • jim says:

                  We have the ridiculous pretense of gay marriage, a word invented by our enemies. We should not use it, need a word that cuts reality at the joints.

                • peppermint says:

                  Corvinus, since you’re done lying and blustering instead, that means you’ve conceded the argument.

        • Orthodox says:

          Use NFP. When your wife is ovulating, she will get horny, ignore her cycle and you will have a baby.

    • peppermint says:

      Yeah, see, that’s a Boomer faggot mentality, and the younger kids aren’t faggot christcucks are aren’t going to raise their children to be cuckold faggots.

      Soul theory and thus solipsistic hedonism is dead.

    • jim says:

      Consider the fertility rate among Japanese before MacArthur emancipated women.

      People would have a lot more children if men and women could trust each other to stick it out.

    • viking says:

      It may be less complicated than “hardcore value system” incentive might be all thats require or even removing the disincentives.

  6. viking says:

    Cities are gene shredders. so when you say importing whites from country implying they dont grow smart whites in the country cringe, actually they do grow them there then brain drain the countryside to large extent to never reproduce again.Maybe better to disperse technology to rural areas.
    Had Jayman estimate percent of cogelites added from outside establishment and he came up with 50% a year I actually think its more since he ignored a few factors I suggested.This is problem with Landian Gattaca plan civilizations are holistic elites cant sustain themselves alone nor would I want to live among only elites. Not to say we should work as a people assiduously to shorten our tail.

  7. Mackus says:

    Jim, what’s you take on Russia defacto decriminalizing domestic violence?
    >>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-38767873

    • jim says:

      I predict a major rise in fertility.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Supposedly all it does is bring domestic violence law into line with stranger violence law.

        • TheBigH says:

          >Supposedly all it does is bring domestic violence law into line with stranger violence law.

          The police already ignore domestic violence and the media out rage at “legalizing” it will have the effect of encouraging people to believe it’s true. Perception is reality.

  8. […] real problem is that cities are what’s called “genetic shredders.” [1][2][3] The specific phenomena I am going to discuss with respect to the mass migration of non-White Third […]

  9. Michael Adkins says:

    “Men and women want to form families”

    Men should build families by first having the right to choose the sex of their children. A father’s reproductive time is just as important as a mother’s.

Leave a Reply