The optics of noticing

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.

Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.

The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.

This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him.

Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don’t like having betas around, just as they don’t like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.

Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts are resolved by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all his days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power and status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles.  So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

Tags:

310 Responses to “The optics of noticing”

  1. […] The optics of noticing […]

  2. Lalit says:

    It is a cross borne by all great thinkers of their times not be understood, to be misunderstood and indeed hounded, exiled, imprisoned and otherwise persecuted for their insights. Why do you expect to be treated any differently, Jim?

    This is how you will be treated until you win in which case all your insights will be seen as self evident and obvious and everyone will claim that they were actually always on your side all the way along.

    But you need to win first.

  3. Lalit says:

    If you were talking about Hindus refusing to notice Muslim bad behaviour in India, and persecuting those hindus who do notice, this essay would still be more than relevant. Every word is relevant.

    It’s amazing how if one grasps the fundamental principles of human interaction, you can apply it just about anywhere, in interaction between any two parties, be they individuals, institutions or indeed entire nations.

  4. Roberto says:

    Jim, may I have your permission to re-post some of your content (such as this post) on archive blogs I’ve created? Of course, with due credit and links to the originals.

  5. X says:

    Not coveting means also not sticking our nose into how another man mismanages his property (including his wives) unless it harms our property. In which latter case a law should be enacted that deals with the problem in a way that does not dilute patriarchy. If a woman and her father allow her to fuck and thus become married to a man who is unnecessarily abusive, that’s a lesson for other fathers to look out for their daughters’ sexual choices. Matthew 19 clearly states that marriage is bond of the flesh that can’t be undone. If a father would take revenge on the husband of his daughter, he too should be put to death. No exceptions.

    However this K strategy patriarchy is not optimal for nature. It’s too highly ordered and doesn’t allow maximization of entropy (i.e. distribution of uncertainty). The soup of genetic mixing is not maximized. This is why nature will always be destroying any large nation or State which attempts patriarchy. As you wrote, some males will find a way to leverage the collective to defect by abusing their authority. Our group needs to small and decentralized enough that it can route around such defection.

    So what size grouping should we attempt and how do we defend ourselves against the States and Facebook? C.f. my comments in the prior blog. Any U.S. civil war is a waste of our effort because the group is too large.

    Technology and the march away from fungible capital towards a knowledge age, is making land and terroritory less valuable. Ditto physical control over women. We need now only their eggs.

    https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless

    Jim I suggest brainstorming more about paradigm shifts instead of trying to go back to the 1600s, which AFAICT does not fit our technological epoch.

    • jim says:

      Today’s technology favors the 1660 solutions better than 1660 technology did, and favors the thirteenth century solutions better than thirteenth century technology did. Modern database remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s “forms of action” far more effective and easier to enforce.

      “Forms of Action” were today’s remote procedure calls implemented on beeswax covered slates. The Australian border police are re-implementing William the Conqueror’s “Forms of Action” and this looks to me like the beginning of a broad trend to reverse the Kingly power of judging on equity, which does not work when a thousand judges can exercise it.

      • Dignitas says:

        Technology can be used to help the state or undermine it. Easy to imagine ways to help. Hard to imagine all the ways might undermine?

      • X says:

        Australia is a R strategy clusterfuck. It’s culture is being eroded as is Idaho. C.f. my comment reply to Aidan MacLear down the page about how technology empowers the power vacuum of the nation-state, which MUST BE a defection paradigm.

        Jim you correctly identified female hypergamy as a problem in our modern nation-states, but you haven’t realized yet that it was only never a problem when technology was not sufficient for it to be used against all of us who want to practice patriarchy on a smaller scale.

        Patriarchy was never sustainable on a large scale. The West rose to defeat the patriarchy of the East because manorialism defeated patriarchy and fostered greater network effects (patriarchy becomes very stagnant and regressive if not under competitive forces):

        https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2

        The remnants of patriarchy in the Victorian era were analogous to the remnants of delusions of patriarchy in Idaho and Australia.

        • Yara says:

          The culture of various backwaters is dying because of the giant sucking sound produced by the colleges spending the last half-century vacuuming out everyone with an IQ over 120.

      • Gladio says:

        Can you elaborate on what the ABF are doing please Jim? Either here on on another post?

    • Dignitas says:

      Maximizing mixing of genetic soup is not the reason higher level orders in societal structures decay. Seems a convoluted way to apply the concept of entropy.

      Entropy acts on vertically selected values and social technology that were inherited from a founding population. Without active maintenance they degenerate into people doing whatever they feel like.

      Entropy is behind dysgenics.

      Civilizations solve problems by increasing complexity. This complexity has maintenance costs (caused by entropy). Over time the maintenance costs become unmanageable (if there is not an active mechanisms killing all excess complexity) and, like a bloated code base, require unfeasibly large amounts of resources to maintain.

      Maybe there is something to the way you are using it I am missing?

      • jim says:

        > Maybe there is something to the way you are using it I am missing

        Using what?

      • X says:

        > Maximizing mixing of genetic soup is not the reason higher level orders in societal structures decay.

        C.f. my comment reply to Aidan MacLear down the page. The mixing formerly occurred in a highly decentralized, highly competitive environment of small Dunbar number sized tribes. Nation-states are highly ordered defection paradigms and thus they must create massive amount of disorder. That disorder manifests a the defeat of K strategy and promotion of R strategy reproduction.

        > Entropy is behind dysgenics.

        Only when it’s correcting (routing around) an unnatural order is trying to prevent nature from annealing genetic balance via maximum uncertainty (aka maximum entropy), e.g. the Ashkenazi Jews have a very high level of genetic defects because they inbred apparently more exclusively for higher IQ and rapidly increased that one genetic trait at the expensive of genetics for health:

        https://www.quora.com/Do-advances-in-AI-mean-that-before-long-we-won-t-need-computer-programmers-as-we-ll-be-able-to-just-ask-a-computer-to-write-me-some-code-that-does-the-following/answer/Shelby-Moore-III

        (that link is archived at archive.is in case it is later nuked)

        > Entropy acts on vertically selected values and social technology that were inherited from a founding population. Without active maintenance they degenerate into people doing whatever they feel like.

        You’re describing the defection paradigm of the nation-state, which is an attempt at large-scale order that of course fails as it must. Jim pointed out in a recent blog (he was writing about Putin) that order exists to foster greater disorder (entropy is disorder).

        • Dignitas says:

          Highly ordered systems can be maintained if there are active mechanisms that maintain the order (export entropy). The human body is one such system.

          “Female hypergamy adapted when male patriarchy was highly decentralized in small tribes. Her fantasy to be invaded by the strongest tribe fostered both the trend to maximum disorder (i.e. entropy) and the fitness of the human species through genetic competition.”

          Active system is that degenerate tribes are killed. Giving the vertically selected cultures I eluded to and the eugenics you alluded to.

          “Problem is that technology has shrunk the world and provided greater economies-of-scale for collective power. Thus any patriarchy on such scale egregiously exceeding the Dunbar number is doomed for the reason Jim pointed out in the blog; that the power of technology can be employed when capturing the power vacuum of collectives. A power vacuum means the most ruthless defectors defeat those who want to maintain order.”

          By capturing the power vacuum of collectives I assume you mean using media to shape public opinion? Does ‘A power vacuum’ always mean ‘the most ruthless defectors defeat those who want to maintain order.’ Why is the optimal strategy for capturing any power vacuum unconditional defecting?

          “Nature simply won’t tolerate such a large-scale order as the sustainable nation-state patriarchy, because it’s counter trend to the expansion of entropy that is required for us to even be able to perceive past, present, and future. Defection and R strategy is the way nature responds to such large-scale order.”

          Nature tolerated single celled organisms, then multi-celled …
          I expect if humans don’t go extinct first, civilizations will evolve into the higher level concept using humans like the body uses cells. It will use genetic engineering and therapy to mold them into the parts it needs. R strategy is because of technologically enabled surplus.

          “Nature simply won’t tolerate such a large-scale order as the sustainable nation-state patriarchy, because it’s counter trend to the expansion of entropy that is required for us to even be able to perceive past, present, and future.”

          Nature tolerates all kinds of complex order – Will tolerate complex civilizations if they figure out ways to export entropy.

          “That disorder manifests a the defeat of K strategy and promotion of R strategy reproduction.”

          Again that is because of technologically enabled surplus.

          Entropy is behind dysgenics because there are more harmful than useful orderings of genes.

          “You’re describing the defection paradigm of the nation-state, which is an attempt at large-scale order that of course fails as it must.”

          My point about values and social technology declining in the absence of an active mechanism maintaining them (Vertical Selection) predates the nation state, although it is still observable.

          • X says:

            > Nature tolerates all kinds of complex order – Will tolerate complex civilizations if they figure out ways to export entropy.

            Agreed. The key is that they export entropy. My point is that patriarchy becomes quite stagnant if not under a myriad of competitive forces that drive maximum uncertainty and thus export entropy. We had that in a tribal existence, but that was of very low complexity technologically and socially. So the West actually employed a mix of defeating patriarchy (along with retaining some of the order of patriarchy but it was not sustainable) while increasing cooperation by destroying tribalism while the East floundered in tribal patriarchy. I wrote about this in a recent blog and I also cited 180 IQ Freeman Dyson’s point (and spanking of Dawkins) about the end of the Darwinian interlude and the rise of human technology and culture that is driving evolution much faster than species selection can. In short, species don’t evolve much genetically after they mature, they just go extinct if they can only adapt genetically.

            There are many examples of technology that the West created which exported entropy because they raised the decentralized capabilities of individual humans and smaller companies, e.g. the cotton gin, the engine, the personal computer, and the Internet.

            Patriarchy on a large scale though is constantly under attack by the defection paradigm of the power vacuum of collectives. The technology which is created that exports entropy also destroys the large-scale patriarchy that created it.

            This is why any fantasy about stable large-scale patriarchy orders over millennia is fruitless.

            > Entropy is behind dysgenics because there are more harmful than useful orderings of genes.

            But AFAICT the mechanism is not as simple as concluding that random mutations are the driver of dysgenics. Maximum distribution of uncertainty (i.e. maximum entropy) drives on average the best fitness so thus not dysgenic for the species (although dysgenic for unlucky individuals). The example of the Ashkenazi Jews self-selecting for IQ, which is a highly ordered interference with the most entropic selection of a mix of priorities for genes, lead to measurable genetic health dysgenics for their race (genetic fork) within a few centuries.

            > By capturing the power vacuum of collectives I assume you mean using media to shape public opinion? Does ‘A power vacuum’ always mean ‘the most ruthless defectors defeat those who want to maintain order.’ Why is the optimal strategy for capturing any power vacuum unconditional defecting?

            Collectives are a defection paradigm because there’s more entropy (degrees-of-freedom) in defecting than in running with all our shoelaces tied together. Order can be expedient over the short-term as it creates some new benefit which exports disorder, but over any sufficient time frame order destroys itself. It can be creative destructive that spawns a new higher complexity level of cooperation order while exporting disorder in the small as we see Bitcoin involved in now with the jurisdictional arbitrage of nation-states driving a world government eventually. I wrote about this in great detail (c.f. the comments below the linked blog:

            https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless

            Everyone is trying to game the collective. The control over this power vacuum
            is awarded to those who can promise the most defection:

            http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

            This leads to use of technological control to maximize defection and ultimate chaos “failure” (actually success because it’s exporting disorder):

            https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/regulation/senator-mark-warner-proposes-the-end-of-free-speech-the-revenge-of-hillary/

            Trump is maximizing defection because he enables conservatives to believe they are defecting from the liberals. And he drives the liberals to defect violently from the conservatives. This is setting up the collapse of the USA into regions clustered around ideologies. Thus extorting more entropy. While Trump is also helping to drive the NWO with his tariffs as I explained in detail here:

            https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180812t142803478z

            • jim says:

              We always wind up in a patriarchal order because peoples without patriarchy are conquered or go extinct.

              • X says:

                Tribal-level of strict patriarchy doesn’t exist at the State level.

                Yes States grow their economies by becoming more open economically which empowers their females. This leads to moral and structural decadence and the empire peaks then implodes. The cycle starts anew in another empire.

                No civilization can maintain strict patriarchal order because it’s negentropic.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing it. From 1660 to the end of the eighteenth century England was open economically, yet kept an iron hand (coverture) on their women. Elite fertility was high and rising until King George the Fourth was publicly cucked, and his wife got away with it.

                • X says:

                  Assuming its accuracy, I think it might be a bit of a stretch to use the phrase “crisis of morality” or “massive defection”.

                  The likely reason for Jim’s implication that laws for and enforcement of patriarchy peaked around 1800 right before the bottom fell out and patriarchy collapsed, is probably because as those various accounts I skimmed point that the hysteria over what people were really doing behind the curtain and under the bed sheets was not that much in line with the official charade of law and enforcement. The USA is sort of in this predicament now where we still claim to be a moral nation yet we have no morals. And the bottom is falling out right about now.

                  On the other, would this (“this” being, presumably, private securitymen on the lookout for unaccompanied women) not be the natural result of a radically disempowered state?

                  Agreed that is my point in my numerous comments on this blog. Strict patriarchy is really only a reality when done by a tribe, not a State. If a State is doing surveillance then everyone is likely to suffer because that’s totalitarianism which is the antithesis of the cooperation entropy that is the raison d’etre of nation-states. For reasons of trend towards maximum entropy. And nature made sure that entropy would rule at the nation-state scale (so as to maximize cooperation by defeating myopic local politics of tribal priorities) such that both men and women are maladapted to any strict organization of group size beyond a person’s Dunbar number limit. IOW, the nation-state exists to enable humans to defect on each other in order to attain temporary advances in cooperation. This eventually collapses and must reset anew. Another civilization steps into the void while the other is collapsing.

                • jim says:

                  > Strict patriarchy is really only a reality when done by a tribe, not a State.

                  If police and private security return wives and daughters to fathers and husbands, how is that not strict patriarchy?

                  The tribe, on the other hand, faces a huge problem with women allowing themselves to be stolen by the tribe on the other side of the hill, which makes it very difficult for the tribe to enforce patriarchy.

                • jim says:

                  Yes States grow their economies by becoming more open economically which empowers their females

                  Bullshit. History proves you wrong.

                  An open economy does not empower females. What empowers females is letting them out to ride the cock carousel, and letting them own stuff without their husband or father having final authority over that stuff.

                  Male power comes from the capability for violence – the connection to the economic order being slight. Female power comes from the capability to give her favors to one man, then another – the connection to the economic order being nonexistent.

                  Restrain women from riding the cock carousel – and if their fathers cannot restrain them, shotgun marry them regardless of age to a husband who can restrain them – and female power vanishes.

                • X says:

                  History proves you wrong.

                  Cite history. Even a read about patriarchy under Rome exemplifies that females had more freedom and rights than they did in the tribal, strict patriarchy backwaters outside of Rome.

                  You’re viewing civilization only through the lens of warfare and not also economics. Rome prospered because the warfare (booty for the soldiers conquering new lands) opened up travel, road networks, and communication. This was diluting strict tribal patriarchy.

                  Your overly simplistic, myopic narrative “model” of civilization is flawed.

                • jim says:

                  > > History proves you wrong.

                  > Cite history. Even a read about patriarchy under Rome exemplifies that females had more freedom and rights than they did in the tribal, strict patriarchy backwaters outside of Rome.

                  Marriage Cum Manu was the same thing as British coverture, which is patriarchy on steroids. Roman elite was unable to reproduce successfully because they gave females too much freedom and rights. That was not being an advanced society, that was decadence and social decay. Athens in its greatness was no backwater, and gave women no rights. Greek Greatness was the march of Xenophon’s ten thousand, who treated women as absolutely property. Britain in the greatness of empire and the industrial revolution had coverture, which gave wives no freedom and no rights, and which in Australia manifested as repression of women so forceful it would make the Taliban blush.

                  Great civilizations are harshly patriarchal during their ascent (Xenophon’s ten thousand), grant women freedom and rights shortly before they begin their decline (Sparta, Rome).

                  The elite of a harshly patriarchal people reproduces rapidly, resulting in a struggle for state and quasi statal jobs, which frequently results in expansion and conquest, as the elite seeks to create more state and quasi statal jobs for its excessively numerous offspring. When it takes this form, you get a rising and expanding civilization, energetic and dynamic.

                  When you grant women rights, the elite fails to reproduce (Rome, Sparta), resulting in endless waves of replacement by outsiders (Roman Empire) and your people, your culture, and your civilization eventually disappear.

                • jim says:

                  Roman marriage cum manu was the same thing as British marriage with coverture: Patriarchy on steroids.

                  Coverture ends. British decline begins. Cum Manu ends, Roman decline begins.

                  It really is that simple.

                • X says:

                  Jim the Hajnal line that formed white civilization is a fact. Women delayed childbirth because conditions were harsh and both men and women had to work hard. This reliance on women was an empowerment of them. On the West of the Hajnal line people had to strive very hard to survive because before the Black Death there was an oversupply labor. After that, the culture of hard work and both males and females working (and the white preference for cooperation) had been firmly entrenched in our culture and probably also genetics.

                  So the rise of the agricultural revolution (which started much earlier than your 200 year delay with devoting arable land to work/travel horses rather than meat that would be eaten as was the case in the East) and that formed an “Internet” of travel and commerce that gave rise to all the technological advance.

                  The point is you can’t have one without the other. Strict patriarchy was clung to but necessarily declining (under the covers and behind the cloak of privacy) while the State was growing.

                  So what comes now is dissolution of the nation-states and back to the chaos of 1000s of tribes where indeed the leftists will perish. And from that will rise anew a NWO. I provided an important link for you in my new post in your recent blog:

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/and-another-one-bites-the-dust/#comment-1876730

                  Sorry I am too busy programming to have a detailed debate right now. Anyone with an IQ over 130 who can program well and wants to make a lot of money and work on a cryptocurrency, please contact me. I have funds.

                • jim says:

                  Whig history.

                  Eighteenth century England was as patriarchal as it gets.

                  Progs rewrite history to link progressivism “social progress” with technological progress, but in fact it is the other way around. We get technological and economic progress, when “social progress” is rolled back, as it was rolled back in the restoration.

                • X says:

                  Jim you seem to be missing my point.

                  Patriarchy is a phenomenon in the small. As cooperation scales up, entropy requires that there’s more opportunity to defect on the collective and more opportunity cost to not defect from it.

                  As a historian looking back at the USA today, you could cite the 99% conviction rate and conclude our society was lawful, but you would have a gaping hole in your understanding.

                  The truth was very likely that there was a fierce battle going on to maintain patriarchy and it was naturally falling into the defect-defection of entropy in the large. Only small things remain highly ordered, because many small ordered things are actually highly disordered on the large perspective.

                  To maintain strict patriarchy at large scale would require totalitarianism, and you would not like that outcome. But you don’t only get good dictators. Build that structure/inertia and you will regret it. Because again strict patriarchy in the large is negentropic. So nature will destroy it one way or the other.

                  Mark my words and observe the outcome of the collapse of Western nation-states into chaos. I am referring to my comments in your most recent blog about Australia.

                • jim says:

                  > Patriarchy is a phenomenon in the small. As cooperation scales up, entropy requires that there’s more opportunity to defect on the collective and more opportunity cost to not defect from it.

                  I get your point. The solution is simple and effective, and was implemented in the late seventeenth century, the eighteenth century, and the early nineteenth century.

                  You just don’t let unsupervised women loose. You don’t let them earn money, rent housing, owned housing, and the like, except that their male guardian signs off on it. In many locations, unaccompanied women are assumed to be whores, and treated accordingly. Moderate violence against whores and pimps is socially acceptable. Respectable women therefore find their movements and activities restricted, unless accompanied.

                  Defectors are whores and pimps. A certain amount of pimping and whoring is allowed, or quietly ignored, but whores and pimps are thoroughly and efficiently excluded from civilized society. A woman just cannot rent an apartment without her guardian, except it is a bawdy house, and the number of bawdy houses is small, they are notorious, and only tolerated in a few infamous locations.

                  The state and the society maintain a level of public and private violence, official and unofficial violence, against whores and pimps sufficiently to keep their numbers down to tolerable levels, and sufficient to thoroughly exclude them from civilized society.

                  That solution scales just fine. So in a large society we have anonymous whores? No problem, they can get anonymous beatings.

                  If the keeper of a boarding house allows her female tenants to rent without proper male supervision, or to have male guests, then she is apt to be redefined as a the keeper of a house of ill repute, and she, her property rights, her guests, and her person, are subject to official state penalties, or granted a substantially lesser level of state and social protection, or both. State and society let the pimps and the whores beat each other up and rob each other, and are not too worried when respectable folk mistreat pimps and whores, plus the state fines them, taxes them, from time to time imprisons them, or runs them out of town.

                  Under eighteenth century rules, if Marie Curie were to address the Royal Society about radium without the supervision of her husband, she is a whore, and no one worries much if she gets beaten and robbed. If you a whore, occupational hazard.

                  Scales just fine. Make sure Marie Curie gets the beating she deserves after addressing the Royal Society, Florence Nightingale gets robbed, gang banged and roughed up after visiting the hotel room of wealthy gentlemen late at night, and Florence Nightingale’s landlady gets run out of town and loses her boarding house. Problem solved. Solution to problem scales.

                • X says:

                  I accidentally replied outdented one level. Hope you saw it.

                  Also I want to add that the timing of 1801 pointed out in your blog When the rot set in corresponded to the maturation of the first Industrial Revolution.

                  So of course increased technology created more freedom and opportunities for both men and women to defect from strict patriarchy.

                  The Luddites phenomenon may have been actually an not to retain cottage industry for economic reasons but also to retain strict patriarchy because again strict patriarchy works when patriarchs have economic power and control around their locale.

                • jim says:

                  We can tell the exact year the rot set in from the fertility rate. It set in with the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline, which instantly started a collapse of elite fertility.

                  Defection all right, but absolutely nothing to do with the industrial revolution. If it had something to do with the industrial revolution, the transition would have been more gradual.

                • X says:

                  We can tell the exact year the rot set in from the fertility rate […] If it had something to do with the industrial revolution, the transition would have been more gradual.

                  The defection I was alluding to was premarital sex and men disrespecting patriarchy by sneaking a little nooky when the father wasn’t seeing what his daughter was doing while she was away from the cottage working or gathering eggs from the barn. Also the increased travel I cited in a prior post of mine means more non-local men around to stimulate the female hypergamy lust behind the barn.

                  What Caroline ostensibly accomplished was to legitimize divorce and female control over their sexual choices, so that women could openly snub arranged marriages and pursue more openly their hypergamy instincts of birth control so they can ride the PUA Jeremy Meeks “alphamale” wannabee dick carousal which of course as you have eloquently explained in your blogs, thus leads to being childless at age 30 in some cases.

                  So the defection began long before the official and open rot cratered to the natural rot that was stimulated by the changes in the modern technological world.

                • jim says:

                  Historically, the detection was King George the fourth sleep with the wives of aristocrats, followed by Victorianism, where Victorianism consisted of the priestly class claiming that women would never do anything wrong.

                • X says:

                  To maintain strict patriarchy at large scale would require totalitarianism, and you would not like that outcome. But you don’t only get good dictators. Build that structure/inertia and you will regret it. Because again strict patriarchy in the large is negentropic. So nature will destroy it one way or the other.

                  Mark my words and observe the outcome of the collapse of Western nation-states into chaos. I am referring to my comments in your most recent blog about Australia.

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/eu-considering-requiring-a-broadcaster-license-to-have-youtube-channel/

                  CNN is becoming an Orwellian Ministry of “Truth”:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/cnn-has-been-caught-at-creating-fake-news-everyone-else-is-pointing-the-finger-at-them/

                • X says:

                  Historically, the de[f]ection was King George the fourth sleep with the wives of aristocrats, followed by Victorianism, where Victorianism consisted of the priestly class claiming that women would never do anything wrong.

                  Until you can provide unequivocal, irrefutable forensic evidence to support your position that only nobility were undergoing a sexual revolution while the masses blithely pursued strict patriarchy, I am going to claim you were not there and you do not know what was actually happening under the bed covers and behind the barns.

                  You did not observe history. You were not there. What King George was doing under the bed sheets was indicative of what everyone was doing while pretending to not do it. You do not seem to understand human nature very well. You live in some fantasy world that AFAICT only exists in your mind.

                  You cite some books and official records of laws and what not but not our official statistics on climate and global warming are political manipulated because of a holiness spiral. So why wouldn’t we have that sort of phenomenon going on at other times in human history. Human nature never changes. I have used the example of 99% conviction rate in the USA now as not being indicative of a lawful society.

                  I think that is unbelievable that only the nobility were undergoing sexual revolution and the suddenly everything changed just because a King divorced. The transformation of society is always an insidious process that goes for a while before becoming acute.

                • jim says:

                  > Until you can provide unequivocal, irrefutable forensic evidence to support your position that only nobility were undergoing a sexual

                  Not my contention.

                  My contention is that strict patriarchy was generally in effect until George the fourth started fucking the wives of aristocrats, and the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline was the turning point when patriarchy was ditched, or, which comes to same thing, the turning point when the lustful nature of women was denied.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It set in with the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline, which instantly started a collapse of elite fertility.

                  Just as the wise men of King Ahasuerus predicted in the Book of Esther. X demonstrates that intelligence is no substitute for wisdom.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim. I got into some arguments outside this site and researched the issue of manus marriage vs Jewish marriage further. I was trying to understand the overall Jewish perspective as it developed over time.

                  In particular, researched the issue of betrothal/kidushin, i.e. “thoroughness of ownership”/”consecration” (using Yerushalmi, Bavli, and Maimonides’ Mishne Torah, and some online writings on Roman law). Data is aggregated in the table, a la Turchin’s “cliodynamics”

                  The (absolute) King’s case is special, because he can contract and force all kinds of betrothals, ranging from cum manu / traditional marriage to the the type that allows mere sexual gratification without any offspring. The information is to illustrate my previous post, and give more information on pilegesh marriage, which many confuse with its sub-type, concubinage. In actuality, pilegesh (not necessarily in the Torah, but certainly, from the time of Talmud) corresponds to sine manu marriage, i.e. no fault marriage/divorce with a potential contract. The most important distinction between all these marriages and the modern marriage is the issue of custody of children.

                  Today, children born to a father are not so much his but the state’s, via the mother as the trustee. Hence, modern marriage is much closer to contubernium than to pilegesh. Certainly, not traditional Roman elite cum manu or Jewish marriage.

                  Modern Jewish marriage (even Orthodox) is dangerously being degraded towards contubernium — bonding of slaves.

                  In summary: historically, Bronze and Iron Age Israelite marriage was cum manu and sine manu concubinium. Then, Talmud came into scene and allowed for existence of sine manu marriage, though it was still more of a theoretic construct AFAIK, even though one can see additional criteria that allow a woman to exit marriage. It was only during Maimonides’ that Jewish cum manu marriage was officially relaxed to being very close to sine manu, albeit communal enforcement and external realities kept things under control.

                  As soon, as Jewish Enlightenment began spreading and, especially, when the state started stepping into communal affairs (which all modern states do, and Soviet Union did so very, very extensively) traditional Jewish marriage (cum manu) began to get gettoized to Charedi/Ultra-Orthodox enclaves, outside of SU, where anti-semitism was government driven.

                  Table is here:
                  https://imgur.com/a/TYr9ME3

                • jim says:

                  Thank you very much.

                  I needed this information.

                  The solution for Jews is that Judaism needs to return from exile. Israel needs to become Jewish, rather than progressive. That will also get Judaism out of our hair. Remaining Jews will over time become temple Jews, or become progressive Jews without Jewish grandchildren. Exile Judaism has an inherent tendency to bitterness, envy and covetousness, hating those who are not in exile. Exile does that to people, and exile has not truly ended until you rebuild the temple.

                  Temple Judaism will revive traditional Jewish marriage, because there is a seed of life in that tradition.

                  The solution for us is more difficult, as our traditions have been rather more thoroughly extirpated, starting with Romance.

                  You need to build a magnificent temple. As Solomon’s temple copied the Greek Temples, only more so, you need to copy the Cathedrals, only use steel instead of stone so that you can make it even bigger and even more impressive. You could leave the Muslim Mosque underneath in the parking lot to demonstrate respect for guests, strangers, and outsiders, or rebuild it into the holy of holies. And shoot the Israeli supreme court.

                  We are going to have to build a Cathedral on what remains of Harvard after the stormtroopers have been through it, which is likely to be more difficult and unpleasant.

                • jim says:

                  Clarification on “Partial Betrothal”

                  Women gets pregnant. Husband has to marry her. At that point, can the wife still whimsically get out?

                  Or are they bound together once children appear?

                • Eli says:

                  @jim:
                  I think Solomon’s Temple was more like Ain Dara Temple rather than Greek ones, of later period. Maybe you mean the Second Temple?

                  Let me reiterate that, effectively Jewish marriage until early medieval times was closer to cum manu than sine manu, and this includes the Talmudic period 1st-5th centuries. Hence “partial betrothal” was really full betrothal. “Pilegesh” always refers to a concubine, a slave, in the Tanakh, and she was unlikely to be freed, although Talmud makes it incumbent for the owner to marry a Jewish maidservant, if he obtains one. Of course, he can probably stipulate in the agreement that, if he frees her, she is free to leave (hence “partial betrothal”), but I don’t know how often it happened.

                  Anyway, a woman is prohibited from re-marrying for a certain duration after divorce:

                  http://www.itim.org.il/en/after-divorce/

                  The difference between Biblical and Talmudic time is that if the divorce did happen, the father had almost full control over his children, other than maybe killing them on his own (but this can be debated as absurdum, since other than some statements in the Tanakh of sons being fearful of death from their father, no record I know of remains). In the Talmudic period (or it might have started somewhat earlier, not sure), the Jewish courts might have began to hold sway over such decisions vs communal elders and patrilineal clan heads. There are mentions in the Talmud that defenseless youngsters might need to stay with mom *initially*, if there is a worry that their hateful stepmom might arrange for their death.

                  During and after medieval Exile period, Jewish marriage (depending on time and place), began decaying into sine manu marriage. The difference here, of course, from gentiles was that Jews were more bound by paternalistic communities, and a lot of decrees and individual decisions of dayans (judges) were still patriarchally-friendly, even though custodial decisions were clearly in the hands of courts.

                  Mostly, the rule of thumb since medieval era is as follows: boys past tender age go back to father, while daughters might remain with the mother. But this became more dependent on particular circumstances, like how respected the man vs the woman was in their community.

                  At this stage, if we stay focused on Orthodox Jews who decide matters via communal courts (as other Jews degraded to fully rely on secular authorities), there is becoming more focus on feminist-driven crap about “what’s good for the welfare of the child.”

                  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/child-custody-in-jewish-law-from-authority-of-the-father-to-the-best-interest-of-the-child/135BBD29B417A1705AEE4A70BE23760E

                  The more insular the community (eg the Auerbach community in Jerusalem and most chassids), the more likely they are to rely on Medieval tradition, where the boy goes to father and mother keeps the daughter, with weight given according to communal standing. The less insular communities rely more on state organs, to a point of trusting in psychological evaluations of social worker and other such stuff typical of our divorce system.

                  The Israeli religious court is a centralized system, and it is in cahoots with the state and is highly corrupt. It takes a great amount of will for a community to resist the state, including the State owned religious court, whose judges tend to not have skin in the game of the people they adjudicate on.

                  The Orthodox communities in the US have almost no choice in that matter, unless it’s a super-insular community like Satmar, where it might be looked down upon to bring matters into outside. But I don’t know whether the temptation to get one’s way can overrule fear of social ostracism. We are talking about very closed off communities here and my info is limited.

                  I do know one thing: both the US and the Israeli rabbis and satanism are really pozzed when it comes to the issue of divorce and custody. The religion needs some patriarchal refresh.

                  There are some old rabbis who are resisting the feminist pozz when it comes to matters of family, but I think that, overall, the system is not moving in the right direction.

                  For example, in traditional Jewish law, a man has to acquiesce to the female filed divorce. No court or community has the right to pressure the recalcitrant husband. But it is done routinely and many very big name rabbis encourage bullying, ostracizing and shaming such men, if not outright physically abusing them.

                  This rabbi (who might not be an expert on evolution, but certainly someone who knows his halakhah, Jewish law) writes extensively on this problem and tries to come up with solutions, some of which would (paradoxically) legalize sine manu marriage:

                  https://torahhalacha.blogspot.com/2017/06/problems-with-kiddushin-and-hope-with.html?fbclid=IwAR1WFH9i79SynyVVOpMRpQcfi4gHOQVe8lW3hKkQRDw9ngeKlWTql5MooUs&m=1

                  At issue is a very important tenet of Jewish law that says that a woman who didn’t get divorce from a man and gets pregnant by another man produces a child of corrupt status. Said corrupt status will remain on the lineage virtually forever, unless the one of that status marries out (which, if he’s observant, is illegal) and his gentile children reconvert or if he marries a non-Israelite maidservant and then converts her, before she bears children to him (but we no longer have maidservants :-)) — so, bummer. One of corrupt status cannot marry a regular Jew, only those of corrupt status like himself/herself.

                  So, paradoxically, sine manu marriage (Talmudic pilegesh) is a more honest approach. Today we have a completely pozzed cum manu marriage that, in effect, since medieval times has progressively been downgraded into a sine manu marriage, with the only difference that the husband can refuse divorce at the cost of being tortured.

                  The solution is to be honest: either return the Jewish marriage to its full cum manu status or split the marriage types into two: regular (cum manu) and pilegesh (sine manu), while making the regular marriage, again, a real cum manu marriage and not cum manu “traditional” just in name.

                  It’s a mess. Too much poz.

                • Eli says:

                  Satanism = dayanim.

                • Eli says:

                  And one more thing, in summary: I think that until the issue of child custody continues to favor social workers and feminist state apparatus and not the father, it ultimately won’t matter whether there is one type of marriage or two or three. They all will be pozzed and, in actuality, closer to sine manu contubernium, ie marriage of slaves.

                • Eli says:

                  Sorry, I didn’t read your question carefully.

                  When man got the woman pregnant (assuming she was betrothed to him or betrothed to no one), the marriage is conducted. His dick, in this case, is the marriage conductor.

                  The standard divorce rules (as I’ve referred to them above) apply.

                  Hope this answers it.

              • X says:

                The opportunity cost of not defecting applies to men also. You seem to think that men all want to cooperate with each and not instead compete against each other.

                I wrote recently:

                https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-don-t-falsely-accuse-me-of-being-a-misogynist-20180822t133443875z

                My epiphany today. A plausible reason that high IQ people tend to favor feminism (and the socialism which supports it) is because they’re most competitive when their intellect is not able to be countered by testosterone. IOW, they want society to be structured in a way that puts at a disadvantage the trait they typically do not have.

                The ties in with my argument as to which strict patriarchy is a defect-defect situation at any scale larger than the Dunbar number size limited tribe. The males in the society will try to find any way to leverage the collective to put the other males at a competitive disadvantage. The intellectuals politically coalesce around defeating testosterone which causes the society to go decadent in R strategy reproduction with fatherless children destroying the nuclear family structure that otherwise creates a strong society.

                Yet the lack of strict patriarchy is also a defect-defect situation. So the conclusion is that nation-states are also a defect-defect situation. This is why nation-states are being disintermediated now by Bitcoin and decentralized ledgers. We’re moving to a NWO back towards highly decentralized knowledge age tribes. Eventually there will be a world government for that the defect-defect arrangement to replace the weakening power of the nation-states. Nation-states will be disintegrate back into knowledge age tribal regions in the NWO.

                Again I discussed these concepts recently as as username X:

                (linked to this blog)

                We can for example see China trying to suppress Islamic identity and practices such as the veil, domes on mosques, and fasting during Ramadan. So tribes will shift to virtual practices which China can’t physically detect nor regulate. The Internet is radically disintermediating nation-states, and decentralized ledgers are the next big step for the Internet.

                Bitcoin and decentralized ledgers are necessary (so as to fulfill nature’s entropic trend) to disintermediate nation-states so that decentralized knowledge age tribalism will not be retarded by a nation-state structure that was only useful in the agricultural and industrial ages where coordination over concentrated fixed capital investment was the predominant need.

                • jim says:

                  Any argument that men cannot have property rights in women, because of defection, is also an argument that men cannot have property rights in land, cattle, and computers because of defection.

                  Any argument that large scale societies cannot have patriarchy, is also an even better argument that large scale societies cannot buy and sell goods over the seas, over time and distance.

                  Early Republican Rome, Eighteenth Century England, and late Eighteenth century Australia were large scale societies that had no problem enforcing cooperation for patriarchy. Just have defectors whipped, as in late eighteenth century Australia. Protect protect your wives the way you protect your sheep or your wallet. Singapore knows what to do with thieves and vandals. Should do the same with whores and pimps. And by whores, I include Florence Nightingale, and by pimps and whoremongers, I include the entire Africa Association. Give them a good public whipping in the town square. Problem solved.

                  Scales for cattle. Scales for wives.

                • Yara says:

                  >This is why nation-states are being disintermediated now by Bitcoin and decentralized ledgers.

                  No.

                  Cash is a decentralized ledger. There is a finite number of dollars in circulation and no one has a central record of who has what – a man simply spends what he has when he needs – and there is no central record of his every transaction.

                  Bitcoin and everything blockchain is a centralized ledger. Worse than that – it’s the One True Ledger. It isn’t like gold. Gold one can have directly on one’s person or indirectly in a vault somewhere. We think of gold as the original currency of civilization, but there is something far older.

                  Clay tablets.

                • jim says:

                  It is possible to have a crypto currency similar to bitcoin where though there is one global ledger recording what public keys own what, there is no way to tell which human actors know the private keys corresponding to those public keys.

                  A crypto currency where Bob can prove to the whole world that he paid Ann such and such amount, in accord with such and such a bill, but no one else can prove he paid Ann, nor that there ever was such a bill, except he shows them.

                • X says:

                  Yara, really you’re waaaay off the mark. So far, that I don’t have time to unravel your simpleton in blog comments. I understand monetary issues very deeply. Find the links to some of my more detailed expositions in Jim’s latest blog, And another one bites the dust

                  Jim, yeah it’s ZCash and the related technologies which are being improved. I have a blog about Monero and in the comments I cover some of the details about SNARKs and their successor technology.

                • X says:

                  Jim sorry I forgot to reply to your main point. You seem to want to view everything as a simpleton static. There are cycles. Society becomes less patriarchal as it becomes more cooperative, then it becomes decadent and decays back to tribal chaos of strict patriarchy again. There’s no constant in the universe.

                • jim says:

                  Back to front. Patriarchy is a form of cooperation between males in support of each other’s families. All forms of cooperation decline when husbands lose authority over their wives – which was spectacularly evident with the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline.

                  Lays of ancient Rome, written from the point of view of an imaginary Roman in the late republic, early empire – written from the point of view of a Roman after husbands lost authority over their wives, after marriage sine manu, marriage 2.0

                  Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!
                  I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.
                  In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:
                  Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?’

                  Then out spake Spurius Lartius; a Ramnian proud was he:
                  “Lo, I will stand at thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee.”
                  And out spake strong Herminius; of Titian blood was he:
                  “I will abide on thy left side, and keep the bridge with thee.”

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

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

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

                • X says:

                  Jim your variant of “cooperation” is very low-level, inapplicable to my point, and not at all what I am referring to by the term.

                  Cooperation is about breaking down order so that disorder can increase as per the laws of thermodynamics which state the universal entropy must always increase so ordered things must export entropy.

                  Strict patriarchy at the State enforced scale is antithetical to increased cooperation as I have defined it and as nature must have it.

                  Nature made women the way they are for very good reason. And it is not just so that men will conquer other men who don’t cooperate in strict patriarchy. That is too myopic of a conceptualization which fails to account for the points I have made on this blog about entropy.

                  You will understand nothing about why the NWO is coming and for example the entire point of Bitcoin, until you grasp this point about increasing entropy.

                  Please see also my follow-up comments on your recent blog: And another one bites the dust.

                  You’re a very eloquent writer and I am sympathetic to the plight of men, but you’re too one-sided in your analysis and you ignore entropy for example.

                • jim says:

                  Your story has no resemblance to observe history.

                  Observed history is that the militarily competent ingroup secures individual and small group property rights for its members, resulting in a high degree of internal order.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >Strict patriarchy at the State enforced scale is antithetical to increased cooperation as I have defined it

                  Oh, good to know (no one cares).

                • X says:

                  Oh, good to know (no one cares).

                  Nature and its inexorable trend to maximum entropy and maximum division-of-labor doesn’t care that you don’t care. Nature will destroy your negentropic State scale patriarchy whether you care or not.

                  Let’s talk again in 10 years and you can try to explain to me why I was correct.

                  Your story has no resemblance to observe[d] history.

                  Observed history is that the militarily competent ingroup secures individual and small group property rights for its members, resulting in a high degree of internal order.

                  You’re still stuck in the physical, fungible resources ages (agricultural and industrial). That’s all changing now and that is why you still haven’t understood Bitcoin properly even you were the first person to communicate with Satoshi on the mailing list:

                  https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless

                  https://steemit.com/science/@anonymint/the-golden-knowledge-age-is-rising

                  Sorry protecting land and nation-states is archaic and atavistic. You’ve become a dinosaur Jim.

                  Also you did not observe history. You were not there. What King George was doing under the bed sheets was indicative of what everyone was doing while pretending to not do it. You do not seem to understand human nature very well. You live in some fantasy world that AFAICT only exists in your mind.

                • jim says:

                  > Nature and its inexorable trend to maximum entropy

                  Living creatures buck this trend by dumping entropy outside themselves, and well functioning ingroups buck this trend by dumping entropy on outgroups.

                  The living creature eats highly organized matter, excretes crap. The ingroup secures its members property rights, excluding outgrouped people from that property – which property, during their rise to greatness, always includes their women.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Nature and its inexorable trend to maximum entropy and maximum division-of-labor doesn’t care that you don’t care.

                  You’re missing my point – or as you would put it “you’re failing to assimilate my words”.

                  No one cares about your idiosyncratic definition of “increased cooperation”.

                • X says:

                  No one cares about your idiosyncratic definition of “increased cooperation”.

                  Those who are smart enough to not want to be steamrolled by nature’s entropic trend will pay attention. I agree with you that the dimwitted don’t care.

                • pdimov says:

                  >https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless

                  Am I the only one who sees “page not found” errors for those links?

                • X says:

                  Living creatures buck this trend by dumping entropy outside themselves, and well functioning ingroups buck this trend by dumping entropy on outgroups.

                  States are not small, decentralized, highly entropic phenomena akin to billions of living creatures.

                  States are large, centralized, negentropic morasses.

                  Ingroups are only successful at maintaining cohesion for millennia and only exporting entropy when they are small as in a clan or tribe.

                  All your white States are being overrun by immigration and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop the entropy which is destroying your large morass from the inside-out.

                  The ingroup of Hajnal whites was entropic in the small when it was many competing groups because the Peace agreement was signed. When they finally got to the King stage a unified pact, that is when the decadence was inevitable.

                  It is absolutely impossible to maintain your fantasy on some large scale. Because there is no way for a large highly ordered system to continually export enough entropy to countervail the opportunity costs of preventing defection. Especially now in the Internet age where control over fungible resources such a commodities and land is becoming less economically relevant.

                  Never been done ever. Every large State eventually falls into total collapse. The West is collapsing now passing the baton to the East. There is no way to stop that trend until the opportunity costs shift such that Asia becomes decadent and then West has suffered long enough again as a third world clusterfuck so that it can again begin to export more entropy than necessary to offset the opportunity costs of internal defection. But by then we will be a NWO driven by this shift away from fungible economic production to knowledge production. The nation-states primary raison d’etre was to support the aggregation of capital for mass production of zillions of copies of the same thing, e.g. crops and factory goods. That is changing now. This is an epochal paradigm-shift.

                  We can relate opportunity costs to entropy via the concept of uncertainty. We can tie this into Taleb’s Antifragility.

                  We can’t actually do some formal exposition in these blog comments. We’re just handwaving.

                  Btw, men can hold property rights in this new post-industrial epoch by holding Bitcoin. Those who attempt to hold for example land will suffer because that order is dying now.

                  Am I the only one who sees “page not found” errors for those links?

                  Loads for me even through a VPN and kproxy.com. Perhaps was an intermittent issue?

                  I have also archived at archive.org/.is but not all of the comments are captured.

                • jim says:

                  > > Living creatures buck this trend by dumping entropy outside themselves, and well functioning ingroups buck this trend by dumping entropy on outgroups.

                  > Ingroups are only successful at maintaining cohesion for millennia and only exporting entropy when they are small as in a clan or tribe.

                  England from the restoration to the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline disproves this thesis. Social cohesion, patriarchy, order, conquered the world, scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions. Kept women in line, until the adulteries of King George the fourth.

                  Cannot get more orderly or patriarchal than that. No primitive small scale tribe has ever had a system more patriarchal than eighteenth century system of Coverture and Femme Covert, and order was manifest in widespread public truth, large scale commerce over distance and time, and that the lusts of women were kept in line (Until Queen Caroline very publicly got away with misbehavior.)

                  A cohesive group secures the property rights of its members, including their property rights in the sexuality and reproductive capability of women. Because it does not protect the property rights of outgroup members, the net effect is that ingroup members tend to acquire property, including women, and outgroup members lose property, including women.

                • 1. Testosterone positively correlates with IQ.

                  2. Typical student revolutionaries did not come from the high IQ rocket science departments. My nuclear physicist friend is libertarian.

                  3. A libertarian minarchist free market benefits weak smart guys, who are safe from violence but can outsmart others on the stock exchange to almost fraudulent levels.

                  4. My easiest sample of high IQ folks is SSC. They are weirdos with weirdo politics. But it must be admitted that their economic views tend more towards the libertarian, neoliberal, than towards the socialist. Smart people aren’t afraid of competing on the market.

                  5. Perhaps verbal vs. spatial IQ makes a difference. Perhaps the free market benefits spatial IQ product designers and socialism benefits verbal IQ Byzantine power players. But I don’t see the evidence.

                  High verbal, mediocre spatial IQ is stereotypically Jewish: famous writers, not architects. Yet when Stalin kicked Jews out of power play, they stayed out of power play in Russia for half a century. It should be studied more because the whole thing just seemed surprisingly easy, one would think it is not easy to keep Jews out of power play, yet it seem to have happened there quite easily. They only made a comeback when more business activity was allowed. E.g. Roman Abramovich started his career as a street trader, not a Party power player.

                  High spatial, mediocre verbal IQ is stereotypically East Asian, straight-A STEM students. Yet China doesn’t seem bad at all at all this Byzantine power play that comes with socialism. Their rhetorical skills are not that refined as that of Jews, but it apparently works, the Party elites are capable of keeping power.

                • jim says:

                  The Cathedral is highly effective and alarmingly successful in using soft power, priestly power, in China on Chinese. Whites versus East Asians is like Jews versus Europeans. Relative to Europeans, Jews are natural priests. Relative to East Asians, Europeans are natural priests.

                  The conference on the Rohingya was the Australian state department versus the US state department, both using priestly power against each other and on South East Asians, with the South East Asians being acted upon rather than acting. Australia wanted the Rohingya problem defined as illegal immigration and people smuggling, as a law and order problem on the high seas. US State Department wanted it defined as a humanitarian crisis and refugee problem. Each tried to get the other, and the South East Asians, to accept their moral frame. South East Asians don’t seem to be good at this kind of manipulation, nor good at recognizing that they are being manipulated.

                  I don’t think testosterone, nor verbal versus spatial, is measure of capability to use and apply priestly power.

                  Perhaps related to this, East Asians seem to be really bad at game, which is substantial part framing and maintaining frame. Ability to maintain frame is, in Europeans, quite strongly related to testosterone (more testosterone, stronger frame) yet people in the priestly professions seem to be quite low in testosterone.

                  A Jew maintaining frame and trying to push his frame onto you is “Chutzpah”. When a European goes up against a Jew in battle of framing, their styles are quite different. The Jewish style is more feminine, more like a shit test, more passive aggressive, and might well be less influenced by testosterone. Jewish Chutzpah is more shrill than European framing.

                  Trump versus the Democrats in the battle of frame over Justice Kavanaugh. The Democrats were doing it Jewish style, Trump European PUA style.

          • X says:

            > Nature tolerates all kinds of complex order – Will tolerate complex civilizations if they figure out ways to export entropy.

            Agreed. The key is that they export entropy. My point is that patriarchy becomes quite stagnant if not under a myriad of competitive forces that drive maximum uncertainty and thus export entropy. We had that in a tribal existence, but that was of very low complexity technologically and socially. So the West actually employed a mix of defeating patriarchy (along with retaining some of the order of patriarchy but it was not sustainable) while increasing cooperation by destroying tribalism while the East floundered in tribal patriarchy. I wrote about this in a recent blog and I also cited 180 IQ Freeman Dyson’s point (and spanking of Dawkins) about the end of the Darwinian interlude and the rise of human technology and culture that is driving evolution much faster than species selection can. In short, species don’t evolve much genetically after they mature, they just go extinct if they can only adapt genetically.

            There are many examples of technology that the West created which exported entropy because they raised the decentralized capabilities of individual humans and smaller companies, e.g. the cotton gin, the engine, the personal computer, and the Internet.

            Patriarchy on a large scale though is constantly under attack by the defection paradigm of the power vacuum of collectives. The technology which is created that exports entropy also destroys the large-scale patriarchy that created it.

            This is why any fantasy about stable large-scale patriarchy orders over millennia is fruitless.

            > Entropy is behind dysgenics because there are more harmful than useful orderings of genes.

            But AFAICT the mechanism is not as simple as concluding that random mutations are the driver of dysgenics. Maximum distribution of uncertainty (i.e. maximum entropy) drives on average the best fitness so thus not dysgenic for the species (although dysgenic for unlucky individuals). The example of the Ashkenazi Jews self-selecting for IQ, which is a highly ordered interference with the most entropic selection of a mix of priorities for genes, lead to measurable genetic health dysgenics for their race (genetic fork) within a few centuries.

            > By capturing the power vacuum of collectives I assume you mean using media to shape public opinion? Does ‘A power vacuum’ always mean ‘the most ruthless defectors defeat those who want to maintain order.’ Why is the optimal strategy for capturing any power vacuum unconditional defecting?

            Collectives are a defection paradigm because there’s more entropy (degrees-of-freedom) in defecting than in running with all our shoelaces tied together. Order can be expedient over the short-term as it creates some new benefit which exports disorder, but over any sufficient time frame order destroys itself. It can be creative destruction that spawns a new higher complexity level of cooperation order while exporting disorder in the small as we see Bitcoin involved in now with the jurisdictional arbitrage of nation-states driving a world government eventually. I wrote about this in great detail (c.f. the comments below the linked blog:

            https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless

            Everyone is trying to game the collective. The control over this power vacuum is awarded to those who can promise the most defection:

            http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

            (continued in the next comment)

            • X says:

              (continued from prior comment to side-step WordPress’s filters)

              This leads to use of technological control to maximize defection and ultimate chaos “failure” (actually success because it’s exporting disorder):

              https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/regulation/senator-mark-warner-proposes-the-end-of-free-speech-the-revenge-of-hillary/

              Trump is maximizing defection because he enables conservatives to believe they are defecting from the liberals. And he drives the liberals to defect violently from the conservatives. This is setting up the collapse of the USA into regions clustered around ideologies. Thus extorting more entropy. While Trump is also helping to drive the NWO with his tariffs as I explained in detail here:

              https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180812t142803478z

            • X says:

              > I wrote about this in a recent blog and I also cited 180 IQ Freeman Dyson’s point (and spanking of Dawkins) about…

              Here is the link I forgot to insert:

              https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2

            • jim says:

              > My point is that patriarchy becomes quite stagnant if not under a myriad of competitive forces that drive maximum uncertainty and thus export entropy. We had that in a tribal existence, but that was of very low complexity technologically and socially.

              England from 1660 to about 1800 was as patriarchal as any man could wish. That is the England that gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire. Australia from about 1790 to about 1810 was so patriarchal that it would startle the Taliban.

              The British Empire from around 1740 to around 1840 was the largest and most complex high cooperation society ever, and for most of that period, was impressively patriarchal.

              The collapse of social technology towards a dark age is happening in spite of industrial technological advance, not because of it.

              William the Conqueror faced the the same problem with out of control judges as Trump and Turnbull. William the Conqueror and Turnbull applied the same social technology, but the solution worked much better for Turnbull because he had the Remote Procedure Calls over the Internet, instead of slates coated with beeswax.

              Just about every social technology that we have lost or abandoned or which has collapsed would have worked one hell of a lot better with Remote Procedure Calls, RFID chips and DNA profiles.

              After the restoration, when a security guy sees an unaccompanied women, and something seems not right, he will say “May I help you Madam?”, and if he does not like her response, will scan her, and if she is a runaway wife or daughter, send her back to her father or husband – if necessary on leash.

              • X says:

                England from 1660 to about 1800 was as patriarchal as any man could wish. That is the England that gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire.

                This advance was significantly due to the plague creating a labor shortage, manorialism and the Hajnal line defeating strict patriarchy which allowed the communication and cooperation network effects to drive trade, travel, economic growth, and investment in technology. Delayed marriage West of the Hajnal line (which is Western Europe) was because of the poverty as both men and women had to work. So females became empowered by contributing the economy analogous as what further empowered females in the West after working in the war factories in WW2.

                As the book Love, Lust, and License in Early Modern England: Illicit Sex and Nobility points out, there was a crisis of morality in England from at least 1580 forward. The State-enforced patriarchy was undergoing massive defection behind the curtains and under the bed sheets. Patriarchy isn’t reality at the State-level of scale. And certainly not sustainable. I already explained how the economic and communication advances driven by prosperous States undermines their own patriarchal culture, then they peak and collapse. Then another State rises to dominance to repeat the cycle. Next up is Asia lead by China. They too are the in process of losing their patriarchy. Just observe Chinese women in Shanghai. Or Japan and Korea entirely.

                Your simplistic conceptualizations are pure fantasy. Social complexity is far more entropic than you’re modeling in your preferred confirmation bias narrative.

                The draconian and totalitarian technological measures you’re advocating for modern enforcement of patriarchy will only thrust us further down into a Dark Age of massive authoritarian defection where the Deep State elite further subjugate all of us males perhaps even to the point of genocide.

                You really need to swallow a chill pill.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You can sustain a SEMI patriarchy in the modern world by marrying off women young and allowing their husbands to beat them. About this Jim is right.

                  The women’s husbands can force them to f*** them and force them to paternity test. But white people will never really be willing to go full Taliban and thus you can’t really prevent women sneaking off if their husbands can’t scare them enough. The adultery question is where Jim is wrong… in fact I imagine arranged marriage no divorce societies tend to have a pretty high rate of adultery since there is not any pretense that marriage is anything other then a coercive business arrangement.

                  The prime objective is preventing unowned women and large masses of sexless men (modern phenomenons which are disruptive). But beyond giving discipline rights if a husband can’t keep his wife from sleeping around its not a state concern. Gotta allow an outlet for high status Alpha Chads and Stacies so they are happy with the system too or else they’ll undermine it.

                • jim says:

                  > But white people will never really be willing to go full Taliban

                  Australia from about 1790 to about 1800 employed measures that were more than full Taliban – more like full Boko Haram and full Isis.

                • Yara says:

                  >modern phenomenons which are disruptive

                  Where’s the disruption? Gamergate?

                • The Cominator says:

                  We are very lucky that modern inceldom is being channeled in a prosocial way (the destruction of the Cathedral) but it won’t always be that way and these men are still rather alienated from everything. Not good long term.

                  Unowned women go very very very insane and destructive and furthermore women are herd creatures so it infects the herd mind… the infected insane herd mind is why Western women all BECOME “like that”.

                • jim says:

                  This advance was significantly due to the plague creating a labor shortage, manorialism and the Hajnal line defeating strict patriarchy w

                  Your history is bullshit.

                  Science, technology, industrialization, corporate capitalism, and the industrial revolution does not really get going until after 1660. The black death ended in 1351, three hundred years earlier. England from 1660 to 1800 is vastly more patriarchal than the society depicted by the troubadours and in the legends of King Arthur. I would argue that 1660 to 1800 was the high point of patriarchy, the high point of scientific advance, and in some important ways one of the most open and free market societies.

                  And if you want to argue it was not the high point of patriarchy, you are going to have a hard time arguing that husbands had less authority than earlier times. The doctrine of coverture was extreme, and was enforced in an extreme manner. A wife was as much a part of her husband as his fingers, which was clearly not the case at the time of those who wrote the Arthurian tales. Similarly, we see William the Marshal’s reluctant fiancee defending her castle against William the Marshal. Obvious she was exercising authority over fighting men, which could not possibly ever happen in eighteenth century England. Therefore, Eighteenth Century England more patriarchal than the Europe of William the Marshal.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Australia was a penal colony though, England proper did not do this.

                • jim says:

                  The British state did not take the drastic measures in Britain that it took in Australia.

                  But that it took these measures in Australia indicates that it was fine with heads of household taking these measures in Britain.

                  We have many indicators of state punishment of wives for disrespect to husbands in Britain, for example ducking stools.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No argument Jim.

                  I’m not arguing that 18th century England wasn’t patriarchal, I’m arguing that there really was no enforcement (there was no police at all) other then allowing the head of household to beat his wife. Women still ran off all the time and there wasn’t much the husbands could do in such cases. Moll Flanders was more the social reality then the Taliban.

                  It was a patriarchy but one with little state backing other then allowing the husbands to use their physical superiority. And you couldn’t kill your wife for fucking around on you, 18th century England would 100% hang you for doing that (France had the crime of passion exception but England didn’t). You could beat the shit out of her for it (and for lots of other things) but you couldn’t kill her.

                  I’m just saying lets turn back the clock to what it ACTUALLY was like, and not add in desert old Testament laws which only Muslims and Mountain tribes will ever support.

                • jim says:

                  The law of the land was coverture, which was the husband’s absolute power over his wife.

                  Clearly this was dismantled de-facto early in the nineteenth century, and de-jure starting 1870. But I see no reason to believe it was dismantled de-facto before the early nineteenth century.

                  The phenomenon of “hysteria” indicates strenuous coercion, strenuously resisted.

                  Of course this coercion was almost entirely private, perhaps entirely private – but that it was the law indicates that such coercion was legal. If legal, likely to be highly effective.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Didn’t know about the ducking stool.

                  Was a rather mild punishment by the standards of the time but I like the idea of publicly humilating “notorious scolds” (aka bitchy women).

                  3/4 of the woman of New England (excluding New Hampshire, Maine and some areas around the Cape) should probably be subjected to one.

    • Anon says:

      >Ditto physical control over women. We need now only their eggs.

      Uh, I guess.

      You can jerk off into a beaker to reproduce with an artificial womb if you want dude.

      I think controlling real life pussy is still pretty important

      • X says:

        Controlling pussy is becoming very difficult because technology has enabled the omniscient nation-state, as I have explained in my other comments (and on the prior blog). And notwithstanding Jim’s fantasies about the culture of the 1600s returning, nation-states are always going to be defection paradigms.

        If you want pussy, go roaming in the R strategy nation-state clusterfucks and avail of as much pussy as you can handle.

        Meanwhile when it comes to serious matter of male offspring and competition, then you need a strategy that isn’t just BS.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Jim’s point is that your “R strategy nation-state” isn’t going to last very long….What we see in the US is that cuck behavior spreads from women to every group of undesirables on the planet.

          • X says:

            Oh the “R strategy nation-state” will be recycled over and over again. The coming U.S. civil war will be another staged pysop (analogous to Trump) to fool betamales into the complacency that they are making progress, lol. Top-down, uniformly enforced patriarchy on a large-scale is negentropic so can’t exist and never has existed.

            The USA will likely splinter into decentralized regions. We might see some semblance of a return to patriarchy in some regions but this will not be sustainable for the reasons I have explained in my other comments.

            If we want effective patriarchy, it must be in the small, not in the large scale. That is the way nature designed patriarchy. Even the Bible says “come out of her, the Great Harlot, because you are not of this world”.

            • Yara says:

              Props for making me look up a word. “Negentropic”. Awesome.

              The US is not going to splinter. It fundamentally cannot splinter: it is far, far, far too economically interdependent. Your secessionist fantasies are indulgently masturbatory in nature.

              Patriarchy, which is to say male supremacy, is forever and always top-down in nature. Theoretically, a woman gone rogue is a matter of national security, backstopped by the God-President’s National Guard, along the very same logical lines as the application of the National Guard to Little Rock, AR.

              https://i.imgur.com/2DnjgsU.jpg

              • X says:

                The US’s superpower hegemony is coming to an end. By 2033, Asia (Singapore and Shanghai replacing London and New York respectively) will rise to take the financial capital of the world:

                https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/china/china-on-the-rise-how-when-why-china-becomes-the-new-financial-capital-of-the-world-by-martin-armstrong/

                The integrated USA economy was significantly based on the transportation advantage of the Mississippi bisecting the fertile lands and an ocean coastline to West and East. USA served as the conduit for the West to complete the Industrial Revolution and initiate the Computer age, while being the demand engine that drove the rise of Asia with the mutual access of the Pacific ocean.

                This fundamental advantage was leveraged into finance and technology. We heavily depend on the US dollar being the reserve currency to enable financing our consumer economy. But per my reply to @Dignitas, we will lose the reserve currency status probably sometime between 2024 and 2027. We’re moving into period of acutely accelerated chaos.

                Armstrong’s blog explains how the Western countries are destroying their own industries such as EU’s GPDR which drive the technology sector out and the USA planning to copy that which will drive the tech sector to Asia.

                Australia is also committing economic suicide:

                https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/australian-government-has-simply-lost-its-mind-violates-international-law/

                https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australia-adopts-presumption-of-guilt-denying-any-presumption-of-innocence-rejecting-all-principles-of-a-free-society/

                The USA will be torn down into useful consultants for the main technology and service industry which will be rising in Asia.

                > Patriarchy, which is to say male supremacy, is forever and always top-down in nature

                C.f. my reply to @Dignitas

                • X says:

                  > The USA will be torn down into useful consultants for the main technology and service industry which will be rising in Asia.

                  Because that’s where the youth are and the taxes are low. Government regulation and taxes are actually very low. Their capitalism is much more pure than ours Western socialism. I’m in the Philippines (presumably where Jim is?).

                  Yeah we will destroy our integrative economic advantage. And presumably our competitors in the world will help us achieve that defection.

                  Was it Kissinger who promised blue hats (UN troops) would be on American soil (defending California?).

                • Yara says:

                  I notice quite a lot of passive voice in your post.

                  >America’s superpower status is coming to an end
                  >Asia will rise to take the financial centers of the world
                  >the USA will be torn down

                  So let’s ask the relevant question: why is it that American military hegemony is declining, and who is causing it?

                  Let’s ask a hypothetical: supposing God-President Trump assumes absolute power, will this scenario occur? Will the American military continue to decline? Will American industry continue to decline? Will America continue to brown? Will Americans continue to suffer divorce-rape, bastardy, child abuse, debt peonage, corporate slavery, cultural debasement, substance abuse, and sub-replacement fertility?

                  Are these mysterious problems with no known origin or cause or solution?

                  Why is America undergoing liquidation, and who is doing it?

                • X says:

                  Yes it’s just time. It’s a cycle. There’s nothing we can do stop the cycle. C.f. my reply to Jim up-thread about the cycles of States and State-level patriarchy.

                  Trump is feeding the cycle actually as I explained in some other comment on this page.

                • Piers says:

                  Fuck international law. Australia is a sovereign country and they can make whatever terms of doing business in their country they want.

                • Yara says:

                  >The integrated USA economy was significantly based on the transportation advantage of the Mississippi bisecting the fertile lands and an ocean coastline to West and East.

                  Geostrategically, the United States occupies the greatest territory in the world, with vast oceans to its east and its west, Canada to its north, a muppet state since at least the Civil War, and Mexico to its south, no threat for obvious reasons.

                  Economically, I will grant you that the Atlantic facilitated integration along the eastern coastline (not both coastlines — California didn’t matter until the Deep State established its defense industry there), and the Mississippi helped a great deal as well.

                  >while being the demand engine that drove the rise of Asia with the mutual access of the Pacific ocean

                  I’m skeptical of this proposition. “Demand” causing economic ascent doesn’t make much sense to me. England, initiator of the Industrial Revolution, had no “demand” — but it didn’t seem to matter. Vast swaths of the world, chiefly Africa, the southern Americas, and SEAsia, are persistently underdeveloped, and seemingly not for lack of “demand”. The Middle East is momentarily overdeveloped, not least because of its oil — this seems attributable to “demand”. I believe that, had Hitler managed to secure Stalin’s oil fields, he would have “closed the loop”, achieving self-fulfilling “demand”, i.e. autarky. The core idea is that the books must balance. If you disagree, please explain this mechanism.

                  >This fundamental advantage was leveraged into finance and technology.

                  Perhaps. How much and what kinds of technological advance do you attribute directly to economic integration?

                  >We heavily depend on the US dollar being the reserve currency to enable financing our consumer economy.

                  This is true. Every dollar in existence is subject to an invisible tax denominated in petrol.

                  >But per my reply to @Dignitas, we will lose the reserve currency status probably sometime between 2024 and 2027. We’re moving into period of acutely accelerated chaos.

                  By what specific mechanism will we lose the reserve currency status? Military defeat?

                  >C.f. my reply to @Dignitas

                  What is your working definition of patriarchy? Does a nuclear family qualify?

                  >As the book Love, Lust, and License in Early Modern England: Illicit Sex and Nobility points out, there was a crisis of morality in England from at least 1580 forward. The State-enforced patriarchy was undergoing massive defection behind the curtains and under the bed sheets.

                  I’ve read the summary found here: https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/761

                  Assuming its accuracy, I think it might be a bit of a stretch to use the phrase “crisis of morality” or “massive defection”.

                  >The draconian and totalitarian technological measures you’re advocating for modern enforcement of patriarchy will only thrust us further down into a Dark Age of massive authoritarian defection where the Deep State elite further subjugate all of us males perhaps even to the point of genocide.

                  On one hand, that’s a persuasive argument. “Who watches the watchers?”

                  On the other, would this (“this” being, presumably, private securitymen on the lookout for unaccompanied women) not be the natural result of a radically disempowered state?

                  The trick, as always, is making equality before the law real.

                • jim says:

                  > What is your working definition of patriarchy? Does a nuclear family qualify?

                  My definition is coverture, as enforced from the late seventeenth century to the very early nineteenth century, which makes the nuclear family mandatory and state enforced. Also, late eighteenth century Australia, where the nuclear family enforced by the state, if need be, by public flogging of misbehaving females.

                • X says:

                  Fuck international law. Australia is a sovereign country and they can make whatever terms of doing business in their country they want.

                  More taxes and regulation to fund the defect-defect clusterfuck driving Australia’s coming economic decline (along with the rest of the West):

                  https://medium.com/@matt_11659/matt-barrie-australias-economy-is-a-house-of-cards-6877adb3fb2f

                  https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/the-industrial-age-was-about-fighting-over-control-over-fixed-capital-assets-1c1b31d5cb8e

                • X says:

                  Will the American military continue to decline? Will American industry continue to decline?

                  Absolutely because the USA is politically divided and it will be impossible to rectify that until the USA splits apart into regions based on differing culture and ideology. Or if there’s a bloody genocide to wipe-out one of the opposing ideologies. Right now the USA is a defection paradigm with engines ablaze. That won’t change until one side destroys the other or they segregate. So I see years or decades of tumult and decline ahead until it reaches some point of peace and renewed growth. And China will step into that superpower role and take the baton while “Rome burns”.

                  Europe is also falling into the chaotic abyss.

                  We have a 99% conviction rate in courts so that means we are a lawful and moral nation? Not. Official statistics lie, just as they do about England in 1800. Defection is hidden until the end game when it all comes out of the closet, as now and in when Caroline divorced Charles then that was the signal for everyone to come out of the closet.

                  Are these mysterious problems with no known origin or cause or solution? Why is America undergoing liquidation, and who is doing it?

                  The problem is our collective has reached the defect-defect pinnacle and so now we burn ours nation back to at least autonomous regions before we can start anew. And even achieving that minimum level of entropy to build to regenerate will be a bloody and tumultuous path. I am not hanging around for that. I have better things to do with the latter 1/3 of my life.

                  How much and what kinds of technological advance do you attribute directly to economic integration?

                  Network effects essentially drove the agricultural and industrial revolutions in Europe. Ditto the second industrial revolution (e.g. railways) and the computer revolution in the USA. Again we can’t cover all the factors in these short comments.

            • pyrrhus says:

              Patriarchy will be in the small when growing resource scarcity causes splintering of nations, as it always does, even apart from the natural tendency toward dissolution of multicultural nations.

              • X says:

                Agreed patriarchy will exist in the small, decentralized. That was the point of my very first comment on this blog.

  6. alf says:

    yes but what about threesomes

    • Gilberto Carlos says:

      As long as it’s the same 2 women for the same male until death, no problem.

    • X says:

      Go roaming in the R strategy disordered nation-states to avail of that time-wasting addiction. Is that necessary to produce offspring or engineer your dominance over other betamales?

      • alf says:

        Its a threesome. How can you hate a threesome.

        • Yara says:

          One possibility is full psychological castration, common among FuckingWhiteMales, NeoNazis, and FederalAgents, not that there’s much of a difference between the latter two.

        • X says:

          There’s a difference between priorities and hate.

          Also there’s a cost to tasting things that distract a man from his priorities.

        • The Cominator says:

          I don’t hate them but after you’ve had one for the ego boost (which was considerable initially because I’m a literal sperg) they are meh compared to regular sex.

          My best 1 on 1 easily beat my 3some.

          Now back to higher brow topics…

    • peppermint says:

      If you can find a whore that’s fine, but you don’t get to reproduce with your whore and make a bastard.

    • Alrenous says:

      Monogamy needs to be normal. If for no other reason than that you can’t kill half the male population every generation and expect to remain civilized.

      The problem is monogamy is highly unnatural. You will never stop the highest class of men from having concubines. If concubinage is illegal, then every highest-status man will choose to live a lie and fear blackmail. If concubinage is legalized – polygyny – then lower status men will start hollering for polygyny to be legalized for everyone.

  7. alf's fangirl 1 says:

    yea what about them!!?

  8. Green Fields says:

    Shouldn’t the “sneaky fucker in authority” trait have been selected out, as communities led by such men would be killed by communities led by men without that flaw? Perhaps the trait lived on in the female descendants of the “sneaky fuckers in authority” who were acquired by the conquering men, and thus the phenomenon is allowed to propagate.

    • jim says:

      Defecting on trusting people works.

      And it is not a genetic trait, it is a tactic, which people will use when it works. The solution is a more trustworthy elite, and widespread awareness of past elite betrayals.

      • Dignitas says:

        Haven’t thought about it much but my impression is psychopathy is a spectrum and partly genetic – should be correlated with ‘defecting on trusting people’.

          • Dignitas says:

            Agree with a lot of that and the post you were responding to. I’ll rephrase: I think the amount of pain that would be felt by a Robert the Bruce like character looking into braveheart’s eyes after he betrays him -how deeply people bond with people/how socially they experience emotion- is a spectrum and partly genetic…

            Like I said I haven’t given it much thought but that is my impression.

  9. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    I’m not really commenting here any more after the absurdities of the neo-libertarian pushbacks against common sense measures such as nationalising and (pro-us) regulating key strategic industries without prejudice as to which ones they are. This is not an open door to discussing that topic and neither do I have the slightest interest in discussing biology in a community where the pro-biologists harbour residual Creationist ideas and the rest are open Creationists. (I say that as a somewhat ‘backward’ Christian, albeit a non-conforming one, which is itself heresy in these circles lol)

    With that out of the way, the thing that this article brings into very clear focus is this: EVERYONE straw mans; EVERYONE’s disingenuous and EVERYONE exaggerates and misrepresents.

    Anyone who seriously believes that Jim has ever advocated for raping or fornicating with children is either stupid in the head or else beset with a thoroughgoing evil. Not only IS it not the case but the number of very precise and unequivocal clarifications given is not inconsiderable. There’s simply no excuse for making that claim: period.

    But where it gets interesting is Jim’s assumptions in this article. Basically what Jim’s saying is that the people calling him a pedo-rapist are some variety of beta-cuck feminist progressive. To put it rather mildly, that doesn’t seem to have been the case in the instances I’ve seen. On the contrary, the people making the ridiculous claim have tended to fall into the following broad categories:

    1. Traditionalists who believe it’s perfectly possible to woo a wife and lead a normal life in the current year if only the man is alpha enough, hard-working enough and virtuous enough AND he picks the right woman who’ll value those qualities and have virtues of her own

    2. Religious zealots who see something profane in applying ‘realism’ to such God-given parts of life as the marital home

    3. Alt.right purists who object to much of the post-NRx programme being peddled here and yearn for a more straightforward “get our guy in the White House and kill all the whatevers”

    Do you see how I immediately rush to straw men in most if not all of these cases? ‘Objectivity’ is at best a form of politeness, done with tight lips and immobile facial muscles while typing lol

    So what am I driving at? Am I saying Jim’s an idiot for misidentifying his critics in order to more easily refute them?
    No, it’s broader than that: I’m saying there’s literally nothing else he or anyone else can EVER do.

    “White Genocide In South Africa” – turns out one farmer every five days is being killed, most but not all of whom are white, partly due to the fact most but not all of the farms are owned by whites. That’s a pretty low murder rate compared to London or New York, let alone Chicago. Does that mean we should shrug our shoulders at the SA situation? Hardly. ‘We’ should be invading and restoring order. But genocide? Hardly.

    It’s human nature to exaggerate and mischaracterise the thing we’re attacking, always and everywhere, and if anyone seems to be doing something more reasonable and ‘objective’, they’re lying.

    Sorry that it’s another black pill. Back to remaining aloof. Christ once whispered to me that my commandment is simple: SURVIVE.
    I’m completely incapable of following even such a modest, reasonable commandment, but I do need to try.

    (Activating straw man exaggeration mode): times are going to get pretty bad. We may well end up in Judge Napolitano’s public square with government (or rather service provider) trumpets blaring.

    • Dignitas says:

      Ur writing style and thinking style is annoying and kinda fagy. Jim’s clearly right, any man who ‘can’t see’ female misbehavior is a cuck.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Ur shiz all fact app n u talk like a fag.

        I’m not saying they’re not cucks. I’m saying they’re not progs. Their embrace of female piety is dramatically different from that of a prog. They actively WANT a wife who’ll stay in the kitchen, have babies and keep quiet. They just don’t think the manosphere has anything much to add.
        In my view they’re wrong, but what it highlights is how impossible it is to criticise another point of view without exaggerating.

        Indeed you reinforce that view.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          A distinction without a difference. Same as with you and tankies. Who cares about why one thinks he is doing it for when the end result is the same?

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’m not going to discuss the nationalisation question. I already gave you all you need to understand it but you’re at liberty to keep on talking about the calculation problem etc. etc. etc. – just not with me because I have no patience for it.
            For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar, it boils down to this:

            1. Ask any Austrian what their problem is with monopolies and they’ll umm and ahh and eventually tell you it’s fine if it’s a private entity but if it’s the state then they’re violating the NAP. Fine, I don’t care about the NAP.

            2. The Soviets, at least under Lenin, tried to nationalise at the level of the higher order factors of production, resulting in the Mises calculation problem. There’s no reason at all to do anything remotely like that. It’s perfectly possible to allow free enterprise whilst dictating in rather precise detail what will and will not be tolerated. The price of the materials used is of no interest to a restorationist because the aim here is not equality or redistribution of power/resources.

            3. If you *don’t* do it, you get 24/7 casinos, camgirl websites and white cider. Sure you can endlessly fix the symptoms if you want, but if you’re the boss, it’s arguably better to be a bit more foresighted.

            I’m not interested in discussing this with de facto libertarians because you’ll never ever see past your prejudices, which are certainly well enough founded in the current year when thinking about globohomo ‘governments’.

            “Who cares about why one thinks he is doing it for when the end result is the same?”

            Well then why describe a traditionalist/fascist anti-game commentator as a white knight?

            That’s the entire point: the reason it’s completely irresistible to ‘straw man’ people is that that’s just what human nature does. There’s no escaping it.

            This article is merely an interesting illustration of human nature in action. It’s not a typical topic and the actors involved aren’t typical people, which makes it all the more illuminating.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              >Ask any Austrian what their problem is with monopolies and they’ll umm and ahh and eventually tell you it’s fine if it’s a private entity but if it’s the state then they’re violating the NAP. Fine, I don’t care about the NAP.

              I may be an Austrian but I am not a libertarian. I am a Christian. See Feser on Social Teaching and libertarianism. Libertarians would be fine with the worst tyranny and the most egregious injustices if NAP was followed to arrive there. I don’t care for that one bit.

              >It’s perfectly possible to allow free enterprise whilst dictating in rather precise detail what will and will not be tolerated.

              So what is the problem then? What is banned is banned, what is allowed is allowed. No need for communism there.

              >If you *don’t* do it, you get 24/7 casinos, camgirl websites and white cider.

              Let me get this straight. Unless you implement full communism there’ll be camgirls and wheelchair gluttons? There is no other solution but full communism?!?

              >I’m not interested in discussing this with de facto libertarians

              If we are de facto libertarians, then you are de facto communist.

              >Well then why describe a traditionalist/fascist anti-game commentator as a white knight?

              Because that’s what they are. It’s fine that they’re protesting cad lifestyle promoted by “gamers,” but when they start protesting bitter pills about female nature they are being white knights.

              • Yara says:

                >Let me get this straight. Unless you implement full communism there’ll be camgirls and wheelchair gluttons? There is no other solution but full communism?!?

                Lol.

                Jim mentioned that meatspace leftist ideologues were suffering noticeable schizophrenia while cyberspace leftist ideologues remained unnoticeably affected. I think we may have our very own example of psychic breakdown in one Self-Proclaimed Carlylean Acolyte.

                It needs a name. Yeong Syndrome, perhaps.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                If you want to attach the label ‘communist’ to the idea of nationalising vulnerable-to-poz finished goods and service industries in the interests of the health of the nation then by all means, I’m more than happy to pervert that term. The difference is no more important between ‘communist’ and ‘communityist’ as that between ‘voluntarist’ and ‘voluntaryist’.

                I believe one Mencius Moldbug proposed nationalising the universities and media outlets. I suppose he’s a communist too. It’s a profoundly ‘communityist’ proposal after all.

                Fine, I’m a Moldbug communist as opposed to a Lenin or Mao communist or even a Deng communist.

                I’m not going to debate this with you people because in spite of all your protestations you’re all very biased toward the liberty of individuals to do what they want so long as it doesn’t directly violate the natural rights of third parties.

                • 7817 says:

                  “I’m not really commenting here any more”

                  “I’m not going to debate this with you people”

                  “neither do I have the slightest interest in discussing biology”

                  “I’m not going to discuss the nationalisation question”

                  >continues to post furiously

                • The Cominator says:

                  You are not proposing nationalizing quasi government entities like the universities and the media (which the CIA made pawns of the government in all but name long ago) you wanted to nationalize food production.

                  This violates capitalism and freehold and doesn’t work, if you want to make fat women lose weight propose sending fat women to fat camp.

                  When you propose communist type measures and claim reactionary type reasons you are going to get a lot of “how do we do fellow reactionaries” jokes in response.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “This violates capitalism and freehold and doesn’t work, if you want to make fat women lose weight propose sending fat women to fat camp.”

                  1. De facto libertarian QED
                  2. It’s not about making fat women lose weight; it’s not about virtue/sin and it’s not about imposing preferences.

                  We live in a sick, sick society. The morbidly obese, camgirls, all night drinkers and gambling addicts are a threat to the health and security of the nation.

                  I don’t CARE about your 19th century capitalism. The bourgeoisie may *declare* property rights as above the natural order but that in no way means that William III *has to* listen to John Locke.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >I believe one Mencius Moldbug proposed nationalising the universities and media outlets.

                  Who here was opposed to the governmental provision of public goods?

                  >you’re all very biased toward the liberty of individuals to do what they want so long as it doesn’t directly violate the natural rights of third parties.

                  Are we? I think many here would instutute burning of heretics and cuitting off of tongues for blasphemy.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >in no way means that William III *has to* listen to John Locke

                  You’ll find that liberals like Hobbes and Locke are very much arch-statists. In fact, that’s where all “the strong state must save us from private X” memes come from. It used to be private law / feudalism, then it was private property / free market, then it was protect wife and kids from the fathers, and today finally it’s protect minorities against microaggressions…

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >If you want to attach the label ‘communist’ to the idea of nationalising vulnerable-to-poz finished goods and service industries in the interests of the health of the nation then by all means, I’m more than happy to pervert that term. The difference is no more important between ‘communist’ and ‘communityist’ as that between ‘voluntarist’ and ‘voluntaryist’.

                  Look you fucking dope the problem isn’t that other people attached the label “communist” to you – the problem is that *you attached the label “socialist”* to the idea that the King can choose which businesses to charter. Then you proceeded to argue as if the only reason anyone was gainsaying you was because they’re libertarian. Nope.

                  The problem with giving a reactionary program the label “socialist” to sell it better (because socialist is such a great brand name to want to hitch your wagon to?) is that “socialist” has a team and a leadership structure (at least rules about who becomes leaders) – and those rules are “find the evil and insane and put them in charge”. You can justify socialism by making a right wing critique of capitalism which you sort of try to do but if you think the answer is anything called socialism you’re wrong because socialism is poison.

                • Piers says:

                  Of course (((Moldbug))) pushed (((communism)))

            • 7817 says:

              “Well then why describe a traditionalist/fascist anti-game commentator as a white knight?”

              For clarity and illumination that this indeed is the behaviour they are manifesting.

              The red pill is very very bitter. Traditionalists have a terrible time getting the whole thing down, and then there is the constant urge to vomit it back up.

              If half of your tradition going back to the first millenium involves chivalry it will be difficult to completely accept the truth of what women having a sinful nature means.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “For clarity and illumination that this indeed is the behaviour [Christian traditionalists and married alphas] are manifesting.”

                Double down as much as you want but to lump them in with white knights is unhelpful at best and idiotic at worst.

                My point stands: human beings have an innate tendency to exaggerate and straw man.

                • 7817 says:

                  “Double down as much as you want but to lump them in with white knights is unhelpful at best and idiotic at worst.”

                  This is not a defense.

                  Truth is valuable for its own sake and I can vouch as an independent witness that what Jim is describing is correct. Certain traditionalists and anti game reactionaries are indeed manifesting white knight behaviour.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s your obnoxious opinion but reality doesn’t support it in any way.

                • Yara says:

                  >That’s your obnoxious opinion but reality doesn’t support it in any way.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8t3Yyinof0

              • jim says:

                Book of Proverbs depiction of female nature is distinctly lacking in chivalry.

                How did chivalry come assimilate Christianity? The doctrines of chivalry come from a military failure who shacked up with the wiife of a fellow aristocrat and was excommunicated by the Church.

                My theory is that if you are a high status male, you will get lots of opportunities to fuck other men’s wives and daughters, so will use your elevated status to tell other men that everything is fine.

                All women are hypergamous – every single one. This necessarily implies that every single woman is powerfully tempted to behave badly. Best case outcome, harsh shit tests. Worst case outcome, paternity fraud and divorce rape.

                • pyrrhus says:

                  The Art of Courtly Love, as celebrated by poets and minstrels in the early Renaissance, was the beginning of the romantic notions of women….and covertly sanctified the unfaithfulness of women at Court….It took a lot longer for that concept to receive approval outside Court, but eventually of course it did, as everything in Western society is top down.

                • peppermint says:

                  > My theory is that if you are a high status male, you will get lots of opportunities to fuck other men’s wives and daughters, so will use your elevated status to tell other men that everything is fine.

                  So you either do it, or pretend to do it, but you have to say the same things either way to not be a cuck, and either way everyone fears and hates you. Whereas if if was forbidden, it would be possible to not do it and say you’re not doing it and still be respectable.

                  The men who do it are mindless faggots feasting on the remains of civilization.

                  The men who don’t are the ones truly worthy of grabbing any unattached pussy.

            • jim says:

              You are not arguing for some kind of hypothetical reactionary socialism. You are arguing for holier than jesus prohibition, a failed radical left wing program, plus actually existent Venezuelan socialism, another failed radical left wing program. There is just no coherent rationale connecting the reactionary program to your programs.

              • Koanic says:

                I’ve never found reason to read anything he writes. Must be a chore, but I suppose to you he’s a relevant specimen to your specialization.

        • Dignitas says:

          Except Jim didn’t say they were progs. I assumed you vomited up a few extra words and politely ignored them.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.”

            Fine, not progs exactly, but not exactly the hardmen of the restoration either.
            The idea that married alpha alt.righters are ‘cucks’ is ridiculous on its face. The same goes for committed orthodox married couples.

            It’s just a straw man explanation, but don’t get content-bound: the point here is that straw-manning is unavoidable, not that such&such is an example of straw-manning as if it’s possible not to do that. It’s not possible. We all straw-man.

            • Dignitas says:

              Ur an idiot

              • 7817 says:

                “The idea that married alpha alt.righters are ‘cucks’ is ridiculous on its face. The same goes for committed orthodox married couples.”

                Jim is arguing for something more than enjoying the decline. Alpha’s and alpha simulators can enjoy the decline and survive even if they want a family, if they are clever and lucky.

                What Jim is putting forward here is beyond that. It’s the beginnings of a blueprint for civilization restoration past the coming crisis. Men working together instead of all mucking about on our own will be necessary.

                • 7817 says:

                  To take it a bit further, this was a comment from a different place regarding the discussion Jim is having here:

                  “A Reactionary organization is not an enrichment program for every single male. You accept those who’ve managed to “make it” DESPITE the present disorders.”

                  That is all well and good for the present time, but what that is is a plan for choosing who gets a spot on a lifeboat and who gets left to drown. It’s not a plan for ordering a civilization in a way that can be preserved long term.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  See this right here is why I despair of this community.

                  You seem to be completely incapable of abstract thinking. I’m not a super-bright guy but I feel like this is the living embodiment of the “communication is impossible between 20 IQ points” theory.

                  My post was completely agnostic as to the value of the Manosphere in Reaction. Since you’re straw-manning me (the irony, the irony), I’ll tell you: I think to some extent ‘game’ is valuable, but only if it’s deployed in the way Jim himself deploys it, and not as degeneracy for degeneracy’s sake, which an awful lot of people do. I furthermore agree with Jim entirely that pretending we live in the 18th century when we in fact live in the 1960s is guaranteed to fail, which runs me as much afoul of ‘ducks in a row’ Christians and ethnonationalists as anyone else here.

                  For the millionth time, my post was purely and simply a statement of a single observed fact: human beings are incapable of refraining from straw man arguments and exaggeration.

                  So since you, like your colleagues, have utterly failed to understand that point, I’ll repeat it:

                  Human beings are incapable of making ‘objective’ dispassionate arguments and instead **ALWAYS** straw man their opponents: always and everywhere.

                  And if you see someone writing ‘objectively’, they’re probably a piece of garbage trying to deceive you.

                • 7817 says:

                  “Human beings are incapable of making ‘objective’ dispassionate arguments and instead **ALWAYS** straw man their opponents: always and everywhere.”

                  No one cares.

                  This discussion is not about that, and no one cares about your gamma debate points in that esoteric philosophical mind game.

                • Yara says:

                  >Human beings are incapable of making ‘objective’ dispassionate arguments and instead **ALWAYS** straw man their opponents: always and everywhere.

                  It is vital to both strawman and steelman one’s opponents’ arguments; granted, it is much easier and more enjoyable to strawman than steelman.

                  It makes more sense when you consider what conversation is, its Darwinian purpose, which is to A) facilitate the coordination of raids on neighboring tribes, through B) facilitating coordination between the men of one’s tribe, by C) establishing who would win any given intra-tribal conflict.

                  That established…

                  >game is valuable but only if it’s deployed in the way Jim himself deploys it, and not as degeneracy for degeneracy’s sake, which an awful lot of people do

                  Game is a set of dominance-establishing techniques that ten years ago were pretty much totally and complete stamped out by public schooling and miscellaneous afflictions of contemporary post-industrial life. It has no morality. It has no opinion on “degeneracy”. It is the equivalent of (re-)training the common man in the art of war so that he isn’t a cowering weakling in the face of the barbarian hordes (i.e. women).

                  On the other hand, there is absolutely no hypocrisy in partaking of the fruits of the modern world while conspicuously decrying their very existence.

                  >pretending we live in the 18th century when we in fact live in the 1960s is guaranteed to fail, which runs me as much afoul of ‘ducks in a row’ Christians and ethnonationalists as anyone else here

                  What, exactly, are you saying here? We live in a totalitarian state. That is the only woman-related difference between 1750 and 1965. Human nature hasn’t changed. Saudi Arabia, land of the gleaming petro-capital, held the line against woman drivers until, like, this year.

                  What is a “ducks in a row” Christian? Your standard new-age-evangelical-in-spirit-if-not-in-name Christcuck?

                  Ethnonationalists, who cares?

                  >It’s perfectly possible to allow free enterprise whilst dictating in rather precise detail what will and will not be tolerated.

                  With which of the following statements do you disagree, if any?

                  * The man who exercises de facto control over an object is its owner.

                  * A businessman is motivated to produce more with less in order to personally capture the difference, i.e. the profit.

                  * An employee in any private enterprise is motivated to produce more with less only to the extent that he A) shares in the profit, or B) cares for the security of his job weighted against the probability of his being fired.

                  * A CEO cannot efficiently monitor the performance of millions of employees.

                  * Millions of office workers living on the other side of the country do not really know or care about the subtle intricacies of corn farming in Bumfuck, Idaho.

            • jim says:

              Still telling us you are a fellow white male heterosexual reactionary?

              Your mask fell off when you were triggered by the wrong shibboleths, the shibboleths that a cultural Marxist nestled in academia would be triggered by, but that a Trump voter, a mainstream Republican, a mainstream American, or even a mainstream Democratic party voter would not even notice. You are a prog engaged in entryism, and if you defend anyone, that is reason to suspect the person you are defending as also a prog engaged in entryism.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                ROFL is that to me? (I can’t follow the tree structure very well)

                Yeah I’m a prog Jewish entryist trying to fool you all into egalitarian redistribution and multiculturalism LOL!!!!

                Meanwhile, on planet Earth, I can only repeat once again what I said originally, and what’s been systematically obfuscated by the commenting community here yet again:

                Human nature is such that it’s impossible not to attack a straw man when trying to make a critical point. Trad Christians aren’t white knights and neither are married alpha chads but what’s interesting is not that Jim was exaggerating: what’s interesting is that EVEN Jim was exaggerating. It’s human nature.

                • jim says:

                  Trad Christians usually are white knights, as Dalrock reports at great length.

                  Simple check to see if your church is cucked:

                  Do woman speak in Church – do they have a female supposedly not a priest doing priestly sort of stuff?

                  Do they denounce fathers and fatherhood?

                  Do they celebrate single motherhood?

                  Are they prepared to desecrate prog sacraments such as abortion the way that they desecrate Christian sacraments such as marriage?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Carlylean Restorationist

                  CR is spewing typical gamma male spew. No wonder Vox Day automatically bans these gammas once their gamma traits are revealed by their comments.

                • StoneMan says:

                  I’m not convinced that you’re a prog entryist, but I’m not convinced that you’re not. You’re in a bit of a hole here and I’m going to give you a shovel.

                  When we make a venn diagram of “white knights” “trad Christians” and “not-cucks” there is more overlap between white knights and trad Christians than between trad Christians and not cucks. There are trad Christians who aren’t cucks. There are no “not-cucks” who are white knights. But if you are a not-cuck, it is not particularly worth noting whether or not you are a Trad-Christian, because our enemies will not make the distinction.

                  Now stop threatening to stop posting. Keep posting or don’t, don’t really gaf, it’s just weird to keep threatening to do it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Trad Christians usually are white knights, as Dalrock reports at great length.

                  Simple check to see if your church is cucked:”

                  Again this is perfectly illustrating my point: no living human being is capable of refraining from knocking down a straw man.

                  You immediately conflate trad Christians with chuchgoers.

                  QED.

                • Yara says:

                  >Yeah I’m a prog Jewish entryist trying to fool you all into egalitarian redistribution and multiculturalism LOL!!!!

                  Hmm… I don’t think anyone ever accused you of Judaism.

                  Is this the latest incarnation of B? I really have to give you the props you deserve; you are one wily bastard.

          • jim says:

            > Except Jim didn’t say they were progs.

            Exactly so.

            The guilty flee where no man pursueth. I did not say they were progs, it never even occurred to me that they were progs. But Carlylean Restorationist is a prog entryist, and that he imagines them accused of being progs is reason to suspect that they also are prog entryists, that he and they are acting under order from the same person, are on the same team.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I said “beta-cuck feminist progressives”.

              White knights aren’t progs?

              Fine, revise it to “beta-cuck feminist white knights”
              or, if you prefer, “white knights”.

              Trad Christians like Rod Dreher, and alpha chad alt-righters like Chris Cantwell or Sven from TRS are not white knights for heaven’s sake lol

              Again for the umpteenth time, what I’m saying is that people cannot resist straw manning. I don’t care one way or the other how much validity your crazy sex theories have. They’re superior to the r/K garbage that was popular among otherwise sane people not so long ago, but inferior to dogged traditionalism. The idea that sleeping around is a kind of victory for reactionary principles is so silly it doesn’t need to be taken seriously at all.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                CR: “AKSHUALLY, beta-cuck feminist white knights”

                CR tips his gamma fedora for milady…

              • jim says:

                Rod Drehrer is controlled opposition.

                I looked up his essay on manly virtue. He was unwilling to tell us what manly virtue is.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >Rod Drehrer is controlled opposition.

                  As Moldbug said – mpc is never wrong*.

                  Read their thread on Drehrer – he’s a thoroughly repulsive cuck.

                  * Yeah, they’re wrong some of the time – but when they’re attacking from the right they’re right and insightful. When they attack from the left…

    • SoC says:

      No Jim is saying that they are weak men, that they look weak, that everyone secretly knows that they are weak, well everyone except themeselves, and that nobody is going to follow a bunch of delusional weaklings. No matter how loudly they thump their chests and scream, “I’m the only real man in this room!”, ala Viking.

      Many of these Viking-esque married dudes are utterly terrified of placing restrictions on their daughters, rather justifying through some convoluted logic that it’s their daughters who need to be strong. Perhaps they realize on some level just how weak they are. Then they speak about how they are going to send their daughters far away to college where she will be tracked to earn $150k a year. But in order to protect her from herself he will pull a voxday and put her in a shirt with threats that if any guy hits on her then her dad will shoot him.

      It’s all incredibly weak and everyone, except for the weak men, know it.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        So Ron Paul would be more alpha if he slept around with 20-somethings?

        • jim says:

          Yes.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            lol ok…….. it’s crazy. All of us like to think of the world as being organised on some sort of spectrum.
            Then reality proves that’s bs. Here you are, well to the right of everyone on most subjects, yet just beneath the surface lies outright degeneracy and a scorn for stable marriage.
            Sure you justify it by saying it’s an accurate response to a twisted world, but even when you see something functional, you’d rather it be appropriately dysfunctional.

            It doesn’t make you pozzed, it’s just interesting.

            Meanwhile some of us are quite glad there are many, many examples of functioning marriages in the current year against all odds.

            • peppermint says:

              The world is as it is, not as we would want it to be.

              We want to prevent kike Polanski from sleeping with 13 year old girls.

              To do so we must acknowledge that Ron Paul would be more alpha if he slept with 20 year olds, however, we prohibit him from doing that unless they are whores he isn’t permitted to reproduce with, in order to ban competition for extra women, to facilitate cooperation.

            • jim says:

              Hypergamy means that if females are allowed sexual choice, a tiny minority of men will pop all the virgins. Those men are the alphas.

              Alpha is what it is, and saying it is something different is not going to change that.

              My marriage was stable, and I looked after my wife and loved her all her days. Alpha, however, gets to bang more than one virgin.

              Since the vast majority of males never get to bang a virgin, and usually wind up with used goods that have taken more dicks up every orifice than they can remember, it follows that alpha gets a lot of virgins – and a wife and children on top of that.

              That is not a moral stance. That is arithmetic. That is a fact of reality.

              Proclaiming that terrorized and cuckolded betas are the real alphas will not change that reality. If women get what they want, hypergamy means that a very few males will pop all the virgins. Declaring that weak and frightened men are the real alphas does not work. Only denying women sexual choice can work.

              And only collective male action by men as a group against women as a group can deny women sexual choice.

              Reality is that a small minority of men get to pop all the virgins. Those men are alphas. To fix that problem, have to deny women sexual choice. To deny women sexual choice, need a moral ethic that female sexual choice is bad. A moral ethic that male sexual choice is bad is not going to work.

              If you say that men who sleep with very large numbers of virgins are bad men who should be low status, you are attacking male choice. Not going to work.

            • Yara says:

              >Meanwhile some of us are quite glad there are many, many examples of functioning marriages in the current year against all odds.

              You’re a feminist apologist, too?

              Wow, this story just keeps getting better and better.

  10. Aidan MacLear says:

    Addendum: Female psychology evolved to work optimally under the dominion of a man. When young, the father, when fertile, the husband.

    When a woman is single for a long time, she slowly goes insane and becomes incredibly self-destructive. When 20-something women don’t have boyfriends or husbands, you see them booking every minute of their schedule solid: work, yoga, bars, restaurants, all sorts of faggy yuppie activities. Because if they’re left alone with no man to tell them what to do, they feel existential despair and begin to harm themselves. Sometimes, they even solicit rape, like a successful lawyer woman going jogging in Central Park in the middle of the night in 1990.

    The fact that women evolved to like and need male dominance is evidence that hypergamy has been held in check for a very long time. If we had female sexual choice, then women would have evolved to hop from high status man to high status man without losing their minds.

    • X says:

      I don’t know if you were indirectly responding to my comment claim that nation-state enforced K strategy patriarchy isn’t congruent with the universal trend to maximum entropy, yet I’ll respond with that in mind.

      Female hypergamy adapted when male patriarchy was highly decentralized in small tribes. Her fantasy to be invaded by the strongest tribe fostered both the trend to maximum disorder (i.e. entropy) and the fitness of the human species through genetic competition.

      Problem is that technology has shrunk the world and provided greater economies-of-scale for collective power. Thus any patriarchy on such scale egregiously exceeding the Dunbar number is doomed for the reason Jim pointed out in the blog; that the power of technology can be employed when capturing the power vacuum of collectives. A power vacuum means the most ruthless defectors defeat those who want to maintain order.

      Nature simply won’t tolerate such a large-scale order as the sustainable nation-state patriarchy, because it’s counter trend to the expansion of entropy that is required for us to even be able to perceive past, present, and future. Defection and R strategy is the way nature responds to such large-scale order.

      Patriarchy is only viable in a decentralized competition. We win by turning the rest of the world in an R strategy failure. The Jews seem to understand this, as it’s even written into their religion that they’re allowed to defect on goyim.

      So how to accomplish decentralized patriarchy in the technological era of ever more omniscient nation-states (and a coming world government driven by Bitcoin’s jurisdictional arbitrage) enabled by technology?

      • eternal anglo says:

        What do you mean when you say the expansion of entropy necessitates decentralized anything? Obviously, centralization implies complexity and functional complexity is hard. Jim has dealt with this as it relates to human societies in Throne, Altar and Freehold. But the literal physics meaning of entropy, which is what you seem to be referring to as you mentioned our perception of time, has nothing to do with this (except as a metaphor). The fact that the surface of our planet has the sun shining on it allows complexity and centralization to arise from the first bacteria all the way to a human body without irking the entropy gods at all. There is simply no limit set by entropy, at least until you get to heat death.

        I can rationalize your point by assuming that you are talking about something like Nick Land’s Hell-baked concept, but as it stands, I cannot make sense of you at all. Perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms?

        • X says:

          C.f. my replies to @Dignitas

          > The fact that the surface of our planet has the sun shining on it allows complexity and centralization to arise from the first bacteria all the way to a human body without irking the entropy gods at all. There is simply no limit set by entropy, at least until you get to heat death.

          This is an argument Jorge Stolfi used against me on Reddit a couple of years ago when I was too ill with Tuberculosis to formulate my rebuttal. I can now do so. AFAICT that is a macroscopic obfuscation, analogous to Verlinde’s explanation that macroscopic gravity is really an emergent microscopic entropic phenomenon:

          https://steemit.com/science/@anonymint/the-golden-knowledge-age-is-rising

          The model of the Earth as body which only receives net energy fails to model that thermodynamic processes are irreversible (unless we exist in a multiverse but in that case our necessarily relativity-limited perception is that we don’t otherwise we couldn’t perceive time). As I explain in the above blog, there’s more much going on in the information domain, i.e. the Earth is exporting entropy informationally. If we only measure the heat from the Sun, we have only part of the story.

          You may also want to read the end part of this blog I wrote:

          https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2

  11. ilkarnal says:

    I’ve noticed that women as daughters don’t seem to have a place in your psyche. DV laws aren’t pushed by jealous rivals to layabout boyfriends – they are pushed by horrified parents seeing their innocent little lamb being abooooooosed. Mothers and fathers. Having lost their ability to control who their daughter marries, they substitute by trying to institute legal protections. If you can’t keep the child in a safe room, make the world a safe room.

    • Michael Rothblatt says:

      I’ve noticed it’s mostly mothers and not fathers who do that. I’m inclined to believe that it’s not much about keeping their daughters safe, but is, in fact, jelausy that men are no longer paying attention to them, but are very much paying attention to their daughters.

    • SoC says:

      No domestic violence, much like marital rape, are just ploys to destroy marriage. Assault was a crime before domestic violence existed. But now if I sleep with your wife and you get angry at her and “cause her to believe” that you might hit her she can now use DV to have you removed from your home, so that I may then move in.

      DV is almost never applied to a man who actually disciplines his wife. Some time ago when I first married my current wife she was throwing some severe shit tests at me that were serious threats to my life and my family. To which I responded by smacking her around a bit then having sex with her. This left her with a black eye. The next day, after she put makeup on, I took a picture of her. She had the biggest smile and was so happy. At work (this was before kids and her SAHMommery) another woman noticed and, the wife reported back, asked her what had happened. My wife told this woman that she got into it with her husband. The other much older woman said in response, “we really do deserve it sometimes don’t we?”.

      My ex wife did, however, charge me with domestic violence. She did this because I never touched her, never owned her, never dominated her, hence my touch was similar to being touched by a leprous beggar. And my touch was an assault upon her. Where as my much harder touch with my current wife feels to her like a man who will love, cherish, and protect her to the end of her days.

  12. Frederick Algernon says:

    I have this fantasy involving Jim…

    I’m teaching a Critical Writing class. The syllabus is composed of reviewing disparate pieces by analyzing their form, content, methodology, and impact. Prior to midterms it is the typical New Yorker/ WaPo magazine/ flavor-of-the-week pop blogs, keeping in line with typical LibArts fare. After the midterm (writing an essay that counters Maine’s Popular Government essays) it is all Jimblog posts. I know this will never happen, but I find it immensly titillating imagining how proggy college kids would piss their rompers trying to read some of these posts and respond coherently.

    Thanks for a great post Jim.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      The results would disappoint you. Most of the students would identify it as felony hatespeech immediately and give you a standard denunciation, engaging with and understanding nothing that Jim said. The ones sharp and open-minded enough to write a worthwhile response, including an intelligent critical response, would be sharp enough to suspect a trap, and would wisely refuse to engage with or understand anything Jim said in their standard denunciations.

  13. SoC says:

    You miss out one very important reason that most men cannot see the terrible behavior of women. It’s because those women are not choosing to engage in that behavior, with them. But rather with other men. Men that the first group, the common beta male, find to be disturbingly low status. Such as a cute 16 year old doing anything and everything possible with her 36 year old homeless criminal drug addict demon lover. Accepting that the young woman desperately wants to get beaten around and commanded to submit in all sexual ways by that man, whom they consider far far lower status than get are, causes them severe cognitive dissonance.

    This dissonance is an assault on their own identity, their ego. This slight dissolution of their own identity as higher status than a violent homeless alcoholic (are they actually lower status than that guy?) causes them pain. Being too weak to work through the pain they reverse casuality and assign the blame for the woman’s lustful misbehavior onto the man, whom they are assigning low status to. He made her behave that way. Hence we will make it illegal for any woman under 18 to have sex with any man of 18 or over. Which, one of many restrictions, the dutiful men follow. Women see these men following all manner of restrictions, then they see that other man, Jeremy Meeks, and he does not follow any of these restrictions. Hence they see a large group of weak men, and a few strong men, whom they sneak out of their windows at night to go over and blow him.

    So yes I suppose you are entirely correct again. We have a weak man problem. Having spent enough time in the various alt right, nrx, and etc etc communities I will claim that these groups are over flowing with weak men. As are the commenters here.

    Having discussed many of these same issues with other groups of weak men, they always end up coming to the conclusion that they should band together as a group. But not to enforce female chastity, but rather to try to find the reckless bad boys and kill them all. At which point they go back to jacking off to internet porn. Still totally unaware that their put restrictions on all men strategy will not somehow have a different result if they just amp their restrictions up to capital punishment.

    It was good to see you try in such an eloquent way. From what I’ve seen of the various groups who would have read social matter, they are weak men. Hence social matter now reposts jacobite and says, to themeselves more then anyone, “Jim’s gone crazy man… I’m not really low status in the eyes of a horny woman. Right?”. And in unison all the other men say, “right! *phew*” before going back to their internet porn.

    • Yara says:

      >It was good to see you try in such an eloquent way. From what I’ve seen of the various groups who would have read social matter, they are weak men. Hence social matter now reposts jacobite and says, to themeselves more then anyone, “Jim’s gone crazy man… I’m not really low status in the eyes of a horny woman. Right?”. And in unison all the other men say, “right! *phew*” before going back to their internet porn.

      Very nice. You should post more often.

    • rape says:

      When you talk about weak men is this as a relative thing or as an absolute thing?

      • SoC says:

        A weak man is a man who is afraid and then allows that fear to prevent action. Perhaps he is afraid to put a baby in his woman because the future might be hard. Perhaps he is afraid to call out women’s rampant misbehaviour because he fears that women will then refuse to text with him late at night about how awful their boyfriend treats them, and then all that work to build up that deep emotional connection so she will choose him at 37 to desperately try to have ivf babies goes up in smoke. Perhaps he is afraid to tell his wife that they need to get their daughter married off, and start setting her up on dates with proper men, because his wife rode the carousel and if he brings up the truth about women to her, or even allows himself to think about it in regards to his daughter, he will face shocking pain of realization that he is not the high status he has assigned himself, in women’s eyes.

        Proper men here being men who are mid to late twenties, who have a proven track record of success, and who want a marriage to a young debt free virgin or close to, with a strong family backing their new family.

        We do not need any support to create our own mini patriarchy. You do it from the ground up and you do it yourself.

        As far as feeling weak, feeling afraid, worrying, having hard times and often very hard times, all of those are the human male condition. The strong man in fact will face even more of those hard times as the weak man shows his weakness. He doesn’t try. While nothing will stop the strong man from getting back up and trying, again.

        As long as you are honest with yourself so you know where you actually are. You can then try, and accurately, and see the world for what it truly is. A concrete jungle filled with killer apes who have organized a great system of men who lie in unison. And who are not looking out for you.

    • On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog, sorry, I mean, a 15 years old guy. The alt-righter, nrxer weak men you see online may just be very young. How would you know?

      I was definitely a weak man at 15, although boy would be a more accurate term, but healing fast after 19.

      Let me try to describe the experience how it was like at 15 to be weak, from the inside, hopefully it helps. Going to high school. First thing I notice is a beautiful girl. Not sexy – shaped like a stick, but such an angelic face. Fall in love immediately. Not in the sexual sense, other girls I felt sexually attracted to, this one I wanted to worship. She refuses. I try to act like her servant, doing favors, hopefully she notices what a good nice guy I am. Doesn’t work. A year goes by. I hope my dog-like loyalty finally wins the hand of the pure ethereal virginal lady. Not. Once I manage to spot her boyfriend. About 20, I would not say he looked outright violent or criminal, but sort of the type between a rave DJ and a drug dealer, lots of piercings, looking wild. My first thought is that this evil man seduced this innocent angel. Finally I get out of it an immediately repeat the whole thing with another angelic looking female classmate.

      At 17, I am fed up with unreachable virginial angels and want a flesh and blood girlfriend. I ask my most popular male classmate how to pick up girls. He tells me places like gyms exist. I was very nerdy, not really living in the real world, just in fantasy of the various novels I have read, so it was a surprise. I go to a gym at the beginning of a summer break, and come back to school in September at 18 8kg muscles heavier, but my whole attitude has changed, confident, happy about myself, and understanding girls like some kind of a badassitude and if some other dude is more successful I just need to learn from him and imitate him.

      It took a very long time to see bad behavior at girls, though. While before I saw her dating the piercing guy as bad behavior, at this stage I understood that guy is more sexy than I was so I understood it now. I considered the whole thing entirely normal, girls just go for badass dominant confident dudes, what would be bad about it?

      In fact it took me MUCH longer, around 26-28 and starting to read RedPill blogs to think about female bad behavior. It was there that I saw a lot of men complain about bad female behavior. Girlfriends cheating, disliking girls who have high partner counts and so on. It was all very new for me. They are saying, correctly, that women like alphas so why do they consider it bad behavior when they actually fuck them? I was never cheated on, just dumped after about 5 to 10 dates when girls figured out my inner self is not so tough. I didn’t see it as a bad behavior. I saw it as I need to be tougher.

      Especially the complaint about the high partner count of women I did not understand. At least if she is experienced at sex she has more skills. Why is it bad? Is experience good in everything except sexual technique and somehow we should want a virgin because evolution, who has no experience of techniques to please? RedPillers calmly explained that it predicts cheating. OK, and? If I am seeing a girl and she sees other men too, and lies about it, I won’t like it when I find it out but not a disaster, just that this has now ended, that is all.

      No, they said, it is a problem in a committed relationship. Finally it dawned on me that many Red-Pillers are living in a past age mentally. They wanted to marry, often as young as 21 or 25, they wanted their wife to stay at home, they wanted to make enough money to support a family from one income and have kids. And they were really afraid if they marry a whore who then stays at home she gets bored, fucks the neighbor, they end up supporting his kids, and then the woman divorces and they lose the house and get financially raped. In short they wanted to live like their parents but figured it will not work with a girl with a high partner count.

      I was kind of surprised because even at 26-28 I had no intention to live like my parents as both the women I knew but even the world around me financially seemed unsuitable for it. In the year 2004-2006 you don’t simply take out a mortgage (remember the bubble), it is crazy. And the women I was seeing in their “bachelorette pads” were so obviously unsuitable for being a wife and mother that I saw no point of marrying. But I saw their behavior not something bad. It was entirely a good behavior from my angle, they see me as a sexy man and thus they fuck me without making a lot of complications about it. I liked it.

      It looks like the Red-Pill guys really did wanted to live like their parents, someone lied to them and told them it is still possible to do it like it is 1955, they wanted to do it so, even tried, and that was why and when female bad behavior hit them, hard.

      I was about 32 when I began to think I am already getting fat and halfway an alcoholic, maybe time to start a family before I lose all the energy. At this point I began to understand why female bad behavior is a problem. Sure, from this angle I wanted an entirely different woman than these ones. Long story short, found a well behaving woman, married, have a kid. But I did not marry one of the sluts I used to see, I used the experience of my 32 years to select for one for really good wife qualities like reliableness. I did not just marry a slut head over heels at 22 then expect she will behave well. And even then, still not enslaving myself to a mortgage and don’t have something as ridiculous as a life insurance. I just rented a suitable sized flat/condo. It is not 1955.

      So where I am coming from, ultimately, female bad behavior is hard to see not because of weakness but because once one accepts that women like to fuck badass guys, not nice guys, and becomes a badass guy and women fuck him, it is very hard to understand why is it a bad thing? And only much later when thinking about things like commitment and marriage it becomes clear.

      Maybe it would have happened had not everybody been a typical European “apatheist” up to my grandparents and perhaps further up. I didn’t really have moral standards to measure female behavior with. Nor male behavior or my own.

      • Alrenous says:

        Life insurance is not inherently a bad idea. Point one, you can get a million dollars of term life insurance for like $50 a month, stuff like that.

        Point two, what it’s for is literally replacing you, in case your family misplaces you. You get how much life insurance is wise easily: add up your wages * years until your child matures, add in any debt you have, add in anything else you want to pay for, such as college, and that’s it. Despite the fact this number is pretty likely to be several million dollars, as long as you avoid the scam insurance products, you can get it pretty cheap.

        That said, in the age of social security, the need for replacing your wage is debatable.

  14. Boneflour says:

    OT, has anyone seen this piece by Vanity Fair lamenting that Miller is taking power within the permanent government?

    Gutting a refugee program, cutting legal immigration down, installing people in key roles to create a wall of bureaucracy that keeps immigrants out…

    but with no policy change that some judge could call out. Ousting a number of previously permanent bureaucrats, etc.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/stephen-miller-refugees-state-department


    Earlier this week, the 32-year-old senior adviser was reported to be focused on an even more ambitious project: imposing strict limits on legal immigration…

    “By 2020, I would not be surprised if we just don’t have this program anymore,” said Jennifer Quigley, an advocacy strategist for refugee protection at Human Rights First. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 5,000 next year and then zero.”

    “Our government is huge . . . it’s kind of constructed to slow things down and to make sure that individuals don’t wield excessive power. It’s got lots and lots of checks and balances, so it’s really difficult to pull off something like what they’ve pulled off, and they’ve done it.”

    • Yara says:

      If nothing else, it’s a demonstration that the greatest power is the power to hire and fire.

  15. Bob says:

    I think most men of the right will support legally encouraged killing of men sleeping with their wives or daughters.

    My question is, how do we prevent it from becoming an excuse to murder whoever we please? Would we then have to go to court to prove the man slept with our wife? We already have a hard enough time proving self-defense is self-defense in court, so I hope we don’t have to go to court for honor killing, too.

    • Mack says:

      King’s Justice: the right to a speedy and fair trial. Not a trial spanning months, years, or decades, but one of days or weeks. Not one that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, but one costing tens or hundreds at most. Impartial judges. Juries of honest and upstanding citizens (read: citizen is now a masculine word). No judge/lawyer/jury/police collusion.

      This sort of thing is absolutely routine: https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/government-is-gutting-the-right-to-trial

      Additionally, freedom from search and seizure. No asset forfeiture. No cruel and unusual punishments, e.g. alimony, child support, wage garnishment.

      No plea bargaining. No mandatory minimums.

      No secret courts.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “My question is, how do we prevent it from becoming an excuse to murder whoever we please? ”

      You can’t. This is why low trust societies are horrible and have trouble coordinating at levels higher then the local community.

    • SoC says:

      You have completely and totally missed the point of this essay.

      • Bob says:

        I got the point. I’m talking about a potential unintended consequence.
        Yes, my point is not what the essay addresses. I have no beef with the point(s) in the essay. I’m trying to flesh out the practical application.
        If you have a quote from the essay that addresses this, please share. I’ve only read through it once.

        • The Cominator says:

          Bob’s point is a fair one I keep trying to point this out to Jim.

          The other thing is that people close to the guy you killed won’t like it much that you killed him in cold blood and it was legal, in the eyes of the wife’s murdered lovers friends and families they’ll think the wife was a whore and always was (and they’ll probably be right) and the husband was a mad dog psycho and should be killed himself, and maybe one of the family members takes it upon himself to kill them both (or perhaps arrange something on the dark web). This kind of thing can easily escalate to blood feuds.

          My reform would be to legalize dueling by consent, in the event of proven adultery the aggrieved husband could force a duel.

          • peppermint says:

            It’s easy to prove things now.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            The blood feud ends rather quickly when the king’s men enforce the king’s justice on the family looking to get revenge and hangs the offender in public. If the king has the sense to back up the aggrieved husband, a blood feud is tantamount to open rebellion against the authority of the king.

            • The Cominator says:

              Only if the person carrying out a feud killing gets caught.

              I suppose you could kill the entire family and that might really deter things (I think the 9/11 hijackers and Bin Laden’s family should all have been hunted down and killed, and that the Saudi royals should have been forced to draw lots and every 3rd member should have been killed) but that kind of thing leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths even with really serious things like terrorism.

              I think feral women should MOSTLY be eliminated by allowing arranged marriages and making unmarried women (widows excepted) very very low status. I think you should allow husbands some disciplinary powers over their wives. I don’t think you should go further then that. Female bad behaviour can be minimized with such measures but trying to take more extreme measures ala Saudi Arabia to eliminate it causes other problems.

              • Yara says:

                I’m afraid your indiscriminate Saud killing would be not only ineffective, but barbarous as well, as the demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7 was a plot executed by Mossad on the order of grandma’s homemade alphabet soup.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To the extent the intel agencies let it happen (and I’m pretty sure the Arabs did it though there is a lot of evidence the FBI home office, the one that is under such a microscope now let it happen) the Saudis still were celebrating it at the time…

                  I’m pretty sure they did it.

                  My position is not different then the God-Emperor’s campaign position. Trump said the families of terrorists should be killed. They don’t value their own lives because of religious fanaticism so he was right and I am right.

                • Yara says:

                  Five dancing Israelis

                  Israeli moving company van filled with explosives headed toward George Washington Bridge

                  “We were there to document the event”

                  Building security performed by Israeli-owned company on contract

                  Elevator system overhauled by Israeli company

                  Video footage of Larry Silverstein overwhelmed by guilt

                  Who gave the order is unclear, but the Israelis pulled the trigger.

              • jim says:

                If you think that Saudi Arabia is taking extreme measures to eliminate female misbehavior, you have been swallowing feminist propaganda.

                It is just that any deviation from strict feminism for men and unbridled hypergamy for women is deemed worse than Hitler, therefore Saudi Arabia is worse than Hitler.

                Saudi men are as severely emasculated as American men, and Saudi women only marginally less feral.

                Just as Trump is not, in fact, Hitler, eighteenth century English patriarchy was one thousand times stronger than today’s Saudi “patriarchy”. Talibanic patriarchy, on the other hand, is comparable to what British patriarchy used to be. The point and purpose of the Afghan war is to teach nine year old schoolgirls to put a condom on a banana.

              • peppermint says:

                Who would get in a blood feud for their cattle rustling brother who was killed after being caught rustling cattle?

                Cattle rustlers have no honor, no one will honor their social obligations towards cattle rustlers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Got me on the feuds though I’m not an expert on feuds, most feuds seem to be not too well documented as to their origin unless its a longstanding fight over a throne or something (ala war of the Roses).

                  I don’t understand exactly your point on Saudi Arabia. From what I understand women basically can’t interact with men who aren’t their husbands or relatives. Now I’m sure some sneak around this but its not so easy.

                  Iran and Dubai (especially Iran) may have feminist-lite Islam but to my knowledge Saudi Arabia still has pretty strict purdah Islam.

                • jim says:

                  Twice as many Saudi girls go to university as boys, and at university, promptly get semen in every orifice.

                • jim says:

                  Saudi Arabia is a pretty strict purdah society the way Trump is committing a holocaust against refugees.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Who would get in a blood feud for their cattle rustling brother who was killed after being caught rustling cattle?”

                  I don’t know too many specifics but reading about Rob Roy or pre English Irish culture it sounds like a lot of feuds were started over people being pissed off that their cattle rustling brother was killed.

                  Of course pre English Ireland and the Scottish highlands were ESPECIALLY lawless areas.

                • jim says:

                  But you will notice that they fought over cattle more than they fought over women, and that when they fought over women, the issue was wife raiding,not adultery.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Saudi Arabia is a pretty strict purdah society the way Trump is committing a holocaust against refugees.”

                  I haven’t been there have you? I’m just going off what I’ve read. It seems like the legal measures (up until this year anyway when they could drive) was pretty strict. What evidence do you have to the contrary.

                  I’m with you that Iran is like that. From what I’ve heard of Saudi girls if they want to behave badly they leave the country to do it.

                • jim says:

                  > What evidence do you have to the contrary?

                  The university system and that men stand up when women enter the room.

                  The purdah system was originally intended to restrain women from contact with alphas, but is subtly transformed into the superficially similar system of protecting them from contact with betas – primarily in protecting them from contact with guest workers, according to an anecdote from an expatriate wife.

                  Instead of protecting you by keeping your women away from high status males, protects your women by keeping low status males away from them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  ” Instead of protecting you by keeping your women away from high status males, protects your women by keeping low status males away from them.”

                  The usual stories of Saudi women gone wild involves them going to Bahrain Dubai OR on longer trips Europe or the United States. Never heard about them doing much of anything within the kingdom.

                • peppermint says:

                  If stealing women from other groups was a thing, it would be a thing too. I was talking about a culture where catte have clear ownership and rustling is a felony.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              By the point where the King is willing to intervene in the relations between free patriarchs on the point of family honour, the Kingdom is pozzed. Stick a fork in it, it’s done. It’s already a Liberal regime, destined to sink into our present abyss of depravity unless some happy circumstance destroys it first.

          • jim says:

            I see no evidence that this happened.

            Give me an example of a blood feud resulting from someone killing his wife and or her lover.

            Seems to me the reverse happens. If you can kill burglars, you get zero hot burglaries, not lots of homeowner/burglar conflicts. If, as in England, one is not allowed to defend oneself against a hot burglary, the result is a gigantic amount of hot burglary, leading to a gigantic amount of homeowner/burglar conflicts.

            No hot burglaries in Texas. Surely the same is likely to be true of adultery.

          • Bob says:

            Deut 22:22

            I think if the wife is caught with another man, they both are killed. I’m not sure, but I think the chapter implies every man in the town stones them.

            If they’re not caught and rumors go around, then I would interpret that chapter to say that the stoning has to wait until they are found again. Can’t feud if they’re found together and both are killed.

            No idea though, cause that’s the first time I’ve ever read Deuteronomy seriously.

            • The Cominator says:

              We should not rely on Old Testament law which Israel itself couldn’t follow…

              Jim argues for the 18th century and I’m fine with that but I want it implemented based on the features of what 18th century patriarchy ACTUALLY were.

              * Arranged marriage, let father arrange marriages from 14-18 whether the girl if he fails to do so the girl can elope though, if her father fails to find her an owner in four years (it won’t happen in most cases) she can look herself.

              * Massive stigma against single women beyond 18, massively relax enforcement of sex crimes against such women. Legally they should be considered prostitutes until they are married.

              * At the same time legalize prostitution.

              * Husbands can discipline wives up to a certain point but not kill them

              * Divorce basically not allowed (it took an act of parliament to get a divorce) no matter what either spouse did. I might be inclined to allow it if the husband can be proven a hard drug addict or he is sentenced to exile (I would not have jail) as a criminal or the wife becomes a drug addict.

              * Disputes of honor if they come to must be resolved via a duel
              so legalize dueling, maybe mandate it in the case of adultery if
              the aggrieved husband wants to force the issue.

              Some additional modern tweaks

              * Ban women from colleges except for schools for their traditional professions (nursing is okay for example)

              * Do whatever possible to discourage things like tinder. It may not be possible to ban them entirely but husbands who find their wives on such sites should be able to have them flogged and pilloried. Stopping tinder is more important then stopping adultery because things like tinder cause women to have an inflated view of their SMV. A woman who thinks she is a perfect 10 when she is a 6.5 is a bigger problem then a cheating whore who is realistic.

              * Criminals who in modern times women are so attracted to are to be made low status by flogging and pillorying (unless they are to be executed).

              • peppermint says:

                Women are at their most beautiful from 19 to 24 for a reason. That is when they should marry. Women over 28 who are still not married are already made fun of and they know something’s wrong.

                Maybe girls under 18 can be betrothed, which is like being engaged but no sex and can be broken off without dishonor and upgrading to marriage may be contingent on the man fulfilling some pledge like getting into an apprenticeship.

              • peppermint says:

                Also we should allow a woman to divorce a heretic regarding family values, in order to discourage heresy.

                Liberals will make it so you can’t work or buy anything if you don’t say exactly the right things about all kinds of things. We just need to make sure at least the heads of households at least openly say the right things about how heads of households should behave.

                Prostitution, pornography, drug use, gambling, and strong language should be legal but if a person doesn’t want to see it he shouldn’t have to. Keep the main spaces in the town free of vice so men can take their wives and children to town.

              • The Cominator says:

                Women start becoming very hard for their fathers to control around 14-16 and around 16 -17 those who didn’t lose their virginity before tend to lose it en masse.

                White people don’t do really do the Taliban thing and never have historically no matter how much Jim wants them to (I like Jim he is the most redpilled blog on the net but he is not being realistic on this) so the solution is to marry them off very early. At most they half ass the Taliban thing.

                I don’t think they should be married off before this, women may misbehave a little before 14 but its pretty easy (in the vast majority of cases) to control. Not so after that.

                “Also we should allow a woman to divorce a heretic regarding family values, in order to discourage heresy.”

                Nope, that will lead to a plague of false accusations.

                “Prostitution, pornography, drug use, gambling, and strong language should be legal but if a person doesn’t want to see it he shouldn’t have to. Keep the main spaces in the town free of vice so men can take their wives and children to town.”

                I agree with this (except strong language a man should be able to curse a blue streak), I’m a big fan of the red light district concept and keeping all the bad things there. Don’t think its possible to do that with the internet so much though.

                • jay says:

                  Father’s should help their daughters find husbands. But should give a pool of men to choose from where she picks the best out of them all before marriage.

                  Better to be married to a guy she has the hots for than not to ensure a more harmonious marriage.

                • jim says:

                  Women have the hots for very bad men. If she gets what she wants while she is still young enough to be hot, unlikely to be a harmonious marriage.

                  Give a ten year old girl a chance, she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old gang leader and drug dealer.

                  Women are also prone to extraordinary delusions about very bad men, and delusions about their own behavior in the presence of very bad men.

                  I am a dancing monkey, I play the role that women want. I have tried the good boy and tried the bad boy, and all the chicks prefer the bad boy.

                  Revealed behavior is that what women think they want is not what they want, and they should not be allowed to have what they want.

                  What girls think they want is fine. What girls actually want is really bad and they should not be allowed to have it. I know this, because I have made a lifetime study of supplying what girls actually want.

              • Bob says:

                I think I’d prefer 18th century England, as well as most American men if it was offered them and women if they were born into it. I’m sort of, but not really, curious why white women love period pieces and Jane Austen so much but are so scared of patriarchy…

                Seriously, where do we learn about 18th Cent English patriarchy? Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England is helpful, but I think it doesn’t give us the picture we need.

                • peppermint says:

                  Because they’ve been told patriarchy means they get a stupid cuck husband who cheats on them. If you ask them about marriage instead of patriarchy, well, try listening to Taylor Swife and Adele. All White women yearn to be married and everyone knows it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Because they’ve been told patriarchy means they get a stupid cuck husband who cheats on them.”

                  And it often does. But they are not told that they’ll probably still be genuinely happier that way then with 5 cats and no children.

                • jim says:

                  search coverture and marriage cum manu.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Ugh.. wikipedia for coverture gives the translation of ‘femme couverte’ as “covered woman”, when “couverte” is used in the sense of “woman whose needs are covered” (who is taken care of). Covering needs, not literally covering women, WTF is wrong with these people.

                • Bob says:

                  >search coverture and marriage cum manu.

                  Thank you. A quick couple minutes and, surprise surprise, marriage cum manu was common in ancient Rome, until the 1st century AD.

              • peppermint says:

                In this culture, 16-18, for various reasons. In previous ages, women stayed chaste until marriage at 19-25, during their years of compelling beauty. The very fact that White women are compellingly beautiful for those years indicates that that’s when they’re supposed to get married and furthermore indicates that they are capable of keeping their legs closed until then.

                It’s not hard, it just takes not being taught by the government that there’s no consequences for sex but no woman can ever really expect a man to stick around.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, the appearance of white women indicates that for ten thousand years or so, they generally got married in their late teens or early twenties, and marriage was monogamous and durable.

                  This, however requires an iron hand, starting at age nine or so. Eighteenth century girls were not allowed out except under supervision.

                  In “Pride and Prejudice” the Duchess complains about the abandonment of this program.

                  Resistance to this eighteenth century iron hand manifested as hysteria – resistance was often disturbingly distressing, extreme, and forceful.

                • jay says:

                  Manorialism+monogamy drove up marriage age. Look up Western European marriage pattern past the Hajnal Line.

                  https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/11/western-european-marriage-pattern.html

            • jim says:

              > I think if the wife is caught with another man, they both are killed. I’m not sure, but I think the chapter implies every man in the town stones them.

              Not the practice implied by the Book of proverbs. Book of Proverbs implies it is up to the offended husband or betrothed.

              Also, Book of Proverbs is all about private incentives resulting from private action.

        • BC says:

          > I’m trying to flesh out the practical application.

          Under Roman law, if you killed the man your wife slept with you had to kill your wife as well. Of course, if you killed the man unjustly his family could have you brought up on charges and your defense would be that he slept with your wife and you’d have to prove it.

          In general killing a man screwing your wife generally happened after you caught them in bed together leaving no doubt to concerning his and her guilt. That practice continued through the early 1900s in America were men who killed such were found not guilty due to temporary insanity.

          • The Cominator says:

            The Romans COULD theoretically kill their wives in such circumstances up until some time during the Imperial period.

            But at least by the time of the Punic Wars it in practice almost never happened probably for reasons I’ve described. It would cause a blood feud with the wife’s family.

    • The Cominator says:

      And escalating to blood feuds etc.

      This is why in the 18th century you couldn’t just kill the guy who you claimed f***ed your wife.

      You had to kill him in a duel, and sometimes you’d be the guy who got killed.

  16. Ron says:

    “this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.”

    If any of this is going to work, modesty standards will have to be enforced. that means no bikinis, no twerking, full clothing even at the beach, and also no horseback riding for the little dears.

    otherwise, we will be right back to where we started.

    the problem of course is that most male monkeys want the bikinis, twerking, nakedness and depraved women who will even fuck dogs, because that means they are more likely to be able to inseminate a wider variety of females.

    this is to the disadvantage of all other males, and results in a social breakdown, as you pointed out, and as we see in front of our own eyes.

    the purpose of modesty standards is not to protect the women, anymore than laws against assault and battery are to protect thugs. these laws are to protect EVERYONE. If one man can freely beat up random people in the street without punitive consequence, then anyone can be attacked, and thus everyone has to watch his back, and spend inordinate amounts of time working out, training, getting health insurence, watching where he goes, etc etc.

    similarly, if we allow businesses to blatantly advertise verifiable lies to consumers, it does not just harm one or two people, it harms even people who have no interest in the product falsely advertised. No consumer can trust anything being sold, a great deal of work must be done by each individual to assess anything they use, etc.

    and similarly, if we allow females to use their sexuality without any punitive consequences, we have the problem of 12 year old girls displaying every last inch of their skin to mountain dew addicted alpha males. That is not going to work for a stable society. Girls must indeed be “whacked with a stick” if we are going to have anything resembling a functional society going forward.

    When a female starts bitching and whining about muh liberty, she needs to be whacked with a stick.

    When some dippy beta male faggot decides to strap on his sword and ride to miladies rescue, he needs to enjoy the ass kicking of his life. If he does this more than twice, he needs to be permanently “helped” to not be a threat to the greater society of males again. Said permanent help must be given with the reason of “because fuck you that’s why”.

    Because as far as the females and coward males are concerned, “fuck you, that’s why” is a very good reason indeed and makes perfect logical sense.

    Note how the same soy eating, chipmunk cheeked vermin who can’t shut up about “womens rights” and “deadbeat dads” have nothing to say about the burka, or female genital mutilation, or about honor killings. Note how quickly their mouths snap shut when the reason is “because fuck you that’s why”.

    • Eli says:

      Strongly seconded. I’d put burqas on all bitches.

      Google “frumka” or “Jewish taliban”

      • jay says:

        Burkhas are a security risk for obvious reasons like masking that prevents identification and so on.

        • Yara says:

          Public anonymity is not a security risk. CCTV do not belong on every street corner – or anywhere else. Terrorism is a sham and the function of the TSA was never to catch terrorists but to degrade and humiliate honest, law-abiding citizens, molest their natural rights to integrity of their person, and diminish their self-worth and self-respect.

    • jim says:

      Book of Proverbs tells us that when a woman wants to seduce a man, does not need a bikini to do it.

  17. Conservation of sovereignty, Jim: if someone can keep the king from fucking the aristocrats wives, he is the real king and no one can keep him from doing so. Can’t keep elites trustworthy against their will.

    Perhaps this is why empires are healthy only as long as they expand: captured women and dead soldiers skew the gender ratio, making it easier.

    Ottomans were quite open about this: the way to keep the Sultan from fucking the generals wives was to stuff his harem full of slaves, 500+ girls, some of whom he never even got to. Men like variety, but too much is too much, and that was precisely the point, to keep him so satisfied that he never gets around to mess with the generals or aristocrats harem.

    Harems – keeping wives away from other men – help but do not fully do the job on their own. If you want the Old Testament, Uriah’s story is excellent. Bathseba is bathing in the enclosed courtyard of his house, invisible from the ground level but King David has a very tall palace and can see in anyway. Uriah’s harem architect wasn’t thinking in 3D. He gets a hardon and sends Uriah to die and fucks Batsheba. Nathan the prophet, basically a priest confronts him, but they have a healthy state where the king is above the priests and Nathan cannot really do much else than to foretell that their first kid will die. It happens, but King David does not really care and their second kid is Solomon. Nobody can keep a king from doing what he want, unless he is a shadow king. And the idea of priests controlling kings via soft power, such as the Pope, was popular, de Maistre liked the idea, but this is precisely what leads to holiness spirals, so rather not.

    And to stuff the harem of the Sultan full and most other high ranking men’s harem full required that the tartar kidnapped and sold huge amounts of Ukrainian women, this is why the word slave is coming from Slav as far as I can tell. Only external expansion – if not land, at least in people, this way – keeps an empire healthy. Entropy gets exported, in this case to north of Crimea.

    • jim says:

      > Conservation of sovereignty

      No man rules alone.

      The King can, and should, have a pile of mistresses, but if he fucks the wives of aristocrats, will lose power. This problem has caused many Kings to quietly and undramatically lose power, and a number of Kings to die violently.

    • peppermint says:

      If the king authorizes harems, I’d be a cuck not to interact with my ex at her and her bf’s party with the hope of banging her in the bathroom thus letting her play me against my bf, and her bf would have to dislike me for other reasons than that I think he’s he’s a midwit with strong virtue signals he calls ideas.

      I want to be restricted to my gf by well settled law so I can insult men without them thinking I’m going to steal their women.

      There was some germanic king who wanted a second wife and his nobles refused to allow it.

      The king can have whores and maybe we even let the no bastards rule slide as long as his bastards become monks.

      Though actually the rule should just now be, you can sleep with any woman who isn’t claimed, you can use any woman’s eggs to make a baby with a surrogate or artificial womb, but you can’t do both with any woman other than your wife.

  18. some guy says:

    You speak of the commands of Proverbs, the commands of Nature’s God. You speak of what laws work biologically, and what laws don’t. You like commandments and laws that work, commandments and laws the are pro-civic.

    But.

    Love of God is the first and greatest commandment, but no one today pays attention to it.

    (from James Kalb)

    You have missed the first commandment. What does this commandment mean? Why was it important to those men who built society? Why did they call it the first commandment?

    • Eli says:

      “Love,” in ancient Levantine context, means “eagerly serving”, i.e. going above and beyond obligations of a servant to his Master. (In this cas, the commandments and laws are the obligations). It has nothing directly to do with modern “love,” though it correlates.

      Figuring out the will of God, in the changing context of life and times, should count as part of exercising love towards Him.

    • jim says:

      The first commandment, and the first four commandments, concern man’s relationship with God.

      The last commandment, and the last six commandments, concern men’s relationships to each other.

      That the world is going to hell in a handbasket results from failure to comply with the last commandment, not the first.

  19. Mike says:

    Jim, if 9 year old girls really are a threat to western civilization, then, pray tell, how did you control your daughter when she was that age? You do have a daughter I believe yes?

    • peppermint says:

      By saying no when she asks for candy instead of vegetables.

      • peppermint says:

        Feminists say forcing a 9 year old girl to eat vegetables primes her for Polanski to rape her when she’s 13.

        In reality, allowing a girl to eat candy instead primes her to make irresponsible sexual decisions when shes 13.

        Polanski isn’t wrong that young girls are bursting with sexual energy. Normal adults politely ignore it and kill other adults who don’t with extreme violence. 70s America lets Polanski get away with statutory rape because of feminism.

        • Mike says:

          I’m sorry, but to me that just sounds like parenting 101. Of course you shouldn’t let your kid overindulge or do anything they want, even progs aren’ that dumb (yet). If all that’s wrong with our 9 year olds is that parents aren’t disciplining them enough, feminism could be solved today. The problem goes deeper than this, in my humble opinion. The real problem is that the Cathedral prevents the children from being disciplined or keeping the values that Jim talks about. Even if the parents theoretically do everything right, their 9 year girl still gets buttfucked every day they go out of the home due to public schools and other cathedral mouthpieces.

          • Yara says:

            Why is this a surprise? Hillary Clinton openly says that parents play a secondary role.

            Speaking of Shillary, if ever there were a thirty minutes worth your time, these would be them.

          • peppermint says:

            Some childless feminist theorist recently made headlines claiming that babies need to consent to having their diapers changed.

            It’s standard now to make sure children consent to your choice of clothing for them and hugs from family members, or else you’re perpetuating rape culture. I think that’s the creepiest thing that could possibly become widely accepted.

            • Yara says:

              The truly surreal thing about the $CURRENT_YEAR is the nigh-indistinguishability of NYT and ONN.

            • jay says:

              Not to mention they are promoting real paedophilia. Search up that recent TED talk and you will be disgusted.

    • Roberto says:

      That’s the problem – currently there isn’t much to do to prevent 12-year-olds from fucking Jeremy Meeks, as they are wont to do. You can retroactively punish the men after the sex has been had, but that just elevates the status of Jeremy Meeks above that of the betaboys, and worse, elevates the status of sluts like Samantha Geimer.

      The retroactive solution, which is currently not allowed to be implemented, is shotgun marriage in case the woman is a virgin, or if she’s unowned and wants to ride the cock carousel, make it legal to rape her *and take possession of her*. The proactive solution is getting sluts like Samantha Geimer married off when they are aged 8-10; a father is not likely to marry off his daughter to Jeremy Meeks.

      • jay says:

        The proactive solution is getting sluts like Samantha Geimer married off when they are aged 8-10

        Even Ancient societies didn’t marry them off until they were aged 12 and above.

        Generally when puberty has occurred and secondary sexual characteristics have appeared.

        And menarche has occurred.

    • jay says:

      @Mike

      What Jim describes could only apply to daughters of single mothers who enter puberty and menarche earlier.

      Girls with fathers mature more slower sexually. As any cursory glance at all peer review literature on this subject indicates.

      Those who do know about human sexual development all know that libido in the sense of the want of copulation comes as a result of puberty.

      • jim says:

        You assume that girls will behave well, except evil men make them behave badly.

        A more realistic assumption is that girls will behave badly except that good men restrain them.

        It sometimes happens that girls are not much interested in men until the socially approved age, but that is not the way to bet.

        Most men are not much interested in girls below fertile age. Most girls develop an interest in men well below fertile age.

        Late virgin marriage was accomplished by keeping girls under tight control.

        • jay says:

          ”You assume that girls will behave well, except evil men make them behave badly.

          A more realistic assumption is that girls will behave badly except that good men restrain them.”

          No I don’t. Biology as subject to empirical inquiry explains how women work.

          At least in terms of Libido. I didn’t say anything about behavior in light of that.

        • The Cominator says:

          Late virgin marriage was always upper class only in the West.

          Early marriage, pregnancy scare/shotgun marriage was the norm for everyone else and sometimes in the upper class they wanted a pregnant marriage (wanted proven fertility).

          So policy should be designed for arranged early marriage and not for late virgin marriage.

  20. Doug Smythe says:

    An aspect of controlling female misbehaviour that I find under-addressed in a lot of these discussions is that healthy, patriarchal societies defeat pernicious expressions of hypergamy by turning the logic of hypergamy against itself. It’s incontrovertibly true that, by default, women are aroused by tattooed criminals and other low-life. Every age, race, and civilization of Man except for ours easily deals with this by making the word “low-life” mean exactly what it says- namely, the lowest of lowly statuses. They would cause the likes of Jeremy Meeks to be promptly led to the stocks or whipping-post, the public spectacle of which presumably causes woman tingles to vanish right quickly, because there is no lower possible form of status (hence the public executioner himself has exceptionally low and degraded status, the better to impress on everybody that the recipient of the punishment is more lowly still). But in our late democracies, Hollywood rewards the criminal with fame and fortune, while the Cathedral at one and the same time exalts the criminal as more holy than his fellows. The tattooed criminal ends up besting the law-abiding citizen on *every* dimension of status and charisma, not just the directly physical.

    • The Cominator says:

      Doug quite right, criminals and low lifes should face as an aspect of their punishment public humiliation to make them low status.

    • jim says:

      Making the low status of low lives visible to women is one half of the solution.

      The other half is making the high status of high status males visible to women. Business suit needs to be more colorful, and open carry part of the business suit.

      Another big part of it is that restrictions on male violence against women and children, even entirely reasonable and just restrictions, emasculate men in the eyes of women, and such restrictions tend to be be applied more vigorously on high status than low status men and are difficult to apply effectively against low status men.

      So we should only apply such restrictions, even the most reasonable and just, to the extent that we can successfully apply them against low status males. Differential restriction that emasculates high status males backfires, as women will always find the violence against women and children that they thirst and hunger for.

      • The Cominator says:

        Agreed, abuse should only be prosecuted in obvious cases especially against women who really can get away from it (children should be protected in extreme and obvious cases).

      • Related: need to heal the jock-geek divide, the Athens-Sparta divide. It sucks when upper-class, educated, intelligent men are the wimpiest.

        This is something Britain did relatively right in recent memory i.e. insisting that it is precisely the upper classes who are likely to face the least amount of manliness-building challenges in life should focus on sports at college the hardest.

        I mean, Tolkien for example looked like a classic case of the room-temperature scholar, yet he wrote a letter to his son that he used to be such a fierce rugby player that hin “won his colours” in a year. (I think that expression means being put on the school team.)

        From the upper-middle class up, for people who value intelligence and education, it is all too easy to grow up as a bookworm. The more of a scholar one is, the more society must insist for him to be an athlete and assign status accordingly.

      • jay says:

        Criminals were humiliated by Romans before their executions.

    • And we are making sure criminals can keep on physically dominating the upper class by locking them in prisons where they have free access to a weight lifting gym and tend to spend most of their free time there.

      Ideally I would engineer society so that the upper classes are also physically dominant, for example, steroids allowed only for them. But what would be actually doable right now is cardio only in prisons. I think it could even be formulated in a way that progs would support it.

      • Roberto says:

        Not all prisoners deserve to be imprisoned, though. I wouldn’t take away the prison gyms.

      • eternal anglo says:

        Why have prisons at all, except for holding suspects who are awaiting trial? Surely, come the restoration, the spectrum will run from fines to lashing to public lashing to hanging. Hanging and lashing can be made extra effective for cheap governance of large, unruly populations (e.g. in the colonies) by televising them. No need for lengthy and expensive prison accommodation.

        • The Cominator says:

          Prisons are not to be a normal form of punishment in a restored society (they might exist for spies who may be useful for information or to be exchanged).

          Penal colonies will be the closest thing to prisons that still exist.

        • Bob says:

          Fun fact, lashing was not considered cruel or unusual by the same people who wrote “cruel and unusual” into the Constitution.

          Lashings are cheap, a very effective deterrent, and best of all, make the criminal demeaned in front of women.

          Make Lashings Great Again.

          • The Cominator says:

            Lashings alone don’t necessarily make low status, especially if the criminal can take it like a man (not cry out etc). Need to pillory them before or afterwords for a while and have the mob throw things at them.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            “Cruel and unusual” was probably meant to cover haphazard and inconsistent punishment and/or wildly disproportionate criminal pains, both of which were criticized by the smart set amongst the Enlighteners (e.g. Cesare Beccaria) for being ineffective and inefficient. There is nothing in the phrase that precludes corporal punishment as long as it’s proportionate to the offense and uniformly administered each and every time, not just occasionally or sporadically.

            • The Cominator says:

              Cruel and unusual meant special treason executions ie being disemboweled drawn quartered and burned.

        • Modern prisons are typical examples of the outcome of democratic processes:

          – They do LOOK cruel, because the squeamish public does not like things that LOOK cruel.

          – They ARE cruel, because the dumbfuck public lacks the moral imagination to understand how years of psychic torment like boredom can be worse than twenty minutes of public caning.

          – The lack deterrence, because deterrence would be based on LOOKING cruel, that is the literal point of it, the whole idea is based on criminals being kind of dumb or shallow and easily manipulated by shocking sights. The criminal isn’t smart enough to imagine what three years of boredom behind bars would be like, so is not deterred by it.

          – Even capital punishment, where still exists, devolved into having the least possible amount of deterrence, because the public is too squeamish. It is ten years on the death row and when basically everybody long forgot about the case the criminal is executed in a nonpublic, nonvisible way. Zero influence on the criminals buddies, gang members. While if someone is strung up publicly after a murder when people still remember the case, they actually get shocked a bit by the sight and link it to the actual case.

          In this sense punishment almost perfectly exemplifies how democracy is dumb and rules need to be made by smart elites.

          • Correction:

            They do NOT look cruel because the squeamish public does not like things that look cruel. And they lack in deterrence because they do NOT look cruel.

          • Mack says:

            Sure, if by “the squeamish public” what you really mean is “women”.

            A universal male franchise democracy may or may not represent a conditional decline from a male franchise restricted to an elite, but that’s what was the world was until woman suffrage and our forefathers were still impossibly badass.

            Women are dumb and rules need to be made by men.

            • I strongly suspect that women were able to manipulate beta husbands to represent their own political views far earlier than they had the vote. Read Carlyle on Model Prisons, actually. If I remember the essay right aristocratic women were pushing prison reform. Not having the vote didn’t matter, they still had social influence and beta hubby played along.

              • Yara says:

                That there were “ladies” with privileges and influence at all is quite outrageous.

              • peppermint says:

                Cows need to have a herd to chew chud and moo with. Farmers should pay as much attention to their cow’s mooing as justified, and shoud pay no heed to the mooing of cows that aren’t theirs, and tell the farmer who owns a cow if it’s mooing in distress. Farmers shouldn’t presume to take care of cows that aren’t theirs.

                “I’m going to work with this herd of cattle to try to have access to these cows while pretending to care about Great Things”, says the communist. For some reason, the farmers don’t kick his ass in front of their cows.

              • Alrenous says:

                Giving women the vote regularly results in giving them two votes – their own and their husband’s.

      • peppermint says:

        Instead of having nubile church ladies come to pout at and read the Book to prisoners, we should whip criminals and send them home.

        Have you seen graffiti all over the backs of the pews in a courtroom, and litter on the courthouse grounds? The police should just beat people who do that. Instead, they’re cucks.

      • jay says:

        The only food allowed for criminals should be soy and other vegetables.

      • jay says:

        Why have access to weight lifting at all. They should have a vegan diet and a cell instead.

  21. Reziac says:

    With regard to this shit-testing-the-boss thing, the correct response of bulling on through applies not only with women but also with other should-be-underlings. In my business, at which I am considerably more experienced and expert than average, I encounter the occasional client (usually a 30-something male, married with young kids, and roostering it but not really in charge of his wife) who is a misinformed know-it-all and who tries to tell me all about how to run my business, and generally makes like an uneducable idiot.

    I’ve found the best way to deal with this type of moron, if I want their money and don’t want them to become a problem client, is not to be nice or to explain things or in any way to give-and-take, or even to try to educate them as such. Rather, the best course is to talk over the top of them until they suddenly give up and start listening in sheer self-defense. At that point they become capable of learning something, and they usually pay me and go away happily-ever-after.

  22. […] also says that men in authority will tend to promote feminism as a way to giving themselves more […]

  23. Bastard says:

    Jim: “How many levels of red pilled on women are you on?”
    Me: “Women certainly want assholes”
    Jim: “You are like a little baby. Watch this…”

    Honestly, I used to be the guy who did the sort of emotional transference you describe regarding general female behavior. I look back now and cringe

    I do want to add this to the conversation…

    This tweet, which maybe illustrates your point. Women play up the innocence. For context. This is regarding vice medias “me too” episode. I guess she was on their staff.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/imontheradio/status/944619914802946051

    Notice how she emphasized how she was 18, as though that should have been a consideration on whether or not to publish what she had told them. I guess she was still too young, and that was the problem?

    Hmm… Maybe we should raise the age of consent again. 21? 26? Why not wait until they hit the wall, when bad sexual choices finally stop. What do you think?

    Its easy as somone who respects sociey and law to conflate man’s law with gnon’s law, and forget that our current laws are a product of several centuries of leftist fuckery.

    We could easily find ourselves living in a world where people are throwing the world pedophile at men who lust after women in their early 20s, still dealing with women who make bad sexual choices, and only the bottom rungs of society have sexual access to women…

    Anyway, I know you kind of avoided going there, but there it is

  24. Nikolai says:

    Mostly off topic, but I’d like to get your thoughts. If the ideal is that women are owned by their fathers until marriage when ownership is transferred to husbands, how would we practically apply that to modern relationships where engagement periods often last years?

    Ideally, engagements should be anywhere from a week to a couple months at most, but with long engagements the lines of ownership get blurry and the father and husband might be demanding opposite things. Which leads to the fiance defecting on his future father-in-law and vice versa and the girl is stuck between breaking the 4th commandment or being a poor fiancee.

    What, realistically, can be done here. Should the father encourage his daughter to dump the man or should he cede ownership to the fiance? Should the groom-to-be honor the wishes of his girl’s father or defect on him and seize control? What is the woman going to do, either way she’s disobeying someone with plausible authority over her

    • jim says:

      Authority shared between father and fiancee in a manner that is deliberate ill defined – but if someone else has sex with her, or she has sex with someone else, it is an offense against the fiancee for which the death penalty is applicable. If she becomes pregnant, mandatory marriage. Biology means she is going to be fucking her fiancee.

      If she fucks her fiancee for four years or so with no baby ensuing, both of them are going to want to move on to someone else, which is a really bad outcome. So her dad keeps her locked away from her fiancee until both of them are ready for marriage and children.

      • Nikolai says:

        Ok, suppose a girl gets engaged in college with one year left to graduation. Fiancee wants to move in together and begin marriage preparation in a year while her dad wants her to add a second major and go to grad school for a Ph.D which means delaying family formation for at least another five years.

        Fiancee thinks this is an unreasonably long time to wait, pressures her to just get her bachelors and move in. (Is he encroaching on another man’s property or simply trying to secure what’s rightfully his?) Father only cares about her academics and career, sees the fiancee as just some random guy who showed up and is trying to ruin all his plans. Girl is one of the few virtuous women and is stressed out and anxious because she wants to please both parties, but is unable to do so.

        I guess the father could “lock her up” in the sense that he can have her go to grad school somewhere far away, but this seems like defecting on the fiancee, in that she will have to spend 4 years getting hit on by guys more charismatic, attractive, criminal and wealthy than her betrothed.

        What would you do if you were the fiancee? Or if you were the father?

        • jim says:

          This is the false life plan: Academics and television manipulating women that they need a career to make them attractive, because they are attracted to men with careers, plus girl goes to college, parties, fucks lots of alphas, wants to go on fucking alphas forever.

          Dads are far less likely to buy into the false life plan than their impressionable daughters, and unlikely to favor partying her hottest years away.

          Your scenario, Dad wants unwise things, is far less likely than daughter wants unwise things.

          • Yara says:

            To play devil’s advocate here, Boomer Dad raised on television-enhanced Bernaysian superpropaganda could easily be far more thoroughly mindfucked than his Internet-raised, putatively sane daughter.

            Re: Nikolai:

            >What would you do if you were the [fiancé]? Or if you were the father?

            If fiancé, cattle-rustle.

            If father, sweet, merciful death.

            [Note: fiancée is feminine; fiancé is masculine.]

            • Nikolai says:

              I brought up this scenario because I found myself in it a while back (I was the fiance). Yes it is very counter-stereotypical and unlikely, but it nonetheless happened. Her dad’s a Gen Xer (basically the sequel to boomers) and I can’t understand him for the life of me. Guy is 6’2″, buff, millionaire, Trump voter, 5 kids, dripping with patriarchal masculinity, yet desperately wants his daughter to become a catlady. Thoroughly mindfucked is an understatement.

              Though in his defense, she’s by far the smartest of his children, so I guess he wants her to be the ‘successful’ academic while his other kids get to be housewives or welders.

              Worth noting that the girl doesn’t even like partying, trying to get her to have a sip of champagne was like pulling teeth. Spends all her time either at class, studying, working or at the gym. She doesn’t want a career to make her attractive, she wants a prestigious career as a source of personal fulfillment and to please her father.

              I figured this man was going to be my father-in-law and his opinion meant a lot to my girl so I should try to work with him and compromise rather than deliberately antagonize him. Cattle-rustling probably would’ve worked better, though this girl was brainwashed for nearly 2 decades about how career and education are all that matters. It’s not something you can just snap her out of overnight. What would you have done Jim?

              • jim says:

                Old Testament endorses cattle rustlin. Marriage by abduction, seduction and elopement.

                Hot chick, good genes, tell her come with you and don’t waste those genes. Use them while they are hot.

                Book of Proverbs accuses women of endlessly plotting serial monogamy – one boyfriend after another – until they get swept off their feet at the age of thirty three by a six foot six athletic billionaire pirate werewolf. When you say she is counterstereotypical, you may be projecting onto her virtues seldom found.

                Book of Proverbs agrees with what I see in front of my nose, starting at an absurdly early age, and getting worse as they get older. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.

                Tell her that a successful career and impressive academic credentials repels men like nothing else except student debt, and that her career can wait on her children, but her children cannot wait on her career.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Old Testament endorses cattle rustlin. Marriage by abduction, seduction and elopement.”

                  Maybe so, but part of it seems antithetical to a high-trust society. An unmarried virgin is the property of her father and you can’t just take what rightfully belongs to another man.

                  “When you say she is counterstereotypical, you may be projecting onto her virtues seldom found.”

                  She’s so counter-stereotypical I wouldn’t blame you if you thought I was making her up. She possesses both virtues and vices almost never found in the modern woman. She’s not interested in drinking or partying. She’s pretty close to asexual, she told me multiple times she’d be fine if our physical relationship amounted to hand holding, forehead kisses and hugs. (Could be she’s one of those girls whose sex drive doesn’t kick in until her early-to-mid twenties). All her spare time was spent studying, exercising and working and she submitted to me to the point where even I was a little uncomfortable with it at times.

                  “Tell her that a successful career and impressive academic credentials repels men like nothing else except student debt, and that her career can wait on her children, but her children cannot wait on her career.”

                  Well the relationship fell apart for mostly unrelated reasons a few months ago, so this is all post-mortem reflection and speculation. But if I did tell her that, she wouldn’t care. It doesn’t matter to her what does or does not attract men and though she’s the most maternal woman I’ve ever met, she’d be ok having no kids.

                  I used to sit her down every now and then and tell her that fulfillment comes from God and family and that a job is just performing labor for a corporation in order to receive green pieces of paper necessary to sustain a decent living. No one on their deathbed wishes they put in more hours in the office, and the people by you at your deathbed will be your husband and children, not your coworkers. Classes and tests stress you out, my embrace brings you peace. Life is about family, not work.

                  That speech would, at best, convince her for a few days that I was right and then she’d go right back to obsessing over her academics and career. Women, especially the smart ones, are fed the careerist narrative nonstop from everything and everyone around them. Hard to overcome that kind of brainwashing.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Old Testament endorses cattle rustlin. Marriage by abduction, seduction and elopement.”

                  > Maybe so, but part of it seems antithetical to a high-trust society.

                  Reproduction requires the formation of new nuclear families. That is the nature of man, and ordained in the bible. Thus power has to transfer from fathers to husbands.

                  If however, power transfers to daughters, you get serial monogamy, defect/defect equilibrium, and nobody gets what they want – as men discover right away, but women do not discover unless they find themselves single after thirty.

                  > It doesn’t matter to her what does or does not attract men

                  This seems improbable. Likely it did not matter to her what does or does not attract you. At some point you registered on her radar as another betabucks nice guy loser, whereupon you got friended. This has happened to me more times than I can remember. My true inward nature is a nice guy betabucks loser, and I have to let my monsters out from time to time, or else I get friended.

                  I bet she spent a long time putting her face on every morning, and painted a bit of pink to create the appearance of sexual arousal. You think they don’t know why they paint the way they do? If she is not interested in being attractive to you, still interested in being attractive to Jeremy Meeks.

                  You are telling me you missed out on a unicorn. Maybe you did, but the number of men who think that the chick they lost was a unicorn vastly exceeds the number of unicorns, and believing your chick to be a unicorn is guaranteed to result in losing her, even if she is a unicorn.

                  You should never believe in unicorns, for, supposing they exist, believing in them will result in you missing out. Even if what you say of her is true, believing it is true ensured that you would lose her. You should treat all women as interchangeable and easily replaceable, and especially treat the ones that you have no intention of replacing as if you had every intention of replacing them. You have to keep a woman on her toes. Consult your inner monsters. They will know what to do.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Reproduction requires the formation of new nuclear families. That is the nature of man, and ordained in the bible. Thus power has to transfer from fathers to husbands.”

                  I don’t disagree. I just think, if possible, said power transfer should be amicable to both parties and not outright theft.

                  “At some point you registered on her radar as another betabucks nice guy loser, whereupon you got friended.”

                  That is how most break-ups happen, but I don’t think that’s what happened in my case. I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about this. What I believe happened was that I performed or failed to perform some subtle behaviors or made some flippant remarks and she came to believe I no longer loved her. That plus her friends and family telling her I’m a jerk and don’t love her and the final nail in the coffin was us actually getting into a couple arguments where I was a little mad at her.

                  Next day I have her over, no longer mad at her. She’s under the impression that I hate her, has a total breakdown, gives me back the ring and cries hysterically for hours. The way I see it, the problem wasn’t that she perceived me as going from alpha to beta, rather she perceived me going from an alpha who loved her to an alpha who hated her.

                  Case in point: over the next couple months we were sort of on again off again, doing the same things we used to do except more cynically. Whenever I, temporarily, won her back it was because I got her to see that she did in fact make me happy and it worked especially well when I got her to believe I loved her. And when I would lose her again it was for letting my demons out rather than keeping them in, or for matters outside of my control.

                  “I bet she spent a long time putting her face on every morning, and painted a bit of pink to create the appearance of sexual arousal.”

                  Nope. She’d wear make-up only for formal events, like job interviews or Mass, or at my request when I’d have her over Friday or Saturday nights. I don’t know much about makeup, but she used mostly darker colors (bit of a goth streak). If she used pink, I failed to notice. She wouldn’t spend too long applying it for Mass (20 minutes?), but she’d often spend hours on her makeup before she’d come and see me.

                  “You are telling me you missed out on a unicorn.”

                  She was a unicorn in that she was very attractive, athletic, a virgin, intelligent and treated me like a king. But that’s not to say she didn’t have problems, she had very severe psychological issues, likely insurmountable issues (which looking back kind of render her unmarriageable in many ways).

                  “You should treat all women as interchangeable and easily replaceable, and especially treat the ones that you have no intention of replacing as if you had every intention of replacing them. You have to keep a woman on her toes. Consult your inner monsters. They will know what to do.”

                  This is excellent advice for dealing with almost all women and I’ll be sure to keep that in mind going forward. But somehow I don’t think that would’ve worked with her, at least not during the engagement. She needed to feel loved and letting out my inner monsters ruined that feeling for her. Or maybe I’m just an idiot and I should never have worked so hard to have her feel like that in the first place.

                • jim says:

                  > What I believe happened was that I performed or failed to perform some subtle behaviors or made some flippant remarks and she came to believe I no longer loved her.

                  Perhaps, but this has never been my experience. Keeping a girl uncertain about your love is an important part of keeping her on her toes. Yesterday I was walking to the beach with my girlfriend, and I inadvertently said some things that revealed how much I loved her, so, fearing that I might be friended, I picked her up and spanked her on the spot, to prevent her from getting a swelled head.

                  > The way I see it, the problem wasn’t that she perceived me as going from alpha to beta, rather she perceived me going from an alpha who loved her to an alpha who hated her.

                  That she cries after dumping you supports your theory. If you registered as beta, she would never remember that she had any connection with you at all.

          • Yara says:

            *cattle-rustlin’

            • jim says:

              Old Testament legalized marriage by abduction, seduction, and elopement.

              To a good approximation, Old Testament legalized all sexual activities that lead to marriage, prohibited all sexual practices leading to serial monogamy. Book of Proverbs accuses women of endlessly plotting to induce men to engage in serial monogamy, which agrees with what I see in front of my nose.

          • Dave says:

            “Your scenario, Dad wants unwise things, is far less likely than daughter wants unwise things.”

            Dad very much wanted me *and my sister* to go to college and have careers, even though this life plan led to his aunt and sister becoming spinsters. Now his daughter’s a spinster too, Dad wants my daughter to go to college, and I won’t have it. My daughter tried public school for a full year (6th grade, her mom’s parents talked her into it), got nothing out of it, and does not want to go back.

            • Nikolai says:

              Yup, boomer and gen x vaisyas are often brainwashed into making their children brahmins.

  25. Roberto says:

    Off topic: WordPress shut down some conspiracy-oriented alt-right blogs, the pretext being “malicious publication of unauthorized, identifying images of minors,” in other words the usual nonsense used to criminalize thought itself. Those blogs focused on Sandy Hook and 9/11 stuff.

    If nothing is done to resist this creeping censorship, eventually we’ll all be erased from the net. I suggest people here start saving posts and comments they find valuable.

    • Yara says:

      If they had been merely “conspiracy”-oriented, the almighty gov wouldn’t have shut them down.

      Since it bothered to shut them down, they must’ve been sufficiently true to raise the hackles of the paper-pushing, department-dwelling demons native to the Beltway Bollixer.

      • Roberto says:

        Or, as the saying goes: “that’s what they want you to think.” Personally, I don’t buy any of the crisis actor stuff (which is what the Sandy Hookers go on about), and I strongly suspect that Alex Jones is controlled opposition; that the mainstream forces vociferously attack him only cements his authority as leader of the conspiracy movement. Actually dangerous crimethinkers are rarely attacked publicly – rather, they are systematically ignored, or y’know, sometimes just “randomly commit suicide.”

        Like perhaps Philip Marshall.
        https://larouchepub.com/other/book_reviews/2013/4011bamboozle_murder.html

        • The Cominator says:

          AJ is at least slightly crazy but not controlled op. If they supported Trump early (and not in such a way to sabotage him ala David Duke) they are not controlled op and Alex Jones supported Trump early.

          Sandy Hook happened and the victims weren’t crisis actors. David Hogg and co are however crisis actors even if they were real students they weren’t there for the shooting and there is nothing spontaneous about their political org.

  26. TBeholder says:

    These claims make no logical or factual sense. […] Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage.

    Or simply SJW Law #3.
    Because “male feminist Trekkie goon on tumblr via iHipster” little by little becomes a stereotypical sexual predater profile.

  27. Erich says:

    Peppermint is a delirious man who believes that women from 19 to 25 are the most attractive and deseirable and when should be of marriageable age, not before.

    How much nonsense!

    Women over 19 are puffy, unpleasant meatballs. In fact they are not “nubile women” they are “old ladies”.

    A woman is attractive as soon as she has infantile traits (not juvenile, directly infantile), if when reading this it comes to mind that it is “paedo” then it is a sign that you are the one who has a sexual deviation.

    Women over 19 begin to lose their childish features and face (especially the chin) are given those rought and hard features, which are unpleasant, that is a sign that they are not “in their best years” but are rotting, just like when I see a pear or a banana take that black color and get flabby is that it is rotting and I throw it in the trash.

    Also why he wants a bitch who has had so many years in becoming a despicable and hateful being? the sooner you catch less chance of being a shit with legs. Women don’t mature with age, they mature with puberty (puberty comes from the Latin meaning to mature) and so on until death.

    In short: any woman who hits puberty (there is no exact age, so there can not be any law that imposes an age, it is unnatural) is made for “mate” with an adult man, and can be suitable for “mate” until they finish their teens, from their 20 and should be married and except in few cases, are no longer optimal to look for mate. If you want women over 20 do it under your responsibility, I will not make that mistake.

    What he says about Polanski is straightforward bullshit. Polaski did not get away with bacause feminism, feminism is the creator of the concept of “statutory rape” and the age of consent, feminism is the one that has asked and ask for his imprisonment along with the conservacucks (right-wing feminists), feminism is the one that says, surprise, that a girl under 19 is not able to have sex or marry a man, i.e. not to open her legs, only that in this case they can be lesbians and open their legs to other women twice their age, the “pedophilia” and “statutory rape” is only for men, of course

    • jim says:

      There is a reason why the wall is generally considered to be thirty, not twenty five.

      Also, the girls on the covers of magazines, the girls used to advertise product, the girls in movies, are generally early twenties to mid twenties.

      Your sexual preference does not seem to be broadly shared, as indicated by what sells.

    • Roberto says:

      Erich, you need to name the culprit: the Puritan “Society for the Suppressed of Vice,” the Puritan “Social Purity Movement,” the Quakers, and the Victorians. Everything falls into place when you call it Puritanism-Feminism rather than merely Feminism.

      Also, “Women in their twenties are not attractive” is a shit-tier talking point. Jim’s “8-year-old girls have volcanic sex-drives” is a much stronger talking point, as counter-intuitive as that may initially sound to you. Lurk Moar.

Leave a Reply