Ethnic cleansing in Ferguson

March 11th, 2016

Not all houses in Ferguson have dropped to a small fraction of 2014 prices, some substantial areas are holding value, but houses in large parts of the Ferguson zip code have dropped far far below the cost of building, or even maintaining, the house. If the ad says “located close to shopping”, it usually means that whites have been forced to abandon their homes to blacks by black violence.   The shopping areas are still partly ruins, often with rubble that no one has yet bothered to clean up.

ethnic_cleansing

These houses are generally listed as sold in foreclosure, suggesting that the occupants simply fled, abandoning their house to the bank.

Whites build houses for black people to live in. When the neighborhood is utterly destroyed, blacks move on to another white neighborhood.  Hence the abandoned ruins of Detroit, as blacks flee the ruins of Detroit, to ruin more recently built homes.

That is how the inner city became black.  And now, the process that made the inner city, where the wealthy used to live, a terrifying jungle stalked by upright walking plains apes, is being repeated on those suburbs targeted by the HUD and the department of justice.

This predation by blacks on whites is a major part of what makes housing and family formation unaffordable to whites – the high, and ever rising, cost of buying a house in a neighborhood which is unlikely to be taken away from you.

Everywhere, blacks live in the ruins of homes built by whites that whites were forced to abandon, often, as in the inner city, quite wealthy whites.  For white people to afford housing, we simply have to restore segregation, apartheid, and slavery.  Even if this is unfair to some individual high performing blacks, what is happening with housing is immensely more unfair.  Collective racial violence by blacks as a race against whites as a race gets blacks free stuff from whites, and this absolutely has to stop. If you don’t like my program for stopping it, what is your program?

Trump and assabiyah

March 9th, 2016

In the days of its greatness, the Roman Republic had assabiyah

“Horatius,” quoth the Consul,
“As thou sayest, so let it be.”
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.

Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.

Baron Macaulay’s poem neglects to explicitly mention, but takes for granted that the reader knows, that all three were aristocratic officers, and that the two that fought on Horatio’s right and left were lieutenant generals. This is reminiscent of Britain in the days of its greatness, when aristocratic officers led from in front, charging into battle in costumes that conspicuously marked them as targets, and engaging the aristocratic officers of the opposing army in personal hand to hand combat, for which glorious privilege they paid extraordinarily large amounts of money.

Our political class hates and despises the white working class, as much as it hates and despises soldiers, cops, and security guards. Democrats are disgusted by the fact that the white working class votes for them. If Hillary could turn her white working class voters away from the voting booth with whips she would, and a major reason the Republican establishment is horrified by Trump is that he is bringing white working class voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. They would rather lose to Clinton than win with the unspeakably vulgar Trump.

Trump regularly pulls stunts that our chattering classes do not understand, and therefore ignorantly ridicule, much as the New York Times ridicules Sarah Palin for using sentence structures that exceed the comprehension and reading level of the New York Times staff. In Trump’s recent victory celebration, he had piles of Trump products on display. “What is this?” asked our chatterers. “An infomercial?”

Trump was making the point that capitalists did not just grab their wealth from the secret stash before the rest of us could find the secret stash, but rather organize the production of stuff – that capitalists are rich because, in substantial part, they create wealth.

In another stunt, he called up two of his black supporters and campaigners, the Stump For Trump women, Diamond and Silk, and introduced them as having made themselves rich.

This is, subliminally, the classic fascist message – forget about class differences, let us work to make America Great Again. It is the reverse of Sanders’ message, yet appeals to the same people. One is a message of envy and covetousness, the other calls on us to be greater than that. And to the extent that the chattering classes understand Trump’s message, they hate him for it and rightly call him fascist.

Women are the dangerously lustful sex.

March 7th, 2016

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.

Cutting

March 6th, 2016

In 1985, when cutting first appeared, girls cutting themselves was something astonishing, something no one had heard of, that psychiatric interns had never heard of.

Now a significant minority of women cut themselves.  Hard to say how many, but probably a few percent. Not a substantial minority, but not a tiny minority either. Hot fertile age women.  Women with strong sexual needs and completely screwed up sex lives, usually sex lives screwed up by their own self destructive bad choices.  “Strong independent women” who are not in the least strong, and greatly fear independence. White women. Women totally raised in feminism.

As the epidemic grows, only now is the psychiatric industry coming up with a diagnostic category “Non suicidal self harm”  We did not have a word for cutting until recently, and psychiatrists are only now coming up with a word for it, and not a very apt word yet, for the category self harm is deliberately over inclusive, in order to avoid being exclusively female, including a great deal of what would be more aptly called “stupidity”, so that some males can be put in the same category. (The obvious difference being that after doing something very stupid once or twice, males usually stop doing that particular stupid thing.) It is politically disturbing to have a psychiatric category that is near one hundred percent female, so calling it what everyone calls it, “cutting”, is politically incorrect. Yes. Males sometimes, rarely, cut themselves. Discover it hurts like the blazes, then do not do it again.

If you google for “self harm”, the PC term, you don’t get information on cutting, but deceptive and malicious misinformation on cutting, misinformation intended to cause harm and suffering, and if you google “cutting” any page that comes up with words “self harm” in it is overwhelmingly likely to be malicious misinformation.
cutting

As it says in the Book of Genesis, women are psychologically maladapted to equality.

Think how much more comfortable she would be, how much more at peace she would be, how much saner she would be, how much happier she would be, if those were her owner’s whip marks.

Reading between the lines of girls making videos and posts about cutting themselves, they are saying to the numerous boys that pumped them and dumped them “Punish me, don’t ignore me.”

Single women vote for foreign conquest and rape

March 6th, 2016

I am opposed to anyone voting, except perhaps married men of property and wealth who are raising or have raised their biological children with their wives, but the worst voters are single women.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the west, due to importation of masses of North Africans to maintain the vote for failed welfare statism.  When Swedish men say “Hands off our women”, Swedish women say “We are not your women”, and vote for more mass nonwhite immigration and ridiculously light slap-on-the-wrist penalties for rape.

Women do not really want the kind of society where sex happens by consent.  (Check the xhamster porn videos preferred by women) Thus single women subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, want our society to be conquered, the men killed, and they themselves sexually enslaved.

In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor.  If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.

So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.

The strong independent woman, the woman living the lifestyle that feminism and school teaches her she should have, has few or no children, for children take two, and the commitment to stick it out when things go bad.  In the ancestral environment, if you were a strong independent woman you were surrounded by weak contemptible men, in which case abduction, rape, and slavery was a good way to meet manly men.

Suppose the Taliban was to somehow do a Boko Haram and abduct a bunch of baristas with post graduate degrees in victim studies and a hundred thousand dollars of student debt.  They would probably wind up  having six children and umpteen grandchildren each, so we would expect women to have evolved to rather like this sort of thing.

Or, alternatively, you can believe that women was created to be a helpmeet to man, and in the fall was condemned to desire this sort of thing.

Lots of existing societies have arranged marriages or marriage by abduction.  It seems to work just fine.  When parents, society, or respectable authority tell women to fuck someone, they fuck him, and are happy to do so.

Large numbers of well educated and wealthy English gentlewomen in eighteenth century England married whom they were damned well told to, and I don’t see any memoirs or books from any of them complaining about it.

We hear a lot about women being involuntarily trafficked to brothels, and sometimes it happens, though less than advertised, but when white nights go forth to rescue these poor oppressed and victimized damsels in distress, they are invariably disappointed.

Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli, whereas commanding a woman to warm some man’s bed is like commanding children to eat their icecream.

In eighteenth century Australia there was a fair bit of lighthearted and unserious female resistance to shotgun marriages, they were far from entirely compliant, but looking at these incidents, those resisting shotgun marriage do not seem like poor pitiful victims of male sexual desire, but lustful bawds who were worried that the party was going to end.

Since Victorian times, historians have sought to depict eighteenth century Australian women as sexually exploited and sexually hyper oppressed, but they just cannot seem to find any examples of women seriously resenting, complaining about or resisting this supposedly horrid extreme sexual oppression. We see lots of disciplinary issues where women were punished for talking back to the husband that they were assigned to, or punished for failing to work as directed by their husband, or being absent without leave for short periods. We just don’t see any disciplinary issues, zero, despite vigorous and alarmingly imaginative search by historians, that seem plausibly related to disinclination to go to bed with the man to whom she was assigned.

Consent is useful and valuable to the extent that a women voluntarily swears to honor and obey her husband, and to stick it out till parted by death, and eighteenth century Australian authorities were pretty keen on obtaining more or less voluntary consent for that purpose.  If she is not credibly swearing that before God and man, consent serves no useful purpose to husband, family and society, women don’t really like it all that much, and the eighteenth century British and Australian authorities were untroubled by the lack of it.

The unsafe schools initiative

March 4th, 2016

In Australia there is a program, called the safe schools initiative, targeted primarily at school children near puberty and below puberty, aimed at presenting gay, lesbian and transgender role models as normal, happy, healthy regular people, despite the fact that gays and male to female transgender have an extremely high rate of death, disease, crime, suicide, murder, assault, self harm, and drug abuse, with lesbians and female to male transgender not far behind.  The reason there are not that many old gays is that most of them die of murder, suicide, disease, or drug abuse before they get old.  As the New Testament says Romans 1:27:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

These happy healthy role models depicted in the material are slightly older than the target audience, the role models being just past puberty, and the target audience just before puberty, the obvious point of the propaganda being that the target audience should grow up into these happy healthy well balanced role models.

Here is one of the role models, pushed on pre pubertal children:  a schoolboy with an obviously gay fifty eight year old cuddling him:

This is blatant gay recruiting of children – it is obvious that those pushing this initiative do not believe that gayness is innate, that people are born that way, but rather that gay sex is an acquired taste to which children can be inculcated.

And, indeed, it is obvious that gayness is transmitted from pedophiles to children, Afghanistan being an example of a place and culture where gayness transmitted in this fashion is very prevalent.

While a sexual preference for young males is disturbingly common in all cultures at all times, in places and times where this preference is very severely repressed (death penalty, vigorously enforced) a sexual preference by males for adult males seems to be entirely unknown. In such cultures there is some sodomy of adult males but it is like sodomy of donkeys, an inferior substitute for the real thing. Thus, for example, during the War of Northern Aggression adult male on adult male sodomy was rare, and adult male on adult male pornography entirely nonexistent. No one wanted to look at pictures of adult males getting tapped when they could look at pictures of females getting tapped.

If what gays officially believe, that gays are born that way, is true, then suppressing homosexuality is just pointless cruelty.  If, however, what gay activist behavior suggests that gays believe, that male sexual preference for adult males is the result of gay sex environment near puberty or before puberty, is true, then we should have the death penalty for male homosexual acts, and lesbian acts should be discouraged, with females being coerced into heterosexual relationships.

Heartiste addresses the Jewish Question

March 1st, 2016

Heartiste, minion of Satan, addresses the Jewish Question with his usual combination of insight and empirical data.

His data and conclusions are consistent with mine: My conclusions being that Jews are priests by nature, and we suffer from a crisis of an ever escalating excess of priests, and an ever escalating dangerously great theocratic power, ever escalating persecution of ever more minor deviations from an ever more extreme official state theology and theocracy of equalism, covetousness, and envy, and it is this crisis that causes the over representation of Jews among bad people doing bad things, not the other way around. If we get priests under control, then Jews are under control. If we expel Jews without getting priests under control, we are still screwed.

Trump and social class

March 1st, 2016

There is a bit of drama about a pressman being thrown to the ground at a Trump rally. There were fifteen thousand people at the rally. There were a few hundred black-lives-matter protestors who got thrown out. There were some illegal immigrant rights protestors who got thrown out. Did no one else get thrown to the ground?

A horde of black-lives-matter protestors are being herded out by security. They are leaving peaceably. The pressman gets out of the press box. Security guy stops him by getting in his way. Pressman is absolutely shocked, outraged, and indignant. Pressman gets right in the security guy’s face, screaming at him from an inch or two away. His spittle must be spraying all over the security guy. Security guy grabs him by the throat and pushes him out of the security guy’s face, laying him quite gently on the ground. Pressman kicks, tries ineffectually to fight. But the wonderful thing is expression on his face. He is absolutely incredulous, he is astonished, he is outraged he cannot believe that the security guy has dared to lay impious hands on him.

Observing the black-lives-matter protestors an arms length away, it is obvious that they believe that it would be entirely ordinary and expected for security to lay hands on them if they failed to leave or resisted being ejected, and don’t see anything the slightest out of the ordinary about security laying hands on some guy. That is what security does. Business as normal, nothing to see. They are leaving quietly because they believe that if they make trouble, security will kick their ass. Pressman thinks he can make trouble, and security cannot kick his ass.

But there are a bunch of people around the incident who also find security laying hands on the most holy pressman startlingly impious.

Pressmen, even though they are usually paid with the smell of an oilrag, are a much higher class than mere menials like security, security being working class, even though this security guy was secret service, who draw way better pay than pressmen.

So how does Trump come into this story I hear you ask. The security guy was not a Trump employee, he was a government cop, not a rentacop. So how is Trump involved?

Trump is involved because I am pretty sure the security guy would ordinarily have internalized the class dynamics, and let his social superior spit in his face, but listening to Trump made him less submissive, raised his spirits, made him remember he was a man.

Now if we were governed by real aristocrats, I would be entirely in favor of menials knowing their place, and would find Trump’s populism disturbing, but we are governed by scum. An aristocrat would never scream in a menials face. He might kill the menial, he might have him killed, he might permanently blight the menial’s career, but he would not scream in the menial’s face.

Which brings me to those trade deals that Trump has been denouncing.

I don’t know what Trump thinks is wrong with those trade deals. But what I think is wrong with those trade deals is that they treat making physical things in America as evil and oppressive, a sinful activity that needs to be phased out as soon as possible, as a lower class activity. These deals demand that other countries go along with America’s outrageous and oppressive copyright and patent laws, and open their doors to American capital, while opening America’s doors to physical manufactured goods, without really much asking foreigners to open their doors to American physical manufactured goods.

Trump and testosterone

February 28th, 2016

Testosterone levels and sperm counts have been falling steadily. Young men commonly have levels that once would have been normal in seventy year olds, and “normal” testosterone keeps being redefined downwards, while “normal” estrogen gets redefined upwards.

I have long suspected that this reflects metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, rather than literal estrogen in the literal water supply, and the Trumpening hints that this theory is true. Trump’s supporters, critics, and opponents are all acting as if they have had testosterone shots, notably Rubio whose surgical castration seems to have been temporarily and partially reversed.

A Trump presidency is likely to have a big effect on the way American males walk, the way in which they speak, and the amount of kitchen work that they do.

Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed

February 26th, 2016

Hence the collapsing birth rate.

Fitness tests:

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

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

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

Emancipation of women leads to population collapse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harem formation


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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