Yes, women vote for rape, conquest, and enslavement

Some of my supposedly red pilled commenters doubt my account of the nature of women.

So, I am going to steal shamelessly from the great and wonderful Heartiste, Minion of Satan.

Bleeding heart (and bleeding bush) Frenchwomen are lining up to fuck the rapefugee dregs of humanity….in a romantic setting that looks like this:


Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

When we voted to emancipate them, we failed their shit test.

“Hey”, I hear you saying: “How come they vote for emancipation and conquest, both? Aren’t you being inconsistent Jim. You cannot have it both ways. Why are they shit testing us harder than they shit test the rapeugees?”

Because we are weak and guilty about it, and the rapeugees are bold and aggressive about it. You need to tell girls to make a sandwich and take their pants off. And when they are difficult, you need to hit them, hit them in a properly careful and loving way of course.

90 Responses to “Yes, women vote for rape, conquest, and enslavement”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Minion of Satan”, don’t make me laugh! He is a pretty boy straight from the pagan temples of Aphrodite!

  2. jay says:

    Some commenters I talked to who live in france said that only the uglier french women prefer migrants. The 10’s arent the ones doing this.

    • jay says:

      Apparently the more beautiful french women hate those people.

    • Minion says:

      Don’t know about that. At least in America, a lot of hot, young, fertile women tend to be attracted to prog causes, which partly the reason why universities are hubs for liberal activism. A likely cause for this seems to be with motherhood delayed until being much older, young women channel their maternal instincts through liberal causes

      Ugly women have no problem attracting white betas, so the explanation that refugee volunteers are ugly women who can’t get laid simply does not cut it. At the very least, they wont be leaving the comforts of civilization to go fuck a bunch of very dangerous men in the middle of a shithole.

      • lalit says:

        But I understand these hot young white prog loving women primarily fuck young white prog loving dudes. Correct me if I am wrong

        • peppermint says:

          Start fucking one beta prog White, the others instinctively recognize his property right and stop paying as much attention, plus it’s harder to tell Chad you’re single. No woman wants a cuck who doesn’t make any displays of dominance, doesn’t have a career either, doesn’t make any displays of dominance, talks about bicuriosity, doesn’t make any displays of dominance, and has no plans for the future.

          All forms of public-funded education must be abolished immediately.

  3. lalit says:

    Here is India’s machiavelli (Chanakya), a contemporary of Alexander of Macedon on women

    The author is at pains to explain how someone he considers a great visionary and thinker can be so wrong about women. Clearly, the author shows all signs of being a man who has no experience of women or is intellectually blind. I think I should refer him to this blog or to heartiste. Look at the comments. Various women trying to rationalize Chanakya’s statements as coming from someone who had bad experiences with women. And look at the various cucks tripping all over their dicks trying to mollify these women. Chanakya’s views on women bolster his reputation as a serious thinker. Idiots! Cucks!

    Modern India, a country of Half-Wit Cucks!

    The incredible thing is how thinkers of cultures so far flung from each other had strikingly uniform views regarding women.

  4. lalit says:

    The situation you describe whites as facing in your blog is so similar to what the Pagans of India are facing vis-a-vis Islam, Cultural Marxism as well as Evangelical Christianity. I know you have fans in India as I see your articles being extensively referenced among Pagan reactionaries here. Jim, if not too much trouble, can you please tell me how many hits you get from India on your blog?

    • jim says:

      A bit over five hundred thousand hits from the USA, a bit over three thousand hits from India.

      Give me a link to an Indian Pagan blog. When I google for Indian pagan, I get zillions of false links from gay wiccans who think they are reincarnated native Americans.

      • Mackus says:

        Aren’t indian pagans just hindus?

        • jim says:

          By Christian and Muslim definition, but am not sure that a Hindu would use that definition.

          • Mackus says:

            Okay, so if hindu don’t call themselves indian pagans, but hindu, googling for “indian pagans” will not return any hindu, only gay wiccans.
            Googling “hinduism blog” returns some actual hindu from india.

        • lalit says:

          The followers of Abrahamic faiths refer to all Indian pagans as Hindus. So yes, you know them as Hindus. And even the constitution of Indian (really a document rooted in Western culture and not Indian) defines anyone who is not a Christian or a Muslim as a Hindu.

          The beliefs of these various Hindus are so different from each other that they must correctly be considered different religions. There is barely any similarity between the beliefs of the Hindus living in the desert to those living on the mountains to those on the plains. If all considered Hindus, then not possible to find any uniform belief, any unifying idea. So must be considered as separate religions. Some even define Hinduism as the parliament of Indian religions.

          I use the term Indian Pagan for that reason. For the same reason, I never use the term Liberal to refer to a Leftie. Words have specific meanings, people!

          • Mackus says:

            I see.
            I don’t things its incorrect to call most indian pagans “hindu”, just not very specific. Its useful, more than term “Abrahamic religions” which is even broader.
            Those hindu denominations have more common with each other than Christianity with Islam.

            • lalit says:

              No this is simply not correct. Different variations of Hinduism are way more distinct from each other than Christianity and Islam

              1. There are strains of Hinduism which are hedonist. It is called the Charvaka philosophy which holds that this is the only life we have and no punishment exists for Sin and no reward for virtue. This strain is atheist-hedonist

              2. Then there is the atheist strain that holds than even though there is no God, there is heaven and hell and entry to these domains is determined by the level of virtue practiced by the individual

              3. There is the Monotheistic strain as represented by the Ramakrishna mission, and advaita philosophy.

              4. The strain the believes in Duality, as in Yin-Yang is the dvaita philosophy.

              5. There is the strain which believes in the Trinity. This is the largest strain and is indeed mainstream hinduism as depicted in Bollywood movies.

              6. Then there are the polytheist strains with their multiplicity of Gods. This is practiced in remote areas.

              So, I maintain that the variations in Hinduism are greater than those between Islam and Christianity.

              • peppermint says:

                Those are doctrinal differences.

                Do any of the strains worship skypes and demand that tax money and military blood support Israel? Do any of the strains worship googles and use tax-exempt organizations to import googles? Do any of the strains get weepy-eyed about the human equality project, as the true meaning of the constitution which is the true meaning of the nation, and want to save the nation from itself by destroying it?

                I don’t really care if my neighbor worships many gods or no god, as long as he doesn’t let skypes pick my pocket or googles break my leg.

      • lalit says:

        Woah! The hits from India are about 60% of the hits from India. If you were a movie producer, India would be a secondary market. So I was right. One day, if the Pagan reactionaries win, you and Moldbug will be the equivalent of Von Steuben.

        Jim, here are two upcoming Pagan-reactionary bloggers who extensively reference you.

        1. . This guy says he admires you “because” you are a racist. A racist to him is merely someone who is proud of the achievements of his race and wants to build on them or hold on to them. He wants all Indian pagans to emulate you by being similarly proud of their paganism. For an Indian pagan, racism, nationalism and culturism are indistinguisable.


        Then there are twitter feeds of pagan-reactionaries who reference you in their tweets but do not have blogs themselves.

  5. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    OT, but several of my comments on older posts seem to be stuck in the buffer jim.

    • jim says:

      Several of your comments were wrongly classified as spam. I don’t know why. I hope the spam filter learns from me reclassifying them as ham.

  6. Glen Filthie says:


    Well Jim, if you boys are gonna game women and be promiscuous sluts… or effeminate faggots… a woman’s gotta do what a woman’s gotta do.

    Let me set YOU straight: women are as varied and different as we are. Just as some men are cads, some women are sluts. Just as some men like dark meat, so do some women.

    About the only thing ya got right is that whether it’s a man or a woman makin’ bacon with migrant trash – is that they should be beaten with a stick.

    Errrr…. no, ya got that wrong too. The should get beat with a lead pipe!


    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Another day, another lewontin’s fallacy.

      • glenfilthie says:

        Except at the extreme ends of the bell curve – I can trump your genetics with good training every time. That won’t sit well with meta-masculine poseurs…but facts seldom do with that crowd.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Ask yourself this question, what do you actually intend to accomplish when you say something like ‘women are as varied and different as we are.’?

          If you mean to imply that there are *not* infact average and aggregated differences in over all trends between woman and men (or any other ground), you are wrong.

          If you mean to imply that accounting for such would *not* lead to more accurate predictions, you are wrong.

          If you mean to imply that the rate of things, like, especially gifted outliers, occurs at the same rate, or at the same degree, you are wrong.

          So, the question stands; wherefore?

          • Glen Filthie says:

            I don’t mean to imply anything other than state the facts, PC. I refute Jim’s assertion that there is an overriding female nature that women can’t control; and – if we are going to be intellectually honest: a lot of men are ‘voting to have their women raped by migrants’ too. Are they being ruled by their nature too? You guys are ludicrous.

            I will concede to the concept of associative mating. People tend to marry or pair up according to status, intellect, and ability. If you look closely at the women going into harm’s way to get banged by filthy coloured trash – the vast majority are idiots, tire biters, or homely, lonely harridans looking for a more useful pet than a cat. You guys are letting your insecurities and inferiority complexes get the best of you. They will not invade and run away with our women – we will kill them first.

            Don’t get me wrong – I think the migrants should be death marched out of Europe along with moslems and other trash. But let us be honest about this – the loss to our gene pool by liberal mudsharks is negligible. Conversely – even though the white women involved are of the lowest quality – they are a vast improvement to their own women and the results of their offspring will be much better. Those monkeys will breed themselves out of the gene pool long before the do it to us.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              If you do not mean to imply those things, you should clean up your language, because a statement like that *does* imply those things, and *has been used* to imply those things in argument.

              Poor language facilitates poor thought.

            • jay says:

              ”I will concede to the concept of associative mating. People tend to marry or pair up according to status, intellect, and ability. ”

              Only by rape will sub-par trash even have a chance of impregnating the best of women.

              • peppermint says:

                Within my first year of college, two of the women I met my first day there would be raped by googles.

                One of them, I only found out because I was hanging out with her friend when she burst in crying because two googles had given her a struggle session and stolen her laptop. She said, so as not to be racist, that she would have accepted it if her laptop hadn’t been stolen.

                The other one, her bff told me that her friends had left her in the car in a bad part of town while they were in a bar and some google broke in.

                Women know, of course, that no one will ever lift a finger to protect them from googles, and are vaguely aroused by that fact.

                How many struggle sessions do we simply not know about because the women understand that they’re not supposed to complain? Which, of course, leaves aside the OBVIOUS FACT that consent doesn’t even make any sense applied to women, and women are much more likely to consent to a monkey that appears dominant and confident than a human who is trained from birth to never act in a way that reveals his power level.

                The most damaging part of To Kill a Mockingbird isn’t making the rednecks sound like they don’t take anything seriously and beat women. Women like that. The damaging part is when the author through Atticus Finch tells everyone that Atticus’ shooting skillz are a gift of God so he shouldn’t tell anyone about his skillz.

              • jim says:

                Female judgment of male excellence seems seriously off. I see associative mating when people marry, which happens less and less often these days, but they tend to spend their hot young fertile years fucking guys who live partly folding sweaters, partly by burglary, partly by drug dealing, and mostly by sponging off their large harem of high socioeconomic status high IQ hot young girlfriends. Plus a lot of rapes look to me that the woman was deliberately going out of her way to get pack raped by gang of googles.

    • Minion says:

      In healthy societies, the only sluts were prostitutes and slavegirls. And promiscuity was still directed by male pimps and slaveowners, not by their own whims. All other women were chaste under the threat of punishment and shame (and were indoctrinated into thinking promiscuity was disgusting behavior for a woman to engage in).

    • peppermint says:

      the only possible reason for pretending there’s an equivalence between women and men is the belief in souls

      • Glen Filthie says:

        There is no equivalence. Men and women are DIFFERENT. The smart ones pair up in a classical marriage and play as a team. Typically men provided for the family, women tended to the home and kids. Resources pooled, labour divided, both accomplish more together than they do separately.

        The idiots turn their marriages into power and dominance struggles, end up divorced or don’t get married at all and can’t figure out why they can’t get ahead in the modern world. They end up bitter and angry and blame joos, patriarchy, feminism or eeeeeeevil corporations and globalists.

        • jim says:

          One household requires one leader, one head, one boss. If equal, must be separate. Two households. We observe lots of children brought up with dad in one household and mum in another. The results are very bad, so that people are reluctant to expose their children to such a fate. If such a fate seems likely, reluctant to have children. This is something that everyone knows for their own children, even if they deny it for other people’s children.

          And what if that leader is a woman? Well, we see lots of that, and the results are even worse. Female Ceos with drug addicted children, lawyerettes with whores. The children in low socioeconomic status female headed households are trash, the children in high socioeconomic status female headed households are better, but they are at high risk.

  7. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    None of this is news to those of us who have taken the Red Pill.

  8. peppermint says:

    why women fuck googles:

    (1) the anti-racism angle helps the rationalization hamster
    (2) Whites have been indoctrinated not to be dominant and women know that Whites are expected to not be dominant while they also know they are expected to accept whatever googles’ culture is
    (3) about half the women on the website I was looking at about women fucking googles were doing it because their swinger White men thought it was a good way for them to get more sex with other women while not exposing themselves to the risk that their woman’s new lover would steal her from them

    • Carl says:

      4) Black guys have giants cocks that can actually satisfy a woman, unlike their tiny ass whiteboi hubbies.

      Give up white man. Submit to the power of the BBC. There is no point in fighting a battle that you can never win. Your wife will thank you for it.

      • peppermint says:

        Yeah, see, every other word is BBC, but when you look at the actual pictures on this forum, they’re usually average size. It’s about dominance.

      • peppermint says:

        Jim has written about romance novels several times, a woman wants a superpredator like Edward or Christian Grey who they alone can control with sex.

        The actual pictures are usually average size, though of course the ones with the BBC, Whites with big dicks have alternative lifestyles but googles gotta goog.

  9. Cavalier says:

    “And when they are difficult, you need to hit them, hit them in a properly careful and loving way of course.”

    • Cavalier says:

      God, I hope so.

    • safespaceplaypen says:

      Everything is coming together. Trump + Putin + Feminism is now a common joke + Rise of Nationalism in Europe + No liberal policies have ever worked + Blacks still act like monkeys = Good things to come for the next 8 to 50 years, or maybe even more.

      • jim says:

        And yet, the state moves ever leftwards ever faster, and elects a new people that will vote for the latest outrages.

        • Mike says:

          When a new people is elected, what is the next, leftwards step?

          If, in 50 years, France is 100% African/Arab, how would Leftism further progress? Democide? Does the new government invade neighboring, half-white countries? Civil war between Christian Africans and Muslim Arabs?

          Or does dysgenic leftism end only when H. Sapiens reverts to H. Habilis?

          • jim says:

            Left singularities generally blow up decisively and suddenly. At some point a Cromwell, a Stalin, or a Napoleon, makes it as dangerous to be to the left of him as to the right of him. In due course fanaticism gives way to cynicism, and leftist power is hollowed out, and quite suddenly collapses.

            Dark ages come in slowly with everything going to shit at about one percent a year, for several centuries.

            Sometimes a left singularity leads immediately and directly to a dark age, as happened at the end of the Bronze age. Sometimes the reaction following a left singularity ends the dark age. China was declining pretty steadily from the Song Dynasty to the Cultural Revolution, and then quite suddenly got its stuff together, as people started consciously thinking about good governance and an effective economy.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        That exact pattern is 200+ years old.

        No progressive policy has ever been successful; the critics have always predicted the horrible outcomes in advance and the only result is that people both learn to live with the horrors and lose the ability to see them as horrors.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Well the USA has expanded from coast to coast, settling the land with a population in the hundreds of millions, has more wealth than any society ever and is the world’s only superpower. I don’t think the Tories predicted that would happen during the Revolutionary War!

          • jim says:

            Daniel Defoe, or the fictional ultra Tory he depicted, expected the US to conquer the world, dissolve the British Empire, and impose proggism on the world at sword point, as in fact happened.

            • Hidden Author says:

              Maybe. Maybe not. I’ll take your word for it though it’s still not a situation of “OMG society is collapsing!” If anything, what I described is an example of society consolidating!

    • lalit says:

      And look at this Gem in that article

      “Her appointment was opposed by stay at home mothers who felt that a position like that should be given to a man!”

      Can you f****** believe that? I think my brain just exploded.

      Exactly which planet is this country they call “Russia” on?

      Here is another article about Russian men beating the shit out of migrants who tried to pull a cologne on the local women.

      If I was a white Guy (which I am not), I would convert to Arthodox Christianity, try to get to Russia and enlist in the Russian Army. They now accept foreigners apparently

      Alas! We Indian Pagans have no such Talismanic country to which we can pledge our Allegiance! We are freaking Doomed. Lucky Whites

  10. Minion says:

    Should (non-Muslim) reactionaries really care what happens to the West at this point? Is there any point in protecting the West against brown rapists when Western women want it and Western men are okay with them having it?

    I am of the opinion that actual Western civilization died c. 1945, if not sooner.

    • Hidden Author says:

      Even neoreactionaries have friends, families and customs they care about. Also being mad-dogged by a low-IQ mujahid with a whip is beneath even their low standards. Now, go rape a camel!

      • Minion says:

        Well, thanks to the breakdown of traditional families, future Westerners wont have real families to care about anymore.

        Low-IQ muslims are a mere nuisance that only exists because White liberals believe that deep down every single human is a closeted liberal just like them, and therefore invite jihadists in high hopes he will be “educated” by Western culture into becoming a good little progressive. it never crosses their mind that maybe some Muslims are simply not interested in what they have to offer. Perhaps the rapefugee situation need to be far worse before White men realize that the whole liberalism thing aint working for them

        • jim says:

          Islam is more than a mere nuisance. Conquered most of Christendom until defeated at the Siege of Vienna, and conquest is simply resuming.

          • Minion says:

            As it exists now, it is a mere nuisance. Muslims no longer have a caliphate (and ISIS is hardly a real caliphate- it only controls a few areas in Iraq and Syria- compare that to the Ottoman empire at its height) to project any sort of meaningful military power. Compare that with the West, which is the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen.

            Muslims only have a refugee/immigrant presence in the West, and that is only so because the West allows it. Its not an invasion if you willingly invite them.

            • jim says:

              And yet, somehow, in every recent war, Muslims win, west loses.

              Consider the shocking and utterly humiliating defeats of the British in Basra and Helmand province. Maybe Islam cannot defeat America in conventional war, but it could certainly defeat Europe if America was to decline to rescue Europe yet again.

              British military operations in Helmand province were targeted at proving the superiority of women and gays over white males. Taliban operations in Helmand province were targeted at hurting people and breaking their toys.

              • Minion says:

                America/coalition lost Iraq because they attempted to do the impossible- turn tribalistic, non-white, low-trust, Muslim Iraqis into modern liberal democratic citizens. It proved to be a giant waste of resources so America just packed up its bags and left Iraq to its own devices. In Iraq, America was not fighting against Islam so much as it was fighting against reality.

                When America does not attempt the impossible, it roundly wins against any modern Muslim military force. For example, the first Gulf war, whose aim was to cripple Saddam’s military capabilities, and not turn Iraq into something it is not.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, America. But in Basra all Britain was trying to do was control an oil port and thus the cash flow from the oil passing through the port. Failed catastrophically. And America is busily ruining its military in the same way Britain already has. If Britain could not hold Basra against some Muslim warlords, could not hold London against some Muslim warlords without US assistance.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Damn, HA! That is some serious hate speech, right there. Problematic as fuck. Are you going native? What would your professors say?

        • Minion says:

          Islam is the only major force that is seriously resisting global liberalism

          Meanwhile whites are busy worshiping trannies and faggots. 90% of whites are a moral cancer on this planet

          • Hidden Author says:

            On the question of homosexuality, I feel that homos deserve tolerance IF they refrain from 1) exhibitionism 2) rape 3) pederasty. That’s it in a nutshell. Or, and if they’re too big of sissies to take the heat, the military and others shouldn’t be forced to carry their share of the load. To hell with affirmative action!

            • Minion says:

              Problem is, passive tolerance of fags leads to active worship of fags. In the US, it was 2003 when sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. After 12 years, Christians are now forced to cater to gay weddings.

              Give fags an inch, and they will take a mile. At least ISIS are not forced to bake cakes for faggots. Fags don’t care about freedoms of religious conservatives, so why should we care about their freedoms?

              • Ron says:

                So by your reasoning, the Nazi high command, being homosexual, at least among themselves, were the cause of Germany’s defeat in 1945?

                Above you claimed that 1945 was the end of Western civilization, implying that you favored the Nazis, and here you are outright stating that homosexuals by their nature cause destruction.

                • jim says:

                  Hitler purged gays out of the Nazi high command – out of everywhere. No gay books. No open homosexuals. Secret homosexuals, if caught, sent to prison or died in concentration camps.

                  Effective, and excellent beneficial results on military discipline, male solidarity, and male cameraderie.

                • Ron says:


                  From the proletariat, and the rank and file he most certainly did. From the high command? I am very skeptical and there is a great deal of evidence indicating the opposite.

                  Look at the recent Orlando shooting. Over a hundred men in that room, all of whom in near perfect physical condition, and no ome thought to rush the bastard (who was himself a homosexual). In fact, one of the degenerates held closed a door to prevent his fellows from escaping. He claimed it was to prevent the shooter, maybe he even convonced himself of that, but it was obvious he was trying to simply save his own misrrable life.

                  In this I dont disagree with minion. Ive noticed that Homosexuals do have a tendency to “fuck other men over” either physically or figuratively.

                  What I am doing is pointing out that the Nazi high command was in this category as well.

                • Ron says:


                  Actualky I cant honestly say “a great deal of evidence”. Im basing my statement on several different accounts Ive read, and the book “the pink swastika”.

                • Dave says:

                  Imagine what a walk-over WW2 would have been if Roehm had purged Hitler instead of the other way around!

                • Minion says:

                  “Above you claimed that 1945 was the end of Western civilization, implying that you favored the Nazis”

                  Not really, 1945 also heralded the dawn of political correctness and postmodernism throughout the West. American culture was much less pozzed before then

                • peppermint says:

                  When the Jews can’t find anything true to pin on someone,they call them a faggot (J Edgar Hoover), and when they can’t call them a faggot, they spread rumors bout their nuts (Hitler).

                  If Hitler had one ball, we would surely have been shown pictures.

              • Ron says:

                Homosexual rape among jihadis



                I foind those articles after a quick google search. There is more of course. The Afghan soldiers (also Muslim) on some bases have a practice which coalition troops refer to as “man love thursdays”. Man rape, or rather boy rape, is very common in the Arab, at least that is what I have been told by those who love and deal with the Arabs.

                You are less a vile minion, than an inconsistent one my friend.

                • jim says:

                  Lot of homosexuality in some Arab countries, but the position of Islam, and of Islamic state, and of the Taliban, is well known. There is no such thing as a homosexual, and the penalty for male homosexual acts is death. Similarly the Old Testament.

                  Problem is that if you have polygyny, you have a lot of men with no prospect of a wife, and so you get lots of homosexuality, even if it is illegal, forbidden, and supposedly does not exist.

                • Ron says:

                  This is the same problem as allowing men the ability to purchase and sell and resource among themselves. A sane society strikes a workong balance between the two.

                  My point woth regard to the Muslims are twofold

                  1. If there system prohibits actions which they cannot control, then it is an unworkable system. Much as your garden variety communist will argue that all the totalitarian systems claiming themselves to be communist were no true communists, in such case it means communism is unworkable in the real world

                  2. Their system has rampant male on male rape.

                • jim says:

                  2. Their system has rampant male on male rape.

                  Yes, side effect of polygyny. But Islam takes drastic measures to prevent male on male rape – or any male on male sex whatsoever. And, given the scale of the problem, such drastic measures are entirely justified and necessary.

                  Once upon a time there was a King who noticed that young men, and not so young men, were hanging out in their mother’s basements, that they they were not marrying, having children, working, paying taxes, or fighting in defense of the realm. And the young men said to the King:

                  Without wives and children, what is the point of working and fighting? We don’t have anything in the realm that is ours, so nothing to defend, and working cannot earn us they only thing really worth possessing, which is pussy

                  So the King said to the high priest:

                  “Make law that controls the price of pussy down to something the young men can afford, and proclaim that law in my name and the name of God. Declare that women and children must always obey husbands and fathers, and wives must always submit sexually to their husbands, and that a woman may sleep with no man but her husband.”

                  But the Kings economist whispered to him:

                  “Price control never works”

                  And so it came to pass. Price control did not work, and the plight of the young men was worse than ever.

                  And the economist whispered to the King:

                  “If you have price control, need rationing. Ration pussy to one per customer.”

                  So the King said to the high priest,

                  make a law in the name of God, man, and the King, that a man shall only have one wife all his wife’s days, and a woman only one husband all her husband’s days.

                  And so it came to pass that young hard working men were able to obtain wives, they worked hard and paid taxes, in order that they could afford homes, so that they could have wives and children, and were willing to fight and kill and die to protect their homes, their faithful and obedient wives, and their children.

                  Islam is, like Venezuela, stuck on price control without rationing.

                  In order to get men to invest in wives and children, men need to conspire with men to collectively secure their individual property rights in women and children.

                  This turns out to be quite difficult. Nature has given women all the power relating to reproduction, which leads to prisoner’s dilemma situations. In order for men and women to reproduce successfully, men have to cooperate with men against women to disempower them, men have to seize control of the means of reproduction. But, as Spandrel’s anecdotes from Chinese history show, it is in fact remarkably difficult to disempower women, and theoretically patriarchal systems are apt to be subverted by sneaky and sexually immoral women.

                  But Islam is in fact quite correct on abduction, rape, and enslavement of infidels. If you have a system where men protect each others property rights in wives and children, why should they protect outsiders? You only want to protect the property rights of your own young men in wives and children, not the rights of outsider men, outsider women, or outsider children. If you protect outsiders, they are freeloading, which undermines the system. Your group should protect the property rights of men in other groups to the extent that they reciprocate – thus groups with different standards of property in women and children should find it hard to cooperate, and do.

                  The error of Islam is that it does not impose rationing (monogamy and chastity) so as to give the beta males a chance. Islam’s position on rape, abduction, and enslavement is fine.

        • Hidden Author says:

          I believe that you, I & the Man on the Moon should be gentlemen who support people being treated like we would want to be treated. I suppose I am PC in pointing how NRx fails this standard. But I am very politically-INcorrect about others failing this standard too. While Muslims can be good people, their Qu’ran revealed to Muhammad by the great demonic blood-God Al-la-la-lah Snackbar demands ISIS-level psychosis–which is the opposite of what they like, when on the receiving end!

          • Minion says:

            If you think the violence sanctioned by Islam is too extreme, you are not as reactionary as you think you are.

            In fact, Islam, compared to many other premodern systems, was relatively milquetoast. This not because Islam is a “peaceful” religion, but because violence was used by every society as a tool to establish their authority, and many societies needed to resort to that tool more than the Muslims did.

            • Ron says:

              Here is some more of what you have broadly called “non extreme violence by Islam”


              • Minion says:

                All societies practice slavery, and many practiced some sort of sex slavery or concubinage. If Islam is too mean for your feelings, then so were the Ancient Greeks and Romans, who also had sex with their slaves

                If you have a problem with Islamic violence or slavery, you are probably not as reactionary as you think

            • Ron says:

              And this. I just brought up the first link on searching for “acid woman muslim”. It is a prsctice of theirs to burn a womans fsce off if she is guilty of basically anything a make decides is worthy of burning her face off. But there are more examoles of this particular form of “non extreme violence”


              Here is a particularly “non extreme” example of women successfully ending their lives rather than suffer the abuse and rape of their captors. This after most of their male family members have neen killed, for the “non reactionary” crime of not being Muslim in jihadi territory


              • jim says:

                The acid attacks in india are real, but not specific to Muslims. As for the suicides, Amnesty International is a highly unreliable source.

                Islam is a very bad religion, and conversion to Islam by the sword is the solution we do not want, though it is a solution that looks more and more likely, but we should criticize Islam from the right, not from the left.

                Their policy on women and gays is entirely correct.

                • Ron says:

                  My argument is not regarding the punishment of out of control behavior. Society must have controls, this is understood. My argument is specifically against the claim that the Muslims do not take it to far.

                  For example, littering is bad. Littering must be punished. It does not therefore follow that littering should be punished by firing squad.

                  However, where littering is rampant and completely put of control such that it becomes a health hazard, then yes, I could accept such a thing as a necessary solution to an out of control problem. Ie Duterte.

                  What the Muslims are doing strikes me as more BLM than Duterte. However, what the Taliban were doing is much more Duterte than BLM

                • Robert says:

                  The problem with Islam is the same problem with Judaism. Jesus pointed out the problem with Judaism very clearly, and many are pointing it out with Islam. We cannot go on without a religion, and neo-paganism or Buddhism or whatever is not going to work. We must return to the religion of our fathers. Many of you are mistaken, Christianity is not hopeless, the seeds of the solutions to all of our problems are there. What we need to do is repent, and return to the ways of our fathers.

                • Minion says:

                  Cheating and female promiscuity are far worse than littering. Not only are the consequences for society are lethal, but it is a form of treason against the husband. Even non-Muslim societies allowed men to kill cheating wives, but that allowance faded as the liberal state claimed ownership of women at the expense of male ownership of women.

                  Its just that modern Western men have been so desensitized to female promiscuity that it is no worse that throwing a used paper cup onto the sidewalk.

                  Just take and gander at this article and tell me you dont think these women are contemptible traitors:

                • peppermint says:

                  Start by saying googles shouldn’t be hangout for littering, end with banning stores from giving customers complementary plastic bags to hold their items, and indicate that the items have been paid for, and it slows the lines in the store making the store have to hire more staff because the people need to stuff things in their own bags.

                  Start by saying that sex needs to be by consent of he woman where consent isn’t measured by sleeping in the same bed or even by words, end up with Brock Turner fingering some slut and then getting called a rapist while some famous BLM google pimps an underage White girl and no one cares.

  11. […] Yes, women vote for rape, conquest, and enslavement […]

  12. jon dough says:

    Nah, I’m pretty sure it’s cuz “she was sexually aroused at that moment in time”.

    A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…whew…the comedy writes itself…

Leave a Reply