Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Women like sexual coercion

Friday, November 24th, 2017

Their resistance is merely a shit test, to separate the strong from the weak.

What they hate, hate, hate hate hate, hate with a hatred hotter than a thousand suns, is that some guy whom they had sex with turns out to be substantially less alpha than they thought.

You doubt me? Reflect on the current Hollywood drama. Everyone has always known about the casting couch but in actual practice women acted as if being sexually exploited by rich, famous, and powerful men was a fringe benefit, rather than an occupational hazard – until the advance of feminism turned previously arrogant and entitled Hollywood moguls into weak and timid betas using wealth, fame and power as a weak crutch.

Reflect on Sweden, rape capital of the world.

In June, a 12-year-old girl in the small town of Stenungsund reported that she had been dragged into a public restroom and raped by an older boy. Six weeks later the girl had still not been questioned by the police. Even though she believed she had identified the perpetrator, the police had yet to pay him a visit.

“We have so many similar cases,” a spokeswoman of the local police told the Swedish public television channel SVT on September 12, “and there are so few of us, that we simply don’t have the time.” She continued: “We have rape victims three years old,” and even their cases await investigation.

Needless to say, feminists, and indeed women generally, are totally untroubled by this, just as they untroubled by Rotherham.

What happened is that Swedes escalated the definition of rape, so that looking at a woman sideways was rape.

Then they de-escalated the punishment for rape, so that it was similar to letting your dog poop on the pavement.

And then they imported a million or so brown Mohammedans.

And when anyone noticed that a million old style knife to the throat rapes of white women by brown Mohammedans were happening, old fashioned actual rape type rapes, the criminal noticer got severely punished, hate speech being treated far more severely than mere rape. And if police attempted to arrest the brown guy with the knife: “Racism! Islamophobia! Police Brutality” Cars would be set on fire, and police would ticket the scorched ruins of the car for being illegally parked.

So police decided it was a lot more urgent to ticket people walking their dogs, and rapes by brown men got left on the back burner.

Swedish males are a little bit unhappy about this but, after all “We are not your women”, so they are not all that disturbed.

And what is the reaction of Swedish women? It is “bring in more refugees! We are not your women!”

Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males. I say again: Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males.

There is no college rape crisis, because if there were, female enrollment would be much higher.

Also, there is no college rape crisis, because the Obama Department of education subjected colleges to extreme and extraordinary pressure to identify and punish heterosexual white male college student rapists, and the colleges subjected coeds to extreme and extraordinary pressure to say that they had been raped, and despite all this storm and drama, the poster boy white male college frat rapist that they managed to turn up was glass rapist Haven Monahan, indicating that the number of affluent white frat boy rapists, the rapists that Obama was twisting the arms of university admins to find, is indistinguishable from zero, that every single rape accusation made against such men is false, for if one of the accusations was plausibly true, he would be the poster boy instead of Haven Monahan. Such a ridiculously low rate of rape indicates that our college boys are disturbingly emasculated, hence the female rage directed against them, and conspicuously not directed at groups that have a very high rate of actual no kidding rape type rape.

If a high status fraternity really could get away with glass raping coeds, the way that Swedish and English Muslims get get away with raping very young girls, there would be a horde of coeds hanging around the frat house carrying glasses.

The extraordinary and vicious rage and hatred directed at high status white male heterosexual frats is because they do not dare rape, dare not sexually coerce women, having too much to lose, and thus feel like fake alphas. And nothing enrages a woman worse than having sex with a seeming alpha and finding he is not actually all that alpha. That is a thousand times worse than being raped, and they are getting it all the time from frat boys.

If high status frats really could rape girls and get away with it thanks to their immense social status, girls would be as relaxed about it as they used to be about the Hollywood casting couch, and even more relaxed than they are about Sweden and English Mohammedan rapes.

And, also, the success of the eighteenth century Australian authorities in turning sluts into respectable wives for respectable men. Cartoonishly extreme coercion, which moderns, and even Victorians, would regard as enslavement and rape, was on the books, but very seldom need to be actually applied. Faced with a firm hand, women internalized the values commanded, and hastily volunteered for respectable marriage. Often very hastily.

Today’s coercion turns virgins into whores. Early Australian coercion turned whores into wives. But both ways, in both directions, it is clear that women rather like sexual coercion.  Harvey Weinstein’s problem was that despite being rich, famous, and powerful, he so internalized leftist dogma that he acted beta.  He swallowed the blue pill. If he had acted arrogant and entitled, he would have been fine. He should have hit those whores with a stick.

We ban rape because we are not allowed to ban what we really want to ban – other men having sex with our women.

How to lose weight

Saturday, November 18th, 2017

When a high status person shows status insecurity, you can gain status by insulting him and by desecrating what is holy to him. Smash his icons to steal his status. Eating meat, salt and fat insults our ruling priesthood and our ruling religion, and desecrates what is holy to them.

Real men eat meat and fat, and salt the hell out of it.

The holy campaign against saturated fat never had any scientific basis whatsoever. It was always official science – peer reviewers meeting behind closed doors to tell mere observers what they should observe and poison the scientific literature. It was entirely motivated by instinctive irrational gut hostility against masculinity, just as the holy Global Warming campaign is motivated by gut hostility to technological civilization, hatred of what white people have created. (Also they needed an excuse to stick it to those coal miners in flyover country, and global warming gives them a rationale to make those that they hate and despise suffer.)

When my wife got sick, I was too busy looking after her to sleep with other women, so I stopped bothering about my weight, and since I was cooking and feeding her, there was always food in front of me tempting me, with the result that I developed a striking resemblance to Jabba the Hut. When she died, I set about replacing her, and God, it was brutal – well, it was always brutal, but what with being older and considerably fatter, it was even more brutal. So I set about losing weight on a high fat, moderately low carb, paleo diet, with regular fasting, running, and lifting iron. I now wear size S (small) pants, and size L (large) shirts and jackets. I have lost 38 kilos, and now dating is somewhat less brutal.

My diet is 60% fat by calorie, 20% protein by calorie, 20% carbs by calorie. Switching away from carbs is tough, a full ketogenic diet (75% fat, 20% protein, 5% carbs) gives you the keto flue until you are fully withdrawn from carbs, but even a moderate carb diet like mine is kind of harsh at first.

Fat makes you full. Carbs make you hungry.

It is not calories in calories out that makes you fat. It is insulin that makes you fat, causes heart attacks, high blood pressure, etc. Type one diabetics don’t get fat except that they take insulin. Snacking, and especially snacking food containing carbs, keeps your insulin continually high, and causes you to become addicted to high insulin.

All addictive foods contain substantial amounts of carbs. They are a manifestation of insulin addiction, and high insulin tolerance. I cannot eat just one potato chip, or one slice of pizza, or drink just one glass of ice cold Mountain Dew. I keep going till it is all gone. But I like pork crackling even more than I like pizza, and yet I can easily eat an appropriate amount of pork crackling, and then stop. It is carbs that cause uncontrollable eating. Even fruit if you eat too much of it. Broccoli with cheese sauce is easier to control. Avocados are easier to control than watermelon. Not that I can entirely give up watermelon, but if I eat too much of it, I will then eat even more of it.

On a moderate carb diet, you need sodium, potassium, magnesium, and zinc. You really need to watch your electrolytes on a full ketogenic diet, but even on a moderately low carb diet it is an issue. Leafy greens help. Broccoli with cheese, Chinese cabbage with butter and chicken broth. Butter fried mushrooms.

Most of my calories come from pork, bacon, butter, lots of butter, eggs, and more butter. I liberally salt my meat, and drink lots of coffee and cold water.

Salt will raise your blood pressure, but only if you have dangerously high levels of insulin, which most Americans do. I salt the hell out of my meat and add fish sauce to everything. My blood pressure has dropped to healthy levels, my cholesterol and lipid profiles, which used to look pretty bad, now look great. To get adequate potassium and suchlike I eat brocolli and cabbage covered in hot melted cheese, mushrooms fried in butter, raw tomatoes, tomatoes cooked in butter, and raw tomatoes covered with my buttery substitute for gravy and mayo.

I also have testosterone replacement therapy, and control my estrogen levels to healthy normal male levels. Since we invented clothing, no one gets enough vitamin D3 any more, so I have 2000 units of Vitamin D3 every morning. And, of course, run, and lift iron. Hate running, don’t run very far, but I run hard for the very short distances that I do run.

But the trouble is that gravy is wheat based, thus non paleo. And what is meat without lots of salty gravy? Also, on a high fat, moderately low carb diet, I never get enough fiber, so I don’t want to eat any carbs except in the form of fruit and vegetables,

Fats make you full, carbs make you hungry. All highly addictive foods contain substantial carbs, so regular gravy on meat results in uncontrollable overeating.

So this is my substitute for gravy: Take the meat juices. If I don’t have enough meat juices, some broth. Add some whole eggs, a bit of mustard, some vinegar, maybe some strong hot coffee, maybe some steamed garlic, some turmeric, and some chilis. Lots of chilis, lots of fish sauce. Toss in the blender and let the blender whip it till it gets hot. Add butter, till the mix is about fifty percent meat juices, eggs, and chilis, and fifty percent meat fat and butter. Maybe some steamed parsley to make it different from time to time. I never make it the same twice. Keep going till the temperature reaches sixty five centigrade or so to make sure the eggs are pasteurized. Make sure it has enough salt. Always needs more salt than I expect. Slosh liberally over the meat, into coffee, over tomatoes, etc.

It is sort of gravy – hollandaise sauce – mayonnaise – redeye gravy. Hollandaise sauce is hot mayonnaise made with butter rather than vegetable oil. Gravy is meat juice and fat that you mix using flour to make water and oil miscible. Hollandaise and mayonnaise uses eggs and vinegar to make them miscible. Southern redeye gravy uses coffee to make the fat and meat broth miscible. So this is gravy with eggs, vinegar, and perhaps coffee to make the butter, fat and meat juice miscible.

There is something just more manly about eating bacon, roast pork crackling, and suchlike. Perhaps it is irrational to think that, but the same irrationality resulted in the government and the medical profession poisoning Americans. Anything that pisses them off is good. Chicks like badboys, and this is another little bit of badness.

Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers.  Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite.  You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised.  Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat.  And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently.   If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine.  The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace:  If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal.  If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did.  She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps.  While she and you were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps.  And while she and you were fucking she said

Stop!

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness.   And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter.  If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Role models

Tuesday, October 10th, 2017

When Han Solo hits on princess Leia in “The Empire Strikes Back”, he does it right. She shit tests him to hell and back, and he plows on. Similarly, in “Gone with the wind” Rhett Butler proposes to Scarlett O’Hara, she rejects him, and he forcibly kisses her.

When I look at old movies, the hero always does it right. When I watch newer movies, the hero never does it right. It seems forced, artificial, and gratingly unnatural. Looks like robots carrying out a script to move the plot along. In real life, would never work, the hero would never score dealing with a woman in the way that men deal with women in modern movies.

And modern men just do not score approaching women in real life. In modern movies, action girl saves the lad in distress, and then for no apparent reason starts to like him. So it is like, “how do you meet a girl except you wait for action girl to rescue you?”

Boy meets girl remains a major plot thread, but boy and girl just never get romantic in a natural normal manner. I don’t mind if boy meets girl because of time travel, elves, space ships, dragons, and space aliens. For that I can suspend disbelief. But I just cannot suspend disbelief when they get romantic without going through the normal mating dance. In the Lord of the Rings movie, Arwen goes in for a kiss with Aragorn. The dialog explains that they already have a sexual relationship. The film maker has to depict them as already somehow having a long established off screen romance, because he is just not allowed to depict a man and a women getting together in the way that men and women actually do.  He just cannot depict Aragorn going in for a kiss with an as yet unkissed Arwen.

In defense of Hugh Hefner

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out.  Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you.   They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men.  We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly.  So we take power away from men and give it to women.  “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men.  The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better?  Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies.  We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs.  A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person.  I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet.  I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people.  To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

What women want

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Chicks dig jerks

Thursday, September 21st, 2017

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.

Bullshit.

The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.

The natural limits of monarchy.

Sunday, September 17th, 2017

Throughout history, the normal and usual form of government has been monarchy. Republics and such have been rare aberrations that have usually ended disastrously. The neoreactionary position is that nothing very much has changed. Our republic is decadent, corrupt, disunited, and lawless. It suffers from anarcho tyranny and lack of asabiyyah. Pretty much like most republics before they collapse to Ceasarism, external enemies, or internal disorder.

The neoreactionary position then is that we will be in monarchy soon enough, one way or another way, and the problem then is to make the transition go relatively smoothly, and the monarchy adequately functional.

Kings are usually theoretically absolute, and if they are not supposedly absolute, if they are not the final judge, the final legislator, if they cannot appoint judges that please them and fire judges that displease them, then problems ensue.

But government that is actually absolute, rather than merely formally absolute, works poorly. Mortals cannot really exercise that much power.

The Patriarch is not the ruler of his family because the King makes him so, rather the King is ruler of the state because the patriarch is ruler of his family.

And similarly, the King owns the state because the farmer owns his garden. The farmer does not own his garden because the King grants him title.

And if the King develops overly grandiose ideas, he find himself dangerously dependent on a dangerously powerful bureaucracy or aristocracy.

Taking power from the father, the businessman, and the landowner, does not grant that power to the King. It grants it to dangerously powerful people dangerously close to the King.

Which is how the Romanovs died.

Therefore, the wise King needs to let society run itself as far as possible, applying state power only in exceptional cases, when there are large scale organized challenges to state, society, legitimacy, property, the status of the King, and law.

We are vastly wiser than our ancestors in matters of technology, and the biggest break through was the limited liability company and double entry accounting. While the limited liability company is a disaster for banking and insurance, because of the obvious moral hazard, which results in banking and insurance companies becoming quasi govermental, becoming defacto socialist, the limited liability company and double entry accounting made possible Rand’s heroic scientist engineer ceo, who mobilizes other people’s capital and organizes other people’s labor to advance technology, and make those improvements in technology widely available. We first see technological advance mediated by limited liability companies, we first see Rand’s hero scientist engineer CEO, immediately after the restoration of Charles the Second.

But today, this social technolgy, fundamental to the triumph of white civilization, is being undone by an ever more lawless and intrusive government, by anarcho tyranny. HR is socialism, a branch of the state intruded into every limited liability company and standing between the entrepeneur and his employees, and Sarbannes Oxley is making accounting into the same kind of thing, a branch of the socialist state intruded into every limited liability company and standing between the entrepeneur and his investors, remaking every business into the kind of quasi state thing that banking and insurance already is.

Technology, and the limited liability company that made technology widely available, are real progress, but when it comes to morals and government, no progress is apparent. After two thousand years of failure, people are still trying socialism, figuring it will be different this time.

Looks to me that the no coveting commandment was a reaction to late Bronze age Egyptian socialism and counter measure against it, and “Proverbs” (the famous wisdom of Solomon) a reaction to and counter measure against legalism and bureaucracy.

So, since then, regress in the fields of morality and governance. Since we are evidently no wiser about socialism, bureaucracy, and absolutism, it is unlikely that the old pattern, where monarchy was the norm, and Republics dangerous and short lived, will change.

Masculinity

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole in front of women. A confrontational bully. It works. What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

But the character I play is not the man that that builds or maintains civilizations. It is the man that is high status in a world of female dominance, where women are more equal than men. It is not the man who should be high status, not the man that a civilization needs to make high status in order for that civilization to succeed.

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

But recognizing that this is the man that women want is a good corrective to what progs teach men to be. That man is a lot closer to the man that builds civilization than the emasculated man.

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity.

Jewish overrepresentation among badly behaved elites.

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

When whites are driven out of affluent middle class areas which then become terrifying run down burned out urban jungles, it is not Jews that they are fleeing.

The inner city used to be where the affluent, the rich, and the upwardly mobile lived. It is not Jews that destroyed the inner city, Detroit, Ferguson, and are now destroying Chicago.

Female bad behavior comes from desire to fuck taciturn narcissistic assholes, starting at age eight or nine. If it was Jewish influence, they would want to fuck neurotic talkative dweebs resembling Woody Allen. Margaret Mead fucked people of both sexes and numerous races, but did not fuck Franz Boas.

Blaming Jews is yet another good news religion, because it is easy to gas the Jews, but considerably more difficult, and more disturbing, to keep women under loc parentis supervision from eight to menopause. So the program of restoring civilization sounds a lot easier if all you have to do to get things back on track is gas the Jews.

If we blame the Enlightenment, in particular and especially the extravagantly absurd claim that all men are created equal, if we blame blacks, single women, and the holiness spiral, then it looks like a harder problem, that requires us to do things that are inherently unpopular and unholy, whereas exterminating a market dominant minority is always popular, and you can very easily get away with representing it as holy. Jews are a market dominant minority, and we whites are about to become a market dominant minority.

People who hope to win an election with a universal franchise have to blame the Jews, or else blame whites in general. You cannot shut down a holiness spiral in a democracy except with another holiness spiral.

Muslims in Europe and America are very close to successfully representing gassing the Jews as holy, and shortly thereafter will go to work on similar representation of whites.

Notice eager Jewish collaboration in Muslim efforts to represent gassing the Jews as holy. This falsifies the doctrine that Jewish misbehavior is collectively rational behavior that advances the interests of “the Jews”.

I have often said that going after the Jews is goring the matador’s cape, rather than goring the matador. You have to shut down the holiness spiral itself, rather than a category of people that contains a disturbingly large proportion of exceptionally enthusiastic demon worshipers.

Shutting down the holiness spiral requires something like an inquisition. We don’t need to burn people at the stake, though Charles the second did need to burn a few people at the stake, in particular one alarmingly and excessively holy female heretic, whose holiness was inconveniently and irritatingly genuine, and whose Unitarian Christian derived belief system was alarmingly twenty first century. But mostly what Charles the second did was fire everyone in state and quasi state jobs, and invite them to re-apply for their old jobs. In the job interview, the applicant was asked whether he would “conform” – conform to the new standard of moderate holiness, which prohibited excessive holiness in general, and the old form of holiness in particular. If one declined to say he would conform, he did not get burned at the stake – but neither did he get his old job back. Many who declined to conform departed under their own power to New England. A few said they would conform, got their old jobs back, but then engaged in apostacy, and those ones Charles came down on pretty hard, but usually they got ridiculed and their careers got ruined, rather than burned at the stake. Looks to me that only one genuinely sincere and genuinely holy heretic got burned at the stake by Charles the Second, and all the others that were burned were two faced slimy lying hypocrites, and that most of the apostates just got laughed at and their careers stalled, rather than burned at the stake, or even fired. But you really do need to sometimes take firm measures against stubborn and excessively ostentatious holiness.

The problem with Jews is that they are a market dominant minority with a strong identity. Being a market dominant minority with a strong identity they are particularly subject to potential persecution, plus, in even in the absence of actual persecution, they still have an extremely strong persecution mythos, which makes them paranoid and hostile. Since one is going to get treated as a persecutor no matter what, one feels inclined to actually persecute them.

Jews are are inclined to attack the fabric of the host society, because when it’s strong it attacks them, and when it’s weak it lays off. The fabric of society is essentially everything “fascist”, so they are naturally anti-fascist insofar as they identify as jewish. Obviously this pattern has been reinforced. The reform jews most so because they are actually trying to integrate, which they can’t if everyone is Nordic Catholic “Fascists”.

When they engage in a holiness spiral, they don’t have any personal attachment to the things that their utopian schemes will destroy, or any concern about the reasons it won’t work. Whereas a white man would say “what about my job, family, community, ancestors, people, church, business”, your typical academic jew would say “Certain elements of the bourgeois will feel the move to equality as oppression (and I never liked those dumb goyim anyways)”.

Their talents make them useful to short-sighted elites, which puts them in the position of High, but with more mobility, more of a mobile bandit; they can always go elsewhere and feel just as at home. In addition to the insecurity they feel as a persecuted minority, they are naturally aligned with High which has in our recent history been engaged in destructive anti-fascism.

Their talents further mean that they are quite good at the subversion, which, lacking attachment to their host society, they naturally get into.

But the problem is not Jewish participation in subversion, it is that subversion is profitable, respected, and rewarded. Make it unprofitable, despised, and dangerous, and there will not be a Jew in sight.

Civilization is the art of people living together in large numbers: The basic problems of civilization are shutting down violence, ensuring that men and women agree to stick together for richer or poorer, or better or worse, and are forced to stick by that agreement, and securing property rights. Leftism is an attack on all of these, leftism is siding with the forces of entropy for political advantage, and Nazism is just leftism that has been left behind by a hundred years of movement even further left. “Fascism” is freedom, freedom is made possible by law, law is made possible by first establishing order, order is made possible by peace, peace first require victory, and victory requires war. Leftism reverses this chain of causation and moves us back towards the war of all against all. Leftism weaponizes covetousness and envy to attack property rights and female sexual lust to attack marriage. Single women, rather than Jews, vote for the mass import of rapeugees, because unconsciously they hope to be sold naked in chains on the auction block.

Observe what is happening with the Rohingya. The Rohingya correctly believe that a good Muslim should live under Muslim rule, and that a Muslim should establish Muslim rule wherever he lives. They attempted to establish a Muslim state in Burma, the Burmese were not having any, and are now expelling them. The expelled Rohingya don’t want to go to the USA. They want to go to a Muslim state, but Islamic states fear that if they accept the Rohingya, the Rohingya will decide that their hosts are insufficiently Islamic, or the wrong kind of Islamic. The US government wants them, wants to dump the on marginal electorates in flyover country, and you really cannot blame the Jews for this. You cannot blame the Rohingya for this. They don’t want to go to an infidel state. It is single female lust for men manly enough to subjugate them. If a bunch of east europeans were fleeing some place, I bet the PUAs would be keen on bringing them here.