Jim's Blog

Implementing patriarchy is a lot harder than it looks. There are a lot of moving parts that have to work together right.

The problem is that nature has given women so much power, that it is very hard for law to take it away from them. Spandrel has plenty of amusing tales of women disruptively exercising power from the bottom in a system where they were theoretically completely property.

If I beat a woman, it is because she wants me to beat her. If I don’t beat a woman, it is because she does not want me to beat her. If I dump a woman, it is because she wants me to dump her. We men are all dancing monkeys on a chain, and just as much a dancing monkey when administering a beating.

Back when husbands theoretically had absolute power over their wives, and Kings theoretically had absolute power over their subjects, Kings mistresses tended to be their wives of their courtiers. Now you might suppose the King was shaking down his courtiers – but hang on there. The wife screws the King, and goes back to her beta orbiter husband’s bed, where presumably they chastely cuddle while she weeps on his shoulder about how badly the King treats her. If the King’s power can reach into the courtier’s home and stop him from whipping his wife, how come it cannot reach into the courtier’s home and stop the wife from cuddling her beta orbiter husband? Further, how come the King’s mistresses have already had children with other men? Who wants seconds? Yes, the King was shaking down his courtiers, but he was being manipulated into shaking down his courtiers, and his courtiers were being manipulated into letting him shake them down.

Obviously what happened was that the lord on his own domain is the ultimate alpha male, lord of the manor, everyone grovels to him. His wife thinks she has hit the jackpot. Then they go to court, he grovels to the King, she despises her husband, stops fucking him, and fucks the King. Her husband is definitely not getting his way. The King is not really getting his way. She is getting her way. It was unrestrained hypergamy. She gets fucked by the King, cuddled by her beta orbiter husband.

To protect Odysseus from the sirens we need to tie him to the mast.

So:

If a man sleeps with another man’s wife, the offended husband may kill him, or the state will execute him. The wife may be punished according to the husband’s discretion.

If a man prostitutes his wife or girlfriend, makes her sleep with another man, he shall be executed by the state. If a man allows himself to be cuckolded, allows his wife to sleep with another man, the state shall execute both of them.

We do this not to punish the wicked husband, but to protect the husband from the wiles of woman, as Odysseus had himself tied to the mast, and ordered his men to slay him should he break free.

If a man gravely wrongs his wife, the state may relieve her of the duty of always being respectful to him, always obeying him, never speaking back to him, and always being sexually available to him, while requiring him to continue to support her, which is to say, allow her divorce for grave wrongs, but the state should not relieve her of the duty to never be sexually available to another man, because otherwise she will concoct fictitious grave wrongs, or manipulate her husband into genuinely committing grave wrongs, as soon as she encounters a man seemingly more alpha than her husband. If she does sleep with another man after divorce, her husband can stop supporting her, or he can forcibly take her back and punish her at his discretion.

Women should be fully under the authority of the male head of household, and should remain legally children until menopause. The head of household should have authority to physically discipline wife and children.

Normally marriage should be romantic, consensual, monogamous, should reflect erotic love and should be permanent. Normally couples should not be allowed to date unless engaged, where engagement consists of a promise to marry, understood as a promise to marry if they have sex.

However, due to various forms of misconduct, we often have to break from this ideal one way or another. We should break from the ideal not by dissolving the marriage, but by coercing people to marry and to stay married, by enforcing both the man’s duty to support the woman, and the woman’s duty to obey him, respect him, be always sexually available to him, and never sexually available to anyone else.

Female consent is foolish, irresponsible, reckless and easily manipulated. So the first principle to be laid aside should be female consent, and permanency the last principle to be laid aside. Female consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong.

Varying degrees of shotgun marriage should be applied for misbehavior. For example, if a woman gets pregnant, and the father is marriageable, they should be forced to marry. If he refuses to marry, he gets a support order. If she refuses to marry, she gets concubinage – the duty to obey him, respect him, provide domestic and sexual services to him and never to anyone else, the duties and obligations of marriage without the honor and protections of marriage. (That is how they did it in Australia at the end of the eighteenth century)

If she sleeps with a non marriageable man, she should be required to get married to someone marriageable, anyone, in a hurry, under threat of being assigned to someone in concubinage. Again, in Australia in the late eighteenth century, a lot of women somehow managed to find good husbands with amazing swiftness, usually in days, sometimes in hours.

A few days before the election, the feminist blogger Go make me a sandwich has thrown in the towel, despite being handed large bags of money and unenending praise for her “courage” in complaining about sexism in games.

Another victory for the power of Trump, who has made every man stand a little straighter, walk with a slightly bigger stride, and grow bigger balls. Win, lose, or draw, he has already accomplished more change than every previous Republican candidate.

Her complaint has been to endlessly point out that male game characters are depicted as manly, while female game characters are … female. Which is to say, hotter than she is. This oppresses her. Not only that, but when she attacks artists for allegedly bad and sexist art, they have been known to disagree. It is supposedly horribly misogynistic for a male to do anything other than politely agree when attacked by a woman. People disagreeing with her cause her great pain. It is extremely cruel that anyone in the world publicly disagrees with her after she publicly attacks them.

Every fertile age female writing a book or blogging or giving a speech on anything she is passionate about is arguing that the world should be remade in such a way that the writer or speaker should be considered hot.

All her complaints are pretty similar to this one

She complains that Taki is physically impossible, because of waist to hip ratio.

When you compare the two, you can see that they’ve given Taki so much of an “hourglass figure” that her rib cage is practically inverting itself, as is her stomach. This begs the question, where does she keep her organs? Also, you’ll notice that I fleshed out Taki’s ass a bit. That’s not me making Taki a bit fatter, that’s me giving Taki the musculature needed to connect her legs to her torso.

So I put a tape measure the images of Taki in the link. Taki, as originally drawn, by the artist depicting a sexy ninja, has a waist to hip ratio of 1.9/2.8 = 0.0.67 (That is putting a tape measure on my screen, your screen will have different measurements but the same waist to hip ratio.

As “corrected” by the blogger to be supposedly realistic 2.2/3.0 = 0.73

In the bloggers black and red diagram, original Taki has 2.2/3.2 = 0.69, and supposedly realistic Taki 2.6/3.6= 0.72

But a real life hot caucasian chick is typically 0.7, and a real life hot East Asian chick, which the character presumably is, being a ninja, is indeed about 0.67 and yes, you can find, and bed, lots of real life asian chicks with a waist to hip ratio around 0.67. We are not talking freakish supermodels, but the reasonably slim and fit girl next door – well, next door if you visit East Asia.

My recent East Asian girlfriend had a waist to hip ratio better than Taki, and while her boobs were not nearly as large as fictional Taki’s boobs, which are indeed unreasonably large, they were better than the “corrected” Taki’s boobs. My recent East Asian real life girlfriend was way less “realistic” than the bloggers “corrected” Taki.

And the same is true of the regular complaints of “ünrealistic” depictions of females. They are only unrealistic if you demand that artists be forbidden from depicting that minority of women able to push aside the extra pizza slice.

By and large most videogame females correspond to a realistic slim athletic woman with big boobs, and most videogame males correspond a body builder male, reflecting what men and women want to be, and would like to have in their sexual partners – they are idealized, but except in deliberately cartoonish art, usually not absurdly exaggerated, nor are males any the less idealized that females. Pretty much every male in video game art looks like Superman.

The problem is that dumpy chicks find hot chicks far more threatening than dumpy males find hot males, and the blogger’s depictions of supposedly realistic female characters show this. Her “realistic” female characters show a realistic need to push aside the last slice of pizza and hit the gym. If she finds Taki threatening, she would find plenty of real life East Asians threatening.

In general female behavior is not explicable in terms of rational pursuit of goals, but as innate reactions to stimuli, at least in anything pertaining to sex and reproduction.

And most things do pertain to sex and reproduction, at least until they hit menopause.

Thus, to explain a female’s behavior, one does not ask “what do woman want” but rather “how would this reaction to stimuli have affected reproductive success in the ancestral environment?”

It is obvious and well known that tattoos uglify women, which has a direct and substantial harmful effect on their lives and reproductive success. So, why?

Well, I can report the reason in one case. The one women where I was around when she made the decision to get tattoos initially wanted to get tattooed as a shit test. Her motivation was to test if I was strong enough to stop her from doing stupid self destructive things. Which I was. And then eventually I dumped her. After I dumped her she proceeded to do a pile of stupid self destructive things while somehow going to considerable lengths to involve me in them. The message being “see, without you to care for me and protect me from myself, I will do stupid self destructive things.”

Well, that is one case, and maybe it does not generalize, but this is the case where I know the reason why a woman got tattooed.

If you teach your elite to hate western civilization, whites, and modern technology, you are not going to have any of them for very much longer.

It looks rather as if 99% of western peoples are going to perish from this earth. The survivors will be oddball types, subscribers to reactionary and rather silly religions in barren edge regions like Alaska.

Recent events in Syria suggest that the Russian capability for air warfare is substantially more technologically advanced than that of the US – Russians are acting as if they think it is, and Americans are also acting as if they think it is, though no one will know for sure unless war ensues. Maybe Russians are bluffing, but when civilizations decline, it is normal for the center to decline first, while the periphery keeps going for a little bit longer. That American spacecraft rely on Russian plutonium, and that for a while America relied on Russian transport to the space station suggests that technological decline has hit America harder than Russia, is consistent with Russian air superiority over Syria.

Chinese GDP now substantially exceeds that of America.

Singapore is a trap. Smart people go to Singapore, they don’t reproduce. People illegally hiding out in the wilds of Chernobyl do reproduce. But Chernobyl is also a trap. People there turn into primitives.

The west conquered the world and launched the scientific and industrial revolutions starting with restoration England conquering the world and launching the scientific and industrial revolutions.

The key actions of the Restoration were making the invisible college into the Royal society – that is to say, making the scientific method, as distinct from official science, high status, and authorizing the East India company to make war and peace – making corporate capitalism high status. Divorce was abolished, and marriage was made strictly religious, enforcing patriarchy socially and legally, thus encouraging reproduction.

Everywhere in the world, capitalism is deemed evil, the scientific method is demonized and is low status, and easy divorce and high female status inhibits reproduction. If women get to choose, they will choose to have sex with a tiny minority of top males and postpone marriage to the last minute – and frequently to after the last minute. (“Top” males in this context meaning not necessarily the guy in the corner office, but rather tattooed low IQ thugs)

We need a society that is pro science, pro technology, pro capitalism, which restricts female sexual choice to males that contribute positively to this society, and which makes it safe for males to marry and father children. Not seeing that society anywhere, and those few places that approximate some few aspects of this ideal are distinctly nonwhite.

It is sometimes argued that the Restoration did not last long, that the Glorious Revolution put Whigs and Whig doctrine in power and ended divine right. Which version of history has Whigs presiding over the triumph of the West.

Maybe.

But for a hundred and twenty years, any Whig that said the Glorious Revolution was Lockean was apt to find himself in exile.

Divine right was still going strong when George declared that God had appointed him regent, though this unleashed a firestorm against him and all the Georges similar to that against Trump today.

Indeed, the doctrine that women are pure and chaste, and that therefore men are always in the wrong, which is currently being used to attack Trump, was originally deployed to attack King George, in much the same style, deploying much the same rationales. The entire Victorian era can be thought of as weaponizing the sainthood of women against that horrid alpha male, King George. To this day Queen Caroline is still sainted, and to this day they either deny that George was Regent, which makes it a bit odd that there is an entire period of art, science, and architecture known as “Regency”, or else they say he was “appointed” regent, passive tense, without, however, saying who appointed him. They are still to this day in shock that divine right was live and effective for King George.

Corporate Capitalism lasted about as long as divine right lasted. Aristocratic control of the army lasted a little longer, to the Crimean war. It is hard to say when patriarchy ended, but the sainthood of women logically implied an attack on patriarchy. If women are naturally virtuous, there is no need to coerce women to obey their marriage vows, only men. So all coercion against women was an unprincipled exception, albeit in much of the world that unprincipled exception lasted all the way to 1972. The Scientific Method, enforced and upheld by the Royal Society, lasted all the way to end of World War II.

One could argue that Whiggism was victorious in 1788, when the Whigs successfully prosecuted a revolution on the principle that all men were created equal – while refraining from suggesting that women were created equal, and kind of avoiding the issue of whether blacks were created equal, but I would not count the triumph of Whiggism in America till the war of Northern Aggression. Whiggism was victorious and triumphant in some American states starting 1788, but not in all.

The sainthood of that whore, Florence Nightingale, was part of policy of demonizing the warriors who actually fought the war, and led to a policy of logistics being carried out by high status people classified as soldiers, rather than low status people classified as camp followers acting under the supervision of regimental commanders and lower, acting under the supervision of officers who were expected to actually fight in person. This reorganization of military supply put warriors under bureaucrats, thus dramatically lowering the authority of warriors within the military. This eventually gave us today’s British army, which has two hundred generals none of whom have heard a shot fired in anger, but which can only put two hundred actual fighting men on the field of battle to combat their enemies.

The argument was that there were a lot of dismal failures of logistics during the Crimean war, but in fact it is not obvious that transferring power over feeding and clothing soldiers from those close to the soldiers being fed and clothed, to those in the capital, has led to an improvement.

The greatness of the west derives from patriarchy, science, and capitalism, which in turn derived from the divine right of Kings, the established state church, and the supremacy of King over Church, for all of these were established or greatly reinforced in the restoration of 1660, and fell apart after divine right came under sustained and venomous attack in the nineteenth century.

Maybe we still have corporate capitalism, but in the nineteenth century the state took the guns away from corporate capitalists.

Saying “Things went wrong on date X” is misleading, because entropy is constantly increasing while efforts to clean up the mess and expel entropy are sporadic, but things suddenly got a whole lot better in the big clean up of the restoration, and things started going to hell a whole lot faster after they sainted women in order to demonize King George.

While Pol is always right about Jews, the trouble with Jew centric theory is that it prescribes nazism, which is just a return to nineteen thirties leftism from twentieth century leftism. Any real fix is necessarily going to resemble the restoration, which makes puritan centric theory more applicable. And if we look at the carpetbaggers sent to rob the Ukraine, they did not come from the vicinity of Jerusalem, but from the vicinity of Harvard, the headquarters and seminary of the State Church of Massachusetts.

To keep organizational entropy under control you need one man in charge. And then the entropy grows in those parts of the state that he has trouble controlling. The decay of our civilization is priest led and priest caused, (defining priests broadly to include the professoriat and similar). So, when there was a state church under a divine right king, that king could, and often enough did, expel the entropy – frequently by encouraging problem priests to emigrate, often to America. Would have worked considerably better if England had had an inquisition, to make sure that those professing adherence to the Church of England were actually adhering to it, rather than actively subverting it. And if he had expelled the offenders to cut sugar cane in the tropical sun, rather than to America.

With the death of God, hard to manage a divine right King. Somehow I doubt that Moldbug’s crypto locks would do as effective a job as God did.

Maybe there is some other solution to installing science, the scientific method, corporate capitalism, and patriarchy, and preventing the growth of entropy within the organs of the state. But the method that mostly worked from 1660 to the early nineteenth century was divine right monarchy ruling over a church and state united.

Corporations are often effective in controlling entropy within the organization, because the CEO has plenary power. But we are not yet seeing any well run corporate states.

As the current election campaign demonstrates, America today is rather close to being church and state united, but with no one man in charge, and no inquisition, we get holiness spirals and phariseeism. Free lance witch finders always manage to drum up business more efficiently than state sponsored witch finders.

The usual way these things end is that one leftist makes himself supreme, makes it as dangerous to be to the left of him as to be to the right of him, and proceeds, like Cromwell and Stalin, to put some order into the system. And if you are lucky, he is eventually replaced by a rightist who, being a rightist, is able to put a whole lot more order into the system. On the other hand, a leftist singularity can go directly all the way into a dark age, or just kill pretty much everyone until outsiders take over.