Jim's Blog

The problem is that dads are being emasculated and chads are not being emasculated

Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons. If we preferentially give children to the husband in the event of divorce, women will not wish to divorce – not because they don’t want to lose their children, but because husbands will not behave in ways that make their wives wish to leave them.

If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away, we severely weaken every man that loves his children. If we weaken him, his wife will despise him, and will take his children away, and his daughters will be raped and his sons beaten by some black rapper

It is not that women like being beaten, though some do.  What they like is that they could be beaten. To successfully raise children, needs to be a man and a woman forming one household. One household, one captain.  If cannot be beaten, not really one household.  So women feel insecure.

They want to be held by strong hands.  If not held by strong hands, will fuck black rappers.

They want a husband who is an oak, against whom their wild storms beat in vain. Women want men who actually have power in the relationship, despite the intemperate female urge to get their way in arguments.

Emancipation was a shit test that we failed. Women demand stuff, but when they get what they demand, are more unhappy

What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship.  But men want a secure relationship, and a mistress, or two mistresses, or two secure relationships plus some fly girls.  And women want a secure relationship with a male that is way more alpha than they are, the billionaire vampire of romance novels.  So they shit test their husbands by making demands, which demands are tests for weakness.  They want a secure relationship with a strong man, and current rules make all men weak.  

Prisoner’s dilemma ensues:  Nobody gets what they want.

The deal that everyone would choose if they could is illegal and unenforceable, except by personal charisma and the potential of personal violence.

Women truthfully complained that the traditional deal meant that some women were apt to be severely oppressed and ill treated.  But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted.  The result is that everyone gets ill treated.  If a woman gets her way, she will feel insecure, and go looking for a man who denies her her way. Because if a woman gets her way, it is not really one household, one flesh, and if not really one household, difficult and dangerous to raise children in it.

The telos of sex is children.   But because humans take a long time to raise children, must form a unitary bond.  And so the Roman Catholic position on the natural law of sex is wrong, for the telos of sex is not children directly, but the unitary bond, the formation of one flesh, sex as an expression, the primary expression, of erotic love.  Hence wife goggles.   And because a ship must have one captain, because raising children requires a single household, sex is also an expression of female submission and male domination.  More so for women than for men.  Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination.   Hence men look at women’s boobs while women shit test men.  Women want to be taken, want to be commanded to submit to sex.  They really hate this affirmative consent stuff.

If one household, then husband has sex whenever he feels like.  If husband begs wife for permission every night, not one flesh, hence not a safe environment to raise children, hence women do not really like it. Moment to moment consent is a shit test.  Women demand it, but if they get it, they really hate it.

If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex.  Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond.   A safe place to raise children in.  They both want it and neither can get it.

The type of relationship women need is illegal, not because women didn’t like it, but because they think they don’t like it. They struggle against it, but that is to test the strength of the husband, not because they actually don’t like it.  They think they don’t like it so that they will only submit to a worthy man, but under current rules, no man is worthy.

Women were not fooled on manipulated into asking for this.  It is what they really asked for, and what they think they really want. It is in the nature of a woman to rebel against a man.  But if she successfully rebels, she loses interest in that man.  He completely ceases to exist for her.  She forgets that he ever existed.

So women only see men that dominate them and push them around, they are completely blind to the current American reality where women walk over men all the time as if they were carpets. Hence the common complaint that men continually interrupt, talk over, and ignore women, when in fact it is the other way around.

If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.

If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.

If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.

If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.

Ellifritz studied 1800 actual gunfights.

His study produced the seemingly absurd conclusion that the handgun most effective in stopping people, in resolving a gunfight to the shooters satisfaction, was by many reasonable measures the .22, a conclusion he was profoundly reluctant to accept.

Now obviously if you do a Mythbuster type experiment, put the gun in a vice, aim it at a block of gelatine, any other handgun will do a whole lot more damage to the gelatine than a .22, and by some reasonable measures the heavier bullets were more effective – but if you want a one shot stop, .22 is head and shoulders above the rest.

So what might be different when it is man on man?

Well consider the most studied combat of recent times. Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head onto the concrete, Zimmerman killed Martin with one shot directly through the heart. Obviously what mattered was not the gun but the man. What mattered was that Zimmerman was so well practiced he could put his bullet on target while blind and severely distracted.

Now, what is the cartridge that people practice with the most?

It is the .22 LR.

Thus the most likely explanation for Ellifritz’s seemingly absurd results is that stopping power depends on practice a whole lot more than it depends on the gun or the cartridge. So you should buy the gun you are most comfortable practicing with and have the most fun practicing with.

I would interpret his results as indicating that there were a higher proportion of expert shooters wielding a .22, hence the large number of one shot stops and deadly shootings, but that .22 was significantly less effective in the hands of a inexpert shooter who relies on spray and pray.

Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.

It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.

It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.

Follows from the poster girl principle. If poster girls suck then every other girl sucks as badly or worse. For example for example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists. Emmett Till was not lynched, nor killed for whistling at a white woman, therefore there are no examples of blacks being lynched in an obviously unjust fashion, or with reckless disregard for justice.

Earlier I posted this argument, but the early version neglects to mention the internal evidence from the Rolling Stone editors that they knew their rape story was unlikely to be true, went looking for something better, could not find it.

In 2015 Rolling Stone issued an apology for their “Rape on Campus” story. Their investigating reporter saw lots of red flags, that would have convinced any reasonable person that the rape accusation was false, and that going ahead with the story was likely to blow up in their faces, but they decided to go ahead with the story anyway. Deep within the apology there is a guilty line that I missed the first time around, and everyone seemingly missed. After encountering lots of horrid red flags that made it glaringly obvious that it was a really bad idea to pursue this story, that the complainant was lying through her teeth

That summer, Erdely began interviewing multiple UVA assault survivors.

In other words, there was a whole big pile of University of Virginia “Assault Survivors”, but all their stories sucked even worse than Jackie Coakley’s story, so they wound up going with Jackie Coakley’s story for lack of anything better. They were determined to do a rape on campus story about evil white males. They knew, consciously or subconsciously, that the story they had was false, but despite looking around, despite having lots of other “Assault Survivors”, could not find anything better.

In the “Rape on Campus” story Jackie Coakley, the supposed rape victim, lied to the reporter Erdeley, and it rapidly became obvious that she was lying. Erdeley lied to her editors, and her editors lied to the readers. The editors falsely led the reader to believe that Ryan Duffin, the love interest that Jackie Coakley was catfishing with her rape story, had been interviewed, thereby making the story seem as if it had not come from a single source, that Jackie Coakley’s story had supposedly been checked with the other people supposedly involved in that story. That the editors lied indicates mens rea, that they knew this was a mighty weak story and needed some creativity to make it seemingly credible.

In the original story Rolling Stone tells us:

a “shitshow” predicted by her now-former friend Randall, who, citing his loyalty to his own frat, declined to be interviewed.

Implying that they sought out witnesses and encountered the male wall of solidarity protecting rapists and penalizing rape victims. In actual fact, the editors knew full well that “Randal” (real name Ryan Duffin, the man that Jackie Coakley was catfishing in an unsuccessful campaign to get him to sleep with her) had not declined to be interviewed, because they had not attempted to interview him. Had they attempted to interview him, would have learned much that was inconsistent with Jackie Coakley’s story.

The magazine knew from the beginning that Jackie Coakley’s story was not credible, went looking for someone with a more credible story, decided to stick with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, rape complainants with a more credible story than Jackie Coakley are rare or nonexistent.

This is the same argument I made previously, but this time with internal evidence from the magazine that they knew their story was weak and went looking for something better.

At the time of the article, the University of Virginia had not expelled a single student for sexual assault, therefore if any of these “Assault Survivors” were credible, they would be telling pretty much the same story as Jackie Coakley. Therefore, every single one of them was even less credible than Jackie Coakley, and we can see the mens rea that the editors knew that Jackie Coakley was not credible.

Scott Alexander argues against the poster girl principle that maybe there are lots of real rapes, and the person gets convicted, so, no big deal, that the reason that fictitious campus rapes gets reported is because some people doubt their reality, therefore no prosecution, therefore controversy. So, because of controversy, we hear false rape allegations widely reported and fail to hear real rape allegations, because they get dealt with efficiently. But, until the story, no expulsions for sexual assault from the University of Virginia, and yet lots of “Sexual Assault survivors”. So either the university was letting people get away with rape, or else all the “sexual assault survivors” are lying. And, since Jackie Coakley was what the Rolling Stone ultimately ran with despite knowing their story was weak and looking for something better, all the “sexual assault survivors” at Virginia were lying even more blatantly than Jackie Coakley. Rolling Stone was looking for a more credible story, looked at all the other “sexual assault survivors”, did not find what it was looking for.

Rolling Stone tells us that in the previous year at Virginia University, their had been 38 complaints of sexual assault.

of those 38, only nine resulted in “complaints”; the other 29 students evaporated. Of those nine complaints, four resulted in Sexual Misconduct Board hearings.

None of these four resulted in anyone being expelled for assault.

So, either the University is blowing off real sexual assaults, or thirty eight of thirty eight complaints of sexual assault were flagrantly bogus.

And if any of those thirty eight complaints were not flagrantly bogus, Rolling stone would surely have gone with that one instead of, or as well as, the one they did go with.

Western civilization is a bunch of things that tend to come together.

Christianity (forget that “Judeo Christian” crap, Judaism still has the problems Jesus complained about)

Classic Greek art, culture and philosophy (hey, compare our comic books with Greek statues, then compare with Indian statues or Japanese comic books, and no one except us and the Greeks does philosophy)

Western music descended from seventeenth and early eighteenth century composers, in particular and especially Bach. If you are fan of country and western, or Elvis, or whatever, it still a lot more like Bach than it is like anyone else’s music, except, like the Japanese, they have adopted western music. Indeed pretty much everyone has adopted western music, but they are all imitators and continue to be imitators. Note how much Engrish there is in East Asian pop music. Any music you hear is derived from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from Bach, and classic western music, such as the concert the Russians put on in Palmyra to remind us that the west was victorious, is that western music that is most directly derived from Bach. I think Handel is better than Bach, but everyone in the west winds up copying Bach even if they are punk rockers who do not know they are copying Bach, and pretty much everyone in the world winds up copying the west.

Science: The first statement of the scientific method comes from Roger Bacon, who proceeded to do a great deal of scientific research starting in 1247. Science really got going with the Royal Society in 1660. The King made science high status, so wealthy gentlemen proceeded to engage in or sponsor science, and the pirates who were conquering what became the British empire, who aspired to become wealthy respectable gentlemen, would sometimes take a break from shaking down Sultans for bloodstained gold to do scientific research. The best thing the Royal Society did was define the scientific method, give status to anyone who applied it successfully, and, more importantly deny status to those who falsely claimed to be applying it. When the Royal Society was subordinated to Harvard after World War II. no one with authority defined or enforced the scientific method, and these days the name of science is generally invoked by those who seek to restore the demon haunted dark, global warmerers and the like
Worshipper of the demon haunted dark:

Every year 47 million species go extinct

Fan of what used to be the scientific method

Name one that went extinct in the last few years

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives seventeen impeccably authoritative citations.
Fan of what used to be the scientific method

None of these name or describe a species that went extinct in the last few years.

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives twenty three more impeccably authoritative citations.

Enlightenment “Rationalism”. Enlightenment rationalism transliterates Christian beliefs about the next world, where they can never be disproven, into this world, where they are demonstrably false, which is the opposite of rationalism. For example “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The Enlightenment was western civilization taking a very bad turn, which may well be the end of us all. The scientific revolution gets identified as part of the enlightenment, but this is like Marxists telling us that Marxism is scientific socialism. Science predates the enlightenment in that science got started around 1247, and the enlightenment around 1750. The high period of science, 1660 to 1945, occurred during the enlightenment, but was caused by the reaction, not the enlightenment, in that King Charles gave the Royal Society status, and the Royal Society gave science and the scientific method status. If Western civilization is to survive, the Enlightenment must be thoroughly purged and erased. Eradicating the enlightenment make make restoring Christianity necessary and possible, but the urgent necessity is the thorough and complete erasure of the enlightenment. Western civilization cannot survive the enlightenment.

Adam Smith and capitalism. Adam Smith showed that capitalism, done right, channels impulses that can be immoral and destructive, into ends that are moral and constructive. Thus, Western Civilization is inherently capitalist, and National Socialism is stupid, not because racist, but because socialist. The ten commandments consist of four that deal with God, thereby defining the adherents as a different and separate people, and six that prescribe how to deal with one’s fellow man, and in those six the rule against covetousness is the rule that is particularly and specially emphasized. Covetousness is wanting that which is someone else’s. If you see someone’s pretty wife, and think, I should have her, he treats her badly, he does not appreciate her as I appreciate her, he is too old and ugly for her, if I were to sneakily kill him and take her, she would be happier with me”, that is covetousness. If you think “Perhaps she has a younger sister who is still single”, that is not covetousness. And similarly, if you look at a rich man and think “He got his wealth by doing bad things, so he deserves to be punished by me taking away his wealth and having it myself”, that is covetousness. If, instead, you inquire how he got rich, and think about what you could do similarly, that is not covetousness. Adam Smith explained why the latter approach is usually more appropriate to wealth. Whenever you think of excessively clever rationales why the excessively fortunate do not deserve what they have, and should be deprived of it, that is covetousness, and civilizations end when the mob is empowered to give effect to covetousness.

It is plausible to argue that the key element of Western Civilization, the killer app, was the rule of law, laws that Kings had to obey, and yet, there is something wrong with this story, in that the law in England began as common law, which was not law centric, but judge centric, and the judges were, pretty much, local aristocrats, and local aristocrats pretty much did what they wanted, so the common law was not literal law written down as laws, but generalizations made by lawyers about the common moral culture of the aristocrats. So distributed power, limits on the power of kings, gave rise to laws that kings had to obey, not the other way around. A key feature of Western civilization is that it has always had a lot of nation states, and these nation states tended to have within them subsidiarity, many dispersed powerful people, rather than one king, or one all powerful bureaucracy. This gave rise to competition that mostly peaceful, though far from entirely peaceful, and the from this competition, the best tended to win, and be imitated, and worst tended to lose, and be ignored or replaced It was not the rule of law, but rather the rule of law was one of the consequences of subsidiarity, of mostly peaceful competition between powerful people and groups. The overwhelming dominance of the Cathedral over a multitude of nominally independent nation states, and the centralization of each of these nation states means that madness goes unchallenged. Doctrine goes out from Harvard, and goes unchallenged by reality. Competition made the west great, and real competition has been silenced. The megacities grow because winners and losers are not made by the market, but by government. Housing is expensive because everyone needs to be close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is in the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Decentralization of nation states is difficult and hard to define. Independence of nation states is easier to define and easier to attain, hence the neoreactionary position that there need to be more nation states, and those nation states independent. When we have more nation states, and more independence for them, then perhaps will be able to look at them and say what constitutes decentralization.