When the rot set in

total fertility rate
Eighteenth century view was that women were sex crazy and needed to be kept under tight control or else in their feverish sexual lust they would destroy the family, and because state, society, and the church rested on the family, if you let women loose, everything would fall apart.

Nineteenth century view was that women were wonderful, and the marital contract only needed to be enforced against men, never against women, because naturally a woman would never break it unless a man forced her to do so.

And everything did fall apart.

Tags:

226 Responses to “When the rot set in”

  1. Turtle says:

    What about data past 2001? Has the TFR fallen further below 2.0? I don’t see how it could.

    I think the 20th century view was that nominally, everyone is equally good, but some are better than others. Now, Obama poses for a grinning photo, holding a t-shirt saying:
    “ALL MEN are created equal but only THE BEST are born in MAY.” White/grey text on black shirt, while Michelle makes a heart shape with her hands. It’s bizarre, and indicates he might be really high or otherwise disinhibited.

    I think we’ll see fertility rise gradually if things go well, not too quickly.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      The TFR for the United Kingdom is 1.8. This is including Muslims and other vibrants who pull the average up.

      And yes, it can get worse- Portugal is currently at 1.2. You can go even lower than that- Taiwan has a current TFR of .9.

      • Turtle says:

        Thanks for the almost instant reply and data. Portugal is poor (“PIGS” country) and forgotten in status competition, maybe that makes their women sullen and shrewish. Taiwan might fear conquest by China,but I am just guessing. I think we can estimate the U.K. native TFR at 1.4. That’s close to Portugal and Taiwan. I wonder what the U.S. native (long-time, many generations of living here, not just Indians) TFR is- 1.8?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          I don’t think it is local to Portugal (pulled from wiki)

          1.3
          Slovak Republic
          Greece
          Poland
          Spain
          Bosnia and Herzegovina
          Moldova

          1.4
          Austria
          Germany
          Romania
          Italy
          Hungry

          1.7
          Denmark

          The rest are higher but also happen to have substantial immigrant populations (so does Denmark, Austria and Germany) which pull up their TFR. European birth rates are in the toilet.

          It is actually much crazier then Jim makes it sound btw. Data from the US

          https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/center-for-public-affairs-research/documents/fertility-rates-by-race-ethnicity-us-nebraska.pdf

          For the last 2 decades black fertility rates have barely been above replacement rate and since 2008 they dropped below 2. Hispanic fertility rate is only about 2.2; if you take out the immigrants, they are below replacement.

        • Anon says:

          East Asian capitalists are the lowest, Japan south Korea Hong Kong Singapore etc. Are insanely low

        • Wency says:

          The lowest TFR countries tend to be those where women are expected to live a traditional housewife’s existence if married but an uninhibited feminist existence if unmarried. Women respond to the incentives by remaining unmarried and frequently childless. It’s for this reason that more socially conservative societies in the West and NE Asia tend to ironically be the least fertile.

          A TFR just under 2 is usually possible in socially liberal societies, where marriage has little effect on a woman’s freedom, and where putting children in childcare is easy and routine.

          A TFR in the 2+ range only seems to be possible if women’s non-marriage options are highly restricted by law or custom.

          • jim says:

            Nailed it.

            Left to their own devices, women will sleep with males whose sexual market value is far higher than their own. Finding themselves at number eight on his booty call list, they then sleep with another high sexual status male in an effort to get to number six on the next male’s list. This continues until they are no longer hot enough to get booty calls, and their most fertile years have been used up.

            And we just have to stop women from doing this. We have to deny her sexual access to any man who is not willing to marry her, and especially and particularly deny her sexual access to married men. The rule has to be that they are not allowed to live independently on their own, not allowed out except in the company of a male who has proper authority over them, and not allowed to date and stuff except they are engaged, an engagement being a legally enforceable promise to marry if you have sex.

            • Corvinus says:

              This blog is comedic gold.

              “Left to their own devices, women will sleep with males whose sexual market value is far higher than their own.”

              Except Jim has admitted that he has slept with women while married and without securing permission from their fathers. It is clear that they slummed it with him, thus destroying his own theory that women have sex with men who have a higher status.

              “Finding themselves at number eight on his booty call list, they then sleep with another high sexual status male in an effort to get to number six on the next male’s list.”

              Another overblown generalization.

              “This continues until they are no longer hot enough to get booty calls, and their most fertile years have been used up.”

              Plenty of men and women who are “past their prime” have recreational sex.

              “And we just have to stop women from doing this. We have to deny her sexual access to any man who is not willing to marry her…”

              Anybody home, Jim? Heartiste would then be married by now, except the Jew is single and childless and a barrier to the progress of Western Civilization. All women are owned despite your protestations.

              “and especially and particularly deny her sexual access to married men.”

              Anybody home, Jim? You were married and had sex with women other than your wife, or so you claim. So why are you this exception?

              “The rule has to be that they are not allowed to live independently on their own…”

              Then if that be the case, you, as the superior sex, ought to have refrained from rutting and worked with their father or eldest male relative to ensure that this rule was adhered to, and not broken it yourself for your own pleasure. Your behavior only shows your degenerative nature.

              “not allowed out except in the company of a male who has proper authority over them”

              Again, you broke the rule. You do not have “proper authority” over these women because you are not kin. You are a hypocrite.

              “and not allowed to date and stuff except they are engaged, an engagement being a legally enforceable promise to marry if you have sex.”

              Exactly. You had sex outside of marriage. You did not get engaged. Roissy also had sex with women outside of marriage. He made no promises to them to get married. By your own logic, he should be shot…dead. God knows you are a liar and a cheat.

              • Dan Kurt says:

                You, Corvinus, have learned well from Alinsky.

                Dan Kurt

              • jim says:

                Woman have to be subject to rightful authority. If they are not, I can fuck them.

                For society to work, for the tribe to be able to reproduce, for children to have fathers, for men to have a reason to work and fight for their society, the woman, not her lover, has to be subject to her father. And then she gets transferred from her father to her lover. She ceases to be subject to her father and becomes subject to her husband. The father gives away all power over her, and the husband gains all power over her.

                Making husbands subject to fathers in law is not a solution, it is not even vaguely related to the solution.

                The problem is not women wandering off from their fathers. That is what is supposed to happen. The problem is that they then wander off from lover number one to lover number two, and from lover number two to lover number three.

                We have to require women to stick with their lovers, not require them to stick with their fathers. We have to force them to stick with lover number one.

                Old Testament solution: Raping or seducing a virgin was OK, but you had to stick with her all her days, and she with you. Unfortunately these days Old and New Testament marriage is highly illegal, and can only be enforced by personal charisma and personal violence.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Or select them to stick with their lovers without coercion.

                • jim says:

                  It is in the interest of a woman to defect. So she defects. Knowing this, the male defects first. Defect/defect equilibrium, everyone is worse off.

                  Prisoners dilemma with a small number of iterations. The only solution is external coercion, Old Testament style.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Woman have to be subject to rightful authority. If they are not, I can fuck them.”

                  They are subject to rightful authority. They are owned by their fathers, regardless of the conduct of their daughters. Moreover, you have to secure permission to marry her in order to fuck her. You make up these rules, break them, then justify breaking them. You’re all over the map.

                  “For society to work, for the tribe to be able to reproduce, for children to have fathers, for men to have a reason to work and fight for their society, the woman, not her lover, has to be subject to her father.”

                  She is subject to her father at all times, in every case. You don’t get to bang her because you believe she is other than under his domain.

                  “And then she gets transferred from her father to her lover. She ceases to be subject to her father and becomes subject to her husband. The father gives away all power over her, and the husband gains all power over her.”

                  Again, only when you properly secure permission with the father. There is no harem involved here. It’s “one and done”.

                  “Making husbands subject to fathers in law is not a solution, it is not even vaguely related to the solution.”

                  You are not the husband until you marry the daughter of the father upon receiving his formal blessing.

                  “The problem is that they then wander off from lover number one to lover number two, and from lover number two to lover number three.”

                  No, the problem here is that you are perpetual liar.

                  “Old Testament solution: Raping or seducing a virgin was OK, but you had to stick with her all her days, and she with you. Unfortunately these days Old and New Testament marriage is highly illegal, and can only be enforced by personal charisma and personal violence.”

                  You lack the charisma, but are one strange, angry dude.

                • jim says:

                  “Woman have to be subject to rightful authority. If they are not, I can fuck them.”

                  They are subject to rightful authority. They are owned by their fathers, regardless of the conduct of their daughters.

                  Don’t be silly.

                  The Old Testament, for obvious common sense reasons, is fine with marriage by seduction or abduction, and there is nothing in the New Testament, or Christian history before 1950, walking away from that position.

                  The problem is that marriage as traditionally understood was criminalized in the late nineteenth century, which law was for a long time widely ignored, but in the early nineteen sixtees, the criminalization of marriage began to be actually enforced.

                  We are all bastards now. Unless your father, like me, is a criminal.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “The Old Testament, for obvious common sense reasons, is fine with marriage by seduction or abduction, and there is nothing in the New Testament, or Christian history before 1950, walking away from that position.”

                  You left out a key item here…you must secure permission from the father.

                  You left out another key item here…you are prohibited from having sex with the women until you are married.

                  “The problem is that marriage as traditionally understood was criminalized in the late nineteenth century…”

                  Patently false. We have already covered that ground already.

                  “which law was for a long time widely ignored, but in the early nineteen sixtees, the criminalization of marriage began to be actually enforced.”

                  Patently false. We have already covered that ground already.

                  “We are all bastards now. Unless your father, like me, is a criminal.”

                  Patently false. We have already covered that ground already.

                • jim says:

                  You left out a key item here…you must secure permission from the father.

                  Bullshit.

                  The Old Testament has no significant penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin, except marriage.

                  So if you rape or seduce a virgin, and her father does not let you keep her, you are fine. It is her father that is misbehaving, not you.

                  You left out another key item here…you are prohibited from having sex with the women until you are married.

                  You think they had twentieth century marriage in old Testament times? Hell, they did not even have twentieth century marriage in the middle ages. Marriage simply meant that once you slept with a girl, you could not ditch her, nor could she ditch you. There was no marriage ceremony in Old Testament times, and even as late the early nineteenth century the marriage ceremony was a low key no fuss affair at which only the father of the bride, the bride, the groom, and the priest showed up, usually after sex had already taken place by arrangement.

                  Today we have a great big marriage ceremony, because marriage has been abolished. What is illicit is not sex without a great big ceremony with umpteen bridesmaids and all that. What is illicit is sex without the intent that the woman will stick with that man and only that man, that she will always be sexually available to that man, and never to any other.

                  And in old testament times, if you grabbed an unbetrothed virgin while her father was not looking and carried her off with the intent of keeping her and never letting her go, then that was fine.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >It is in the interest of a woman to defect. So she defects. Knowing this, the male defects first. Defect/defect equilibrium, everyone is worse off.

                  A) So the people left married are the ones who don’t defect and don’t have a family history of defection. Color me unconcerned.

                  B) It’s in the interest of white people everywhere to defect, but they don’t — for the most (vast) part. Evolutionary inertia. Given long enough, given enough selective pressure, they will turn into straight-up niggers. But not today.

                  >And in old testament times, if you grabbed an unbetrothed virgin while her father was not looking and carried her off with the intent of keeping her and never letting her go, then that was fine.

                  I don’t much care what a bunch of sand-Jews were doing three thousand years ago. That’s a low-social-trust move if there ever was one. Let the father provide his daughters with a social environment with a couple hundred suitable mates (white tradition), let her choose, putting selective pressure on female mate choice (white trait), and enforce the choice — not too strongly! — but allow a moderate amount of female attrition (evolutionary death) to select for loyalty in women.

                  If your solution involves locking your wives and daughters in a dungeon, not letting them outside where they might be captured by Chechnyan raiders, and/or not letting them go to the grocery store under their own power because your property right is so weak that you must have a male cousin chaperone them at all times lest they tear off their head baggage and prance around molesting horny young men with her eyes… respectfully, construct a time machine and fuck off to the Bronze Age.

                • jim says:

                  Societies where women are chaperoned to the grocery store have a total fertility rate of six or seven.

                  Societies where they can sneak off to fuck the local guitar player have total fertility rate well below two.

                  In so far as we are reproducing at all, it is because not everyone is aware of the current incentives towards bad behavior. As the realization sinks in, the total fertility rate will fall further.

                  If the white race is to survive, there is no alternative to bringing white women under control. Under present circumstances, bad behavior is in fact optimal for the individual, so it is good behavior that evolution will eradicate.

                  Defect defect is both a response to hostile reality, and the product of natural selection as cooperators get destroyed by the legal system.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Whites who follow the Bronze-Age strategy would have more civilizational sustainability than whites who follow the Medieval Courtly-Love “strategy” of letting women decide whom to fuck.

                  Medieval Courtly-Love customs and/or Gentilhomme customs may feel better to whites because muh chivalrous instincts, but muh chivalrous instincts are the reason First-Wave Feminism was allowed to occur.

                  Weev may be a mischling psychopath but he’s damn right correct about coverture:

                  https://www.dailystormer.com/just-what-are-traditional-gender-roles/

                • Corvinus says:

                  “The Old Testament has no significant penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin, except marriage.”

                  The penalty for a man who had sex with an unbetrothed virgin is that he must pay money and marry her. Otherwise, he is stoned to death. So, did you meet your obligation when it came to the punishment?

                  The penalty for a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin is to pay money and marry her. Otherwise, he is stoned to death. So, did you meet your obligation when it came to the punishment?

                  “So if you rape or seduce a virgin, and her father does not let you keep her, you are fine.”

                  Patently false. You were other than fine. There was significant consequence for those actions.

                  “It is her father that is misbehaving, not you.”

                  You were the one who dishonored the woman and father by falling prey to your urges.

                  “There was no marriage ceremony in Old Testament times…”

                  Wow, you got something right for once.

                  “Today we have a great big marriage ceremony, because
                  marriage has been abolished.”

                  Then you ruin your streak. Marriage has not been abolished.

                  “And in old testament times, if you grabbed an unbetrothed virgin while her father was not looking and carried her off with the intent of keeping her and never letting her go, then that was fine.”

                  During a war, yes. During peace, no–you still had to secure permission from the father.

                  “Societies where women are chaperoned to the grocery store have a total fertility rate of six or seven.”

                  Sources or retract.

                • jim says:

                  > > So if you rape or seduce a virgin, and her father does not let you keep her, you are fine.”

                  > Patently false. You were other than fine. There was significant consequence for those actions.

                  Not what the Old Testament says. And indeed, not common practice until the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Marriage by abduction only became controversial in the eighteenth century, although it was theoretically forbidden by the Church much earlier than that.

                  Until the eighteenth century or thereabouts, you only got in trouble for marriage by abduction if you abducted a high status female and there were substantial inheritance issues. If she had no substantial assets to her name, no problem.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Societies where women are chaperoned to the grocery store have a total fertility rate of six or seven.”

                  > Sources or retract.

                  Afghanistan and Timor Leste.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Societies where they can sneak off to fuck the local guitar player have total fertility rate well below two.

                  Pretty soon, probably with Urbit, technology is going to raise the Dunbar number to 4 billion.

                  >If the white race is to survive, there is no alternative to bringing white women under control.

                  Which white race? Germans or Englishmen? Russians or Portuguese? Swedes or Armenians? Do you care so deeply about the race as socialists once so deeply cared about the nation?

                  >Under present circumstances, bad behavior is in fact optimal for the individual, so it is good behavior that evolution will eradicate.

                  Good behavior is stable marriage, no defection, hypocritical progressivism, 2-4 children, male intelligence enough to attract a good woman, female beauty enough to attract a good man. By definition, “good” cannot be eliminated except by manslaughter.

                  >Defect defect is both a response to hostile reality, and the product of natural selection as cooperators get destroyed by the legal system.

                  Not so. If both cooperate, the law stays out of the bedroom.

                • jim says:

                  Which white race? Germans or Englishmen? Russians or Portuguese? Swedes or Armenians? Do you care so deeply about the race as socialists once so deeply cared about the nation?

                  Mine. I want more children, and I want more grandchildren.

                  Good behavior is stable marriage, no defection, hypocritical progressivism, 2-4 children, male intelligence enough to attract a good woman, female beauty enough to attract a good man. By definition, “good” cannot be eliminated except by manslaughter.

                  That is collective good behavior. Evolution does not care. Evolution selects for individually optimal behavior. Under present circumstances, evolution selects for black behavior. Men pump and dump, women deprive their children of fathers and ruin their husbands. Individually, it is optimal to behave badly if the other person behaves well, and still optimal to behave badly if the other person behaves badly.

                  Who is reproducing? Well behaved women are not reproducing. Except for billionaires, well behaved men are not reproducing. Welfare mums and black thugs are reproducing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Medieval Courtly-Love customs and/or Gentilhomme customs may feel better to whites because muh chivalrous instincts, but muh chivalrous instincts are the reason First-Wave Feminism was allowed to occur.

                  No, First-Wave Feminism was allowed to occur because it was an expansion of the franchise from white Hajnalien men, a substantial majority of whom want a small, unintrusive state, to women, who all and everywhere want a large and intrusive state. In other words, it was the logical next step of democracy, and a dramatic expansion of Power. Federal expenditures were essentially steady for decades between the end of the Civil War and Woman Suffrage. Upon woman suffrage, federal expenditures immediately began to rise, and haven’t stopped since.

                  In essence, I propose to let women succeed or fail on their own merit, their merit defined as their ability to identify a good mate, attain him, and keep him. An order in which most women need state coercion to stay with their mates is inherently fragile.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “In essence, I propose to let women succeed or fail on their own merit, their merit defined as their ability to identify a good mate, attain him, and keep him. An order in which most women need state coercion to stay with their mates is inherently fragile.”

                  Historically there wasn’t an order where state coercion was involved – nor is anyone talking about entering into such a state.

                  The state coercion in the current model is involved in blocking men from acting as husbands to their wives in the case of the woman misbehaving. State neutrality in marital disputes doesn’t end up with an equilibrium of the woman saying “get out of my house and keep paying for it”.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Mine. I want more children, and I want more grandchildren.

                  As do I. But we live in an unforgiving world. Gregory Cochran has a lot of memorable quotes, but I think the greatest is, “Every society selects for something.”

                  >That is collective good behavior. Evolution does not care. Evolution selects for individually optimal behavior. Under present circumstances, evolution selects for black behavior. Men pump and dump, women deprive their children of fathers and ruin their husbands. Individually, it is optimal to behave badly if the other person behaves well, and still optimal to behave badly if the other person behaves badly.

                  How many Harvard graduates have divorced parents? How many Harvard graduates are divorced or will be?

                  If a woman nukes her family with the gavel of the law, is she not “dropping out”, so to speak? Is she not descending herself and her offspring to a tier on the gene pool with lesser wealth, lower status, and higher (possibly much higher) genetic load?

                  As a man, is it optimal, both now and in the long term, to dump your genes into the welfare class gene pool? As a woman, is it optimal, both now and in the long term, to merge your genes into the welfare class gene pool?

                  What happens to the average genetic “potentiality of stable marriage” trait in the subset of people with families with no histories of divorce if you have just spent the last three generations encouraging, incentivizing, and propagandizing every woman who wants to divorce, to divorce?

                  >Who is reproducing? Well behaved women are not reproducing. Except for billionaires, well behaved men are not reproducing. Welfare mums and black thugs are reproducing.

                  If well-behaved women aren’t reproducing, how are they well-behaved?

                  If well-behaved women can’t find suitable mates, why is there then an apparent shortage of well-behaved women?

                  If well-behaved man aren’t reproducing, why then haven’t they secured well-behaved women?

                  The problem is not that there is significant attrition, it’s that attrition is now too high. Or, if divorce has tapered off amongst high SES persons, is it?

                • jim says:

                  How many Harvard graduates are divorced or will be?

                  Now that is the relevant question – almost.

                  The answer to the question that you should have asked is that of those very few female Harvard graduates who marry, almost all them will divorce.

                  If you want grandchildren from your daughters, forbid your daughter to go to Harvard. Indeed, tell her she should not go to college until after she has children. She has all her life to go to college, but only until thirty six or so to have children.

                  If you want grandchildren from your sons, forbid them to date college graduates, especially Harvard graduates, because of the poor marriage prospects and terrible divorce risk.

                  Harvard is a gene shredder for women. They do not marry, and if they do marry they sleep around and then they divorce. Female Harvard graduates are gene shredders for men. Dating female Harvard grads is almost as bad as dating trannies. You are better off marrying a truck stop stripper.

                  Yes, I have read Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart”, and examined his data. It is, like his claim that the elite is becoming more IQ selected, a great big blatant barefaced obvious lie. You are better off with a truck stop stripper than a female lawyer, and better off with a female lawyer than a female Harvard graduate.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The state coercion in the current model is involved in blocking men from acting as husbands to their wives in the case of the woman misbehaving. State neutrality in marital disputes doesn’t end up with an equilibrium of the woman saying “get out of my house and keep paying for it”.

                  This is true.

                  >Historically there wasn’t an order where state coercion was involved – nor is anyone talking about entering into such a state.

                  This is not.

                  State neutrality in marital disputes would give men the upper hand, but not as much as necessary. More importantly, there isn’t really a strong distinction between state and non-state patriarchical authority — one sort of blends into the other. The man was theoretically backed by his peers, his peers were theoretically backed by the constable was theoretically backed by the police chief, the police chief was theoretically backed by the judge was theoretically backed by somebody else, the priest fit in somewhere there, and the king’s army theoretically guaranteed them all.

                  Problem is, there is no local economy anymore, “locals” are ruled by effective foreigners and outsiders, and power isn’t just going to devolve unless for some energy consumption goes down dramatically — probably to pre-electricity levels, or else you’re still going to be mentally tethered to the state by electronic communication… in descending order: the Internet, TV, radio, and the telegraph. Some ratchets cannot be loosened.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “The man was theoretically backed by his peers, his peers were theoretically backed by the constable was theoretically backed by the police chief, the police chief was theoretically backed by the judge was theoretically backed by somebody else, the priest fit in somewhere there, and the king’s army theoretically guaranteed them all.”

                  If you caught you wife in bed with another man you didn’t go to the sheriff to shoot them, you shot them yourself and no charges were filed. That’s husbands enforcing marriage with state neutrality. Courts were never dragging women back to their husbands (which would be wrong anyway as a man that weak couldn’t restrain her bad behavior anyway.

                • jim says:

                  I think the state should haul wives back to their husbands, to be beaten by their husbands, after asking them why they ran away. The number one reason is that they wandered off to fuck somebody else, and we really damn well should put a stop to it. It undermines men’s inclination to work, to pay taxes, and especially to serve in the military. A man works to support his family, he fights to protect his family. Obviously the state should ask the runaway wife if the husband engaged in misconduct, but in the vast majority of cases, the problem is likely to be female misconduct, because imposing chastity and monogamy on women is in the interests of men and the interests of the state and against women’s desires and interests.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >That’s husbands enforcing marriage with state neutrality.

                  That isn’t neutrality. its approval, and it only makes sense for the state to approve of the husbands’ behavior if they are loyal and valuable subjects. We run into a bit of a problem when a) power flows mostly from women rather than men, a problem that can be solved, and b) the men are employable at any price, a problem that cannot be solved. We also run into a bit of a problem if the state is so powerful that it can tell men to go home and fuck themselves, with impunity. If you really piss off your subjects, the Bastille can be stormed by a really angry mob of half-starved, effeminate Frenchmen, but Air Force One is unassailable.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >She has all her life to go to college, but only until thirty six or so to have children.

                  No she doesn’t. You can’t go to college at 30. It’s hard to go at 25.

                  >of those very few female Harvard graduates who marry, almost all them will divorce

                  Please pass the sauce.

                  >You are better off marrying a truck stop stripper.

                  Please.

                  >gene shredder

                  You know how all elms are Chinese and Salt Lake City is the most gullible city on Earth? It’s like that.

                • jim says:

                  Where is your data on marriage and reproduction by female ivy league graduates? Surprise, surprise, you will not find it in Murray. Odd thing that.

                  On common sense and casual observation, they look like the women who run Europe. Childless whores and perverts who in due course become childless cat ladies.

              • peppermint says:

                Pseudointellectuals have created this concept that women were ever considered property. It is on the face of it ridiculous for the most important thing to be considered according to analogy with something less important.

                Unlike cows, horses, and niggers, it is not permitted to sell or rent women. Instead, the roles of men and women in marriage are clearly defined by White sharia and instincts.

                Christians claim that White sharia is barbarism and Christianity is civilization. The opposite is the case, as seen in the behavior of emancipated women.

                • jim says:

                  Pets are property. Does not mean you can boil them in oil, or even beat them in ways that cause injury or unnecessary suffering. The legal and social status of women should be similar to that of pets.

          • Eli says:

            jim preempted me. This kind of reply is one reason I like to come to this place. Very good summary.

    • James James says:

      “Has the TFR fallen further below 2.0? I don’t see how it could.”

      Why not? A population with a fertility rate below 2 will go extinct, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

      It will probably be replaced by a population with a fertility rate above 2.

      In the Mouse Utopia experiments, the mice just stopped having children.

      • peppermint says:

        Anarchoprimitivists don’t understand that Aryans are only happy when they have plenty of stuff and they pretty much always have it. Fixation of lactase persistence implies plenty of cows. The Celts we know very little about fought the Romans using chainmail.

        Puritans know Aryans are on happy with plenty of stuff and stable families based on White sharia. Puritans hate happiness, seeing it as yet another immodest proud affront to God, and want to destroy the family and long-term prosperity. Jews agree with puritans that the Aryan race ought to be destroyed for not being equal.

        • Jack Highlands says:

          Looking at your statement through the lens of HBDChickism, it has to be said that Aryan=clannish Whites and Puritan=anti-clannish Whites. (Looking at Jim’s particular corner of NRx through the same lens, religious Puritanism and its secular successor are simply the most vigorous and successful forms of clan-breaking that began with the Franks in the 5th century.)

          Clannish Whites – Aryans – stopped getting use to the potential for unlimited conquest with Rome, the civilization that taught Aryans that order and bureaucracy counted more for long-term Empire maintenance than Aryan vigor. Seeds of anti-clannishness began in Rome.

          Since then, Aryan Whites – clannish Whites – have been reduced to the lands where Orthodoxy prevails as the dominant form of Christianity, plus a few other, mainly Slavic, lands. One could not say that even the most powerful and Aryan of these, the Russians, have the ancient Aryan drive for unlimited conquest, ensuring plenty of stuff. Russians certainly like stuff (all peoples do, but few others have the Aryan means to get it and none have the Puritan means to create it) but not in the old conquering way of our ancestors. Why, even the curious Last Stand of Western Clannishness, aka The 3rd Reich, was far more acquisitive in the old way than the Russians were, which is why the Eastern Front was a just and brutal front.

          Basically, the problem is that 1500 years of anti-clannish material success has shown the world that you get far more with the benefits of outbreeding than inbreeding, far more through invention and trade than by the strictly military aspects conquest (and you certainly get better conquest via invention).

          But we’ve reached a new tipping point: none of that applies to the Browns and Black masses, only to Whites and probably, Yellows.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >the problem is that 1500 years of anti-clannish material success has shown the world that you get far more with the benefits of outbreeding than inbreeding

            No successful demographic in history ever became successful by out breeding. People rarely, if ever, breed outside their own. And when they do, the results are genetically kludged, stunted and deformed physically, emotionally, and mentally. See for instance the highly hybridized descendants of the khazarian tribes who have plagued europe for generations.

            The term ‘outbreeding’ itself has large amounts of exosemantic load associated with it that exhort the desirability of mongrelization and cuckdom.

            It is a mushy term with ambiguous application, and as is always the case with mushiness, it is inevitably used by people in the most leftist interpretation of the ambiguity there is.

            “Mutation without, corruption within.”

            • Jack Highlands says:

              In HBDChickism, outbreeding does not refer to breeding outside one’s race or even ethnic group, but simply breeding far out into one’s hyper-extended family.

              Arabs are among the most inbred people on the planet: their average co-efficient of relationship is about second cousin, and fully a quarter of their marriages are between first cousins. In other words, if you pick pairs of Arabs from a large town or small city at random, their AVERAGE degree of relatedness to each other would be second cousin, so half the pairs would be even closer.

              Even in Medieval times in the West, we were far less inbred than that, with an average relatedness of about fifth cousin.

              Even in tiny Iceland, which has gone through a few genetic bottlenecks in its short history and is often pilloried as ‘inbred’ by Skypes with high IQs dedicated to lying, the average relatedness is fifth or sixth cousin.

              The result is that Westerners have the loosest but largest ‘extended families’ of any people on earth. This is the genetic basis for Western willingness to trust people in non-family relationships, which is in turn the basis for high-trust Western commerce, justice, science and massive cultural success in general, but also of Western tolerance, eg of Skypes and Googles.

              • Jack Highlands says:

                Actually, my Arab city/town example is a little misleading. What’s really going on is that ALL Arab societies, even in a vast city like Baghdad or Cairo, consist of a few to thousands of clannish units, mixing only slightly, by Western standards, with the other units.

                So two guys from the same block in Baghdad are probably siblings or 1st/2nd/3rd cousins, but a few blocks away, not closely related at all.

              • Garr says:

                Yeah, Skypes really, really hate Iceland, which is why they spend so much time making up and publishing lies about it. Why do Skypes hate Iceland so much? Probably because Skypes are jealous of Iceland’s proud strongmen, and of its Freya-like Nordic beauties, such as Bjork. Skypes have always wanted to fuck someone like Bjork after deadlifting more than an Icelandic strongman can, and so they mutter to themselves in their dank synagogue-basements, while counting their gold, “Iceland, Iceland … what new lies can we concoct about that painfully beautiful island and its proud, beautiful people (for we Skypes loathe and strive to destroy all that is beautiful, devoting our high IQs to this unending effort).”

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  Ironically, your lame attempt at irony (cry, the vaunted IQ) hits close to the mark.

                  This blog is devoted to drawing conclusions from what people do, not what they say (eg ‘all women wish to be dominated because all women shit test’), so looking at what Jews are (ugly, on average) and do (create a lot of ugliness and destroy a lot of beauty), I can’t disagree with you.

                  Here’s a small shiv of real irony: the only reason Bjork is considered even passable in looks is that Jew-dominated ugliness in the entertainment industry was decades-old by the time she started to attract significant attention in 1987. All of which is to say nothing of her music, which may be good for all I know; my taste runs more to Couperin, Bach and Saint-Saens.

                • Garr says:

                  I can never remember what the word “irony” means. There’s a cool documentary on Icelandic strongmen called something like “Giants of Iceland” that you can watch on Youtube, if you’re interested. Also, Gaiman’s American Gods ends in Iceland. I think Bjork’s cute, or used to be, anyway. I’ve definitely spent more hours listening to Bach than to Bjork, but more Rolling Stones and Stooges than either. I’ll bet I’ve read more of the Poetic Edda than you have! (The Prose Edda is already Marvel Comics. Snorri Sturleson must have been a Jew, like Stan Lee.)

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  At hyggjandi sinni skyli-t maðr hræsinn vera, heldr gætinn at geði.

          • Anony-maus says:

            Not to forget the literal conflict between clannish and non-clannish whites: the American Civil War.

            • Jack Highlands says:

              It’s a little complicated, since Southern planters weren’t particularly more clannish than Yankees, and there were some Scots-Irish (who were very clannish) on both sides. However, between Yankee crystallization and internalization of Puritanical anti-clannishness as an entire worldview, and greater and more zealous participation of the Scots-Irish on the Confederate side, yes it’s fair to characterize the Civil War as you have.

              My own feeling is that there was also a sense of ‘putting out the sparks of clannishness’ in a people (the Southern planters) who were supposed to have already given it up. This seems to lead to particularly vicious Puritanism, as in the war against the Third Reich.

  2. Turtle says:

    About college and IQ, the blogger’s own comment from what Jim linked to:

    “we should expect an average of about 96 for those under 30. If ~40% have been in school for 4+ years (not necessarily ever graduating) and their average is 100, that means the average of non-graduates would be 93 or 94. That seems plausible to me.”

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/04/average-iq-of-college-graduates-by.html?showComment=1493348554812#c2471519810946018317

    What is the estimated gap between college grads and high school grads for prior decades? 12 points, diminishing gradually? And what should it be, ideally?

    • Alrenous says:

      Even elementary school is overkill for almost everyone. It only wastes time they could use for either socializing or learning their trade. (Prussian school causes a socialization deficit which causes developmental psychological retardation and corruption.) If you time it correctly, it only takes a few months to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, and everything else is for effete intellectual signalling.

      You can do serious intellectual work below about 145, but nobody seems motivated enough to do it below that level. University is correctly for self-motivated scholars. Training anyone else is a waste for everyone involved. Wastes scholar time, wastes student time, wastes classroom space, TA time, and student dunbar slots.

      For the other side of the ledger, there’s some communication benefits for all scholars having a canon. Can replace paragraphs with references. Having some idea about norms of thinking, it becomes relatively safe to guess what the other scholar is thinking when presented with an idea, saving much precious time and space writing out background.

      • peppermint says:

        The universities are the source of the corruption, and fortunately, there is precisely zero reason to have universities in the future. Especially about things that are difficult to prove, anonymity is essential, and universities create the opposite of anonymity.

        The canon failed. Let reason be silent when contradicted by experience.

        Any scholar that you can reliably guess what they think isn’t worth talking to about ideas.

  3. jay says:

    The extent of fertility is the extent the sex craziness of women was channeled into the marriage bed under the aegis of Patriarchy and prevented from running wild and like fire burning everything down.

    • Machiavelli says:

      Treating women like they are the sex-crazed one is also solid game. Make her look like she’s irrationally obsessed with you, even if she’s completely ignored you, and the embarrassment will drive her insane with lust.

      The old patriarchial beliefs weren’t just good for social stability, they were also solid game.

  4. peppermint says:

    What’s exciting about White sharia is that for the first time we can say we want to return to our traditions and at the same time fundamentally reject Christianity, without supporting degeneracy, but reject Christianity as the degeneracy it is.

    • Warg Franklin says:

      What’s wrong with “White Patriarchy”? Why “White Sharia”? I appreciate that sharia sounds exotic and triggering and hipper somehow, but we already had a perfectly good word that isn’t borrowed from a semitic language.

      • peppermint says:

        Sharia is Persian for tradition. Patriarchy triggers feminists, while Sharia makes their ginies tingle.

        • Jack Highlands says:

          According to Wiktionary, it traces back to Arabic for ‘path’ or ‘way.’

          Too bad, you got my hopes up for a second there. I like the #WhiteSharia meme and use it on twatter, but fundamentally I agree with Warg – it’s hip and triggering, but ultimately not our own.

          • pdimov says:

            Shariat (شریعت) in Urdu means “Law” according to Google Translate. It says that it means “Sharia” in Persian which is kind of inconclusive.

            • jim says:

              Aryan (proto indo european) for divine law:

              There is natural law, divine law, and malum prohibitum.

              Thus, plagiarizing someone is against natural law, while violating their copyright is malum prohibitum.

              If you are believer, divine law is whatever laws you get from divine revelation, rather than from nature (natural law) or earthly authority (malum prohibitum).

              I, of course, think that divine law is the shibboleths of your natural or synthetic tribe, and the customs of your tribe. By conforming to the observable customs of your tribe, even if arbitrary, unreasonable, or silly, you communicate a willingness to adhere to rules that facilitate cooperation, and especially facilitate cooperation between members of your tribe.

              Today’s whites have lost divine law, And the state is undermining natural law as hard as it can.

              White Divine law used to prescribe keeping women obedient, humble, and, most importantly, chaste, killing male homosexuals, maintaining the supremacy of your particular white tribe over other tribes, taking good care of your own women, generosity, and forgiveness to all, without, however going so overboard on generosity and forgiveness so as to reward defection, reward the undeserving, or undermine the supremacy of your particular tribe over other tribes. It is one thing to take care of the wounded man on the road who was set upon by robbers, it is another thing to take in a homeless man who is homeless because he is drunk, lazy, quarrelsome, and no damn good, and generosity to the defeated does not mean letting them resume war the moment your back is turned without suffering dire consequences.

            • Jack Highlands says:

              I’ve got a lot of respect for Anglin’s courage and energy, but I’m hardly going to look to him for expertise on Indo-European languages. Yes, sharia is a Persian word, but just like English, Persian has tons of non-Aryan loanwords and sharia is one of them: it comes from Arabic.

              If Sharia was an Aryan word, it would have cognates in Indo-European languages; it doesn’t. But the word ‘law’ has a lot, including Norse lagu, proto-Germanic laga, Latin lex and PIE legh, which meant lie, as in ‘laws are laid down.’ Which raises whole other groups of cognates.

              Bottom line is that White Sharia is a great concept, but contains a foreign word that might or might not catch on and worse yet, the foreign-ness of the word is likely to taint the concept as foreign-ness. Even worse for the prospect of catching on, after 951 years of them, English speakers at our most ferocious and nativist moments are still uncomfortable with words of FRENCH origin, let alone Arabic – witness Churchill’s ‘we shall fight them in the hills’ speech.

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                I think the point is if you argue against him, you can be attacked for Islamophobia. Follow anti-racist Hitler and attack your enemies from the left.

              • peppermint says:

                Lex is for written words. Jus is for law in concept.

                Because the ancient White sharia marriage laws have been corrupted so much by Christian commentary and Christian and “post”-Christian modification, we need a word to describe the specific natural marriage law of our race, as opposed to Christian views and laws and other races’ customs.

                That word is White sharia.

  5. vxxc2014 says:

    “I think we’ll see fertility rise gradually if things go well, not too quickly.”

    Agree.

    Not all news is bad. Also above in comments Black fertility rate below replacement [well..BYE] and Hispanics at 2.2.

    As whites rise again so will our fertility rate, in particular as everyone even the women are sick of feminism and want patriarchy. As do the feminists themselves. The immigrants are already leaving and if Trumpf doesn’t get us there we’ll get someone who will.

    We’re rising.

    As far as restoring Patriarchy surely we don’t expect the women to surrender?

    Power must be taken.

    Sometimes so must women. Taking women’s power will require taking, not we ask them to vote themselves out of their rather plush and not accountable sinecures of power they’ve accepted at our hands.

    Women voting isn’t an office, it’s a sinecure. Same with women in the office.

    • viking says:

      The war will disempower women. Disempowered women will have children when commanded, powerful men will command more children. White people in rural areas have lots of children.You cant have lots of children in apartments, you dont want more of the children that materialize today, men have no power to raise their children the state women and children raise children they bring fathers no joy.

      • peppermint says:

        == You cant have lots of children in apartments

        sand, dirt, curry, and bean niggers disagree

        • Turtle says:

          And the southerners in Japan, who formerly had kings until the 19th c., have the highest fertility in Japan. Maybe this is globally true, but I don’t think so.
          The ethnically, politically, genetically different southerners of Japan are rural, farmers mostly, with good cities, and beautiful countryside. Japan will be ok, because they do know how to live in cramped quarters, leaving no ‘comfort space’ room. But really, the American data is that home sizes have almost doubled… and family sizes have almost halved.

          Your thesis is decadent- I don’t have kids yet because I procrastinated, not because I’m not rich enough. And speak for yourself- how many acres per child are you considering necessary? Maybe a separate continent for the summer house? /s

          • Bruce says:

            This is true – my grandfather was a physician, I am a lowly defense worker/cubical warrior. My house is bigger than his house was (he bought it in the 1950’s.)

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          Whites are none of these things and given any option even our trash will not live like this for long,

      • Turtle says:

        Remember, powerful men like George Washington have a strange tendency to marry widows, divorcees, etc. and become stepfathers, perhaps this makes them cucks, but they often do not sire any children. So, dynasties are lacking. If you look at the biographies of statesmen, whether former generals or bureaucratic types, they’re strangely beta, like ‘compromise candidates’ chosen by political machines, not their own ambition or captaincy. So… you’re being idealistic. Motherhood empowers women, that’s why normal women want it, enjoy it, etc. Commanding people during one’s lifetime is easier with a larger family, but these days ambitious people think “I’ll get a competitive advantage by focusing on my career and foregoing family,” so elite fertility is low. They might need actual “no family, no eligibility for upper-class membership” rules. Shall we dream of disempowering spinsters and bachelors, to help parents?

        I notice that my relatives who are fathers are happy, despite how hard it is, as you know personally. They are all flawed, as sinners are, but feel successful in life. That’s enough, emotionally, to be satisfied.

        • peppermint says:

          》powerful men like George Washington have a strange tendency to marry widows, divorcees, etc. and become stepfathers, perhaps this makes them cucks,

          Christianity confused everyone. The sons of Rockefeller and Ford were Christians too.

          》Motherhood empowers women, that’s why normal women want it, enjoy it, etc.

          What does empowerment mean here? A billion years of evolution designed normal women to want and enjoy motherhood, while making single women increasingly deranged as their clock ticks down.

          》diswmpowering bachelors

          No need. Beat all professors in as humiliating a manner possible. Women want to marry men before their careers are really going, as long as they have a plausible sounding promise that they’re going to do well. The way school disrupts family formation is through ideology, constant moving by the young men and women, and housing them in order to facilitate casual sex and prevent the women’s families from examining hookups.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Voting in the future will be like playing old online multiplayer games… “if you’re not hacking, you’re not playing…”

      There’s very few women, nig nog, and bean people hackers…

  6. Greg says:

    1798: Nathan Mayer von Rothschild establishes a business in Manchester

  7. Orthodox says:

    You can’t ignore the steam engine behind the curtain. What’s the 2016 UK population if fertility didn’t drop? Or was Africa colonized by 200 million Scots-Irish?

    • peppermint says:

      hurrrrrr high tech leads to infertility which is why there’s the same level of infertility in all high tech countries throughout the ages and infertility just trends up with tech level

      what happened in the 40s in the US? Is it possible to recreate that?

      the answer is White sharia

  8. Garr says:

    Jim says: “Islam is the solution we don’t want.” Why don’t we want it? Because no more Shakespeare and Michelangelo ever again? No more Guardians of the Galaxy movies? Because Islam requires constant pious pretense and that’s gross? Just because we didn’t come up with it?

    Peppermint says: “the answer is White sharia.” You mean a fairly detailed social code but unsupported by pious pretense? Is that possible without Enforcers who pretty quickly generate a self-justifying religion for themselves (the Will of Nature, etc.) that would then become the official religion, with accompanying pious pretenses? Maybe that’s cool, though, since we came up with it? (Oh, I forgot — you want a Warhammer-like religious basis for “White sharia” … hmm, maybe that makes sense. But then is “sharia” really a helpful label? Couldn’t all of the rules be justified in terms of Galactic-Imperial expediency? You could call it “the Imperial Code” or something.)

    • Alrenous says:

      Islam is weak. They currently exist, literally, only due to the mercy of what they call The Great Satan.

      USG absolutely has the technical skill to nuke every major Muslim population centre and then simply gun down everyone in the rural areas. It would be cheaper than trying to control them, plus it would free up a lot of valuable land.

      Islam was always weak, always dependent on the timidity of Christians and apathy of Asians.

      Islam is genetically incompatible with Hajnals. It feeds Arab psychological needs, not European. It wouldn’t even be stable.

    • pdimov says:

      Because Islam kills scientific progress. Jim explains that in the post.

      Let me see if HTML works as I’ve seen it used by mere mortals (that is, not Jim) a few times.

      • pdimov says:

        Let me see if HTML works

        Yes it does. Wonders never cease.

      • Garr says:

        Jim’s presenting the “Islam says God’s above logic/math, Christianity says he’s not, so Christianity’s better for science” argument, but Descartes and Calvin both say that God’s above logic/math. We don’t know whether or not an Islamic Europe would stop doing science. They might start doing more flying-car as opposed to video-game science; it’s really impossible to say. Europe might take over Islam the way it basically took over Christianity.
        Alrenous’s assertion that Islam doesn’t meet European spiritual needs is suggestive, but I’d like him to explain why not. Nothing else is meeting European spiritual needs right now anyway, except maybe Marvel Universe movies. But I guess that if something that claims to meet all your spiritual needs doesn’t do so then you won’t accept it. But, on the other hand, I think that lots of Europeans are in fact converting.

        • pdimov says:

          “We don’t know whether or not an Islamic Europe would stop doing science.”

          The parts that were Islamic did.

          “Europe might take over Islam the way it basically took over Christianity.”

          Not impossible in principle. That would be white sharia then.

        • Alrenous says:

          Converts? Depends on what you mean by ‘a lot.’ In my opinion, not that many. Below the lizardman constant.

          Arabs have a bunch of impulses. They don’t like to control them – they like to either have the stimulus restricted, or to have the impulse justified. There’s a bit of channeling but for the most part Islam glorifies what they want to do anyway.

          Europeans by contrast specifically look for a recipe for controlling their impulses. They want to have clearly defined bad impulses and get to bully anyone who indulges in them. They want to valorize particularly repressed heroes. They want contrasting good impulses which every respectable member of society feels.

          This example chosen for obviousness. The important stuff is not so easy to describe. Nobody goes around being explicit about their spiritual needs.

          Maybe this: Hajnals want to be convinced the cosmos makes sense. Musrabians are clearly more comfortable with a senseless cosmos.

          Probably going off on tangents now but here’s another:
          In Musrabia, being controlled because you’re afraid of the consequences is fine, though obviously not saying so. Acting right because you’re afraid of other muslims kicking your shit in isn’t something to be ashamed of. (Or, in extremis, because you’re afraid of Allah kicking your shit in.)
          In Hajnalia, you’re not supposed to need external control at all, and needing it makes you a child or otherwise dependent. Much like Musrabians respect external control without admitting they’re respecting it, Hajnals use (and need) external control without admitting they’re using it.

        • jim says:

          Jim’s presenting the “Islam says God’s above logic/math, Christianity says he’s not, so Christianity’s better for science” argument, but Descartes and Calvin both say that God’s above logic/math.

          Do they? I see no similarity between their works and “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” by Al-Ghazali

          Al-Ghazali rejects science as impious, and that has been Islamic orthodoxy ever since.

          • Garr says:

            I’m pretty sure that Descartes thinks that 2+2=4 because God wills that this be so. If I can find an explicit statement to this effect in, say, the Objections and Replies, I’ll let you know, but my impression is that this is one of the things he was famous for at the time, just as with his dogs-aren’t-conscious thing.

            My impression is that Al-Ghazali rejects the Aristotelian/Neoplatonic world-constructions of Avicenna and Averroes, not we call “science”. Spengler sees Islam in general as being in relation to “Magian [middle-eastern] Culture” what the Protestant Reformation was to “Faustian [our own] Culture.”

            Calvinism promotes an “It’s the will of God, son” attitude, doesn’t it? Of course, you’ve argued that the Restoration (as opposed to Puritan rule) was good for English science.

            Anyway, all of this might be beside the point if we’re thinking about whether or not an Islamic Northwest-Europe would stop doing science. Try to imagine smart Europeans who are officially Muslim. Would they want to do science or not? Would European politicians who are officially Muslim want to promote science? It seems to me that they’d want to do and promote science, because they are who they are. At most, Islamic practices would be annoyingly time-consuming for them.

            • jim says:

              Al Ghazali rejects the proposition that the world is lawful and makes sense, that the world is amenable to reason. Descartes does not. Descartes can do maths without need for divine revelation, even if it is the will of God that makes it possible for him to do maths without the need for divine revelation.

              • Garr says:

                I’m pretty sure Al Ghazali could do maths, regardless of how he explained his doing of it.
                Anyway, this is from Calvin Institutes Book I Chap XVI (doesn’t support my claim that he thinks God’s above logic/math, but does look like a Muslim-type emphasis on divine will): “With regard to inanimate objects, again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.”

                • jim says:

                  Yes, Calvin tends to a Muslim type emphasis on the divine will. But Calvin is not Christian orthodoxy, while Al Ghazali is Muslim orthodoxy. Notice that science got going in the restoration.

                • Garr says:

                  I agree that the dominant European attitude is “Let’s explore this intricately structured universe!” (with the assumption that the structuring goes all the way up and all the way down) while the dominant attitude from North Africa to Pakistan is “Let’s not bother trying to figure stuff out, because God might just switch it all around a minute from now.” And, yes, I do remember your point about the Restoration being good for science. (And I’m now inclined to think that I was wrong about Calvin thinking that God’s above logic/math, as opposed to just micro-managing the world’s stuff.) But would adoption of this “God’s will!” attitude necessarily follow formal conversion by Europeans? Maybe the Muslim religious structure is grafted onto pre-existing attitudes and since the European attitude is different the European result would be different from the Persian result. (I’m not confidently asserting this, just playing with the possibility.)

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Notice that science got going in the restoration.

                  Notice that science got going after the Protestant Reformation.

            • pdimov says:

              “Try to imagine smart Europeans who are officially Muslim. Would they want to do science or not?”

              Depends on how they became Muslim and what would Muslim mean in this context (“all religions are progressivism when properly understood”.) The parts of Europe that have been Muslim in the past didn’t do science, but they were so because of occupation.

              If smart Europeans fork Islam, then obviously all bets are off.

              • jim says:

                If smart Europeans fork Islam, then obviously all bets are off

                Having a god that is too big is a chronic problem with Islam and Judaism. You not only don’t see Muslims doing science. You don’t see Orthodox Jews doing science either. The Trinity gets God down to manageable size.

                Or we could ditch religions of the creator God altogether, and try paganism again.

                • B says:

                  I see Robert Aumann doing okay. And last time I checked at the Technion, there were lots of Orthodox Jews doing science.

                  There was also a period when Muslims were doing lots of math and science, which came to an end with te Mongols, and with Al Ghazzali.

                  Cutting G-d down to manageable size is exactly Christianity’s problem. It’s idolatry, where a god, who is the projection of man’s desires externally, is supposed to serve man. Invariably, those desires get smaller and smaller, more and more petty, until Christianity devolves into the belief that G-d was just a guy who may or may not have existed, but would have wanted people to be nice to each other. The religion of Nietzche’s Last Men.

                  And you are no different. Admit it, you have no use for a G-d who tells you not to do something you desire to do, or to do something which causes you suffering. In other words, you lack the ability to worship something larger than your self.

                • jim says:

                  I see Robert Aumann doing okay. And last time I checked at the Technion, there were lots of Orthodox Jews doing science.

                  Lots of women “doing” science. What, in fact, have they actually done? Give me a couple of Orthodox Jews that have accomplished something interesting in science?

                  What Auman has been doing is not exactly science. It is closer to maths, which granted is the same sort of thing as science, but is not as much adversely affected by an oversized God. Robert Auman’s big accomplishment is correlated equilibrium, which does not seem in practice all that useful for predicting game outcomes. What it amounts to is that in a game of chicken, if you have an indication that your opponent is going to chicken, you should dare. Since your opponent sees the same indication, he has to chicken, knowing that you are likely to dare, so the prophecy becomes self fulfilling. But we have long known how to win, and how to lose, at chicken. Expressing this intuitive insight mathematically is something, but it is somewhat underwhelming. It is also an insight highly motivated by the Arab Israeli dispute, which is in substantial part a game of chicken, so not generally indicative of Orthodox Jews in mathematics or science.

                  There was also a period when Muslims were doing lots of math and science, which came to an end with the Mongols, and with Al Ghazzali.

                  Actually there was not. There was a period when the Muslims conquered the Indian and Persian civilizations, which had great maths and science, and in the course of smashing that civilization and plunging it into a dark age, translated some of their maths and science into arabic.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You can’t name a single technological, chemical, biological, or physical invention or discovery made by Orthodox Jews, because there are exactly 0 such inventions or discoveries. Haven’t built anything, won’t be missed by anyone.

                  The killer robots are coming for you.

                • Anonymous says:

                  We will get “Culture of Critique” translated to Mandarin, B. It will become a bestseller in China. The “white left” will be known as a Jewish left. No escape!

                  :trollface:

                • Anonymous says:

                  Getting CoC translated to Mandarin, most common Chinese variant, is the single most important thing that the alt-right can do right now. It’s my original idea, but you can steal it. Spread it all you like, folks.

                  Shadilay!

                • pdimov says:

                  “And last time I checked at the Technion, there were lots of Orthodox Jews doing science.”

                  The question is rather – and you know that perfectly well – would they have built the Technion if left to their own devices.

                • B says:

                  >Give me a couple of Orthodox Jews that have accomplished something interesting in science?

                  Hayyim Selig Slonimski, Herman Branover, Waldemar Haffkine, Herbert Goldstein.

                  >There was a period when the Muslims conquered the Indian and Persian civilizations, which had great maths and science, and in the course of smashing that civilization and plunging it into a dark age, translated some of their maths and science into arabic.

                  That’s incorrect.

                  Al-Kindi, Ibn al-Haytham and Jabir ibn Hayyan, for instance, all came up with original math and science.

                • jim says:

                  > > Give me a couple of Orthodox Jews that have accomplished something interesting in science?

                  > Hayyim Selig Slonimski, Herman Branover, Waldemar Haffkine, Herbert Goldstein.

                  Poster girl principle applies: If the first example on your list is Hayyim Selig Slonimski, you are mighty hard up for examples.

                  If I was just asking for Jews, you would have given me Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, who are near the top of the most famous scientists ever. I ask for orthodox Jews, and you give me someone who improved lead plating, and who had ideas for a telegraph that were never implemented in his time.

                  Richard Feynman had unkind anecdotes about Orthodox Jews torturing their texts. Since the IQ of orthodox Ashkenazi are presumably similar to the IQ of their progressive brethren, it follows that there is something about Orthodox Judaism that discourages scientific thought.

                  Newton, on the other hand, was a bit of a religious nutcase at times, and was also the most famous scientist ever.

                • B says:

                  >The question is rather – and you know that perfectly well – would they have built the Technion if left to their own devices.

                  This is a stupid question, because counterfactual.

                  Would the Slavs have built anything had they been left to their own devices? No, they’d be scratching gibberish in birch bark and sacrificing people to Perun. Alternately, they wuz kangz and if not for being suppressed by Da Man (Khazars, Polovtsy, Mongols, Germans, YKW, etc.,) would have gone to outer space by 1875 (Lomonosov and Levsha would have built an Imperial Space Exploration Agency.)

                  Would the Germanic barbarians of North Europe had built anything had they been left to their own devices? Blahblahblah.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Haffkine: “In an biography of him, Nobelist Selman Abraham Waksman explains that, in this last phase of his life, Haffkine had become a deeply religious man.”

                  Oh. Right. Last phase of life.

                  Branover: “In his personal conduct he adheres to the customs and mystical philosophy of Chabad Hasidism.[2]”

                  So nothing mainstream, then. Also, didn’t invent anything.

                  Solominski: “In deciding certain scientific questions connected with Jewish matters, Slonimski at times found himself at variance with other Jewish scholars. Thus, despite his conservatism, he admitted that an error of four days’ excess had crept into the Hebrew calendar cycle…”

                  Heh.

                  Goldstein: didn’t invent anything.

                  So you have nothing.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “Counterfactual”

                  No Orthodox Jewish scientists who had actually made contributions to science until the European Enlightenment occurred. (As we’ve, also post-Enlightenment no such scientists)

                  Not counterfactual.

                • B says:

                  “Give me some examples!”

                  [gets a handful of examples]

                  “No, because {{made up nonsense quibbling}}”

                  Slonimsky created a calculating machine, which is pretty impressive for his time. Lead plating was, apparently, a big enough deal that he was recognized by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1844. Do you think the Russian Academy of Sciences just loved Jews and was looking to make a poster boy?

                  Stop with the dishonest bullshit.

                  >Since the IQ of orthodox Ashkenazi are presumably similar to the IQ of their progressive brethren, it follows that there is something about Orthodox Judaism that discourages scientific thought.

                  Yeah-it’s hard to go into science when you start having kids at the age of 18-20, one every year or two, unless you live in a system like that of Israel where you can survive as a PhD candidate with six kids. Notice the sterility of the assimilated Jewish scientists in the West. Also notice how many of the classical Western scientists were either childless, Catholic priests or parish priests with a fixed income for not doing much of anything.

                  >Newton, on the other hand, was a bit of a religious nutcase at times, and was also the most famous scientist ever.

                  Newton was not particularly Christian but a sort of Deist mystic. More to the point, he did not have any children (Leibniz too.)

                • jim says:

                  >> > “Give me some examples!”

                  > [gets a handful of examples]
                  >
                  > “No, because {{made up nonsense quibbling}}”

                  The weakness of your examples indicates you are hard up for examples. The lead examples of secular Jewish scientists are Einstein and Feynman. Your lead example of Orthodox Jewish scientists is some guy who invented an improved method of lead plating. Your examples of Orthodox Jewish scientists sound like the Cathedral’s examples of black scientists, and are even worse than the Cathedral’s examples of women scientists.

                  Poster girl principle applies. If the poster girl is fake or just not very good, none of them are very good.

                  > Yeah-it’s hard to go into science when you start having kids at the age of 18-20, one every year or two

                  Darwin had ten children, was uncommonly attentive to them. There are no orthodox Jewish Darwins, let alone Feynmans and Einsteins.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Since the IQ of orthodox Ashkenazi are presumably similar to the IQ of their progressive brethren,

                  All the smart Ashkenazim have become secular during the past 150 years.

                  Orthodox Ashkenazim are medium IQ, their average IQ is probably 100, and unlike whites (who also have an average IQ of 100), are talentless in all fields, because not all races have been blessed with visuo-spatial imagination.

                • Anonymous says:

                  All your examples are bad.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  To anon
                  While I’m sure it makes you feel better, you do know Israel has nuclear weapons? Threatening people who have atom bombs with killer robots is stupid. You wait until the fissile material has degraded or you have SDI before being openly genocidal.

                  I probably shouldn’t give advice like this to people who want to kill me.

                  “Or we could ditch religions of the creator God altogether, and try paganism again.”

                  The best part is that after we eliminate representative government we don’t have to do any remodeling of the buildings exteriors in order to convert them into temples!

                • Anonymous says:

                  The threats won’t make you use your nukes, so no problem issuing them.

                  The demographics here remind me of that /pol/ post that went:

                  >implying things happen without Jewish involvement
                  >implying Christianity isn’t full of Jews
                  >implying WNism isn’t full of Jews
                  >implying Nazism isn’t full of Jews
                  >implying /pol/ isn’t full of Jews
                  >implying you’re not a Jew
                  >implying I’m not a Jew

                  I don’t necessarily think this is true, though. But there’s a top on that kek.

                • B says:

                  >The lead examples of secular Jewish scientists are Einstein and Feynman.

                  How many Jewish children did Einstein and Feynman have?

                  How many Jewish grandchildren?

                  Einstein, Feynman, etc. etc. sacrificed themselves and their stake in the future for the philosophy and culture which you represent. Was that wise? I guess if you’re a positivist.

                  Darwin was an exception, who seriously considered never marrying. Leibniz, Newton, Hooke, Wren and others either had no children or few.

                  In any case, the English Puritan stock which produced Darwin and Newton had existed for at least 700 years without producing anything comparable. It had a spectacular flowering and then flamed out, and now is in the process of decomposing. From which you do not conclude that there is something about the English or the Puritans which is inherently inimical to science, oh, no. But when it comes to the stock which produced Einstein, Feynman etc., obviously, there must be something inimical to science.

                  >Your examples of Orthodox Jewish scientists sound like the Cathedral’s examples of black scientists

                  Again-do you think that the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences was influenced by the ACLU in 1844?

                  Were there any black scientists inventing calculating machines in the mid-19th century?

                  It is obvious that when Jews throw out the Torah and dedicate their lives to science, architecture, boxing or horse racing, they can achieve impressive accomplishments in those fields. Similarly, if you take any Western population over the last 300 years, the number of serious Christian religious scholars who are also outstanding scientists, architects, boxers or jockeys is small, relative to their secular counterparts. And the Greeks had their flowering of science and philosophy right between that point where they stopped believing in their gods and when they were turned into a Roman theme park and pedagogue slave supermarket.

                  What matters is the area under the whole curve, not any one particular segment of it. What good is your enlightenment if it leads to your extinction and replacement by the stupid?

                  Oh, wait, don’t tell me. You will use your massive intellect to design yourself a convenient god to suit your needs, and then convince yourself to believe in him. Maybe carve something out of wood or stone, to make it easier. What could possibly go wrong?

                • jim says:

                  In any case, the English Puritan stock which produced Darwin and Newton had existed for at least 700 years without producing anything comparable. It had a spectacular flowering and then flamed out, and now is in the process of decomposing. From which you do not conclude that there is something about the English or the Puritans which is inherently inimical to science.

                  Actually I do. There was no scientific progress in England when Puritans ruled, and now that their memetic descendents rule again, “science” is Global Warming and string theory.

                  There is obviously nothing wrong with biological Jews when it comes to the ability to do science. And there is obviously nothing wrong with the biological English when it comes to ability to do science. The problem is that memes of Judaism, and to a lesser extent Puritanism, are inimical to science.

                • Eli says:

                  Strongly seconding B here. Robin Hanson put forth a great argument that slow growth is plenty enough (when one think beyond one’s lifetime!):

                  https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/12/12/robin-hanson/slow-growth-plenty-fast

                  A snippet:
                  ____

                  But these are only relatively minor criticisms of Brin’s view. My stronger criticism is that the world before the industrial revolution did innovate. Yes, the rate of innovation then was much less than today, but it was still plenty fast enough to create very advanced civilizations within cosmologically short times.

                  We have so far had three eras of growth: forager, farmer, and industry. During the forager era, the number of foragers doubled about every quarter million years. During the farming era the number of farmers doubled about every thousand years. And during our industry era our economy has doubled about every fifteen years (Hanson 2000). In all three eras, growth was primarily caused by innovation. (In prior eras, population tracked economic growth and income remained near subsistence levels because populations could grow faster than did the economy.)

                  A thousand doublings of the economy seems plenty to create a very advanced civilization. After all, that would give a factor of ten to the power of three hundred increase in economic capacity, and there are only roughly ten to the eighty atoms in the visible universe. Yes, at our current industry rates of growth, we’d produce that much growth in only fifteen thousand years, while at farmer rates of growth it would take a million years.

                  But a million years is still only a small blip of cosmological time. It is even plausible for a civilization to reach very advanced levels while growing at the much slower forager rate. While a civilization growing at forager rates would take a quarter billion years to grow a thousand factors of two, the universe is thirteen billion years old, and our planet is four billion. So there has been plenty of time for very slow growing aliens to become very advanced.

                • jim says:

                  While the general trend is growth in population, science and technology, there have been dark ages before, and there will be dark ages again, and these dark ages have frequently resulted in, or resulted from, population collapse.

                  For example, after the fall of Rome, Britain became damn near uninhabited – no cities, low intensity agriculture, and a lot of reversion to forest. Technological levels collapsed to well below pre Roman levels.

                  The reactionary program is aimed at avoiding the coming dark age if possible, providing the seed for the next white civilization if unavoidable.

                • pdimov says:

                  This is a stupid question, because counterfactual.

                  Not at all. But you know that too.

                  The question is whether Orthodox Judaism is conducive to science. You assert that it is, based on nothing. Of all your examples, only Slonimski is Orthodox, and

                  “His reputation as a strictly orthodox rabbi assured fellow Jews that his scientific teachings would not undermine religion.”

                  Jews that have been born in an atheist family, went to Moscow Aviation Institute and Leningrad Polytechnic, then at some point kind of became religious, don’t count. You need examples of Jewish scientists that have been born, raised, and lived their lives in Orthodox communities.

                  Slonimski qualifies. Rest don’t.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “The threats won’t make you use your nukes, so no problem issuing them.”

                  Apparently I’m more optimistic about the Nazis chances then you are (hence future Jews worrying about current Nazis). Like progressivism it has the infrastructure for a substitute religion; unlike the progs it is pro-natalist. If people can’t agree on a state church because of the variety of Christian sects it seems the most likely alternative glue.

                  Why can’t Nazi’s follow Hitler’s example where you vow to remove the Jews and then gradually ramp up the violence? Is there something wrong with ‘expel the Jews and confiscate their assets’? Its traditional dammit!

                  “The demographics here remind me of that /pol/ post that went:”

                  In my case it is because I got introduced to this from SlateStarCodex and it is full of Jews. I’m half Jewish aspie, which I’m sure is a cliche.

                  Of course what makes me different from most is my personal situation- I’d do better if the far right came to power.

                • B says:

                  >While the general trend is growth in population, science and technology

                  Sometimes, science and tech triumph which then leads to a moral and then population collapse.

                  For instance, the Greeks and the modern West.

                  When science is triumphant, the material world is all there is. Anything else is just unscientific.

                  In a materialistic worldview, there is no good, rational reason to have many children, to do the right thing at a high cost, etc. The “right” thing is itself an illusion. For a few generations, people keep going out of inertia. Then it all winds down.

                  >reactionary program

                  There is no reactionary program. There are a few guys with blogs telling their audience what it wants to hear.

                  >Like progressivism it has the infrastructure for a substitute religion; unlike the progs it is pro-natalist.

                  How many people have had a big family thanks to becoming NRx/kekNazis? Come on. TFW no waifu, etc.

                  >and now that their memetic descendents rule again, “science” is Global Warming and string theory.

                  This is bullshit. Between the Puritans and their current “memetic descendants” you had several centuries, which included Newton and co., and the whole 18th and 19th centuries. So memetic descent from the Puritans just skipped 350 years? Where did the memes in the interim come from, an alternate dimension?

                  >Jews that have been born in an atheist family, went to Moscow Aviation Institute and Leningrad Polytechnic, then at some point kind of became religious, don’t count.

                  You should ask yourself why these Jews, despite being scientists, became religious all of a sudden. It’s not an incidental thing, you know, like a tree branch falling on you or something.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Sometimes, science and tech triumph which then leads to a moral and then population collapse.”

                  That doesn’t appear to have happen to the Chinese; they appear to have gotten as advanced as the Greeks without giving into madness.

                  “How many people have had a big family thanks to becoming NRx/kekNazis? Come on. TFW no waifu, etc.”

                  First, I said Nazi, not NRx. Remember, the current Nazi slogan is
                  =Bayonets in the skulls of our enemies, babies into the wombs of our women=

                  I’m not sure how you could design a secular mass ideology more laser focused on having children and encouraging it (increasing male status relative to female status for example) then modern Nazism.

                  ” So memetic descent from the Puritans just skipped 350 years?”

                  We did have plenty of crazy scientific fashions in the intervening 350 years. The difference is they (eventually) got pruned.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You should ask yourself why these Jews, despite being scientists, became religious all of a sudden.”

                  This is an interesting question in its own right, but it has nothing to do with whether Orthodox Judaism would have produced these scientists.

                  That’s like arguing that atheism can produce and sustain a functional society by observing that some people in a functional society have become atheists.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >In my case it is because I got introduced to this from SlateStarCodex and it is full of Jews.

                  I think if every SSC commenter “went rogue”, they’d all arrive in here, and in some other places in the ‘sphere. One has to wonder what kind of crimestop is holding them from taking this step. Perhaps it’s the ((())). One needs a bit of the ol’ ’tism to overcome the Judaism.

                  >Of course what makes me different from most is my personal situation- I’d do better if the far right came to power.

                  Wait, I don’t get it. Pretty sure that all of us, including B, would be better off if the far right came to power. Of course, B and his ilk shill against that (you know: scorpion and frog), which is why I’m threatening him with killer robots and annudah shoah, but realistically – sometimes a shower really is just a shower.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim: Please read the debate I linked to more carefully. The context of the debate begins with Brin’s essay, explaining that we shouldn’t beam into space about ourselves. He is right, of course. However, in the course of his essay, he (as a leftist) goes on tangents, one of which is about pyramidal- vs diamond-shaped societies. His thesis is that societies most conducive to progress are diamond-shaped — i.e. those with large middle class, and small elite and bottoms.

                  Hanson, who agrees on the don’t-beam-into-space point, strongly disagrees on the social organization front. Hanson’s point is that *the most important thing for a society is preservation of inner stability, even at cost of considerably reduced technical progress.* In other words, with the right structure, human society can avoid dark ages, or at least minimize them. And *that* is much more important than fast technical progress, on timescales of a true civilization.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “I think if every SSC commenter “went rogue”, they’d all arrive in here, and in some other places in the ‘sphere. One has to wonder what kind of crimestop is holding them from taking this step. Perhaps it’s the ((())). One needs a bit of the ol’ ’tism to overcome the Judaism.”

                  I’m betting massive overconfidence, liberal brainwashing and a dash of mental illness. Less Wrong only has about 50% beliefs in HBD which means you are better of asking ghetto blacks.

                  “Wait, I don’t get it. Pretty sure that all of us, including B, would be better off if the far right came to power. ”

                  Most of the far right program benefits future generations- not to mention cutting the debt spigot would plunge the nation into a massive depression- and involve a bunch of cultural changes that are bad for people invested in the current setup. People in finance, accounting and other ‘knowledge work’ would be hit hard. Since I do physical labor I’d be better off immediately.

                  “Of course, B and his ilk shill against that (you know: scorpion and frog), which is why I’m threatening him with killer robots and annudah shoah, but realistically – sometimes a shower really is just a shower.”

                  Of course you’ll come back- you paid for two-way tickets 🙂

                • B says:

                  >We did have plenty of crazy scientific fashions in the intervening 350 years. The difference is they (eventually) got pruned.

                  This is like saying that someone is more related to his grandfather than from his father. Newton was much more closely related to the Puritans than today’s Cathedral is. It makes no sense to ascribe the anti-scientism of today’s Cathedral to its Puritan descent.

                  >I’m not sure how you could design a secular mass ideology more laser focused on having children and encouraging it (increasing male status relative to female status for example) then modern Nazism.

                  All secular attempts focused on encouraging natality to date have not succeeded. Look at Sparta and Rome. People simply do not have children in order to advance the interests of their nation or race.

                  That’s like the old Soviet joke about a bed made for three: “Lenin is always with us!”

                  >That doesn’t appear to have happen to the Chinese; they appear to have gotten as advanced as the Greeks without giving into madness.

                  I don’t know Chinese history very well. When?

                • jim says:

                  This is like saying that someone is more related to his grandfather than from his father. Newton was much more closely related to the Puritans than today’s Cathedral is

                  Orthodox Anglicanism, the Anglicanism instituted by Charles the second, whether Charles himself believed it or not, was demonstrably and obviously supportive of science, while Puritanism was and is radically incompatible with science. To the extent that Newton was a heretic from Orthodox Anglicanism he was a pythagorean, not a Puritan – he complained that Christianity was insufficiently based on Greek philosophy, while the Puritan take was that it was too much based on Greek philosophy. He supported a gnostic revelation given to Pythagoras and the Pythagorean school, not a gnostic revelation given to Jesus and the disciples.

                  Every scientist today is a prog, in that you are not allowed to do science unless you submit essays explaining that women are equal to men, only much more equal, and the wealth of the west was stolen from black Africans, black Africa being the source of science, technology, and first world standards of living. Thus every single scientist today gives at least lip service to ideas profoundly and radically incompatible with science. Newton, on the other hand, to the extent that he was issuing his own custom made radical heresy, was issuing a religion even more compatible with science than standard issue Anglicanism, a belief system motivated by the intention and desire to be compatible with the results of the scientific method and to give moral and status support to the scientific method.

                  Every single scientist today is required to demonstrate faith in truth by consensus, thus every single scientist today is required to reject and repudiate the scientific method. Maybe he believes in the scientific method in his heart, but he has to deny believing in it if he thinks he will get anywhere in the scientific community.

                  Similarly, Orthodox Judaism, albeit the consensus one is required to believe is evil and silly in a different way to the consensus progs are required to believe.

                  Puritans were Judaizers, wishing to free Christianity from the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy. Newton was a Greecianizer, wishing to free Christianity from the influence of Jesus and Paul.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  To B Re: China

                  If you mean culturally, aside from the Waring States Period (where the Chinese either independently invented or imported Greek Philosophy) the official state ideology was pretty secular. We are talking about people who conceived of celestial affairs as being run by the civil service, complete with bribes and promotions (done by the human civil service). There isn’t a clear difference between the Chinese’s elites view and the Greek or Roman one.

                  However the Chinese didn’t have issues with the elite not having kids. Maybe its the polygamy.

    • peppermint says:

      White sharia self-evidently means the pre-Christian social norms of our people. It’s a great schelling point for us, and a social code needs no justification other than that it works.

      White sharia was progressively undermined with Christian justifications. The current Christian social code suffers from the defect that it doesn’t work, regardless of how many weepy-eyed boomers justify it.

      There is no need to anthropomorphize Nature with a will. The Will Of The Aryan Nation is what wants White sharia.

      White sharia served our race when we upheld it and it will serve our race when we uphold it again.

      • Garr says:

        But the pre-Christian Celts and Germans and Slavs had gods. Didn’t Hitler speak of a divine will or spirit-of-nature driving his project, his people being its vessels or vehicle? I doubt that “the Will of the Aryan Nation” would be sufficient imaginative motivation for people. It seems to me that people need to imagine that they’re acting/living on behalf of Super-People From the X-Dimension (and Wills and Spirits and Forces are just vaguely imagined Super-People).

        • peppermint says:

          Why would people be so cucked as to need to imagine to be living for aliens instead of for the nation?

          Wotan is god enough for me. So’s Kek, in whose honor I shitpost five times a day.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Are you seeing Egyptians as White than as Kek is an Egyptian God.

            • peppermint says:

              There is plenty of evidence that ancient Egyptians were White, and at any rate the modem cult of Kek has as much to do with Egypt as White sharia has to do with Persia. It is frankly cultural appropriation, of a kind that the Christian boomers and genxers have a hard time with countersignaling.

          • Garr says:

            Because the aliens are super-powerful parents (and aunts and uncles) who live forever, like Quill’s Dad in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 except usually on the whole somewhat nicer. It’s hard to imagine the nation giving you encouraging smiles. And the aliens, like parents, model a life-pattern for you, and you reinforce your sense of it through ritual re-enactments of the main episodes in their lives, such as getting married, forging the magical hammer, and killing the chaos-bear.

            • peppermint says:

              And they’re still aliens, and anyone who worships them is a cuck.

              • Garr says:

                Well, they do sometimes descend as a bull or shower of golden light to impregnate your wife or daughter. On the other hand, Pelius raped Thetis, Achilles’ divine mom, so it works both ways.

    • Turtle says:

      I believe peppermint wants a pharaoh state, with good administration, kept slaves, hierarchy, and segregation. But we have no pharaohs. They were treated as deities, and Egypt deified even good architects, and I believe this form of civilization can work. But it’s probably a thing of the past. People even think the Egyptian pharaohs were aliens with huge skulls.
      Peppermint does not read the koran, so don’t worry about his uninformed shariahism.He can develop his beliefs however he likes, but he does need to cite sources.

      Detailed social codes are for people who don’t like each other or cooperate. It’s like regulation- everyone should follow the law by decency and commonsense, not enforcement. Tyranny goes hand in hand with anarchy. Good government governs itself, like guards who guarding the guards. And enforcers only take power when there is a vacuum. Review Jim’s ~2012 posts about coups, like Chile’s with Allende and Pinochet.

      Military types/ praetorians want to follow orders, not become warrior rulers. The U.S. military has debt problems because their soldiers are fools with bad wives and no financial literacy education, no thrift as virtue teachings, and no expectation that they will live a long time. Their contribution to the rot setting in is hugely underestimated. So warhammer fans, even ones who are in the military, are not our leaders.

      • Garr says:

        But Diocletian, Constantine … my brother says that the Warhammer-emperor was a soldier in Diocletian’s army. If only MacArthur … there must be people like that out there …

      • peppermint says:

        》The U.S. military has debt problems because their soldiers are fools with bad wives and no financial literacy education, no thrift as virtue teachings, and no expectation that they will live a long time. Their contribution to the rot setting in is hugely underestimated.

        They have businesses and women who are eager to cheat them and civilian leaders who are eager to look the other way. Civilians have a trillion dollars of student loan debt. Any effort to educate will just teach poz.

        》So warhammer fans, even ones who are in the military, are not our leaders.

        Right now, our future Führer is probably a military or civilian law enforcement agent tasked with monitoring us.

        • Turtle says:

          Do you remember that Hitler was a painter, with an extensive art collection? And he shirked his military duty by dodging the draft in England with his brother. Totally not what people think this man was like. I think Lucian Wintrich is a better candidate for fuhrer than the agents are. I know some veterans who are totally pozzed in their politics, despite being physically strong and good family men. And I like Wintrich’s wisdom (courageous choices, not just being smart).

          About his being gay, or even a fag, ‘no homo’ is superseded by no puritanism. I can’t judge sodomistic lust, let alone Twinks for Trump, as worse than my own sexuality because of hiv and disgust. Gays could be disgusted by hetero sex, and hiv appears to come from bestiality or eating bushmeat in Africa, likely both. That’s not a gay issue.

          • Anonymous says:

            I have no problem with gays or furries or cucks being who they are and doing whatever it is they’re doing. But those “outside the closet” about their degeneracy should be stoned to death.

            The issue isn’t “Muh Disgust Reflex”.

            The problem is their war against heterosexuality and natural sex-roles. The problem is political subversion, not “poopdick”. Poopdick is irrelevant. Feminism is relevant.

            • Turtle says:

              What about furry conventions, and the time I saw a girl wearing her tail in public? It’s hard to draw tight lines on these issues. “The privacy of your own home” will expand or contract if we let it, but you’re saying closeted degeneracy is ok as if it’s a stable equilibrium. I think we can tell what others do at home. Secrecy is exaggerated in snooping times, to compensate for knowing that our privacy really is violated. We can’t hide that much. So I don’t want to claim we can.

              Very few people support sodomy legalization but not feminism, or vice versa. They go together. How many anti-feminist gays or anti-gay feminists are there? <5% of these groups?

              Sodomy inherently insults mankind, and threatens children. I don't think it's normally possible to allow closeted sin and also maintain patriarchy. Also, gays will compete with women for bisexual men (who do exist to some extent). I consider this a moderate-sized problem, which is at its peak now.

  9. glosoli says:

    I’m pretty sure the changes from the industrial revolution were a (the?) major cause of falling birth rates. More women working, more men working longer hours, higher living standards, less need for dozens of kids, as the *dream* of modernity was sold to the masses.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Women have always worked. In the Malthusian economy the only people who don’t engage in constant physical labor are the nobility.

      • Garr says:

        They were working at home, though, weren’t they? Even if it was piece-work or other stuff they’d sell they were doing it in the house, where you could keep an eye on them and they felt like they belonged to you …? And they could keep track of the small children while making their yarn or whatever it was they were doing.

  10. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Found a source that says TFR peaked in 1860s. Which one is correct? The decline in your chart seems to be mostly before 1950 which seems unreasonable to me. http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/Population/DTM/Britains%20DT.bmp

  11. A.B. Prosper says:

    Below replacement fertility is highly abnormal especially when maintained for decades as we have and while I’ll gladly argue that technlogy combined with economics and urbanization caused a lot of it, its certainly not the only cause.

    Still there is also a dramatic increase in population , technlogy , urbanization and a decline in stable living environments through the entire period you show,

    It seems to me that maybe people everywhere with at least nearly digit IQ’s have a social as well as a physical carrying capacity and maybe we are at that limit everywhere. Societies can’t support more people of quality so they don’t .

    The UK is the size of one of the larger US states and even minus kebab and others still has a population in the range of 50 million. Maybe that is more than that society can support and therefore the natural and healthy response among reasonably smart people is to have smaller families.

    Same in the US.

    This would correlate nicely to the economic effects of the US baby boom as well, what people thought was stable employment high growth and relative increase in dwelling size plus a fertility bump of a decade or so after a war (this seems to be common) cause the baby boom

    Speaking for the US here the big 4 Easy safe birth. control , television/entertainment and sudden economic decline in 1973 (we’ve never broadly recovered BTW) lead to the modern fertility level

    And note too though female entry into the work force and feminism has had no effect in the US overall, its stayed the same since 1973 and the culture has shifted drastically

    Other countries also have different decline years of course but similar effects

    This means , either once feminism reaches a certain inflection point (as it did roughly in 1970’s for the US) or that certain economic trends happen, the population will naturally decline

    Could be both.

    Personally minus immigration, its generally a good thing. So long as its White or better Anglo the US would be measurably better with a much smaller stable population . This will increase the standard of living for one and decrease crowding

    A US with a hundred, hundred fifty million , maybe two hundred or so when I was young would be immeasurably nicer

    That said its also possible that continuing automation will end up with most people being cut off from opportunities for stable employment and may essentially be an end game scenario , creating a rat utopia where only feral rats thrive or engineering a population collapse.

    In that case we may also have to implement White Sharia Economics as well.

    • jim says:

      Boko Haram know exactly what is causing the collapse of fertility.

      All these too clever by half explanations are ad hoc. For one place and time period, prosperity supposedly causes fertility to fall, for another place and time poverty supposedly causes fertility to fall.

      • Alrenous says:

        Regardless of the specific cause, it means social engineers can tune fertility. If overpopulation ever becomes a real thing, can simply throttle the spigot until it isn’t.

        • Dave says:

          How do you throttle women’s rights? People decide in their teen years what they’re going to do with their lives, and by 30 they’re stuck with those choices. This inertia makes demographic trends very hard to reverse.

          E.g. when the Pill showed up, women decided to party through their twenties before getting married, so men decided not to spend their twenties getting ready for marriage. Not only is it harder for women to have babies in their 30s, it’s harder for men to start careers in their 30s, so everyone’s screwed.

          • jim says:

            We have had condoms since the bronze age. The pill was illegal in Japan until very recently and it made absolutely no difference. We have had pulling out, sodomy, and infanticide since forever. I don’t think the pill has much to do with it.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              The Pill is the sexual version of leftist rioters. “Oh, no! We shall have to surrender to the will of the people!” “Oh, no! We cannot control women any longer! We have to let them do whatever they want!” In persuasion terms, the Pill is a “false because” that allows you to plausibly justify your intended actions. If chemical contraception did not exist, they would find something else to justify their liberation of women.

              Women are not difficult to control. If they are subject to corporal punishment at the hands of their men and are socially shunned for not having children, then why would they use contraceptives? Control girls until they can be married off to another man who will keep them under control. Easier said than done, but the Pill is just an excuse to do nothing.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Turtle says:

                Actual riots, as in concerts where all the ladies are raging wet and shrieking at, say, the Beatles, are the female libido version of rioters. I know woman are willing to commit violence for the most paltry access to alpha, like threatening a guard’s life to steal a sequin off of Elvis’s costume. This is rioting, while the pill is more like evictions, something officially scary and cruel, but natural in this world.

                You could easily study the history of ‘rock music’ extorting free sex with alphas from the beta establishment, from college administrations (no more curfews and segregation) to police (no more sex regulation and curfews) and fathers. The bikini is important too, and that’s way older. Remember bathing machines… that era was not so long ago.

                If women were easy to control, Adam would not have let Eve ruin his life. And Jim would not tell us that sultans are bullied by harem sex slaves. It’s not easy for anyone- biblically, when God tells a woman to not look back at the city behind her while fleeing it, she does look, so she gets frozen to stone. And are there any examples of easily controlled women, or children, or animals, or anything? When is control easy?

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Nuance my good man

        Groups of people are different and poverty is relative to what came before Jim.

        High Caste 105+ IQ potential or so .. Average White people especially Anglos with longer term time preference

        Low Caste significantly less than that and shorter term time preference

        Wealth is relative to before and also includes living space , urbanization increases the availability of stuff and money but my decrease land. If you went from a farm or suburban house to an apartment , you are poorer than before unless the amount of stuff and activity is vastly higher . In any case once children enter the picture, poverty increases drastically. I can live well on amounts that even having a single child would mean a dramatic increase in poverty

        Poverty has no effect on fertility among “lower caste” humans since that tends to be disconnected from thinking things through. Wealth can slightly increase fertility and presence of distractions can reduce it.

        However a relative increase in poverty even if resources are technically there will reduce fertility among higher caste humans unless they are religious

        Note that poverty using the definition I did has increased every year since the 70’s as had activities that reduce the influence of highly natal religions

        Also a significant increase in relative highly wealth will increase the fertility of higher caste humans , see the baby boom and the very early colonial years in the US as well

        Its all about caste and truth be known, the human race does not need more lower caste humans . We need more higher caste humans and the only way to get them is to understand their needs and meet them.

        Its expensive though and requires a dab hand with regulation which a corrupt 3rd world station nation like America can’t do

  12. Bruce says:

    I drew my own lines on your graph and it seems like it could be interpreted as “the rot set in towards the end of the 19th / beginning of the 20th century.” It doesn’t drop below any previous minimum until the 20th century. Can’t this be interpreted as the popularization of Darwin, loss of the Faith, etc. as opposed to something like “forgetting that women are sluts?”

  13. spandrell says:

    That’s a perfect place to draw the line. Very poetic.

    Perhaps we need a French event too, to explain how fertility started to fall there earlier.

    • jim says:

      For that, going to need a French reactionary. For it is not obvious to what extent women are emancipated.

    • Cavalier says:

      French Revolution happened, King Louis shortened, Temple of Reason erected in the name of the goddess fatale deity of Reason while just outside wild guillotines roamed the streets… predictably, fertility tanked. In Germany, no enlightenment, recalcitrantly reactionary leadership… predictably, consistent, very high fertility until it too tanked in 1914.

      In 1700 there were about 20 million Frenchmen and 15 million Germans. In 1800, 30 million Frenchmen and 20 million Germans. In 1900, 40 million Frenchmen and 65 million Germans. Unification played some role in the terrifying rise of the Germans, but mostly it was their awesome fecundity.

      So, both World Wars were fought largely to suppress (WWI) and then to eradicate (WWII) burgeoning German hegemony. Germans outclass everyone else when it comes to industry and engineering, and the turn of the 20th century was the pivotal transition from Anglo/French/misc. colonial-type economic dominance to industry-type economic dominance. If Prussia had been allowed to develop unmolested even another 30 years, she (and Austria-Hungary) would simply have engulfed the Continent and as a consequence we would today be living under a thoroughly reactionary German world order rather than a liberal-democratic Anglo one.

      America at that time was not a player, and would not have become one unless seduced by the prospect of two easy victories bought largely with simple materiel, the proceeds of the conquest of the North American continent.

      Fertility cites:
      https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/why-did-french-fertility-collapse-in-the-1800s/
      http://ftp.iza.org/dp6355.pdf
      http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/germany.htm
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

      Sent from my iPad.

      • Turtle says:

        Germans have better philosophy (emotional logic in particular, not doing sophisticated rhetoric) too, but they’re less kind. Goethe was a mass murderer of young men, and thus families and the whole nation, yet they venerate him for being famous. That’s cruel of them, to admire their own oppressors.

        And they are paranoid, in my experience- smart, but scared of taking necessary risks. This causes them great suffering, which is sad. If they had, for example, attacked France and Great Britain first, not Poland and other eastern areas with German people, they would not have been fighting the USSR. But they felt like their eastern neighbors were superior to them. Like the eiffel tower and big ben are spiritually dominant markers of divine election, not just expensive arhcitecture.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Reactionary my ass. Germans invented public education, welfare state, Marxism. It’s more accurate to say that the German poz infected or at least accelerated the Anglo poz than the reverse (although there was some back and forth). Up until 1945 German leftism was worse than Anglo leftism. Getting raped by Muslims is small potatoes compared to the bad ideas they’ve spread to everyone else.

  14. EdensThaw says:

    Looks like a McMaster triple cross to instigate another Color Revolution any attempt against our Holy American Emperor.

    Will they stump the Trump this time, Jim? 😉

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    All right all right all right you got me. Busted.

    Can someone give me the quick-for-retards review of what the King George / Queen Caroline divorce was
    o ostensibly about
    o really about
    ?

    • jim says:

      Queen Caroline was ugly and was not a virgin when she married Prince George. Prince George did the minimum a husband’s duty required, but paid more attention and affection to his mistress. So she scampered off to get laid by someone else, and proceeded to slut it up spectacularly and publicly. Which pissed prince George off no end.

      A power struggle was going on between priests and warriors (counting academics and newsmen as priests, and aristocrats and military officers as warriors) The priests were demonizing the warriors as alpha males who caused angelic women to do bad things. So they demonized Prince George, and sainted Caroline. No matter what evidence was produced of Caroline’s immoral and lecherous conduct, no evidence could possibly suffice, because everyone knows that women are angels with no interest in sex. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      Or at least all beta males know that women have no interest in sex.

      • Alrenous says:

        If the king can’t even get a virgin wife I’m going to hesitantly posit he’s already not the king.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        “Or at least all beta males know that women have no interest in sex.”

        Heh – those betas are right: as far as they can see, women have no interest in sex.

        • Garr says:

          Father of almost every commenter here was at best a beta male, and knew quite well that women have a lot of interest in sex.

          • peppermint says:

            The alpha sexual strategy under White sharia, which existed enduring theoretical insults up until fairly recently, is to marry a woman, decorate her, and show her off as your most prized posession and as a demonstration of what you are worth.

            The most popular beta strategy was to be a faggot and try to seduce women with all manner of faggotry including telling them their men don’t love them if they don’t eat them out, or everyone’s doing it and here Plato talked about gay kidfucking, and babbling about various philosophies of love (and love is by definition good and holy).

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        And the divorce wasn’t granted, because Prince George was found status-guilty of slut-shaming?

        And the epidemic of priesthood-protected female saintly uppiddyness kicked off from there?

        • jim says:

          No, sluts were low status until 1972. Single mums were low status until late 1960s.

          Rather, the theory was that Queen Caroline could not possibly have done all the bad things her husband claimed because women are wonderful.

          But yes, the epidemic of priesthood-protected female saintly uppiddyness kicked off from there.

          • Turtle says:

            What did you observe around 1972? Did stated opinions change, or invitations to parties? How were single mums elevated in status? I think they remained controverisal and pitied, not admired much. Only extremists call them heroes or better than married/widowed mothers. I think you’re right, but I’m curious about the historical details.

  16. viking says:

    If anyone wants to buy an URBIT STAR I have invitation codes for this offering

  17. Bruce says:

    this is mostly unrelated but I have to ask Jim and his readers….

    Last night I stood in line at the grocery store with a lower/working class white guy with his loud, grotesquely obese (I’m talking Big Hilda Hippo in stretch pants) wife and two (normal looking) daughters. The guy was a bit on the short side, normal-looking but not particularly handsome, in reasonable physical condition (not fat, not wimpy/skinny) probably from working manual labor. I see this type of couple all the time. It’s REALLY common in the white lower-class though sometimes you see it in the lower middle class.

    My reaction is always the same. I feel incredibly sorry for the poor bastard. I’m not an expert at rating people’s relative attractiveness but on a 0-10 scale the guy is probably a 3 or 4 in overall attractiveness and the women is a 1 (probably a 0.5 if you allow fractional numbers). The guy just seems way too good for Big Hilda Hippo.

    Was this the way it was in the good ol’ days? Doesn’t seem like it to me. My maternal grandfather was a short, working class West Virginia man of average looks but still managed to marry a pretty young girl who stayed attractive for her age even into her 80s. None of my grandmothers or great grandmothers were obese.

    How or would this sort of thing change if Jim got his way with how society is run? Some people say that back in the good old days, people were more or less equally matched. 1’s married 1’s, 5’s married 5’s, 10’s married 10’s.

    • pdimov says:

      You need to rate the wife before she got fat. Gaining weight after marriage is normal – it means that she’s not looking for another man.

      • Bruce says:

        I guess – neither one of my grandmother’s were fat and they had enough money to buy all the food they could stuff in their faces. These women are REALLY fat – I don’t just mean they pack on 20 or even 50 extra pounds.

        I see this with unmarried boyfriend/girlfriend couples too although I guess the dynamijc you describe is the same.

      • jon dough says:

        “Gaining weight after marriage is normal – it means that she’s not looking for another man.”

        A little weight gain could be normal and could be a sign she is not looking for another man. She deserves to be gamed on it regularly, though.

        “…[G]rotesquely obese…” is absolutely abnormal and absolutely means she isn’t even looking for her own man, let alone any another. She needs to be dumped. Take the kids.

        If Jim got his way most any normal man would have attractive and obedient women to choose from.

        Cue Corvinus…

    • peppermint says:

      Some high quality men take low quality wives so they won’t have to deal with no kids and divorce. This is in itself a big problem for the evolution of the White race into the future. A worse problem is the number of high quality men who take gooks because they want a pretty and obedient wife. This is a huge problem, because they are now enemies whenever they think the anti-Whites could have the upper hand with their technical assistance.

      The solution is White sharia.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        White Sharia my man. Someone’s going to figure out ways of making this work IRL. Even profitably.

    • jim says:

      Exactly so.

      The basic problem is that women, if women get what they want, want to fuck the high sexual market value males, even if it means being number eight on his booty call list. Regular males just don’t count.

      This would be OK if they stuck with one alpha male. Lots of societies have one man in twenty owning twenty women, and that works fine. But they are continually shifting between one alpha male and the next to try and get more attention, affection, sex, and material support. Which outcome is worse for everyone, because we get defect/defect equilibrium, which prevents people from forming families. Since men expect to be defected on, they give them less material support.

      Patriarchy is a male plot against women to prevent them from defecting on males, which then gives the male an incentive to look after his women, as a farmer has an incentive to look after his land and his cattle, so we get cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

      But if you have patriarchy with harems, the beta males will not work or fight for their society. So we ration out the females so that every brave and hard working man gets at least one. This rationing, called chastity and monogamy, is another male plot against women, which women do not like and fiercely resist, (because they would rather fuck alphas than marry betas) and which has to be imposed on women by disturbingly drastic means.

      • Turtle says:

        Definition wise, what do you call not having perversions? Good sex?

        Isn’t chastity more about overcoming *bad* lust than rationing pussy by forcing monogamy?

        I’m familiar with the definition I present, not yours. I’d call your chastity patriarchal sexual assignment or a ban on hypergamy. In one word, I can’t find a replacement for calling it chastity. But there might be a better option.

      • Alrenous says:

        Lots of societies have one man in twenty owning twenty women, and that works fine.

        Not that well. The other 19 men become intensely violent, and don’t into production.
        Certainly fertile, but there’s a reason all the major civilizations approximate monogamy.

        • Cavalier says:

          The other 19 men become intensely violent if they think the sum total of their violence can overpower The State (the existing order) and get them into some pussy and the next generation’s gene pool. So the various species of niggers become intensely violent because they have long had very weak, virtually nonexistent states, whites get pretty pissed, better themselves or give up or whatever, largely according to their assessed native potential and specific heritage, and races with long histories of enormous hegemonic states hanging over their heads, like the nips or the chinks, almost universally hunker down in their tiny apartments, play video games without end, and never go outside.

      • viking says:

        I havnt seen that you have ever addressed my objection to your a bitch in every bettas bed theory. As Im sure you know the genetic history of the people who brought you western civilization was not founded on beta breeding.It was founded on alphas doing the majority of breeding. And the recent beta breeding at least anecdotally seems to have thrown several generations of such concentrated betaness, they are incapable even of surviving, in fact seem to have a genetic instinct to make way for alphas. Suicidal alphaism.

        Now I get as with christianity there was a period where this beta paradise worked for a while, seemed to make a more civilized complex society possible.And if you can find a way to work around the problem great but it seems to me its kind of genetic socialism.

        • Cavalier says:

          This is somewhat true and somewhat not. It’s true in that white “alphas” had higher fitness, “alphaness” was essentially warriorness, and warriorness is a great selector for dominance and aggression and all that. It’s false in that whites are essentially monogamous, a big chunk of white “alphaness” has always been provisioning to support his brood esp. through harsh winters, and that the “great genetic betafication” was not the result of “beta breeding”, but the post-barbarian civilized state’s deliberate “pacification” of the white races, especially the Hajnaliens.

          In the past, “betas” behaved considerably more assertively because they were not mentally castrated by a lifetime of brainwashing, because they had control of their women, and because they were economically vital assets.

          We are unlikely to return to “a bitch in every beta’s bed” because the bitch is an incentive and given reward for “beta” productivity, and the vast majority of betas, thanks to technological development, are no longer productive — that is, they have no economic utility.

          • viking says:

            I would think the essential monogamy you describe is concomitant with the relatively recent beta breeding I describe.
            Dont misunderstand me I understand the positive benefits when high IQ warrior societies diffuse power from the accomplished violent to those with other talents. civilization 2.0
            Im simply pointing out this broadening is going to have a genetic impact. Yes as you imply and has as has been studied other genetic pressures caused by society like hanging the violent also has an impact. I think we all agree in the very short term, culturally we can see the cycle of warrior founders giving way to successive generations of less alpha stock. But we euros seem already for other reasons i have speculated in to be already predisposed to things like feminism socialism and openness. compounded with selecting against alphas we have a problem.
            I have to disagree that we will see less alpha selection not more in the future. In your sense of economic utility betas will continue to be selected, its the problem we have been discussing.
            Unless of course other warrior races force our betas to attempt to defend themselves which is a frightening thought since they have already lost to the women and niggers.
            While I think on the whole HBD chick is on to something with the Hajinal thesis I really think its sort of overdone by us NRX types who happen to hail from within the boundary. We owe at least as much of western civilization to those outside the boundary as within, and currently the only signs i see of self preservation among whites are coming from nations outside the line.
            I would also say the economic utility lowest common denominator is violence ability, MM and Musk are not going to build Elysium where we revert to futuristic serfdom.Because musk and MM cant fight even your average beta american millennial can kick the shit easilly out of the zuckerbergs of the world. Trust me they will figure out enough lower tech to defeat Elysium. The most extreme meritocracy you can sustainable manage is going to look something like a futuristic 1960 US ethnostate. Youre going to have to pay the steamfitters and the military etc enough to not worth their while to kill you and instead support you in keeping others from killing you while performing all the other great function prole yeomen are so good at like baking, arts crafts building things and having children

            • Cavalier says:

              >But we euros seem already for other reasons i have speculated in to be already predisposed to things like feminism socialism and openness. compounded with selecting against alphas we have a problem.

              Yes… sort of.

              >I have to disagree that we will see less alpha selection not more in the future. In your sense of economic utility betas will continue to be selected, its the problem we have been discussing.

              Depends on who you’re talking about: the Morlocks, poor, public-school-educated r-selected sorts with unstable families and all that, or the Eloi, rich, private-schooled K-selected sorts with stable families and stuff.

              Within the Morlock breeding pool, more “alpha” selection — working- and now middle-class whites following the sexual pattern of niggers 30-50 years delayed. But then there’s the segment that says “fuck it, I’m going to have babies even though I can’t find no man”, and then also the segment whose fertility is dramatically suppressed because they refuse the “loose” family strategy.

              Within the Eloi pool, more “beta” selection, but not more unduly than before, and there’s also the small matter of a rapidly diverging “alpha” elite probably best typified by real estate moguls marrying 6-foot perfect tens with 120-130 IQs. What happens when one Barron Trump, already like 5’10” at 11 years old, grows up and snags a woman who is herself 5’10” and disturbingly intelligent? The Universe implodes, that’s what. Also, have you seen Elon Musk’s sons? They look like five blue-eyed, sandy-haired clones.

              Again, and maybe this is lost on you, but the emerging warrior (endogamous) caste you and Jim like to fondle yourselves over is selected first and foremost for obedience. Blue crew coup, whoop dee doo.

              >while performing all the other great function prole yeomen are so good at like baking, arts crafts building things and having children

              Let’s suppose, just hypothetically, that there really is an evil shadow elite guiding us all with a divine, invisible hand. (I don’t know if there is or isn’t, but we have to acknowledge that the possibility exists, and that whether there is or not it remains a useful metaphor.); let’s suppose that prole yeomanry no longer need fight any wars against legitimate military foes; and let’s suppose that prole yeowomanry — the vast, vast majority of them, especially the younger ones — no longer do much baking, arts, or crafts.

              Now let’s suppose that chinks can be imported to fit steams at one-quarter or one-eighth the cost of the natives, with the side-effect that the natives’ steam-fitter monopoly vice-grip is broken; and let’s suppose that the vast majority of prole yeowomanry, especially young yeowomanry, no longer have any genes anyone wants, the good genes having bubbled to the top, leaving yeoclassry behind, so the children they do or do not have don’t really matter. (I acknowledge the existence of pockets of superior yeoclassry, such as yourself, however I remind you that those pockets are like government-sponsored nature preserves, artificial environments sustained by politicks, and the same laws of concentration apply to you at a smaller scale.)

              Now, suppose you are the feudal lord. You stand atop your battlement and survey your kingdom, which stretches as far as the eye can see. You look at your parapet guards, who look average and normal by today’s standards, and are, but are significantly shorter, uglier, and stupider than you, who are 6’5″, a genius, and with beautiful pale, blue, and blond Asgardian features. You look back at your kingdom, and one thought springs unbidden to your lips: “What’s the problem?”

              • Anonymous says:

                The problem is that billionaire-dependent eugenics can’t save a declining civilization, and even if all the billionaires, who are disproportionately kikes but let’s pretend otherwise, had been fertile-married to Aryan goddesses, the bulk of the elite is still festering with sterility and race-mixing.

                Your average Eloi ain’t no billionaire. You need upper-class, bourgeois, and proletarian whites to build and maintain the infrastructure for future space-colonization. The suggestion that the demise of non-underclass whites can be disregarded “because look at the billionaires’ kids” is incredibly short-sighted. Dude, where’s your anti-fragility? Is there enough time for the genes of a few billionaires and millionaires to trickle-down to the general white population, thus offsetting the decades-long dysgenic trend we’re all witnessing, before the Prog-Zog-Gov replaces them all with shitskins?

                International elitist managerialists are not going to avert the downfall, no matter what they do. Great Men may be a prerequisite, but aren’t a sufficient condition for restoration. Mass-white fertile-marriage is equally a prerequisite. It’s either fertile-marriage among the white populace, or decline. Teach white men to stealth-fuck their thot-wives.

                • Cavalier says:

                  http://blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/#comment-1603768

                  It is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t. We don’t have to like what it is, and we may not gain by longing for what it isn’t.

                  I look at the economy, and I see that agriculture is important, manufacturing is important, natural resources, namely energy and resource extraction, are important, construction is important, engineering and innovation and whatnot is important, and the security forces are important.

                  Agricultural is largely mechanized, and what isn’t mechanized yet can be, and is, done by swarthy, squat, cognitively unimpressive Mexicans.

                  Manufacturing is automated, what isn’t automated is shipped overseas to do by ants, and if it were brought back it would be vastly automated.

                  Nuclear requires a thin slice of highly intelligent engineers, solidly middle class but nevertheless a small fraction of the overall population. Oil and most other natural resource extraction can be done with working-class dudes with decent brains and cursory educations. Third-world countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America can do this right, so, quite frankly, it isn’t especially impressive.

                  Construction done right takes highly skilled craftsmen, but lords and billionaires can always pay. For everyone else, largely automated (or automatable) prefab is sufficient, and 3D printed houses are well on the way.

                  Engineering requires a thicker-than-thin slice of intelligent engineers, a relatively larger fraction of the overall population, and they pay for themselves… but only if it’s profitable to make lots of things for lots of people.

                  The security forces are important, in that the police form the nightstick half of anarcho-tyranny, and in that the military is for subject countries who occasionally get antsy and as a backstop for the police if needed.

                  Almost nothing else is really critical, including the health and well-being of the 95ish percent of peasants who don’t fall into the engineering class, the security forces, or some other miscellaneous indispensable things.

                  The nobility, especially the _real_ nobility, was an absolutely minuscule fraction of the total population, and there really isn’t any inherent force keeping it from happening again. Without space-colonization industry, think of 1% in terms of all nobility, with legitimately important aristocrats numbering in the low thousands or possibly hundreds, and instead of the other 99% being farmers and clerics, imagine them having no farming because all the farming is mechanized and no clerics because there are no farmers. With space-colonization industry, think of the bottom 90% being useless and the rest along a sliding scale, the bottom falling into oblivion. If we get real genetic engineering, even marginal genetic engineering, at say 5 edits maximum per human, it won’t even be that, as 5 edits at 5 IQ points per edit with a “genius threshold” of 150 puts a population of 6 gorillion edited humans on par with a population of 717 million unedited ones (average IQ 100).

              • viking says:

                I have to agree with anon your math is wayyy off. Its what I mean when I deride Elysium. The cathedral is right n some way you have to control it all. You can not control it all with a handful of viceroys and colonial governors the likes of jared. Your estimation of average whites is obviously way off you seem to mistake poor taste for poor judgement, have you applied that test to the eloi. And this doesnt even begin to get into the fact that most whites lowest class is eloi unless they are well dug in rurals who in my experience are pretty all right.
                Your bit about construction is a laugh we have had cad for thirty years now as well as laser layout its pretty much a disaster no ones responsible for hands on paper and pencil coordination because it cant be wrong the computer says so, but its always wrong much much wronger than ever. and the engineers ore now all pakis and chinese rejects and women they are idiots. We have already replaced the fitters with niggers and amerindians through affirmative action, I am the last generation it in job meeting of 130 IQ foreman like myself and the project managers architects engineers etcetc I see no zero zilch cognitive edge for those with the degrees, I see a racial difference at the meetings and back on the floor with my crews niggers and spics can not do construction work, i have to make them redo it three times and hope its not noticed.
                You think the answer is order it all prefabbed from the gooks? are you crazy? what will happen if we have a war like ww2 are we going to ask the people we are fighting to send us more parts? we cant even make the pure silicone we need or the high quality manufacturing equipment anymore we are a shell.And while there is a small window to regain our industrial might before we have destroyed our human capital instead we accelerate at warp speed in the wrong direction destroying both at warp speed.
                BTW Im not sure how you even categorize the types of whites in america we dont have an aristocracy, anyone can be anything my dasd went to georgetown I went to NYU one brother became a fitter with me then became a wildlife biologist later the middle kid who we called college boy went from a history degree at hunter to being a multimillionaire small businessman.three of my uncles were fitters all foreman one had a college degree, grandad also went from fitter to engineer.He had brothers who were bishops professors and tradesmen. This cognitive divide you imagine among these classes you imagine is not real. I move freely my entire life among all classes my dad ended up a semi famous actor and I went to upper east side private schools. I pass for any class i want ( as long as it does not involve typing carefully) and I do not find the eloi any smarter than the average white guy, actually a hell of a lot less common sense and practical knowledge.
                I know murray said we all got sorted Im sure theres some truth to t Im saying much less than you imagine people tend to stay where they were born. My family has high IQs particularly in math we also have mechanical experience going back probably to europe, it pays well so we do it. You think it pays too much but I have also done more kinds of work than you and I disagree it pays about right and you will regret forcing whites out of steamfitting etc This is a thirty year old argument today your thinking has been long at work in forcing whites out of engineering,programming, politics well everything. your thinking has produced a shell of a nation we are nothing but some jew bankers monetizing socialist debt and producing filth and fake news while holding off the non whites with an aging nuclear arsenal.

                • jim says:

                  I know murray said we all got sorted Im sure theres some truth to t Im saying much less than you imagine

                  I have investigated this matter at length. Every time the universities piously announced that in the previous year people had been inappropriately excluded on the basis of race, sex, and class, and now they were including the smart social inferiors, Murray piously tells us the universities got more selective and their students got smarter, but I observe that each such increase in inclusivity was accompanied by a dumbing down the entrance examination and the course content.

                  In fact, tests indicate that a few years back, people with a four year degree tended to be smarter than average, but this selection effect has diminished for every year since 1875, and is now zero. Today, four year graduate IQ averages exactly one hundred.

                  Our elite simply does not select for intelligence any more. Steve Jobs was extremely smart. Bill Gates was a genius, and not a nerd, he had people skills as well as computer skills, he could look at someone and give him exactly the lowest offer that person would accept. Tom Cook, however, is mighty ordinary.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “In fact, tests indicate that a few years back, people with a four year degree tended to be smarter than average, but this selection effect has diminished for every year since 1875, and is now zero. Today, four year graduate IQ averages exactly one hundred.”

                  Top universities aren’t graduating any more students then they did 40 or 50 years ago – the bloat has occurred in lower tier universities.

                  110 IQ college grads were 10 IQ points above average 40 years ago but 100 IQ college grads today are also above average – the demographic decline of America is pretty advanced and the overall IQ is now south of 100.

                • jim says:

                  But the top universities are not admitting the smartest students, or even particularly smart students. If Berkeley has gone downhill, Harvard has gone downhill one hell of a lot faster.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            There’s no point in confusing terminology. The #NewDarkAge movement that has elucidated all this in the last two decades agrees: an alpha male is the male who can achieve polygamy. By whatever means. Period.

            In our universal foraging past, he was either a prodigious hunter or a lucky sneak. In our specific barbarian past he was a Genghis-like Aryan and later, semi-civilized Achilleus with his concubines. In Dark Age Christendom, he was Pippin and Charles the Hammer. Among modern Arabs he is wealthy and good at sustaining bureaucracy. And in our modern West, he’s a childless PUA. (Note that in the high-trust West, most men are pyschologically incapable of alphatude from the get-go: most are bred to want to be faithful to one woman.)

            All settled women want to believe the man they settled for is an alpha: ‘protector’ (revised warrior), ‘provider’ (revised rich man), etc.

            Avoid using women’s definitions for terms smart and high-value MEN have discovered and agreed on.

            • Cavalier says:

              If your terms don’t correspond to aspects of fitness, your terms are worthless. If you want to define “alpha” as having the gravitas to pull more than one mate, fine, but your example of childless, plate-spinning PUAs as “alpha” reveals the corruption of your definition.

      • Anony-maus says:

        So here’s the issue ,though. If we work with the idea of genetic co-evolution with culture, wouldn’t women who “cooperated” with the system be more likely to bear offspring and therefore remain? Women who were consistently incapable of cooperating with the system would either become spinsters, or prostitutes with a high rate of STD.

        So chastity, or some form of it, would also become a psychological imprint for women. Or am I missing something in the genetic co-evolution with culture.

        • jim says:

          Well, obviously chastity has not become the psychological imprint for women, and for it to become the psychological imprint, likely to need a thousand years of quite drastic enforcement.

    • Turtle says:

      In my experience, these guys don’t see much of a difference between themselves and their women. They can see the obesity, and they can suffer from bad sex or no sex, but they tell themselves they’re equal partners, and they don’t rock the boat. They sometimes put up with a controlling woman trying to prevent him from cheating, by spying on him and keeping him away from his friends. In this situation the wife is realizing he must have way better sexual options than her, but not accepting that if he wanted to cheat, he, being beta, would tell her he is very sorry to have fallen out of love with her, and they will stay friends, and blah blah, he will still try to keep her happy while pursuing other women.

      A beta is partly defined as one who remains loyal to a woman who does not satisfy him. And a cad, strictly defined, will never be loyal, even to a perfect woman. Most men are in between, and we can categorize them simply, but I’m not an expert.

      Anthropologically, I think that only women who get what they want from all men like all men. Women who get alpha get beta too, and those who are rejected get neither, generally. They won’t be grateful for their near-perfect beta husband if they don’t get alpha fucks, because their priority is dope dick. And if they do get fucked by alphas, then they’re grateful to mankind in general, not just Chad. I know they’re going to then consider themselves superior to betas too, but that’s secondary.

      I’m the kind of guy who thinks all women have equal value, and yet with strangers, only hot women smile at me (straight men do too, but ugly girls ignore me… their loss, I’d be their just-beta boyfriend just fine). I wonder why my ‘value’ gets wasted, not that I’m great- I’m unusually obedient to the Church, choosing not to fornicate just in case it would displease God, but somehow that’s seen as unmanly, unholy, evil, etc. Would sex really make me a better man?

    • Jack Highlands says:

      @Bruce: “the guy is probably a 3 or 4 in overall attractiveness and the women is a 1”

      Men’s looks are far less important to their sexual market value, their SMV, than women’s; confidence, IQ, wealth, charm, aggression & more all enter in. Every day, especially in May, we men rate women on the 0-10 scale in 1/4 sec each as we drive along the streets, but all that other stuff takes weeks at least for a woman to get a bead on. Therefore women have a simple end-run around all that: they look at the SMV of what’s on his arm.

      So use the scale women use: the guy’s a 1.

      Most crimethinkers blame most of the obesity epidemic on stuff like fructose and estrogens-from-plastic. Bullshit. Never look to the environment to explain things that are better explained by genes, sex and the civilization cycle.

      The obesity epidemic is actually a little complicated, but the sexual dimorphism you have pointed out in this couple is a clue to some of it: part of the obesity epidemic, unsurprisingly, is the ugliness epidemic.

      Hat-tip to Jim in his thoughts on self-cutting, which got me thinking about this. What Jim described for the rather extreme and fortunately still fairly rare case of a woman who cuts (usually the forearms) – that she is unconsciously substituting the patriarchal discipline she hoped to get by pulling an alpha, after he dumps her instead – is actually generalizable to all the very common forms of modern female uglification.

      Every tattoo you see on a woman, every piercing beyond the ears, is an alpha that pumped her and dumped her. For women in the lower classes, ditto for every five pounds of extra weight to age 30. And women today are getting pumped and dumped by lots of alphas, or at least men with considerably higher SMV than their own. In the left half of the class curve, that starts within two years of completing puberty: EVERY lower-class cherry (and the great majority of higher-class cherries), are plucked by alphas. Just think of the effect of that virginal sex alone on a society!

      Once a woman settles, that ten pounds per pump-and-dump rule goes out the window, because by settling, she is basically turning her broad back on ALL considerations of SMV. And once people no longer think of themselves as sexual beings, they substitute eating and drinking to drive the reward system once driven by sex. And especially lower-class people do this: their impulsive, high-time preference, relatively addictive neurological features are a big part of why they are BORN lower class. So after settling, the fattening accelerates.

      Now we can see a big reason why guys are getting fat too. They too are giving up on the sexual market. For every guy like the one you saw who is at least working a physical job and is occasionally boning a hippo (she barely sees his semi-annual crural sex as sex, so poorly does it compare with her memory of the jock who took her cherry in high school, when the only extra fat she had lay in her boner-popping tits and ass), there’s another guy, maybe two, cubicle-denizens and herbivores, who are not getting any sex at all. Needless to say, they are making up for it with Big Gulps.

      Because Sex Sells!, Cosmo society has been slow to admit that the average amount of sex per person in the West is actually falling, but that is exactly what you expect from a sexual revolution that starts with 80% of the guys banging 90% of the girls, drops to the off-the-cuff current quote of 20% of the men banging 80% of the women (‘sexually liberated’ age creep) and shows every sign of greater skew to come.

      When average and below-average people fuck less, they eat more.

  18. Gill Bates says:

    Familiar look and feel. You must be you.

  19. BigCheese says:

    Jim, are you going to do a Trump post? It really seems like the Cathedral has launched their own coup and Trump’s finished. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.

    • jim says:

      Can’t stump the Trump. I have confidence that Trump can handle this.

      • EdensThaw says:

        Dems and MSM already signaling acquiescence this round. Bad timing for them with the Saudi trip?

      • deltahedge says:

        trump needs to start attacking the cathedral. that was why he got elected, own prosecutor for clinton and stuff.

        he backed down and in the latest weeks even tried to appease them by doing what they wanted (bombing of syria).

        i would hope he starts doing something against the MSM. right now they stories are worse than war propaganda and I assume they already have been successful in framing the narrative for a significant majority of the population.

        • Cavalier says:

          The media is the whore of Power. Ever seen the Napoleon headlines?

          The following is a list of Paris newspaper headlines reporting the journey of Napoleon across France, on his return from exile on Elba, March 9 to March 22, 1815:

          March 9

          THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN

          March 10

          THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN

          March 11

          THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP

          March 12

          THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE

          March 13

          THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS

          March 14

          THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON

          March 18

          BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL

          He has been fortunate enough to escape his pursuers

          March 19

          BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS

          March 20

          NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS

          March 21

          THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU

          March 22

          HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects

          http://wrathfuldove.org/2010/01/29/telling-and-amusing-headline-progression/

          If, or when, Trump attains power, the media will faithfully suck his dick as though they always have and always will, as if it’s the most natural thing in the world, and as if anything else would be unthinkable.

  20. Tomas Nau says:

    Jim, have you considered writing posts about the destabilizing nature of such technologies as firearms and the printing press?

    Without firearms, no feminism since there’s no Sam Colt making men(and women) equal. Without the printing press, much weaker religious heresy and thus no liberalism.

    • jim says:

      Disagree. Firearms have nothing to do with it.

      Lady spears and lady swords are smaller and lighter than men’s spears and men’s swords, but are nonetheless amply sufficient to kill a man.

      And we have had condoms since the bronze age, and we have had pulling out, sodomy, and infanticide forever.

      Further, we had religious heresies, and ensuring holy wars, long before the printing press.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Why would there be lady swords and lady spears if, as you have assured us constantly, there are no lady soldiers, not even one?

        • jim says:

          Self defense.

          It looks as if in Mecca at the time of Mohammed, both sexes were armed all the time, apart from slaves, but no one would have imagined using women as soldiers or guards.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But self defense wouldn’t be practical if the lady soldiers all rolled over to put out for their assailants!

            • peppermint says:

              like Jim said, no woman soldiers or guards.

              It’s possible for a woman to think the bandit trying to take her stuff or rape her is lower status than her husband, especially if her husband, who she sees training with a weapon, gave her a girl version and taught her how to use it.

              It’s not possible for a woman being used as a soldier by officers who are afraid of her to see the enemy as lower status when the enemy is directly threatening her and no one else is willing to come forward and defend her.

              • Hidden Author says:

                In other words, you guys just make up “how women are” as you go along…

                • jim says:

                  No explanation will be understood by the incorrigibly stupid:

                  When men face a formidable enemy, they band together to fight.

                  When women face a formidable enemy, they separate to fuck him individually, which is why they responded to the recent terrorist event in Manchester by fucking Muslims.

                  When women face a contemptible enemy, then quite likely will defend themselves.

                  Is that clear now?

                  This behavior is obviously highly adaptive in the ancestral environment.

  21. Koanic says:

    Queen Vashtai rules the West for 200 years, and chaos reigns.

Leave a Reply