Natural Selection is reactionary

Vox Day has been campaigning against evolution, arguing that like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is fake science, demon worshiping religion dressed in the sacerdotal lab coats of science.

Vox is a great man, and I am a huge admirer of his. He had the courage, doubtless strengthened by his faith in God, to take on the enemy and show that the enemy can bleed. He should be an inspiration to all of us, and you would be wise to buy SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1) I can report from personal experience that this is how you survive attack by social justice warriors. Long before this book was written, I dealt with weaponized sexual harassment complaints (directed against other men, not against me, even though I am the only male in any workplace I have ever been who actually does sexually harass women) in a fashion similar to that advised by this book, with the result that the complainant “resigned”, and I did not get fired.

But on evolution, Vox Day is full of crap, and it is getting in the way of his understanding of women, with the result that he is purple pilled, and his novels feature kick ass action girl who rescues lad in distress.

Yes, the evolutionism of Gould, Jerry Coyne, and Richard Lewontin is demon worship wearing lab coats as sacerdotal robes. But Darwinism is true. Species originate by natural selection. We became human through a thousand genocides. We are risen killer apes. Jerry Coyne theoretically does not go full Gould, but rejects the obvious implication of Darwinism that subsaharan Africans are substantially less distant from chimps than whites are distant from chimps. He kind of knows its true, but favors silencing anyone who mentions it, having his cake and eating it too.

It is impossible to understand the nature of women except from the point of view that humans and races of humans were formed by natural selection over an immensity of time. Believing in the curse of Eve gets you half way there, but one can theoretically believe in the curse of Eve and still be blue pilled. Natural selection explains the desire of women for invasion, conquest, and rape, while the Curse of Eve merely tells us that husbands should rule wives.

The origin of species by Natural selection, Darwinism, is true science.

“Evolution” is indeed fake science: – the doctrine that humans arose from non human forms without the inconveniently racist and sexist conclusions that flow from the idea that humans arose from lower forms by natural selection.

Hence my koan: A creationist, an evolutionist, and a Darwinist were walking in the woods

You will notice that in this koan the evolutionist is depicted as, like Global Warmers, unscientific, indeed hostile to science, and, like a gnostic, hostile to reality and the world.

Gnosticism is an anti human, and anti this world Christian heresy. Reaction worships Nature’s God, and to understand the will of Gnon, have to see men and women as they truly are, and one can only see them as they truly are if one accepts Darwinism. The red pill on woman only makes sense from the point of view of natural selection – that for women abduction and enslavement is an escape from prisoner’s dilemma, and that their resistance to rape, enslavement, and the authority of their husband is merely a fitness test.

354 Responses to “Natural Selection is reactionary”

  1. Thomas Kolbe says:

    The more traditional Christian view is significantly less blue-pilled and more in line with the view you argue from Gnon
    Lot’s daughters/Number 31/Deut 22:28-9/Job 31:10 are instructive in the proper interpretation of the Curse of Eve. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 9 is also a good discussion of the danger of harlots.

    Trent the Catechism on instruction of wives was:

    “Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

    To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

    Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience. “

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Can you refer me to the catechism that contained that text? I’ve checked the modern catechisms and couldn’t find it. And the Catholicuck priests place the “UN Declaration of Human Rights” above scripture in their theology. I interviewed a number of them who told me so to my face. “Wife submit to husband? The horror! Violates human dignity! Because UN Declaration.” Even the so called sedevacantists and latin rite priests are cucked. SSPX and so forth.

  2. Rule Britannia says:

    to the victors go the Deuteronomy 22

  3. IAMAgnostic says:

    Hi Jim, I’m enjoying your blog.

    Regarding Gnosticism, if know about them what are your thoughts on the Nag Hammadi writings?

    You say that Gnosticism is a heresy but I think you know the history, a council was convened by proto-Catholics and they decided what parts of the Bible to keep and discarded much that did not fit with their preconceptions. That approach was just social consensus, not Truth.

    • jim says:

      That was the social consensus of the Christian society that survived, and thus indicative of the will of Gnon.

      The book of Job and the Lord’s prayer depict Satan on a short leash. His power and authority in this world is limited and subject to capricious restraint by God, who allows him to roam only to test us.

      Gnosticism depicts this world as entirely the domain of Satan, thus resembles leftism in being destructive, self destructive, self hating, and a force for disorder.

      Gnosticism is the black pill, traditional Christianity the white pill. Irrational optimism will get you further than rational pessimism.

      Gnostics are heretics because those that took the white pill conquered, and those that took the black pill were predictably defeated.

      • Koanic says:

        Job was protected by his faith and righteousness. Normal sinners don’t have a hedge against Satan like that… as history demonstrates.

      • IAMAgnostic says:

        Gnosticism, the Bible in many places, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses depict this world as the domain of Satan.

        The way the powers that were acted on Gnosticism in the past are similar to the way the powers that be pounce on anyone disobedient about race, sex and gender today.

        The common thread is not leftism otherwise Gnosticism, the supposed leftism, wouldn’t have been suppressed the way rightists are also suppressed about race and sex and gender.

        The common thread is power demanding you not notice. You may not notice unpleasant aspects of reality that cut too close to truth or else.

        Somewhere the truth must be spoken and known by others, and not just socially useful myths that everyone nods to so the masses can be herded.

        That need for truth and the ability to speak it and have it known by others creates philosophers. That disposition towards truth is what defined an elite among Europeans in particular.

        Were the white missionaries to Africa in the 1700-1900s not traditional Christianity? We are seeing the dark consequences of that now.

        • jim says:

          > Gnosticism, the Bible in many places, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses depict this world as the domain of Satan.

          That neatly solves the problem of evil.

          But the book of Job and the Lord’s prayer depict Satan in this world as under tight supervision and restraint by God.

          Further, Gnostics were leftists, and leftists are Gnostics.

          The repression of Gnostics did not forbid them to notice the existence of evil. It forbade them to draw and preach wicked conclusions from that observation.

          Today’s prohibition on noticing is completely different. We are forbidden to notice that demon worshipers are worshiping demons, forbidden to notice bad behavior by women and nonwhites, forbidden to restrain badly behaved women, forbidden to defend ourselves against nonwhites, forbidden to call the police on badly behaved nonwhites.

          • IAMAgnostic says:

            Yes, the problem of evil is solved.

            Why are Gnostics leftists?

            What were the wicked conclusions that Gnostics preached after noticing evil? What would be the good conclusions?

            The Lord’s prayer says nothing about supervision or restraint of Satan by God.

            The prayer says to pray to God that is in Heaven, not here on Earth.

            It is a prayer to have His will done on Earth… because it is not.

            In the book of Job we see Satan visit Heaven with the gathering of the angelic sons of God. Jehovah asks Satan:

            “Where have you come from?”

            Satan answered Jehovah. “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.”

            (Job 1:7)

            So Satan was not supervised after being cast down. In Job, Satan made his challenge so Satan was supervised for that time until the results were in.

            Satan is constrained first in not harming Job’s body but then Satan argues Job’s body must be harmed to test Job’s faith. God then agrees, asking only that Job have his life spared. Those are mild restraints given the harm that follows.

            “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” 1 John 5:19

            • Koanic says:

              All correct except you ignore Satan’s complaint in his challenge – that God had set a hedge about Job and all he had.

            • jim says:

              “lead us not into temptation” implies that Satan is allowed to tempt us only under God’s supervision. Similarly, book of Job. God is depicted as keeping Satan on a very short leash.

              Gnostics depict Satan as sovereign.

              If Satan sovereign, Gnostics are excused from trying to build a good live and a good society in this world.

              • Häßliche Lusche says:

                “If Satan sovereign, Gnostics are excused from trying to build a good live and a good society in this world.”

                New Testament teaches the opposite: that the Christan will suffer greatly in this world, should live in poverty and abandon the world, that the flesh has to be overcome, it cannot inherit the Kingdom. This is not just how Schopenhauer understood it, but also the born-again Christian Kierkegaard ( journal entry II A 228 is about his born-again experience).

                1 John 5:19 has already been mentioned, I’d also mention that in the gospel of John the phrase “the prince of this world” is mentioned three times, and Gal. 1:4 calls this world downright evil.

                The Church, of course, had an interest in a religion that has to appear to average people, not just to hardcore Christians like a St. Jerome. Same goes for celibacy, which is recommended, even above marriage by Paul; and there are several verses where Christ valued celibacy, as opposed to the whole Old Testament, where “fruitfulness” was seen as a blessing.

                Even the Catholic Church believes that Mary remained a virgin and was conceived without original sin. And Christ was born without a father, by the Holy Ghost, which also means that there was no lust involved (the latter is my own observation which I had not read before). This stuff was discussed on the blog of Bill Vallicella (sp?) “Maverick Philosopher”: Christianity and antinatalism. And the old Catechism of Trent put celibacy above marriage.

                I’m not arguing for antinatalism here, since marriage is no sin, but that is all one can say about it. Most early Christians were celibate and valued it over marriage, second marriages were seen as weaknesses, even in one of Paul’s epistles (I’ve got an old Catholic Bible, Vulgate-German, with commentary by Augustin Arndt where he makes the case that second marraiages were signs of incontinence.)

                In a source on wikipedia I read that the Orthodox apparently celebrated the first marriage, no longer did so for the second, barely tolerated the third and basically forbade the fourth.

                I’m a eugenicist though, like Chris Langan, and would have preferred if my father had been sterilized, since I hate this life and this world pretty much. As a Christian I simply have to endure now.

                I like Christians like St. Jerome, who, in a letter to “Paula”, wrote that again and again he tells himself “cursed be the day I was born” (Job 3:3) and “why hast though conceived a son?” Jeremiah 20:14-18 (sorry, my reference is a German translation of his letters). I also value highly the melancholy Christians, like Pascal, and Kierkegaard especially. Also the lesser-known German Catholic poet Reinhold Schneider, who had to battle his urge to commit suicide all his life, until he collapsed on the street at age 55, on the way to Church.

                All I’m saying is that there is a Biblical basis for monasteries, asceticism and celibacy based on the NT and NT alone, without which monasteries would be impossible. This is where I part ways with most Christians, especially Protestants: they think societies are healthy where marriage is flourishing. This might be true as opposed to the degenerate and decadent PUA culture we now have, though I side with Gómez Dávila thinking that a culture is strong when its religion is taken seriously, which means: building monasteries on every hill.

                • Häßliche Lusche says:

                  Feminsm might be an important topic, but I stopped reading Alt-Right publications, including Vox Day whom I’ve followed very closely and who led me in the direction of Christianity until I became a born-again Christian myself. I stopped because the game stuff was getting tiresome, and I see this hierarchy stuff as quackery on the level of psychoanalysis, and it can’t be applied to geniuses like Goethe or past societes anyway, especially past ones where good manners were the norm (making alpha behavior impossible and simply rude) and classes, hierarchies still existed. Further, this “I’m not getting sex, you should get it, it’s most important”” is not Biblical and silly, especially since great minds never touched a woman: John Henry Newman, Aquinas, Newton, Kierkegaard, Kant, Pascal. And it was the genius I looked up to all my life.. Being occupied with sex all day is kids stuff. I’d rather read de Maistre or Donoso Cortes instead. It’s the behavior of addicts, and you will be in constant need of a fix. Even the Buddhists got that.

                  I cannot imagine a genius putting so much value on having sex. How long does the act last anyway? Do you — pardon my french — do you want to suck on tits all day? Why would great men do that? Even a Langan I cannot picture living the life of a Roosh. He would be wasting his brain as opposed to Roosh, who might be only slightly above average. (No matter what you think of Langan — I read him less for the CTMU, which I don’t claim to understand, but because he is spot on regarding Trump, globalism and immigration, he had great postings on quora until a polyglot xenophile banned him for being racist, or the guy was just butthurt. His stuff is archived on knowledgebase.ctmu.net)

                  On the Alt-Right, especially those who are Christians, I only found Andy Nowicki who shared my position. I mean, it’s surely fine to be loved by a woman (even if it’s more often than not ugly egotism), but I see educating oneself as more important, as this is also a culture war, and a civilization cannot exist without educated people, preferably fluent in Latin and Greek, as we used to be (even Helmholtz was fluent in them, which did not seem to distract him from doing physics.)

                  My problem as an atheist was that I knew that life is meaningless, and I would have only lived if I was a genius, which I’m not, because why not just kill yourself when you’ll die anyway if you don’t have anything great to add? Even if great works of genius won’t matter in the long run either, but they would have kept me occupied. So I see women as the biggest crutch, used by many men so as not to kill themselves due to the fact that life is meaningless without God (that’s simply the conclusion of God is dead, and the Greeks and Romans weren’t Christians, certainly, but they were religous people, not atheist materialists.)

                  Meaning is important, and without it the question “why live?” cannot be answered. Erernity is meaning, transcience is not. To quote Nicolás Gómez Dávila again:

                  Faith in God does not solve problems, but makes them laughable.
                  The serenity of the believer is not a presumption of knowledge, but a fullness of confidence.

                  We should not conclude that everything is permitted, if God does not exist, but that nothing matters.
                  Permission ends up being laughable when what is permitted loses its meaning.

                  The soul surpasses the world, whereas the world encompasses humanity.
                  The insignificance of humanity renders “philosophies of history” ridiculous, whereas the infinite price of each human soul vindicates religion.

                • jim says:

                  Vox Day’s hierarchy is quackery, but game matters, because understanding female nature tells you what social order is natural and right, a matter of some importance to Christians, even a Christian who feels himself called to celibacy.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  There is nothing in Paul condemning second marriages.

                  You are making up a gnostic bible from brief phrases snatched out of context, and that is not how the community of saints interpreted the bible.

                • Eynon says:

                  The society which will most consistently outcompete and dominate others is the society that encourages its above-average men to invest in it; men invest in society when it stands a good chance of guaranteeing them wives and children (particularly virgin wives and faithful children). The occasional genius who has no interest in fatherhood doesn’t disprove this, and the best geniuses did their best work in successful societies. A focus on eugenic breeding trends and family formation is not a focus on sterile sex for pleasure; you can get more of that right now than at any point in history. If you can’t tell the difference then you’re a fool (in addition to being mentally ill and suicidal, according to your own proclamation).

            • Koanic says:

              Satan inherited Adam’s sovereignty over Earth by default, as the greatest entity resident. It is not absolute, particularly regarding the saints, but presumably his offer to Jesus of the kingdoms of the Earth was legitimate. When Jesus returns to Earth, it will be as conqueror, because he does not currently rule it. The messenger to Daniel was delayed by the Prince of Persia for 21 days. There is nothing fictional or metaphorical about Satan’s rule.

              • jim says:

                The state religion has a duty to this world, to promote peace, order, and cooperation, to get everyone on the same page as to what constitutes cooperate/cooperate equlibrium. Holiness spiraling destroys this, and conceding this world to Satan undermines this. Gnostics are uncooperative, which is bad, and causes them to lose to Orthodox when the conflict goes physical.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sure. I’m not a Gnostic. There is no idea of conceding Earth to Satan in the Bible. But it is foolish to underestimate the opposition. Jesus certainly did not advise that; rather the opposite. He told us not to expect the hedge to remain inviolate. Those occasions on which it is lowered are often the sites of Satan’s greatest defeats. Exhibit 1, the Crucifixion. But before that, Satan could not physically touch Jesus. That’s how it goes.

                  When the hedge comes down, we are to follow his example.

    • Ex says:

      When was this supposed council convened, pray tell?

    • Ichm says:

      Can you conceive of two things as wildly at loggerheads as truth and social consensus?
      What Jim says confirms that Gnostics are far more related to truth than their opponents, but his speech and theories don’t hinge upon truth, they hinge upon acquiring power.

      “Heresy” is any theory and current of thought misaligned with the theory and thoughts that support those with power.
      Like what side was “evil” and what “good” in a war…

      Your nature (independent, or authoritarian? Man of action and leadership, or contemplative?) decides whether you like to frame things this way, or research truth.
      Just don’t expect history and laws to be written by the independent and contemplative.

      • IAMAgnostic says:

        Gnosticism reminds me of racialism – a kind of brainwashing exists in society among most people to prevent noticing.

    • Filthy Liar says:

      Jim doesn’t believe in capital T ‘Truth’. The whole point of the new Cathedral is that the priests know it’s a lie. Anything else results in holiness spirals. That’s my understanding.

      • jim says:

        Your understanding is incorrect.

        The new religion will have its doctrines restricted to matters that are unfalsifiable – unfalsifiable because demonstrably true of this world, or unfalsifiable because they concern the next world.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      The central infirmity of the gnostic is his presumption that his standards for judging what constitutes evil are prior to Nature’s God.

      Id est, the central infirmity of the gnostic is that his intuitive perceptions of what constitutes evil are incorrect.

      Id est, gnosticism is the sentimental heart, or animus, of leftist behavior in praxis.

  4. The Cominator says:

    I think the bigger problem we have is memetic selection. The “right” is the coalition of those who mostly want to be left alone. People like us are just those who realized the left will never leave us alone.

    How do we make the basic right idea of “leave us alone” cohesive. That is the key. The best chance we had was to weaponize Peterson (yes I know all about his shortcomings and even the intention to use him as controlled op) who is the closest thing there is to a “religious” prophet against the left but Vox seems to have dedicated himself as a side project to sabotage any chance of that.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      It isn’t sabotage because there was never a chance that Jordan Peterson would turn into what you want him to be. Globalist psy-op from long before the Alt-right was a thing.

    • jim says:

      Peterson is controlled opposition, an entryist.

      No good will come of treating him as anything other than the enemy that he truly is.

      The true religion will be red pilled. Can you imagine Peterson taking the position of “Green Acres”, that wives must obey?

      • The Cominator says:

        > “The true religion will be red pilled. Can you imagine Peterson taking the position of”Green Acres”, that wives must obey?”

        On women I’m saying he comes very very close he implies it. Peterson is most left wing on the nationalism question, but closer to us on the woman question.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf3Eub1Hvhs

        This is almost explicit Cathedral heresy…

        • jim says:

          Peterson speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

          Let me know when he stops implying it and flat out says it.

          In the intro to “Green Acres”, the protagonist and insert character settles the argument with his wife by physically compelling her, and it is implied that everyone, including his wife and the audience, accepts his right to do so.

          When Peterson tells us what “Green Acres” tells us, then no longer the enemy.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Did you have this in mind when using that particular example?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCkmOCsI-hc

          • The Cominator says:

            You are asking too much of someone who is still able to preach borderline heresy in Cathedral centers at the Cathedral’s expense. I’m telling you Peterson is if not with us on the woman question at least wants to go in our direction. Where he is opposed to the far right is more on the question of Nationalism.

            But the sex pill outranks the race pill, we need a real strong heretic on the woman question able to reach normies… the purple pill is not always bad. Can be useful as an incremental measure.

            Writing Peterson off as an enemy is a mistake even if he doesn’t like the far right.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Peterson is an enemy – period. His job is just to make sure his fans don’t stray into prog-unapproved heresy.

            • jim says:

              Whosoever damages your capability to reproduce deserves violence more than the man who vandalizes your property or attempts to steal your laptop.

              The purple pill will not get you laid, and someone who preaches the purple pill impairs the capability to reproduce even of the red pilled, for blue pillers and purple pillers routinely threaten violence against red pilled men attempting to pass brutal fitness tests.

              All white knights are attempting adultery and deserve death. Anyone endorsing white knighting covets his neighbour’s wife.

              • Koanic says:

                Amen. May a legion of Black Knights wet both blades!

              • The Cominator says:

                Despite NRx gaining some powerful adherents around Trump, despite getting a sympathetic President culturally the Cathedral marches on and we just cannot seem to shake their hold or even reach normies.

                Peterson is the ONLY even semi heretical voice that seems able to get through. Even Vox concedes (not in a positive way) the religious character of what he calls “Jordanetics”.

                “Jordanetics” doesn’t favor female equality, doesn’t say white men are evil, doesn’t favor socialism… we ought to embrace it IMHO. I’m well aware of Peterson’s personal shortcomings politically… I’m saying they matter less then you think and much much less then Vox Day thinks.

                • jim says:

                  Who/whom

                  Trump is on our side, in that he has the right enemies.

                  Jordan Peterson has the wrong friends. Cleaning your room is women’s work. Doing women’s work will not get you laid.

                  Jordan Peterson is popular for the same reason Slate Star Codex is popular. People are hungry for truth, but cannot handle the truth. Jordan Peterson sounds like he is going to deliver truth, but gives pretty lies.

                  The Kathy Forth suicide shows who is on our side. Those that called her out as evil, insane, and burning with sexual desire for rape, beating, and enslavement are our friends. Those who delicately dropped hints that the red pilled would register as evidence that she was evil and insane, and could not draw attention to the fact that she was burning with desire for the sexual harassment that she was not in fact getting, are our enemies, because of the immense harm and destruction she inflicted, which they dared not oppose or resist.

                  Kathy Forth went around harming people using the superweapons that our society has given women. Whosoever failed to notice this is our enemy.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  President Trump also passes the RedPill test on women handily.
                  Trump was able to condense the True Nature of Women in one sentence, “If you’re a star, they will let you grab ’em by the pussy.”

                • jim says:

                  Jordan Peterson hints at that, but deniably, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Marriage and family can only be restored by leadership willing to call out the true nature of women. Before we have leadership willing to make women property again, need leadership that can say the reasons that women need to be property.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Jordan Peterson is popular for the same reason Slate Star Codex is popular. People are hungry for truth, but cannot handle the truth. Jordan Peterson sounds like he is going to deliver truth, but gives pretty lies.”

                  I’m saying that on the woman question Jordanetics is close to true that in embracing it the full truth will become apparent.

                  More definitively opposed to us on the nationalism question where Jordanetics seeks to suppress its mostly white adherents from practicing identity politics.

                • jim says:

                  Jordan is purple pill. We have lots of experience with purple pillers. Purple pillers are not on our side.

                  He who tells hurtful lies to us is not on our side. Jordanetics will not get you laid.

                  The purple piller says to himself “The red pill account of women is unbearably horrifying, and implies that our current society should be turned upside down and old type marriage restored. So I won’t mention the horrifying part.”

                  If he won’t mention the horrifying part, not going to restore the old social order.

                  The horrifying part is that laws that make women the primary victim and complainant in sexual harassment and rape cases, rather than the male responsible for looking after her, are not really workable because of the complicated female response to rape and sexual harassment, and the opaque nature of female consent. Thus it is impractical to give women direct state protection. The state has to give protection to and through the man responsible for her welfare.

                • Info says:

                  Have you seen vox take on him. Jordan is truly an enemy.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “Peterson speaks out of both sides of his mouth.”

            ROFL the sheer hubris of that comment

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Eddie: “You are my wife.”
            Eva: “Goodbye city life!”
            Eddie+Eva: “Green Acres we are there!”

            I mean really. That’s domestic violence now. No shit.

            InB4 SJW’s light the show up on Twitter and Jezebel.

            • jim says:

              It is domestic violence because he physically compels her.

              Dalrock banned me for saying that since all men are stronger than any women, as near all of them as makes no difference, husbands should compel obedience.

  5. Neurotoxin says:

    for women abduction and enslavement is an escape from prisoner’s dilemma, and that their resistance to rape, enslavement, and the authority of their husband is merely a fitness test.

    Indeed. Female behavior simply doesn’t make any sense without evolutionary game theory.

    On a related note, I’ve been doing a casual re-read of Milton’s Paradise Lost recently. Eve shit-tests Adam, and tries to put herself in teh proximity of an evil male, in ways that are instantly recognizable via the modern red pill. In particular, God sends an angel specifically to warn Adam and Eve that Satan will be arriving soon to tempt them. After the angel leaves, Eve finds clever ways to argue to Adam that the two of them should split up.

    “There’s an evil man likely to be lurking about.”

    “Fascinating. Oh, by the way, here are some clever rationalizations of why I should now wander off by myself.”

    Plus ca change…

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Milton, like the rest of the Puritan leadership, was red-pill to a degree that most PUA will never be. His essay arguing for Biblical polygamy was excellent.

      • Rule Britannia says:

        the Puritans did literally nothing wrong

        • jim says:

          The Puritans began the attack on marriage, which escalated, and continues to escalate to this day.

          • The Cominator says:

            How specifically Jim? I think its also important to distinguish between different groups of Puritans (one of my few issues with Moldbug is he was too anti-Puritan and too pro-Catholic, the post Puritans Unitarians and progressives are the ones who really did the damage but the original Puritans were not Pelagian in nature quite the opposite). Most likely you are referring to the groups suppressed by Oliver Cromwell.

            • jim says:

              Oliver Cromwell, once in power, was as reactionary as he could be, and supported marriage as much as he could, but he went along with the leftist position that marriage was not a sacrament, while trying to take the substance out of that left wing position that marriage was not a sacrament.

              He allowed the desecration of marriage. It is obvious he allowed it reluctantly, or subsequently regretted allowing it, but he allowed it.

              While in power, he allowed Parliament to institute a civil and secular form of marriage. During the Nominated Assembly or ‘Barebones Parliament’ of 1653, this was taken to its logical conclusion when the conducting of marriages was taken away from the clergy altogether and vested in justices of the peace. Parishes were to elect a registrar to keep records of the new unions. Couples were now required to be ‘loving and faithful’ to each other, wives with the additional promise to be obedient – these vows are not quite symmetric, but they are an alarming step in the direction of symmetry.

              The traditional deal is that the man loves and cherishes (takes care of and supervises) the wife, and the wife is not required or even expected to love, but to honor and obey.

              Honoring gets dropped, cherishing gets dropped, loving gets added to the wife’s obligations, the trend to completely symmetric and secular vows began.

              Male authority in the family needs to be backed by the biggest male of all, God, and the Puritans of Cromwell’s parliament began the undermining of men by taking that support away.

              In 1662 God came back to the support of husbands, but 1662 did not put things all the way back to the way they had been before 1640, and in about 1790-1820, the attack on marriage resumed, and has continued to escalate ever since.

              From 1640 till Cromwell cracked down hard on the leftists, the more you opposed marriage the holier you were, and from 1820 to the present, the more you oppose marriage the holier you are.

              • eternal anglo says:

                Couples were now required to be ‘loving and faithful’ to each other[…]

                Honoring gets dropped, cherishing gets dropped, loving gets added to the wife’s obligations, the trend to completely symmetric and secular vows began.

                And faithfulness gets added to the husband’s obligations. A step in the direction of emasculation?

                • jim says:

                  That exaggerates and oversimplifies, it was part of a complicated trend that set in earlier and continued further. But secular marriage, and simplified marriage vows, were a mighty big step along that path, which happened under Cromwell’s parliament.

                  Male authority needs to be backed by God, Church, society, and the state. The puritans yanked God away, and proceeded to undermine male authority in a variety of ways, while still being outrageously red pilled by modern standards.

                  Puritans wanted Christianity to be purified of “pagan additions” but a lot of these pagan additions were the Church preserving Greco-Roman civilization through the darkness. Superior holiness meant war on Christmas and war on marriage, and the more you make war on them, the holier you are, and that holiness spiral is in full throttle today.

                  Christian marriage, and Christian monogamy, derives from the oldest and most respectable form of Roman marriage, therefore is a “pagan addition” (modern Jewish marriage derives from Christian marriage, not from traditional Jewish marriage.) So undermining marriage made them holier, and undermining marriage more makes them holier still, and here we are today.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  In other words, Puritans were Judaizers.

              • Rule Britannia says:

                secular marriage is fine

                stateless, churchless marriage is fine

                female husband selection is fine

                axe the welfare state stuff after woman suffrage and the other active perversions of the natural order

                I don’t care terribly much about some cherry-picked contemporary politics of four hundred years ago because if you somehow terminate alphabet social engineering and redistribute martial-educational power no further effort is necessary

                to bend the space-time continuum as it’s currently bent takes trillions of dollars of cumulative effort

                just smash the artificial gravity generator

                the 1950’s were cool and had electricity and muscle cars and the Hays Code and actual liberal democracy

                I’ll take my chances with a generic Protestant + E. Michael Jones-type Catholic alliance against the International Capitalists and their prog marionettes

                1600’s purity is an awful lot of purity

                • jim says:

                  > secular marriage is fine
                  >
                  > stateless, churchless marriage is fine
                  >
                  > female husband selection is fine

                  Nuts.

                  God helps immensely in ruling one’s family, and women are totally unfit to choose husbands. Peoples that allow female sexual choice perish, thus today’s women were never subject to natural selection to make competent sexual choices.

                  If we don’t remove female sexual choice, we perish, because everyone else who allowed female sexual choice perished.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  it’s highly eugenic to let women freely choose their husbands

                  the phrase you use, “sexual choice”, implying first she fucks one sap, then another, is very different

                  everyman wants to try before he buys, the traditional Indo-European way, but 21st century birth control is just too good

                  they still did it in Sweden until very recently, worked fine, didn’t slow down the Vikings

                  you can have your domesticated “civilization” if you like, but I choose Nietzschean “blond beast of prey” aristopaganism

                  long live the blue of blood, may my line endure for ever

                • jim says:

                  > it’s highly eugenic to let women freely choose their husbands

                  I know well what women choose. I have spent my life learning it and learning how to fake it.

                  And I know well that allowing women to freely choose their husbands is profoundly dysgenic. The female concept of alpha is cruder and more primitive than the male concept of alpha. The female concept of alpha is appropriate to when we lived in the jungle and looked like apes, the male concept better fitted to a society of extended large scale cooperation.

                  > everyman wants to try before he buys

                  You are blaming men for women’s choices. The problem is that ninety percent of women want to fuck ten percent of men, and if allowed, will do so.

                  Mister one in thirty, if allowed, would love to compel each of the twenty girls that sought his dick to stick around, but they keep moving from one booty call list to another in an effort to get to the top of some guy’s booty call list.

                  If men get to choose they lock women in harems. If women get to choose, brothels.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  you’re gonna need to conceptually undivorce sexual intercourse and sexual reproduction

                  birth control breaks womb containers

                  I’m unconcerned by the deviant sexual practices of unterhumans under the influence of modern communications technology

                  the entirely of woman choice can be boiled down to what’s likely to get them pumping out high-quality babies fastest in the ancestral environment

                  for the human races it’s normal natural and historical to let them choose their baby daddy

                • jim says:

                  > for the human races it’s normal natural and historical to let them choose their baby daddy

                  Not so. The current regime is an aberration. Peoples, cultures, tribes, religions, societies, and civilizations that let them choose their baby daddy vanish, conquered by men of sterner peoples. Europeans were unusually lenient in sometimes letting them meet and dance a short list of pre approved suitors, which worked OK, but genuinely free choice is disastrous.

                  I recall reading an early nineteenth century biography in which the author, at the age of fifteen, was leaked the information that if she ran to the door and peeked, she could see her future husband (which was of course, someone she had never met, because she had never met any males except for close kin).

                  So, as recently as early nineteenth century, no substantial female choice.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  btw your conception of mating strategies is incorrect

                  optimal male strategy: impregnate and leave

                  optimal female strategy: marry and cryptically cuckold (see above)

                  optimal post-menopausal woman strategy: monogamy / polygamy

                  the first government was a council of tribal elders

                  optimal strategy of hostile occupying government (HOG): use birth control to fake the optimal strategy for the top men to get them to go along with destroying the fabric of their civilization

                  men don’t want harems. grandmothers want harems. the male fantasy is to be The Man With No Name

                  women don’t want to fuck an endless parade of fucktoys, she wants to fuck one and then have him shotgun married to her

                  no one is happy because no one getting what they want. except HOG. HOG is getting what it wants.

                • jim says:

                  The female fantasy is that an extremely powerful male (as women comprehend male power) takes her into his harem, and then she beats all the other women in his harem to get to the top.

                  But in practice, Miss ordinary is never going to get to the top of the booty call list of Mr One in Thirty, so, pretty soon, she goes after another different Mr One in Thirty. Rinse and repeat. This not only sucks for the other twenty nine men, it is also rough on Mr One in Thirty.

                  Yes, Mrs Ordinary wants to marry. But she does not want to marry Mr Ordinary. She wants to marry Mr One in Thirty. Not going to happen.

                • jim says:

                  > men don’t want harems

                  nuts.

                  If we just wanted to fuck and move on, we would all be happy with whores. But no one is happy with whores. Whores are the last resort when everything is going wrong.

                  Men are not happy to be limited to just one girl. But they are even less happy to be limited to girls who just fucked someone else, and who are promptly going to fuck someone else. Who are what even Mr One in Thirty finds himself stuck with.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  Mrs. Ordinary wants to marry the most eligible man in her environment who will reciprocate her interest. the most eligible man in her ancestral environment who will reciprocate her interest is likely to find himself married to the first woman he fucks. therefore in the highest races we would expect to find high mate choosiness in both sexes. I belong to the highest race and got an especially visceral case of choosiness

                  many men are happy with whores, most men are happiest with a rotating series of sterile “girlfriends”, very few have any noteworthy superinstinctual drive to perpetuate their bloodline

                  to the extent men want harems it’s because the evolutionary strategy of the grandmother has been so dominant so long it’s embedded at the genetic level

                  in the orient they piously respected their elders and kept the most outrageous harems until very recently. coincidence?

                  HOG wants to ruin as many women as possible for as many men as possible.

                • jim says:

                  I am have outstandingly low standards. Any fertile age female will do, and I know well what Mrs Ordinary wants.

                  And, when she is young and hot, she does not want the most eligible man who will marry her.

                  She wants the most eligible man who will stick his dick into her for sixty seconds.

                  If we want Mrs Ordinary to marry Mr Ordinary at the start of her fertile years rather than at the end, will need to hit her with a stick.

                • jim says:

                  > many men are happy with whores, most men are happiest with a rotating series of sterile “girlfriends”,

                  You not only do not know what women want. You don’t know what alpha males want.

                  The nature you ascribe to men is inconsistent with Darwin’s sexual selection, inconsistent with the fact that when men have all the power and women are powerless, fertility is high and whores nonexistent, and inconsistent with what I see in front of my nose.

                  Beta males think they want a what alpha males have, but the men that women see as alphas rapidly discover that what women are giving them is not what they want, it represents the victory of the selfish female strategy over the selfish male strategy.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  hearty lol at telling me I don’t want what I want

                  both within races and between races, as one ascends the dominance hierarchy one encounters a stronger and stronger tendency to absolute monogamy, in both sexes

                  Boomers are the exception: notwithstanding any other attribute they, being willing and eager slaves to their passions, are to be found only at the very bottom

                • pterantula says:

                  > most men are happiest with a rotating series of sterile “girlfriends”,
                  That’s right, it’s not that marriage is illegal, it’s not that we don’t have jobs, it’s not that housing costs are insane, it’s not that productivity is down and wages are down even more…

                  …we just *like* it like this

                  are you kidding me? You’re a fucking White male!

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  observed reality is men choosing lifelong monogamy over celibacy, not men choosing lifelong monogamy over serial monogamy or polygamy or serial polygamy

                  neither sex marries before 30 unless coerced. simple fact.

                  if you can’t understand this it’s because you’re old and forgot

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  You are in obstinate denial of what is in front of your face.

                  It is women, not men that are resisting marriage. Mr Ordinary wants to marry Mrs ordinary at age seventeen, but Mrs Ordinary fucks Mr One in Thirty till age thirty.

                  Mr Ordinary wants to marry Mrs Ordinary at seventeen because he is not getting laid. Mrs Ordinary does not want to marry him, because she is getting laid, or hopes to get laid, by Jeremy Meeks.

                • jim says:

                  Mr Ordinary would love to marry Miss Ordinary at seventeen, because Mr Ordinary is not getting laid.

                  Mrs Ordinary does not want marry Mr Ordinary until her eggs are dying and her pussy is withered, because at seventeen she is getting booty calls from Jeremy Meeks.

                  When men have the power, as for example Talibanic Afghanistan, they put women in harems.

                  When women have the power, as for example the modern west, they put themselves in brothels.

                  It as plain as the nose on your face.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I DO agree with Rule Britannia that Mr. Ordinary doesn’t want to get married to modern women with current divorce laws. This is quite sensible.

                  Its not that sensible that young women don’t when the law favors them so much (and if they still want to run around and party and f*** random alphas after marriage anyway under our current system nothing stops them, there are a few women who actually do this).

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s hard to tell a red pill from a blue pill painted red.

                  “Jim” is a kind of silver-plated zinc coin with a picture of Obi Wan on the front, for sale at a hundred bucks. Collectable, goyim, collectable!

                  Women aren’t *available* to get married until they’re thirty because first of all they’re at college until 23 or so, which means lots of commuting, lots of unavailability and lots of ‘finding oneself’ trips pushed by {{{ALERT}}} NOT THE MARKETING DEPARTMENTS OF TOURISM COMPANIES GOYIM NOT THEM NOT THEM {{{ALERT}}} in order to keep the all-important Cathedral bubble going, for the benefit of the Brahmin caste {{{ALERT}}} AND DEFINITELY NOT THE PRIVATE LOAN COMPANIES, TEXTBOOK SELLERS, STUDENT ACCOMMODATION FIRMS ETC {{{ALERT}}}

                  Then when they graduate, they feel like it’s time to put their gloriously high-falutin’ qualifications to good use so it’s career time, and if the first job isn’t very spectacular, more effort required, then booooom: 30.

                  Meanwhile yes indeed there is a lot of partying and certain ethnic groups are definitely not propagandising them to ride the carousel that a certain company pretty much monopolises (who owns OK-Cupid, Tinder, Plenty-Of-Fish, Match.com and Friendfinder again? Ohhhhhhhh yeah can’t do it, can’t do it)

                  {{{ALERT}}} THESE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES FULFILLING A MARKET NEED YOU MARXIST {{{ALERT}}}

                  Better shut it down Shlomo, there’s a lot of wrong-think here just beneath the surface………… heaven forfend we start noticing CUI FUCKIN’ BONO here.

                • jim says:

                  You are blaming the Jews, Capitalism, and the culture for the behavior of women

                  The Victorians abandoned direct violent coercion, and turned culture up to eleven, promoting good girl behavior in a totally over the top fashion

                  This failed catastrophically, with a flood of bastard demonspawn born in dark muddy alleys in the rain, as for example Oliver Twist. This forced the Victorians to create the welfare state to fund the spawn of thugs and criminals.

                  And here we are.

                  So, culture does not make much difference to female behavior. Female behavior is innate. Women look for men capable of violently coercing them, and if they cannot find what they seek, misbehave horribly to force the masterful alpha to appear.

                  Evolutionary psychology and the curse of Eve predicts what we observe. Women look for the alpha capable of coercing them, which in today’s society tends to be a violent low IQ criminal illegal immigrant invader.

                  Our culture normalizes and valorizes the way women naturally behave. Victorians did the opposite. Did not make much difference. Nature beats nuture.

                  If you are not prepared to whack women with a stick, going to have to pay taxes to fund the demonspawn of low IQ criminals. It is not the Jews. It is not capitalism. The Victorians had Jews and capitalism, and yet did the complete opposite. It is not the culture. Doing the complete opposite did not make a whole lot of difference. It is the inherent biological inborn nature of women.

                  To reproduce successfully, women need a man who can whack them with a stick, and if they cannot find one, will go looking. You need to kill the demonspawn and give the girls the spanking that they seek.

                • pterantula says:

                  Why doesn’t a man marry before 30? He not only doesn’t want to get govtmarried, he doesn’t think he has the ability to take care of her and her baby. While he retains the instinct to hate anyone who touches her and be angry with her for touching them, he’s told that those feelings are “negative” and even “unspiritual”. How does it feel to know the woman you’re thinking of doesn’t even have someone else’s baby but is a lonely slut? Yeah, men are happy with whores when they don’t think they deserve wives and you only think women are better than you because you’re ashamed. Our emperor gives us time and jobs, our Lᴏʀᴅ shows us the way, but to make ourselves great again is up to us, together and individually. It’s difficult to get a place and a woman to live there with, but only because of what your parents and grandparents did. If you’re here it’s probably not beyond your capabilities. Perform the action sexual minority.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  This is why nobody can take ‘IT’s the CAPITALISTS!!!!11’ seriously, you end up concluding we are being ruled, oppressed and driven extinct by textbook publishers and travel agents. Wow, if only we were being oppressed by real estate developers!

                • jim says:

                  It is the Ferengi problem. People who want to sell you stuff are insufficiently threatening, which is why the Ferengi got demoted to comic relief.
                  Ferengi were a parody of Jews, capitalists, and Jewish capitalists. Just did not work. Similarly, “Dallas”.

                  Islamic terrorists are scary. The FBI is scary. Jews and capitalists just not scary. Commies and troofers are pushing shit uphill, and the only reason they ever got anywhere is state backing.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  thanks for your support, The Cominator

                  jim, the catholics had the correct position on birth control. literally no one is designed to have a steady “girlfriend” for 3 years without issue. unless one partner is an irredeemable genetic dead end there is just no way to fuck for 3 years without consequence

                  the so-called sexual revolution could not have happened without the pill. it’s physically impossible. physically. fucking. impossible.

                  lots of ordinary guys have ordinary girlfriends. fewer than in the past, sure. but still a perfectly “normal” thing. (as normal as any Boomer degeneracy) but. there’s no reason for a normal 17y/o guy with a girlfriend to consummate the marriage. he’s about to go to college, where the ratio is probably 2:1 in his favor, and who the fuck wants a kid at 17. no fucking one, that’s fucking who

                  he’ll be way more valuable in 10 years, and he knows it.

                  you are so out of touch, man. when was the last time you met a teenager who wanted a wife

                  better question. every girlfriend is giving her youth to her boyfriend for free. and when was the last time you met a guy who was chomping at the bit to impregnate the bitch.

                  well? (never)

                  unwinding feminism means foisting women on men who just aren’t ready for that shit yet, and also withholding the birth control

                  and even then the whole thing breaks down when old men prey on the mating pool of the youth

                  you don’t understand markets apparently. market forces are terrifyingly powerful. the whole point of marriage is to maximally suppress the sex market.

                  if you think my based ancestors would’ve tolerated the existence of “oh so free market such poor capitalist just trying to sell you stuff (sniffle)” Plenty of Fish you’re out of your goddamned mind. if they were alive today they would unreservedly crush it as the immorality it is, along with all pornography professional and gentile alike, and the other vices.

                  they understood that no man was an island. that “free love” would lead ultimately to faggot “marriage”, toddlers on hormone blockers, and legalized ritual baby murder. that it was impossible to be individually virtuous whilst living in a societal cesspit. it’s 2019!

                  i can’t believe i’m having this convo tbh

                • jim says:

                  Pill is irrelevant. We have had contraception since the Bronze Age. Japan did not legalize the pill until quite recently. Made no difference. When MacArthur emancipated women, that made the difference.

                  In places where women have all the power, there are no grandchildren. Where men have all the power, Tinder says “There is no one near you”.

                  Every male teenager wants regular sex and his own place starting at fourteen or so. Most of them do not get regular sex till thirty or so. If he does get regular sex, it is the girl that breaks up and moves on. Either he is alpha enough to have several, and she moves on to get a better position on the next guys booty call list, or he is not alpha enough to have several, so she moves on to someone who is alpha enough to have several.

                  Observed behavior. When men have all the power, there are no whores. When women have all the power, all whores. If women are stuck with the first guy they have sex with, men are reluctant to let them go. If women have sexual choice, they keep making and remaking that choice. When men make the choice, they make a choice once and generally stick with it. You cannot hire a whore, or pick up a chick on Tinder, in Afghanistan or Timor Leste, because their menfolk do not let them go.

                  Observed behavior is that any women who wants to get married at thirty can get married at thirty. If she wanted to get married at fourteen – or if dad was worried that she would lose value by fucking around and wanted to marry her off – she could get married at fourteen. Men demand wives, but women do not supply.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  which men?

                  the will of the teenman and the will of the oldman are not the same

                  your argument is that in a state of nature teenmen will naturally take possession of teenwomen and all will be well

                  my argument is that both in a state of nature and in a postindustrial society teenmen are both unwilling and unable to take possession of teenwomen except as directly influenced by elders

                  I cite the existence of menopause in oldwomen, a profound biological feature novel of man and man only

                  I reject your essentially anarchist position and demand the reinstitution of virtuous government and economy

                  your predecessors wanted to give you a civilization and you chose Ayn Rand instead

                  the Boomer lives in us all, and he must perish

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  I remember well being a teenager, and how much it hurt not to own a woman who was mine and only mine.

                  Plus, your account of male sexuality is falsified by every country where men have the upper hand. Launch Tinder, it will tell you no one is near – because they make those girls stick around and remain faithful.

                  The problem is female sexuality and female power. In places and times when there was male power and male sexuality was in control, everything worked fine.

                  Because of the female preference for very bad men, uncontrolled female sexuality leads to defect/defect. No one gets what they want.

                  Good men can cooperate better than bad men. If good men gang up to impose their will on women, everything works.

                • jim says:

                  > I reject your essentially anarchist position and demand the reinstitution of virtuous government and economy

                  Communism is notoriously lacking in virtue. You just want to knock over the apple cart in order to grab some apples, as exemplified by the lawless violent destructive chaos of every socialist regime, most recently Venezuela.

                  Price control in practice looks remarkably similar to Black Lives Matter looting a supermarket and burning it down. Soviet agriculture still has not recovered from collectivization, and Hitler was defeated by inability to feed everyone that he ruled, as parodied in Der Fuehrer’s Face.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  you grew up in a real country. that country no longer exists. you can try your best but it is simply impossible for you at a biochemical level to imagine spending your youth in a world with no social support whatsoever

                  speaking of biochemical impossibility, “a civilization such as that which should have been my inheritance” is not equivalent to communism. I genuinely feel rage at the thought of the reflexive dishonesty caused by such false equivalence

                  as the great prophet yuri once said: “You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information.”

                  truly the boomer is the lowest race of man

                • jim says:

                  It no longer exists, but males profoundly desire what it gave them, deeply miss what it gave them, and it continues to be the case that any Mrs Ordinary who is willing, at age seventeen to marry Mr Ordinary, can easily find a husband, but very few do, with the result that Mr Ordinary is unable to find a wife.

                • pterantula says:

                  > teenmen are both unwilling and unable to take possession of teenwomen except as directly influenced by elders
                  you’re good at this 🙂 our elders abused us so we shouldn’t internalize their values. It’s a decade in the future, you’re an 18yo GenZ drone mechanic with a place to live and there’s a girl who’s always over your place bringing you food and finding the right curtains. Divorce and other nonsense laws are as senile as the Boomers who wrote them, if you take her, she’s yours. Can you imagine acting like an old man capable of anything? Teenagers are refreshingly honest and instinctual.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  You are profoundly deluded. In the absence of elder guidance and to the extent of hardwired pair-bonding activity beyond the influence of interference from scientifically optimized full-spectrum social engineering, teens form boyfriend-girlfriend relationships under the subliminal assumption that sexual intercourse will produce sexual reproduction.

                  If a teenwoman has accepted a boyfriend, she has implicitly accepted that he will father her children. The fact that sexual reproduction can be technologically thwarted lets the boyfriend indulge his drive for sexual intercourse, which is enormous, while thwarting his drive for sexual reproduction, which is factually and observably somewhere between minimal and strongly negative.

                  Ex-girlfriends complain bitterly that their hot hot hot boyfriends were afraid of “commitment”. This is an euphemism for sexual recombination. Their hot hot hot boyfriends were afraid of “commitment” because they expected to be fucking younger, hotter, tighter as they aged.

                  To the extent that women whore around with sexy motherfuckers such as myself, they are at fault, and to the extent that women cannot find boyfriends willing to “commit”, meaning impregnate them, we are at fault.

                  When women finally get desperate enough to settle for a schmuck they do so under the imposition that the schmuck father at least one child or they simply won’t fuck at all. Here, again, we observe the fact that men have virtually no inbuilt drive to explicitly reproduce simply because it has never been necessary.

                  Let us ask the question: according to Darwinian thinking, who is getting what they want? Not women, who default to trying to nab the best man who will reciprocate interest and repeatedly fail. Not most men, who feel terrible about themselves and their poor prospects. Not grandparents, who feel useless having no grandchildren to tend. Only elite men, who experience the ancestral equivalent of winning the Darwinian lottery every day, week, or month.

                  Shotgun marriage, and its predecessor crossbow marriage, and its predecessor spearpoint marriage, affected the evolution of male man as much or more as it did the evolution of female man. It is impossible to convincingly deny this conclusion unless one rejects the Darwinian paradigm entirely.

                  Exposed to this argument and its infinite clarity, anyone of open mind and reasonable intelligence will understand that on this subject the Catholics were right and my ancestors wrong.

                • jim says:

                  > trying to nab the best man who will reciprocate interest

                  Women are not trying to nab the best man who will reciprocate interest.

                  They are trying to nab the best man.

                  And that is the problem. Mrs Ordinary is not interested in Mr Ordinary until she loses hope that Jeremy Meeks is going to give her another booty call.

                  You are attributing virtue to women that is not in fact observed, and sinfulness to men that would be counter survival in the ancestral environment, and is not in fact observed.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Jeremy Meeks has two kids. And he only had one of them because he got famous. Non-famous Jeremy Meeks would only have one kid.

                  The average Mormon male has three kids.

                  I’d be willing to bet that the average Mormon gets laid more than Jeremy Meeks.

                • jim says:

                  I am willing to bet that Jeremy Meeks has popped well over a hundred virgins, likely a thousand – many of whom aborted his offspring.

                  Thus though he failed to reproduce, he impaired everyone else’s capacity to reproduce. Defect/Defect.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >many of whom aborted his offspring
                  And in the US, they only have one abortion for every two births. And a majority of abortions are done by black women.

                  The only way Jeremy Meeks is getting laid-followed-by-abortion, is with Shaniqua, Precious, and Michelle Obama.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  they’re trying to nab the best man who is likely to reciprocate

                  not the overworked sod with a young wife and 3 young children, the unattached paraglider dude with the spiffy car and frequent vacations to exotic locales

                  she exists to get pregnant and she wants to have sexy sexy extreme-sports-man babies but the useless fop values his lifestyle incl. booty rotation and just won’t knock her up. eventually in her desperation she resorts to the part-time cashier-wrangler and really tries her best to quell her shrieking existential pain

                  extreme-sports-man is pursuing the optimal ancestral strategy and is the only one having the subjective experience of winning

                  does it really matter that it’s only simulated?

                • jim says:

                  > they’re trying to nab the best man who is likely to reciprocate

                  Not what I observe. Not till they hit thirty.

                  A good way to score a chick is to indicate you are unlikely to reciprocate.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling me what I said.

                • Dave says:

                  In the absence of social and financial constraints, do men want harems or free love with a succession of whores? I pondered this question while reading a sex story about a white expat adopting a little brown girl, deflowering her in every way possible, then making her do the same with him and all his white friends every day, when they could have had their own brown waifus instead. Why are some men such cucks, even in their fantasies? (It was told from the male point of view, so not one of those Haven Monahan rape fables that women get off on.)

                  I have two theories: (a) The author cannot imagine the agony of being cucked because he’s never had a girlfriend in real life. (b) An STD, possibly syphilis, scrambled his brain circuits so that he wants to jerk off while watching his gal infect other guys.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “It no longer exists, but males profoundly desire what it gave them, deeply miss what it gave them, and it continues to be the case that any Mrs Ordinary who is willing, at age seventeen to marry Mr Ordinary, can easily find a husband, but very few do, with the result that Mr Ordinary is unable to find a wife.”

                  Exactly the case, so accurate it’s almost painful.

                  Additionally, even if a young couple are head over heels for each other, it’s curiously difficult to actually get married. The Cathedral teaches girls from elementary school onward that the most important things in life are education and career and all her friends and family will reinforce those notions.

                  The end result being that no girl wants to get married before at least 23, so she can get her degree and have work experience and most of them want master’s degrees so make that 25. So if you get engaged to a 19 year old and want to be on good terms with her parents, have to wait 4-6 years and, more importantly, stay together 4-6 years while her friends and family attempt to sow division and break you up at every turn. Even billionaires, athletes and movie stars can scarcely keep a relationship going that long, facing none of the resistance you’d face.

                  Pretty much impossible to marry a young woman with class or intelligence (outside flyover country) unless you cut her off from her family and drag her to the city clerk’s office shortly after you propose.

  6. Bruce says:

    Jim, are you familiar with John Sanford’s “genetic entropy” critique of Darwinism? Any thoughts?

    • jim says:

      The genetic entropy argument is that there are not enough deaths to remedy the mutation rate – that to remain stable we would have to reproduce like fishes.

      However most mutations are of small harmful effect, or are eliminated shortly after conception because they have large harmful effect. So everyone winds up carrying a very large number of mildly harmful mutations, an issue known as genetic load.

      Suppose everyone is carrying about ten thousand of these mutations, some people about nine thousand nine hundred, some people ten thousand one hundred or so. Suppose the women with a hundred more is significantly uglier, the women with a hundred less significantly more beautiful, the man with a hundred more significantly slower with a sword, the man with a hundred less significantly faster. Then a hundred mildly harmful mutations get eliminated in one sword thrust.

      • eternal anglo says:

        Jim wrote some time ago about the possibility of producing a superman with near-zero genetic load, by printing a genome collated by computer from low-load genes sampled from a large number of men, and installing it in an egg. The superman, or Adamic man, would have the intelligence of von Neumann, the physique of Schwarzenegger, the virility of Genghis Khan, the artistic talent of Mozart and the charisma of Caesar. The first such man made would presumably become God Emperor of Mankind, solving all our leftism problems forever. (Singularity fags btfo, this is what the real technological god looks like)

        Jim, what has progress on DNA printing looked like since you wrote? Is it possible this could be achieved in China?

        • jim says:

          Progress has continued, but it is still far out of reach.

          Our ability to print very large stretches of DNA has hit a limit, and is not advancing, but our ability to do edits has advanced considerably, and continues to advance, but nowhere near the level of producing a cleaned up human genome, which remains a very long way off.

          One thing we could do is produce very large numbers of fetuses, and selectively abort the ones with high genetic load.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            With current technology you would have to do it by iteration. Fix some defects -> clone the cells -> fix more defects -> clone the cells …

            • jim says:

              A very large number of iterations

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Indeed. But this looks like something that is ripe for automation. Load all the updates into memory and start the loop.

                1. Make edit
                2. Culture cells
                3. Test and select good/successful edits
                4. Go to 1.

                • jim says:

                  My wild assed guess is ten thousand or so edits required. A single edit currently costs a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, which would probably come down under automation, so, doable. Would want to do a few test runs on cats or dogs first.

                • cloudswrest says:

                  Heck, this machine could do much more once the technology is mature! I’ll call it an IGMM (Iterative Genome Morphing Machine). Convert human genomes to Neanderthal, elephant to woolly mammoth, dove to passenger pigeon. Species de-extinction.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Greg Cochran wrote about that in the context of people speculating about bringing Neanderthals back – the method discussed would check their genome for errors against the sample of other Neanderthal genomes and produce one with no deleterious mutations – a Neanderthal superman.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          Cochran recently speculated that eliminating too much genetic load might actually be harmful in that humans have adapted to a certain amount of load, which now serves as necessary ballast, and removing too much may be counter adaptive. For example producing people who are too tall (but not due to giantism), or people who are too smart to fit in (people over ~140 IQ are less successful in society), etc.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            ” or people who are too smart to fit in (people over ~140 IQ are less successful in society),”

            That isn’t a flaw if you are producing a bunch of other 140 IQ people.

        • EH says:

          There is an easier way to drastically reduce genetic load without de novo DNA synthesis. Identify, preferably from a large population, a man with low genetic load on at least complementary stretches of a given pair of chromosomes. Get at least two such men for each chromosome pair and one with as naturally clean a Y chromosome as possible. Get sperm from each of these men and fluorescent-tag some of the undesired, not low-load stretches of each man’s target chromosome, particularly near the target crossover point for that chromosome, and tag the other chromosomes a different color. Use microfluidic sperm sorting to get the few sperm that have no tags on the target chromosome for each man and extract those chromosomes. Once you have a full set of 46 of these low-load chromosomes, put them in an egg’s nucleus from which you have removed the existing chromosomes (this is tricky, but you’d have to do the same with a de novo synthesized genome). Optionally split the embryo at the 2, 4, or 8 cell stage and freeze all but 1 for later. Implant the embryo, verify the genotype when convenient and wait 9 months.

          Of course you could just use somatic cells to source the chromosomes instead of sperm, and would probably have less than double the genetic load.

          Need to perfect the technique with livestock first.

          • jim says:

            How do you selectively tag undesired chromosome sections?

            Won’t tagging damage sperm and egg viability?

            • EH says:

              WP: “Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a molecular cytogenetic technique that uses fluorescent probes that bind to only those parts of the chromosome with a high degree of sequence complementarity. It was developed by biomedical researchers in the early 1980s[1] and is used to detect and localize the presence or absence of specific DNA sequences on chromosomes.”

              Since none of the sections of DNA used in the proposed technique would be labeled, they shouldn’t be negatively affected. Tagging also potentially needn’t be irreversible, though may require research. The chromosomes would all come from sperm or somatic cells (the latter being easier to tag, having dividing cells), everything heavily tagged would be discarded, only one, lightly and reversibly tagged chromosome would be taken from a cell, so no viability issue except possibly for the egg into which the chromosomes from 46 cells are inserted as a single package; the egg may be damaged by having its nucleus removed, but this is already done for somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning, so shouldn’t be any more of a problem than it is there.

              A thought: if some types of tagging can make a chromosome completely unable to replicate, which is likely the case, then this could possibly be a method for deactivating them in place in the target egg nucleus, allowing keeping the original nucleus in the egg, then adding the desired chromosomes.

              • jim says:

                This treatment is fatal for the cells being examined. Cannot be used to sort live sperm or live eggs to select the ones with lesser genetic load.

                • EH says:

                  If you want to sort live gametes or embryos, and use the sorted ones while they’re live, that’s probably possible, too – a lot of the fluorescence microscopy stuff is done on live tissue with all sorts of tags on non-genetic biomolecules, e.g. could tag the RNA produced by certain “load” DNA, various proteins etc. Apparently many of these tags can go through cell membranes. Again, by tagging the ones you don’t want, the ones you do want should be left unaffected.

                  It will take some animal research which won’t usually work right off the bat, but not impossible, much easier than synthesizing a whole genome, and with a ready lucrative market for low-genetic load milk cows etc.

                • jim says:

                  That could work. Do a full genome read on a particular individual. Generate tags that will detect RNA associated with load for that particular individual. It is plausible that you can tag some kinds of RNA without killing the tissue. Sort the lowest loaded sperm, one sperm in a thousand.

                  If there are typically a thousand load genes in an individual that would reduce paternal load by ten percent per generation.

                  Slow, but better than what we have now.

                  If we could induce sperm and egg production from fetal tissue, without growing individuals to adulthood, could get it done in reasonable time.

                • Eli says:

                  Cell analysis and sorting (cytometry) is a rather active area. In particular, sperm sorting is a really big money maker, as it is used in cattle and, generally, livestock breeding (it is called “sperm sexing”).

                  I’m still not clear though: how are you to find and verify that those DNA segments are mutational load?

                • EH says:

                  I agree, Jim, being able to run generations much faster, growing gonads directly from eggs, would exponentially increase the rate of breeding and allow achieving incredible genetic quality. I’ve heard they’re getting close.

                  Another genetic technology may make it practical: transgenic pigs, immunocompatible with humans, are a promising host for growing various transplanted human organs, and perhaps even eventually for transpecies gestation. Any such axolotl tank type technology would have huge social implications if it got out.

                • EH says:

                  Eli – you sequence the DNA of the sire and compare it to a database big enough to estimate frequencies of each genetic variant at each gene, or in non-coding genetic regions as well. The more novel variants in a section of chromosome, the higher the estimated genetic load. (Occasionally rare variants may be adaptive, but that’s not the way to bet, and there are lots of rare variants in any genome.) Load can be measured as entropy or bits per codon, the degree of incompressibility given the DNA database as a dictionary or set of priors. The absolute number is not so informative, but comparisons are.

      • Bruce says:

        Right, but that doesn’t explain how the genetic information came about – how it became so complex, etc. Sanford’s argument is that new information cannot come about from random mutations, most of which, he contends, aren’t selectable either way.

        Your argument seems to be that the person with the lower mutational load wins. Ok, but how did the information contained in the genome come about in the first place.

        • jim says:

          Beneficial mutations are rare, but under selection will inevitably go to fixation.

          • pdimov says:

            I don’t think that’s correct. Most beneficial mutations don’t go to fixation.

            https://inference-review.com/article/haldanes-dilemma

            says

            “More than 99.9% of beneficial mutations appearing in the human population are lost by random genetic drift.”

            • jim says:

              That is not what Haldane concludes

              That is what an ignorant idiot who does not understand Haldane deduces from his confused, nonsensical, and incoherent misunderstanding of Haldane.

              Approximately fifty percent of beneficial mutations go to fixation. Haldane’s point was that it takes a long time, not that it does not happen.

              For beneficial mutations of very small benefit, a lot are lost, but given enough time, that does not matter. For mutations of substantial benefit, loss rate is not enormous.

              • pdimov says:

                Search the ignorant idiot’s article for “Kimura showed that”. The approximation is Pfix ~= 2*s. So 50% probability of fixation would require a fertility difference of 0.25.

                Of course, even if a beneficial mutation is lost, given enough time and an unchanging environment, it will reappear and perhaps eventually go to fixation.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          “Ok, but how did the information contained in the genome come about in the first place.”

          John Holland (genetic algorithms) notes that most of the variation is generated by recombination, not mutation.

          In physical organisms, we also have various errors during copying that can lead to occasional novelties (including cancer). For example, a gene or even an entire genome can be duplicated during copying.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

          Still, eukaryotes are highly complex organisms, a long way from prokaryotes.

          • jim says:

            That does not directly answer the question “Ok, but how did the information contained in the genome come about in the first place.”

            The answer is chance and necessity. Randomness filtered by selection.

  7. Creationism exists because one species of primates builds spaceships and writes ballads and the rest are mostly just flinging their shit. There is a too big gap in ability.

    Now this gap can be made smaller by claiming that some primates use spears and some human groups are so dumb they never invented something more complicated than spears – but the gap cannot be made to disappear, because there is a clear Schelling-point: are one’s jaw, teeth etc. optimizing for speech or for biting someone’s throat out? Speech implies a strong selection pressure for verbal intelligence even in the dumbest human groups.

    So the evolution of human intelligence was an unusual runaway process. If all birds cannot fly faster than 50 miles per hour except one species that can fly at 500 miles per hour, you would be correct to assume the selection pressure did not come from the environment but from inside the species. They were competing with each other.

    But that does not explain a runaway process on its own. Many species have their own ecological niche without much external competition.

    So my hypothesis is the following. The evolution of human intelligence was driven by sexual selection, males competing for females. However it had to have a side-effect, which caused it to become such a runaway process. Higher intelligence means either females die in childbirth because the head of the baby is too big, or have to spend an unusually large amount of looking after helpless babies and toddlers. Both means maternal investment, the value of females skyrocketed. The average number of kids a woman could have went down. No, it is not 20-25. The average had to be smaller. Every birth meant a chance of death. Animals don’t bleed much during birth, humans do, hence a chance of infection etc. And every 3 year old competed for maternal attention and caring with his 1 year old brother.

    So the very same process that made one male be able to outsmart the other and get his woman resulted in females and female caring for kids becoming scarcer. Because of the brain size problem, either cannot be pushed through a vagina, or spends years being helpless.

    This sounds like something that could have caused a runaway process.

    • jim says:

      Africans have limited speech capabilities. Chimps have considerably more limited speech capabilities. Not seeing a vast unbridgeable qualitative gap. My cat would make a bird noise to say “I see a bird”. If we had not wiped out all the other hominids, we would probably see a continuum between us and chimps.

      Yes, there is a vast gap between whites and chimps. Between black and chimps, not so much.

      • Bruce says:

        This seems like a ridiculous statement. My black cubemate is a software engineer. I’m not a racial anthropologist but he’s Mississippian and pretty black. My mom is of pure British ancestry and she has trouble adding fractions.

        There are two black guidance/nav/control engineers working here (heavy on math). My assessment is “not the best” but still.

        I can accept statistical differences, I can believe 1 sigma (or even more) is the gap. But not this.

        • jim says:

          Maybe 30% subsaharan African. The blackest software engineers who are actually useful are not very black by south African standards.

          The average black American is one third white. Very few “black” software engineers are more than one third black, and those that are more than one third black are seldom much use.

          Black engineers exist, but they are generally not very good and not very black.

          • J says:

            Jim, you are too dogmatic. The second (after oil) export of Nigeria is internet scams, which produces some 120 million dollars per year. Cheating money out of white people and white banks requires some intellectual ability. Regarding language abilities, I have met Igbo lawyers who studied in Britain that spoke impeccable English.

            • jim says:

              The scammer junk mail I receive does not indicate intellectual ability,and the igbo and the tutsi are substantially smarter than other African races. There were no cities in Africa except where the white man set foot. The great Zimbabwe was built by Hebrew gold miners, and the cities of Ethiopia by the descendants of Solomon. Except where the white man set foot, blacks lived a lifestyle not very different from that of chimps.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                I heard once that Ethiopians are about 2/3 Semitic/Arabic, Somailians about 1/2. This is enough to explain their cities, without referencing a story about Solomon.

              • Walter Brown says:

                Are you sure all those scammers aren’t Chinese?

                That seems like a totally Chinese thing to do.

        • One sigma is 15 points. Given a normal distribution with a mean iq of 85, there will still be some people with IQs above 120, one of which could be your coworker.

    • Koanic says:

      On first read I thought he was saying sub-Saharan prognathism indicates lack of optimization for verbal intelligence.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      I think we can make a very good guess about the evolution of human intelligence.

      Planning for winter pushed intelligence over some threshold which allowed larger groups. Larger groups then presented an opportunity for a more cohesive group of men to take over more fractious groups. The increased cooperativeness allowed the building of cities which drove further specialization for intelligence and cooperation and simultaneously checked defection because too much defection got your group wiped out by more cohesive groups. The runaways were for cooperation and intelligence.

      As far as men and women go – women were filtered early in the phase for beauty and all the traits we like about them like pleasant sounding voices when men couldn’t support multiple wives so bastards would starve. Always present was the pressure to be flexible in switching teams to successful invaders. Once civilization really got underway selection on women came down more to “ability to have a wealthy husband” (see Gregory Clark – this way her and her children didn’t starve) – note that this force doesn’t mean she was selected to prefer that as long as her choice of husband was constrained and her “submit to invaders” module got triggered by a husband that got picked by her father.

      In Africa it cut off at “smart enough for the women to plant yams” and the selective pressure on the men was similar to the pressure on peacocks (over a minimum needed to not get killed by the wildlife and huge pressure to not get killed by pathogens).

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Monogamy is a filter for beauty and mate quality too.

      • Rule Britannia says:

        in general female mate preference in the human races shows itself highly evolved assuming coercion subsequent to choice

        in truth the popular cry “make women property again” is an exaggeration of the natural order, humans are constitutionally incapable of thinking of fellow humans as HR to be literally bought and sold

        • jim says:

          Women have been property until quite recently.

        • The Cominator says:

          “humans are constitutionally incapable of thinking of fellow humans as HR to be literally bought and sold”

          This is nonsensical given history. All ancient societies that survived had women as property or something close and most of them practiced slavery (slavery as an economic system is something I oppose btw unlike most NRxers) but humans are quite capable thinking of outgroup humans the same way they think of livestock.

          • jim says:

            Having failed to domesticate the buffalo, the sheep, and the goat, and having exterminated the horse, the native Americans used slave humans for meat and milk the way we use cows.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Jim, do you remember your sources for this? I would love to drop that set of hate facts on the people defending the tomahawk-chucker that harrassed the Covington boys.

              • jim says:

                One of the officers with Cortes wrote his travel experiences:

                Bernal Díaz del Castillo: The Conquest of New Spain – available as The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico: 1517–1521 ISBN 0-306-81319-X

        • In truth, a wife is indeed more like a thrall in Anglo-Saxon society than a chattel slave as in African society, in that there is a spiritual bond of mastery and reciprocal (but not symmetrical) obligations.

          But that is beside the point. “Female choice” is an illusion created by modernity. If you pick up a woman on the street or in a bar, your job is to convince her that you are an alpha. Thus it feels as though she is ‘choosing’ whether you are alpha or not. This is a situation that almost never occurred throughout human evolutionary history.

          If, however, you are already the alpha male of a group of people including men and women (a ubiquitous occurrence in human evolutionary history), the women in this group are de facto your sexual property. You can take them whenever you want and they will reciprocate happily.

          If you actually exercise this power, the lower status men in your group will rebel against you if they don’t fear your physical violence (which none of them do in white society because of the law). So the wise alpha takes two or three women as his due and plays matchmaker for the lower status men and women in his social group. You can see the origins of monogamy and tribal loyalty play out before your eyes in the modern sexual market.

          • I’ve seen the matchmaker thing work with surprising efficiency. Top jock handed over his used girlfriends to very average normie friends to make room for new ones and they pretty much went along without a complaint even though they would have never chosen those guys on their own. Not that the relationships were very long, a few months tops, the “borrowed alphadom” didn’t last forever, but still.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          This book looks interesting, though I haven’t had the opportunity to read it.

          Menelaos Apostolou. Sexual selection under parental choice: the evolution of human mating behaviour. 2014.

          It might in particular demonstrate why female sexual choices often are so disastrous, as discussed on this blog.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            I see that the same author also has written a subsequent book on the same themes, Sexual Selection in Homo sapiens: Parental Control over Mating and the Opportunity Cost of Free Mate Choice (2017).

          • jim says:

            Nah.

            Blue pilled, with a slight touch of purple.

    • Timothy Shaw-Zak says:

      “Creationism exists because one species of primates builds spaceships and writes ballads and the rest are mostly just flinging their shit. There is a too big gap in ability. ”

      So goes our lilliputian hubris.

  8. peter connor says:

    Natural selection is essentially mathematical and probabilistic, so it works very well on a small scale..It also works very slowly, because most favorable mutations are lost…On a larger scale, however, where radically different species like the long necked giraffe show up suddenly, with thousands of major evolutionary changes over the short necked animal, all of which must have happened simultaneously, evolution does not explain the new species…Stephen Jay Gould invented his Punctuated Equilibrium theory because of such discordant facts…Btw, Darwin was aware that the fossil record did not support his gradualist approach, but assumed that the right fossils would eventually show up to support him…That didn’t happen.

    • jim says:

      The discordant facts claimed by Gould are lies.

      New species do not show up suddenly where records are reasonably complete, as for horses and foraminifera. Change is gradual and continuous. Between any two kinds in the horse lineage, between any two chronospecies, there are intermediate kinds that cannot easily be assigned to one chronospecies or the other.

      • EH says:

        Evolution can be much more rapid when the environment or ecological niche of a sub-population changes rapidly. It was also theorized by Margoulis (IIRC) that accumulated parasite load, load of parasites that have evolved for a specific species, may give impetus for bursts of rapid evolution in the host species to throw off that load. (Still requires several tens of generations at least so that the number of slots in the pedigree that number of generations back is much much larger than the effective population size.)

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @peter connor

      Why did Stephen Jay Gould tried to deny gradual evolution?

      What was his motivation to lie?

      • jim says:

        He sought to deny the origin of species by natural selection, because of the horrifyingly racist implications.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          I was hoping that peter connor would answer.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          If speciation took place by sudden jumps rather than gradations of distinctiveness then niggers and jews are just the same as you white boy.

      • Timothy Shaw-Zak says:

        talkorigins.org discusses punctuated equilibrium. Gould never denies the incremental nature of evolution, nor the role of selection as the mechanism of design.

        However, for some changes to occur, a degree of neutral genetic drift is necessary. For instance, a DNA sequence for a critical protein may be duplicated by mutation – without having a strong advantageous or deleterious effect. The second copy may then mutate and form another protein which cannot perform the original, critical, function, but which may be adaptive.

        The point is that evolution is gradual, but changes in morphology do not always proceed at a steady rate of “improvement”. Remember than evolution is not goal directed per se, It is a tendency which operates on existing variation, and sometimes viable variations must exist for natural selection to operate on.

        • jim says:

          Gould is a fool and liar, and anyone who takes him serious is stupid, ignorant, or telling lies with the intent of causing harm to those that listen to him.

          The whole point of “punctuated equlibrium” is to provide pseudo scientific support for the proposition that there are no such thing as races, that all men are in fact created equal, as Gould acknowledged.

          Where the fossil record is adequate (horse ancestors and foramnifera) we see no punctuation. The boundary between one chronospecies and the next is always unclear and arbitrary.

          Except in species with very low levels of organization (sponges and parasites) we never see abrupt changes in form.

          Radical hybridization between very different kinds has been proposed, and would result in abrupt changes in form, but has not been actually observed in any creature that does not look like a spill of slime.

          While abrupt changes in form have not been disproved (the fossil record is too spotty to disprove anything) they have not been observed.

    • Rule Britannia says:

      the most famous dinosaur is known from a dozen fossils in a three hundred mile radius around montana, most of them discovered in my lifetime. if the giraffe evolved during an ice age its whole original territory could be underwater right now

      just so you understand

      • jim says:

        Anything that we have a good fossil record for (which is mighty little) evolved gradually and continuously. sometimes equilibrium, sometimes very long equilibrium, but never any punctuation.

  9. peter connor says:

    Professor Charlton today on the metaphysical assumptions behind evolutionary theory…http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/02/is-evolution-of-species-by-natural.html

    • jim says:

      The evidence for evolution is overwhelming – for example the dolphin’s hand, the human’s appendix, the human’s wisdom teeth.

      And natural selection must happen, does happen, we can see it happening over the time scale of human history. Natural selection makes moderate but quite noticeable changes over centuries, therefore, over immense periods, will make immense changes.

    • I think Charlton found himself a nice big strawman. Who said natural selection is the sole force responsible for the diversity of the forms of life on Earth? Metaphysical assumptions belong to philosophy, not biology. I think maybe what Charlton is saying that people take evolution as an evidence against theism. But who is doing such a stupid thing? Anyone who argues is in a philosophical discussion that only the things detected by science are real things is already a materialist and atheist and was not convinced so by evolution nor by any other scientific discovery. These are two entirely different levels, philosophy and biology. Or maybe he does not mean that but then I don’t know what he means. I suppose not the New Atheist trolls who go through the mental gymnastics of trying to see all religious people as Young Earth Creationists, which is actually disprovable? I mean who takes them seriously?

      • Rule Britannia says:

        vox day of the self-reported 160 iq

      • pdimov says:

        >Who said natural selection is the sole force responsible for the diversity of the forms of life on Earth?

        Mostly everyone? It’s even in the name.

        “The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species (1859).[6]”

        In fact the neutral theory says that natural selection is overwhelmingly purifying, and acts strongly against diversity. Which is why everything has five digits.

  10. George says:

    Natural selection *was* reactionary. The industrial revolution put a stop to that[1].

    But at this point, the answer to controversies over evolution, gender, climate change etc is the same for any of them: who the fuck cares? The city is burning down and instead of firefighting here you all are discussing hydrodynamics.

    1. https://vdare.com/articles/of-mice-and-men-spiteful-mutations-look-bad-for-the-west

    • Dave says:

      Another problem with the Industrial Revolution is that most benefits of innovation now accrue to people not closely related to the inventor. E.g. white people invent vaccines and factory-farming, causing a population explosion in Africa.

      “The city is burning down and instead of firefighting here you all are discussing hydrodynamics.”

      If you don’t first understand the nature of the fire you’re fighting, e.g. a warehouse full of something that reacts explosively with water, your efforts will be in vain.

  11. Bruce says:

    Darwinism is reactionary? Maybe. If we’re just the result of random processes then we are just accidents. Why preserve accidents and their effects?

    If we were created by God then we (and are differences) are divinely ordained. Creationism can be reactionary. Creationism was, historically, reactionary.

    • pterantula says:

      > understanding what kind of world we live in invites contempt for God and consequent despair
      it could also invite respect for God and consequent hope, if you’re honest and creative enough for faith as intellectual assent as described by St. Thomas Aquinas. Is it more difficult to find faith now than in the past? Aquinas says all human life is a journey towards God. The lies that pretended to be the articles of the true faith were always ignored by 100iq men, but with their communities disruptrd they have it much harder now. For us intellectuals, faith has never been easier to get right. This, then, is our challenge and sacred duty, towards which we should, as the heretic Mill, direct our every thought and action.

    • eternal anglo says:

      Consider the Jacomist koan on purpose in the universe. And reflect on the extremely Jacomist (though as far as I know it is not dogma) real-life parable of biologist George R Price:

      Price’s ‘mathematical’ theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. Thus, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic makeup contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently, an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each carry one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (carrying one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then asserts that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other, the less likely they are to show altruism to each other.

      Price grew increasingly depressed by the implications of his equation. As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong, he began showing an ever-increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. In this way, he dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics; yet as he helped them steal his belongings, he increasingly fell into depression.[citation needed]

      He was eventually evicted from his rented house owing to a construction project in the area, making him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.

      Unable to prove his theory right or wrong, Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975 by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of safety scissors.

      • pterantula says:

        Charity can’t be replaced with altruism for another’s percieved or even actual good, much less concern for utility, natural philosophy can’t dictate requirements to moral philosophy, it’s a faithless sin, the Holy Spirit can’t be replaced and despair is the natural consequence. Giving stuff to unworthy poor isn’t charity, giving anyone anything other than what God needs them to have isn’t charity. Plato discusses whether it’s justice to give your crazy friend his weapon, charity being our highest virtue, we can recognize that the right virtue to mention in this context is prudence. If only Socrates had his theology as developed as Paul, but, our civilizational project to understand God has and will take the progressive labor of generations. Accepting doctrines for reasons other than reason is a sin against truth, plaigarism before God, but accepting your own arguments uncritically against the communion of saints is also sin against truth, carelessness before God.

      • Icmh says:

        I think every truth-adherent memory of romance/marriage we have comes off as powerful backing up for Price’s theory.
        There is 0% genetic kinship there, and 0% altruism indeed.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Marital love is kin altruism through the proxy of sons and daughters. In patriarchal society, sons of men who love their wives have a fitter family environment. It is also truce in the war of the sexes, cooperation-signaling, the prisoners in the prisoners’ dilemma making gifts for each other to build trust. But it is much more complicated than normal kin altruism due to the war of the sexes.

          • pterantula says:

            Starcraft is basically iterated prisoners dilemma too because if neither side rushes the game can take over an hour to resolve

            • eternal anglo says:

              What do you mean by that? Supposing it has a meaning beyond the literal.

              I enjoy trying to figure out your cryptic statements Peppermint, but I’ll admit this one has me stumped, more’s the pity for me.

              In a prisoner’s dilemma with more than 1 iteration, cooperation-signaling is more useful for a defector than for a cooperator, because actions speak louder than words. But this would predict that a wife who is cheating in secret “loves” her husband more, not that she grows cold and contemptuous of him (but perhaps such advanced adulterous behaviour has not evolved in women due to groups in which it is tolerated going extinct.) It would predict that men who plan to pump and dump “love” their girls more, which also doesn’t happen, so the second part of my theory is rubbish.

              Perhaps the consequences of defection in this particular prisoners’ dilemma have simply not been explored all that much by natural selection, due to people who defect failing to have descendants.

              • pterantula says:

                Instead of trying to fit reality to your favorite mathematical model like an academic, try considering people’s feelings like a woman lol. There’s a filthy whore whose “ex-“husband cares about her, but she brings scum to her daughter’s home. To describe that using IPD, first build additional concepts, you know what they are, people have feelings lolol. IPD is a distraction, has been for decades.

                While we’re on the subject of IPD, when was the last time you heard about the gay uncle hypothesis for the gay gene? Cochran’s gay disease theory is less offensively stupid, but everyone already knows the truth, that’s why IPD isn’t part of the solution, and feelings existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @bruce

      “Why preserve accidents and their effects?”

      Because those who fail to preserve their progeny, Gnon will punish with extinction.

      No wonder you guys can’t conserve the women’s bathroom or save an 8 year old boy from chemical castration.

    • jim says:

      Natural selection does not imply that we are random accidents. Hence the word “selection”.

      And its readily observable that those that embrace evolutionary psychology are better on the woman problem.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        A simple metaphor. A compressed air system. The movement of all the atoms in the air is completely random. Yet still the air flows down the plumbing and out the nozzle.

        • Crappy metaphor – there is no selection in that system and the movement is not completely random, there is statistically more downwards than upwards movement largely because downwards they bump into each other less frequently.

          Here is a better one. When you have to deliver meat to 200 shops with 20 trucks and you need to find out which trucks should go to which shops on what route, you have the classic NP-complete travelling salesman problem that would take a gigantic amount of time to solve mathematically. But the answer can be approximated and a good enough solution can be generated quickly with a genetic algorithm. Create random route combinations, rank them by “fitness” i.e. sum of route lengths reverse, select the best ones, mate them together by randomly combining “genes” i.e. route stops, shops, add some random mutation, and repeat. This isn’t sci-fi, this is routinely being done in the industry.

    • There is one subclass of religious thinking that I find really puzzling, I don’t know what is the good way to describe it, I guess, slightly autistic? This subclass is always looking for some kind of ultimate why or ultimate basis of things. An ultimate basis of morality, ultimate reason for existence and so on. Asking what is the ultimate reason to preserve our existence or posterity or asking what is the ultimate basis of morality without God is really like asking what is the ultimate reason for drinking water when we are thirsty.

      I mean, why not just be practical. We know we have a bunch of desires and instincts that motivate us, we know there are various ways to react to that motivation, act out this desire and suppress that desire, we know what tends to work better and what tends to work worse.

      There are different kinds of religious thinking. There is the kind that the reason God gave various rules is that He gave us rules that actually work because He loves us. Makes sense. Program a universe, publish a user manual or at least a top 10 common mistakes to avoid blog post. Unless you intend to run that universe as an experiment, you would do that, wouldn’t you? This means people and societies that follow those rules are expected to prosper and be better off than those who don’t. The rules aren’t arbitrary.

      And this is really where the religious and the irreligious find a common ground in “Gnon”. Divine rules are supposed to work, not just something mysterious and ungraspable. God may sometimes work in mysterious ways but not always, He mostly wants His creatures to prosper in His creation. Alternatively, rules derived from observing biology, history and all that and seeing what works, need to be cast in stone and enforced so you might as well call them divine.

  12. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Deleted for telling me what I think. You have me confused with a Marxist fantasy of what anyone who is not a Marxist must be thinking.

  13. Ichm says:

    Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech is a book highlighting a few of Darwinian theory’s weaknesses, and justly pointing our attention to Mendelev’s genetic inheritance superior theory.

    Too many non-blue-pill deep thinkers have doubts about evolutionary theory for these doubts to be brushed aside easily.

    • jim says:

      Everyone who rejects Darwinism, even Vox Day, is at least a little bit blue pilled.

      The world makes no sense except in the light of Darwinism. Consider the Dolphin’s fin.

      People reject Darwinism because they reject this world, hence the connection to gnosticism.

      Progressives suffer massive reality blindness on the nature of women. Darwinism makes sense of women as they truly are.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        The dolphin’s fin/hand is just as easily explained by a Creator who isn’t averse to copy-pasta in the DNA code. Since the Genesis creation story puts the creation of Man before any other living being, even before the sun moon and stars, therefore any similarities are either direct copy-pasta, or the result of a code generator that generates similar DNA code for similar functions.

        • jim says:

          But, but, these are not similar functions.

          If God was doing copy pasta to make the dolphin, he would be doing more copying from fish.

          That creatures form a tree indicates relationship by blood or sap, which tree relationship is massively confirmed by DNA.

        • Neurotoxin says:

          The dolphin’s fin/hand is just as easily explained by a Creator who isn’t averse to copy-pasta in the DNA code.

          Stop ass-raping the corpse of William of Occam.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Also, look at the structure of the modern airplane wing, with its various tension members and struts. Did it occur to you that the dolphins bone structure is ideally suited to curving the surface of the fin for optimal passage through water? So it is similar to the human hand. Fine. Behold, the claw of a chicken. It also has such structure, and it is ideal for the function it performs, which is different from what humans use their hands for. Similarity in form doesn’t mean one thing evolved from another.

        • jim says:

          The dolphin fin has similarities to the human hand despite totally unrelated function, because we are more closely related to them than to birds or fish, who use their limbs in the same fashion as dolphins.

          Blood relationships outweigh function.

          Dolphin uses its limbs the way a fish does or a bird does, but its limbs inwardly resemble those of its kin – us. Octopus uses its limbs the way we do, and yet there is no inward resemblance, because the octopus is the most distant from us of all the large descendants of the urbilatarian.

      • pdimov says:

        I find it interesting how the common limb structure is simultaneously used as an argument for and against Darwinism.

        “The mature, adult, functional forms of tetrapod fore and hind limbs differ in extraordinary ways, yet all are based on an unchanging pentadactyl design or Bauplan. This pattern is obvious in the human arm and leg. Although their morphologies are very different, both conform to the same pattern. In the arm, there is one bone (the humerus) between the shoulder and the elbow, two between the elbow and the wrist (the radius and ulna), and five fingers. In the leg, there is one bone (the femur) between the hip and the knee, two bones between the knee and the ankle (the tibia and fibula), and five toes. The same pattern is easily observed in the wings of bats and pterosaurs. Similarly, the flippers of seals and whales, the wings of birds, and the limbs of horses are built on the same underlying pattern, even though this is not obvious on superficial examination.

        Likewise, the digits of the fore and hind limbs differ from one another in every known terrestrial vertebrate, and in most more than in man. Yet all are based on a common design: a succession of two, three, or four small bones of decreasing size, from proximal to distal, called phalanges.3 This is particularly obvious in the human body. Although all ten digits have a different form, the underlying digital Bauplan is essentially identical.

        Owen believed that the Bauplan of the tetrapod limb must have been generated by factors other than selection for environmental fitness. Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species that no adaptive explanation for the underlying Bauplan could be given, for it appeared to serve no specific adaptive end.4

        In Evolution, I wrote, “It is generally presumed that amphibia evolved from fish and even the order of fish, the Rhipidistia, has been specified. However, transitional forms are lacking.”5 More precisely, transitional forms leading in small successive steps from fin to limb are lacking. The earliest known amphibians, as I pointed out, had well-developed fore and hind limbs of the normal tetrapod type.

        Thirty years have passed. We have still not found a single fossil with an appendage that might have bridged the gap between a fish fin and the tetrapod limb. Certainly, since 1985, a great number of early amphibian fossils have been discovered, including Acanthostega, Tulerpeton, and Ventastega, as well as several fossil fish close to the fish-amphibian boundary, including the celebrated Tiktaalik. We have also made huge advances in understanding the developmental genetics of the limb. But we are no closer to giving an account of the fin-to-limb transition in Darwinian terms.”

        • jim says:

          > More precisely, transitional forms leading in small successive steps from fin to limb are lacking …

          > Thirty years have passed. We have still not found a single fossil with an appendage that might have bridged the gap between a fish fin and the tetrapod limb.

          This is, of course, a simple barefaced lie. We have a pile of fossils, a pile of transitional forms, bridging the gap between the fish fin and the tetrapod limb, plus the coelecanth is a living intermediate form.

          Plus, a simple experiment: A guy took creatures normally classified as lungfish, fish that can breath air if they really have to, and forced them to grow up on land. The struggle of moving on land and eating in the air rather than in the water caused them to differ from their water living brothers in ways that caused them to resemble amphibians – bigger limb muscles and bones because of the exercise of moving around on land, longer and more flexible necks because of the exercise of eating in air. You can bring intermediate forms into existence right now today by forcing fish that have the capability to breath air in a damp environment to live on land, forcing them to re-enact the struggles of the first amphibians.

          And if we had no transitional forms, would not mean anything, since the fossil record is notoriously incomplete.

          We have a large collection of small steps between the fish fin and the amphibian limb, starting with the coelecanth limb.

  14. R7 Rocket says:

    I notice that all the people who are the “dinosaurs in Noah’s Ark” types are all blue pilled on women… just sayin’

  15. I am not quite sure the logic that for women abduction and enslavement maximizes the number of offspring really checks out. Or maybe I am misunderstanding something. “Classic” RP theory (kicked around on internet fora 5-10 years ago) is that the quality of the sperm and the investment of resources from the male both matter, and because men with high quality sperm are unlikely to commit and invest, the optimal female reproductive strategy is to marry the beta and get knocked up by the alpha, either before the marriage or during it. The optimal alpha male reproductive strategy is just to bed a lot of women, the optimal beta strategy is to marry a virgin and compel her not to cheat which is close enough to enslavement if one wants to put it that way.

    This is markedly different from that of most animals, because humans are uniquely helpless at birth and take a uniquely long time to mature, all because of intelligence. This is where the resources of the husband matter, and this is why most animals don’t need anything like that, the female can take care of the litter alone so for most animals simply alpha males mate and beta males not, none of this complicated stuff.

    The real complex part is that the interests of beta males are opposed to both of females and alpha males – there is not just simply a war of the sexes. But alpha males are very hard to control because they are alpha males, controlling women is easier. Still, I must add that any moral rule that not only controls women but also frowns at men chasing tail and getting notches, well, beta men don’t really have anything to lose and much to gain with such a rule. But of course everybody wants to be an alpha or at least look like an alpha and boast about imagined notches or something so that is not an easy sell…

    If we only cared for genetic fitness, we could consider doing it the animal way, let alphas have harems, let women only raise kids without any male help, and let betas die as virgins. The problem is, it was tried and it has bad results. I mean those parts of Africa where women do all the agriculture and men do little. They did not exactly give birth to supermen. Nor did it increase intelligence or lead to a hi-tech society.

    In the colder climates, people simply could not afford letting women do all the agriculture. I suppose with modern tech levels it would be doable, to some extent, but it tends to select more for violence and alpha traits than for intelligence and it greatly reduces the work output and the fighting will of beta men, and thus those kinds of societies tend to fall behind and get conquered. Cold climates and male agriculture optimized for beta reproductive strategies, provision over sperm quality, hence enforced monogamy and fidelity.

    So yes, the solution is to deny most women access to high quality sperm, high quality from the alpha viewpoint, can still be high quality in other stuff like intelligence, which means controlling women, however, they get the investment and resources and it motivates beta men to work and fight.

    Very well. But we were a little bit too successful in breeding beta men who turned into libcucks and breeding out alpha men, weren’t we? The kind of ruin whites are facing now lies in the direction of too much optimization for beta reproduction strategies. Not that we were “too monogamous”… that’s not true for a long time. But we are definitely breeding too beta betas.

    • StoneMan says:

      “You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: those with loaded guns … and those who dig.”
      I disagree with the claim that the source of the problem is genetic. The problem isn’t that our betas are too beta and our alphas aren’t alpha enough. The problem is that there is a loaded gun pointed at betas and alphas alike, the betas are digging because that’s what they do, and instead of rallying the betas the alphas are taking the opportunity to screw a lot of women. Would our situation really improve if betas were less beta, if there were more men trying to screw lots of women? There’s enough “enjoying the decline” as is.

    • jim says:

      > I am not quite sure the logic that for women abduction and enslavement maximizes the number of offspring really checks out

      Observed fertility is around seven where women are property.

      Observed female behavior only makes sense in the light of that fact.

  16. […] I don’t remember Jim ever calling out Gnosticism before, but in his last post he calls it out, loud and clear, in Natural Selection Is Reactionary. […]

  17. info says:

    Vox and why he believes Evolution is bunk debate with JF:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaqec_0FPqA

    Here are the numbers provided:
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/maximum-mutations.html

    • pterantula says:

      Vox knows he’s been lied to about evo psych, maybe being arguing for creationism will make the R\k guys think, like a biological flat earth. Maybe he doesn’t think there’s a biological argument for the sexual strategy where Mr and Mrs Mallard settle down in Boston Public Garden. Okay, Mr. Mallard is supposed to leave like a nigger, but snowy owls have coparenting, zebras have protective fatherhood, and penguins mate for life.

    • Rollory says:

      What reason is there to take those numbers seriously? What is their origin? What is the basis for arriving at them? What reason is there to consider them generally accurate instead of a particular instance?

      Why does Vox, who spends half his time denouncing modern science as being completely unreliable and incapable of reproducing any conclusions, unreservedly parrot any studies that happen to support whatever position he wants to take?

      Those numbers are not remotely trustworthy and do not mean what he is presenting them as meaning, although his use of them is very typical of his methods.

      • pterantula says:

        numbers are fine, you’re attacking from the left, just say yessuh, massah, I’se a dumb redneck, America, yee-haw, women with big ol’ tiddies should be denied abortions lol

        the lol is important, if you’re not lolling the retarded mathturbators calculate that they’re winning

        • Rollory says:

          Lots of black women have tigole biddies. I have zero objection to decreasing the black proportion of the population.

          But more to the point, nothing in your post addresses any of the questions I asked. You’re deflecting.

          • Koanic says:

            You can’t get real numbers from fake science. Gradualist TENS is bunk. Evolution cheats by shuffling the deck, most notably during cross-species sexual reproduction.

            Obviously life would cheat. All winners do.

            • jim says:

              Accidentally deleted your comment.

              Sorry about that.

            • pterantula says:

              did my tl;dr post here get stuck in spam? I just wanted to deny the importance of interspecies reproduction, the grizzly/polar hybrids aren’t bringing anything new into the world, but I’m sure the left would love it if someone could say some hybrid of AMH would be more civilized than any basic type as the coywolf is better at biting people, but it hadn’t happened 30 years ago when the left was capable of repeating complicated slogans and still hasn’t.

  18. Walter Brown says:

    Hey Jim,

    For everybody debating sexual nature, here’s an exercise to test your beliefs:

    Who was the most reproductively successful man in the world? Is there a pattern among super-successful men? Who was the most reproductively successful woman in history? Is there a pattern among super-successful women?

    We would expect sexuality to be oriented around successful reproduction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

    It looks like the man with the most children is Genghis Khan or Ismail Ibn Sharif, who essentially had harems. And all the super-successful men listed all seem to follow that pattern, except for a few sperm donors. Obviously sperm donors wouldn’t have existed in the ancestral environment.

    And all those guys who were wealthy and powerful enough to have harems, probably also ensured their sons married well. Ismail Ibn Sharif’s sons probably often had several wives apiece, meaning that if he had 700 sons and 500ish daughters, he easily could have had 20,000 grandchildren. Same for Genghis Khan.

    So we would expect men to want harems. Not that men can’t reproduce monogamously, but if you give a man sexual options (e.g. he’s rich, or famous), expect him to build a harem.

    • Walter Brown says:

      Continuing this logic, the woman with the most children is Mrs. Feodor Vassilyev. She was just a peasant woman with a tendency to have twins/triplets/etc). Or, if we don’t believe her, some similar story. The women with the most children are mostly peasants, who got pregnant a lot, and had a lot of twins.

      However, she had 67 children, and those children were probably not reproductively successful themselves. They likely had compromised health (67 kids is hard on the mother, and on the kids), and a peasant family with 67 kids isn’t going to be able to have money for a dowry, or to help their son build a career. She probably only had 100 grandkids.

      Actually, the most reproductively successful woman was probably Hoelun, the mother of Genghis Khan. She gave Genghis half her DNA, and thus got half of his success. If he had 1,000 children, she had significantly more than 1,000 grandchildren. (Genghis Khan had three brothers, who had kids, too)

      Essentially, the way for a woman to reproduce at a fantastic rate, is for her to ensure that her sons all have harems.

      In other words, I would expect women to want a monogamous marriage, with a fantastically wealthy and high-status husband. The kind of man whose sons will each have a bunch of wives and concubines.

      And by “monogamous”, I mean that her husband’s resources will go entirely to her children. In principle, this doesn’t necessarily imply sexual monogamy. Roman monogamy, essentially. Where you can screw as many women as you like, but you can only marry one.

      This logic probably holds in Afghanistan, too. A rich man, who only has one wife, is probably going to make her fantastically reproductively successful. She’s going to have 7 kids, and all her sons are probably going to have four wives. She’ll probably have over 100 grandchildren.

      So no, I’m not sure that I buy Jim’s understanding of female sexual nature. I would expect women to want a version of Genghis Khan that wants to be dedicated to her, and her children. A Mormon Genghis Khan, essentially.

      Which kinds fits, because there were a bunch of early Mormons on that list of super-reproductively-successful men. Brigham Young, in example.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        So no, I’m not sure that I buy Jim’s understanding of female sexual nature. I would expect women to want a version of Genghis Khan that wants to be dedicated to her, and her children. A Mormon Genghis Khan, essentially.

        Jim’s view of female sexuality is correct – they *would* be best served by trying to birth Genghis Khan but they have bad mental algorithms for finding him – more accurately they have good mental algorithms for finding him under the historical constraints that they were under but those algorithms fail badly in the modern environment.

        Only Genghis Khan could get away with acting like modern criminals because in earlier times acting that way got a man killed unless he was useful to other men and a leader. Either restore that environment or let the bastards of criminals starve so you improve women’s mating algorithms but the current situation is unsustainable.

        • Walter Brown says:

          >Only Genghis Khan could get away with acting like modern criminals
          Genghis Khan didn’t act like modern criminals. He was high status. Criminals are all low status.

          There are a lot of things that confer male status:
          1) Cars
          2) Clothes
          3) Violence
          4) Athletic ability
          5) Fame
          6) Most things connected with money

          How many of these does a criminal have? They don’t have 1,2,5 and 6. They could have 4 – that’s unconnected with criminality. They might have 3, but it will cost them 1,2,5 and 6.

          If you’re a modern criminal, and you often use violence, you’re going to prison. Eventually, the police are going to catch you on a security camera, or something. And Jeff Sessions or Kamala Harris is going to send you to prison for a decade, even if you just slapped some guy who insulted you.

          The only way for an American to use (illegal) violence is to do it secretively. Make sure you have an alibi. Wear a mask. Make sure that the people you’re threatening never talk to the police.

          Everybody in prison is broke. All criminals are broke. None of them are famous – except for a couple rappers. The only rich criminals, are a few Tony Soprano types, who are super-careful about the violence they engage in, and manage to carefully structure it, so they can avoid prison time.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Genghis Khan didn’t act like modern criminals. He was high status. Criminals are all low status.

            Criminals are not low status – they’re high status at the most primal level – people are afraid of them. Women’s Genghis Khan detection modules aren’t that sophisticated because if you could build a perfect model of who was Genghis Khan from behavior you could build a model that perfectly acts that way and achieves Genghis Khan results. Women have imperfect information and act on it in a way that’s basically “good enough” from an evolutionary perspective – if men are afraid of some guy, he’s high status – period.

            There are a lot of things that confer male status:
            1) Cars
            2) Clothes
            3) Violence
            4) Athletic ability
            5) Fame
            6) Most things connected with money

            Super wrong about 1 – cars appeal to gold diggers and women simply haven’t been that in a long long time.

            As far as 2 it’s right but not in the way you mean – a well made custom tailored suit is high status in some contexts and reflects money but isn’t high status in all contexts – flashy conveys status because it’s attention grabbing and attention grabbing short circuits women’s status evaluation module – “if that guy is drawing attention to himself like that he must be high status” – is dressing like a pimp high status to men? Is it an exaggerated version of what gets attention from women? Yes.

            6 isn’t status – witness Jeff Bezos getting played like a chump by an extremely unattractive used up woman in her 30s. A world where money attracts women doesn’t have Bezos trying to bang his friend’s ugly wife.

            How many of these does a criminal have? They don’t have 1,2,5 and 6. They could have 4 – that’s unconnected with criminality. They might have 3, but it will cost them 1,2,5 and 6.

            They exactly have 1, 2, 5 and 6 in practical terms. Violence is costless for lifetime criminals because of anarcho-tyranny. The reason there are so many men in jail for drug crimes is that violence crimes are legal.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Women line up at prisons to get booty-calls from inmates.

            Nothing turns a woman on more than the thought you could conceivably rape and/or kill her (not necessarily in that order).

        • Walter Brown says:

          When I say “Genghis Khan”, I wasn’t referring to his violence.

          Excluding sperm donors, the most reproductively successful men in America appear to all be early Mormons. Well, who was Brigham Young’s mother?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

    • jim says:

      Male sexuality is oriented around successful reproduction in that men want to own women, and when they can, reproduction ensues. A boy starts wanting to own a woman, a woman who obeys him, who is always sexually available to him, and not sexually available to anyone else, at about thirteen, fourteen, fifteen.

      Women, therefore, want to be owned. A woman who is property reproduces more successfully than a woman who is strong and independent. Their resistance is a shit test to make sure that they are owned only by strong men. A shit test that we have failed.

      I have been in many countries. Where women have the power, Tinder tells me that there are lots of chicks looking to be boned. When woman have no power, tinder tells me that there is no woman around.

      • Walter Brown says:

        >A woman who is property reproduces more successfully than a woman who is strong and independent
        Subsaharan African birth rate: 6+ children per woman.

        And yet nobody owns them. In fact, the whole reason they have such widespread HIV is because their women have several simultaneous sexual partners. There are no women less owned than negro women, and yet they are super reproductively successful.

        Women want a man to be dedicated to them. They want their daughters to marry well, and have status and money. They want their sons to have a harem.

        They don’t want to be owned by a low-status man. They don’t mind being owned by a high-status man.

        Check romance novels. No ownership, lots of status signals. 50 shades of grey ends with Mr Grey breaking up with Dakota Johnson. But the movie is entirely composed of male status symbols – I only saw like 15 minutes of it, and it was all helicopters, expensive apartments, quasi-violence-against-women, wealth, and other signals of male status. But no ownership.

        • jim says:

          The reason they have high rates of HIV is because of do gooders injecting them with the AIDs virus. Aids in Africa and South Asia is spread by healthcare clinics funded by white progressive foreigners.

          But, in any case, what happens in Africa is not that relevant because of racial differences in sexual character. What happens in Afghanistan and Timor Leste, what happened in Japan before McArthur emancipated women, is more relevant.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Injecting them? Are they trying to provide evidence of what they want to see, or are the progs really that careless, stupid, and incapable?

            • Walter Brown says:

              I think the primary method of HIV transmission in Africa is heterosexual contact.

              However, if there is significant do-gooder transmission of HIV, I would assume that it is due to incompetent Negroes providing medical care. E.g. the following pattern.

              Y’know, they hire 10 “qualified” nurses, trained in Africa, one of which has no idea how to clean used syringes. And in order to avoid being racist, they never openly admit that they suspect one of their nurses isn’t following the protocol for cleaning used syringes.

              And so a tenth of the people who get an injection in that clinic get HIV. And since most people visit multiple clinics over their lifetime, a significant number of people get HIV.

              And nobody can publicly admit this, because that would be racist. And the type of people who travel to Africa to provide medical care are probably super politically correct.

          • Walter Brown says:

            >what happened in Japan before McArthur emancipated women
            Total Bullshit.

            Japan had a baby boom after WW2.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Empire_of_Japan#Total_Fertility_Rate_from_1874_to_1950

            Just look at this age breakdown of the current Japanese population. It was taken in 2015.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_sex_by_age_2015.png
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Aging_of_Japan

            You can clearly notice a brief baby boom that starts 68/69 years before 2015, and another, longer one, that starts 49 years before 2015.

            1944 and 1945 – Baby bust (probably due to the intensity of WW2 in 1944 Japan)
            1946 – Baby boom
            – slow, moderate, decline in birth rate until 1965
            1966 – something weird happens, it looks like a statistical outlier, (ok, I just googled it, Japan legalized abortion in this year)
            1967 – Another baby boom starts
            1973 – Peak of the 2nd baby boom

            And a slow decline in fertility from 1973 to present. There are a couple plateaus, but the long-term trend it downward.

            • jim says:

              Liar.

              You are lying about your own data.

              Your data shows that fertility starts to collapse in 1949, the year that Douglas McArthur emancipated Japanese women.

              Your data agrees with my data:

              War and peace, boom and bust, rural life and urbanization barely moves the needle. The only thing that makes a difference is female emancipation. Nothing else has any clear effect.

              • Walter Brown says:

                What? Look at the data. I neither lied, nor was mistaken. I’ll repeat myself.

                Decline in birth rate around 1937 (I’m guessing this is because of the ongoing war)

                Women get the vote in 1946. Baby boom in 1946.

                Occupation of Japan ends in 1949. Birth rate starts declining rapidly in 1949.

                Weird statistical outlier in 1966.

                2nd baby boom around 1970. Slow gradual decline from 1974ish to today.

                • jim says:

                  I look at your data, and it just does not look like that.

                  It looks like my graph.

                  Where does your data for fertility rate disagree with my graph?

                • Walter Brown says:

                  It doesn’t. They’re the same data. Except your graph has a large red line through it.

                  What happened in 1946? Women got the vote.

                  What else happened in 1946? Baby boom.

                  Look at your own graph. You can see it.

                  What happened in 1949? The US occupation of Japan ended. Also, a large drop in fertility.

                  So how did MacArthur cause that drop in fertility? Japan increased birth rates in the period 1945-1949, when he was in power. And the large decline in fertility occurred shortly after he gave up control of Japan in 1949?

                  If you want to argue that Japan liberated their own women, fine. But it’s bizarre to blame it on MacArthur’s military occupation, when birth rates increased in that period of time.

                • jim says:

                  No baby boom in 1946. Rather, the minor and barely noticeable depression of birthrate caused by war, caused by husbands being away at the front, ended, and fertility returned to prewar normal. The troops return in 1945, impregnate their wives, and the women give birth in 1946.

                  Only to collapse starting 1949 when women were emancipated.

                  Your own data fails to show that anything other than emancipation has any readily detectable effect on fertility, while showing that emancipation has massive and drastic effect on fertility.

                  Boom or bust, war or peace, rural or urban, the effect, if any effect there is, is barely noticeable. Only female emancipation makes a difference.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >No baby boom in 1946.
                  >Men returned from war

                  Compare Japan to Germany, which was in a similar situation – their birth rate was abnormally low in 1946. Did German husbands not return from the war? I think a lot more Japanese soldiers died in war, than German soldiers.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Life_expectancy_from_1875_to_2015

                  >Only to collapse starting 1949 when women were emancipated.
                  Women got the vote in 1946.

                  Your hypothesis either needs to be heavily modified, or thrown out. You need to explain how Japan emancipated women in 1949 – not MacArthur, who gave up control of Japan in 1949.

                  Or, you need to move the date of emancipation of women to 1946, and then explain why birth rates increased in that period.

                • jim says:

                  > Compare Japan to Germany, which was in a similar situation – their birth rate was abnormally low in 1946

                  You are lying about your own data, which shows a German baby “boom” in 1944 comparable to the Japanese baby “boom” in 1945-1946 – both “booms” being merely a return to pre war normality, and both “booms” being barely distinguishable from random statistical noise.

                  If German fertility got depressed a few years earlier than Japanese fertility, that is because de-nazification (mandatory progressivism) got rolling a few years in Germany than General McArthur in Japan turned his attention to women.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  1) I’m not lying

                  2) You are some combination of obstinate and stupid

                  >which shows a German baby “boom” in 1944
                  Correct.

                  But the war ended in 1945. And it was May of 1945 (or April, I forget). So a woman who got pregnant the day her husband went home, would be giving birth some time in early 1946.

                  >than General McArthur in Japan turned his attention to women.
                  I repeat. General MacArthur relinquished control of Japan in 1949.

                  When were Japanese women emancipated?

                • jim says:

                  Japanese women were emancipated in 1949. Until then they were not free to wander off from the male in authority over them, and the male in authority over them was held responsible for any misdeeds that they committed, rather than individual female.

                  Until 1949, Japanese law treated women as appendages of the male in authority over them.

                • jim says:

                  > 1) I’m not lying

                  The data does not show what you claim it shows. The graph makes it absolutely clear what the data shows.

                  You make a big deal about minor and insignificant changes in fertility rates, while ignoring the elephant in the living room.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Until 1949, Japanese law treated women as appendages of the male in authority over them.
                  Do you have a specific law in mind?

                • jim says:

                  Ie system.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  I would have assumed female emancipation was connected to their right to vote in 1946.

                • jim says:

                  Formal emancipation was the passage of the constitution on May 1947, which declared that men and women were the same and interchangeable (article 14) and formally abolished marriage as it has been understood throughout East and West for the last several thousand years (article 24).

                  These changes made the ie system unconstitutional, but the ie system was not immediately abolished.

                  Actual emancipation was to give effect to these laws by abolishing the ie system in 1949. In 1947, women were promised the freedom to defect on their families and husbands, in 1949, they actually were free to defect on their families and husbands.

                  Defect/defect equilibrium ensued, because women inevitably shit test their husbands.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Alright. I still think your interpretation of Japan is wrong, but it seems plausible now.

                  Back to the larger point. According to you:

                  >A woman who is property reproduces more successfully than a woman who is strong and independent

                  (Side note: obviously independence interferes with reproduction. If you don’t depend on your husband, you only have one income, and you’ll get beat up all the time. I think we’re discussing whether marriage involves cooperation between two parties, or whether it involves property ownership)

                  So Japan and Spain are very unsuccessful in this respect, correct? So why don’t half of Japan/Spain’s women move to Afghanistan? They fantasize about being “owned”, right?

                  American/European males have sex tourist locations in Thailand, Vietnam, and so on. And the US government discourages these places, using a variety of laws.

                  For women, we would not expect sex tourism, but would expect them to actually leave and find a husband. End up in some untraceable place in Afghanistan, with a husband who will beat her if she disobeys.

                  There were a couple stories about women who ran off to ISIS, but they are undoubtedly an insignificant fraction of the Spanish/Japanese population.

                • jim says:

                  > So Japan and Spain are very unsuccessful in this respect, correct? So why don’t half of Japan/Spain’s women move to Afghanistan? They fantasize about being “owned”, right?

                  When women take sex tours to notorious rape areas, that is what they are doing.

                  When women vote to import Islam, that is what they are doing.

                  When women support Rotherham, New Year in Cologne, and Somali rape jihad in the USA, that is what they are doing.

                  An implication of the readily observed fact that all rape and sexual harassment complaints and convictions are false, as near to all of them as makes no difference, is that women are disinclined to complain about actual rape and actual sexual harassment.

                  In today’s environment, none of these are effective paths to becoming owned, but in the ancestral environment, would have been.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  You didn’t answer the question. Why don’t women move to Afghanistan, if that’s the society they lust for?

                  >When women take sex tours to notorious rape areas, that is what they are doing.
                  A rapist “owns” a woman for 5 minutes – or however long it takes to cops to get there. And then he’ll probably spend a decade in prison.

                  If women lust after men “owning” them, I would not expect rape to be satisfactory.

                  >When women vote to import Islam, that is what they are doing.
                  Women got the vote in 1918. In the 1920s, they closed the borders.

                  And the accurate predictors of voting patterns is not sex, but stuff like race, age, and income level. Trump won white women. Hillary won black men.

                  I’m not sensing a trend.

                  >Somali rape jihad in the USA
                  Hah. Have you ever met a Muslim?

                  They aren’t exactly conquerors of the ladies. American Muslims have a fertility rate of 2.3 – and these people are moving here from Nigeria, Somalia and Afghanistan, which all have super-high birth rates.

                  I don’t know about Europe, but every Muslim I’ve met is a pussy.

                • jim says:

                  > You didn’t answer the question. Why don’t women move to Afghanistan, if that’s the society they lust for

                  Women are not consciously aware of what they lust for. They react to stimuli. If General Buck Naked showed up wearing his trademark necklace of fresh human eyeballs, an AK47, and absolutely nothing else, they would be surprised to find themselves rubbing up against him, but if he is a thousand miles they are not highly motivated to go and find him.

                • jim says:

                  > And the accurate predictors of voting patterns is not sex

                  White single women overwhelmingly vote against Trump and for open borders, in the expectation that open borders will get them raped. White men overwhelmingly vote for Trump and against open borders, in the expectation that open borders will get their women raped and cause them to lose their jobs.

                  That is why the Trump keeps telling that lie about sex traffickers. He is telling single women that competition is coming over the border.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Every Western woman hears a million stories about the evil oppression of women in Afghanistan. Hell, they probably hear an exaggerated version – American media is always focusing on the Taliban killing people and destroying girl’s schools. The Taliban sounds exactly like General buck naked, except there are millions of them, they keep killing US soldiers, and they usually wear clothing.

                  >but if he is a thousand miles they are not highly motivated to go and find him.
                  Why not? Sex sells.

                • jim says:

                  Men have to go to women. Women are disinclined to go to men. Men invade, women surrender. Women only start going to men at age thirty or so – and at age thirty five or so, you see them doing rape tourism.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >White single women overwhelmingly vote against Trump and for open borders
                  He got 40% of their vote. Trump did a lot better with single white women than with black men. In voting, race/income/lifestyle appears to dominate sex. By a lot.

                  And the primary reason there is a significant gap between married women, and single women, is because a lot of those single women live like black people. A vote for Hillary was a vote for gibs.

                  Not to mention, Obama won white women twice. White women seem like prefer Trump over Romney. In fact, trump got better numbers with almost all female demographic groups that Mitt Romney. And Romney had essentially the same view on immigration as Obama.

                • jim says:

                  > > White single women overwhelmingly vote against Trump and for open borders

                  > He got 40% of their vote.

                  To my recollection, he got near seventy percent of the white married women and white male vote, which shows that sex, and sexual desire, has a very large impact on voting. If a white woman has an arrangement that gets her regularly nailed, makes a huge difference to her enthusiasm for open borders.

                  You think that tiny changes in the fertility rate that might arguably be associated with boom and bust, war and peace, city and country matter enormously, but you don’t think a huge difference in the ratio of women voting for open borders to women voting against open borders is significant.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Men have to go to women. Women are disinclined to go to men.
                  Why? If a woman reproduces better by leaving, I would expect a strong Darwinian selective pressure to create “leaving” genes.

                  Also, women leave all the time. How many women in NYC were born there? Maybe 10%.. And half of NYC residents were born somewhere in flyover country.

                  So why do women prefer sterile NYC over virile Afghanistan? Or, if they want a living standard that approaches America, how about Saudi Arabia?

                • jim says:

                  > > Men have to go to women. Women are disinclined to go to men.

                  > Why? If a woman reproduces better by leaving

                  Women wait around for men to approach them. It is a shit test, a filter to filter out weak ass losers. They want invaders and conquerors.

                  If a chick is sitting outside Starbucks at a table by herself, she wants some guy to move in on her, but she is not going to move in on some guy sitting outside Starbucks.

                  It is a shit test. Going to Afghanistan is not Afghans passing a shit test. Afghans coming here, blowing up people and driving a truck over people are Afghans passing a shit test. General Buck Naked has to prove his superior manliness by invading her tribe’s turf and adding her menfolk’s eyeballs to his infamous necklace. She is not going to invade General Buck Naked’s turf.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Again, if women can reproduce better by leaving, I would expect a strong selective pressure to encourage them to go wherever they are property, right?

                  Also, not everything a woman does is a shit test against men.

                  >Going to Afghanistan is not Afghans passing a shit test.
                  Of course not, but I’m pretty sure that once there, the Afghanis would pass every other shit test she decided to throw at them. And women are quite happy to move to NYC, which isn’t a shit test, either, right?

                  >Afghans coming here, blowing up people and driving a truck over people are Afghans passing a shit test.
                  No it’s not. Violence that gets you executed or imprisoned is not particularly attractive. Only successful violence counts as passing a shit test. If some guy from a neighboring tribe comes in, and attacks your men, and they beat the shit out of him, he isn’t hot.

                  No woman fantasizes about Osama bin Laden. They fantasized about that Tsarnaev guy, until his brother got put in an orange jumpsuit, and he got killed.

                  >They want invaders and conquerors.
                  So why do they leave flyover country, and go to NYC? I would expect that flyover country has manlier men.

                • jim says:

                  > Again, if women can reproduce better by leaving, I would expect a strong selective pressure to encourage them to go wherever they are property, right?

                  That would result in them becoming the property of weak men. They want to become the property of invaders and conquerors.

                  It is a shit test. Everything women do is a shit test, and everything women do is about dick.

                  > Violence that gets you executed or imprisoned is not particularly attractive.

                  You are blue pilled. The guy doing life in prison for rape, torture and cannibalism gets hot letters from hot chicks he has never met. Billionaire Bezos on the other hand …

                  Obviously violence that gets you executed or imprisoned is hugely attractive. To pull chicks, I have to fake the propensity and capability for such violence. In particular I have to fake the capability for such violence against the chick I am trying to impress.

                  I have been doing this for a long time. I well know what women want. Women want very bad men. They want alpha as alpha was when we lived in the jungle and looked like gorillas. And, in a civilized society, it is not feasible to genuinely be what women want, but I have to do my best to fake it anyway.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >To my recollection, he got near seventy percent of the white married women and white male vote
                  Your recollection is wrong.

                  Single white women: 39.0
                  Married white women: 61.4
                  Single white men: 59.0
                  Married white men: 61.0

                  And I think it was like 13% of the Black Male vote.

                  Which implies that marital status and sex, matter a whole lot less than race/income. An America where only White women could vote, would be significantly more pro-Trump than the present. And an America where only black men vote, would be totally under the control of the Democratic party.

                • jim says:

                  > Single white women: 39.0
                  > Married white women: 61.4

                  Still a whopping big difference, and one that is obviously sex related.

                  > And I think it was like 13% of the Black Male vote.

                  Black males are voting for gimmiedat. Single white women are voting for dick.

                  What else do women think about? Ask a woman to issue a rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union speech and she tells us why she should be considered hot despite being fat, black, and forty. It is dick, dick, dick, dick, dick all the time. Any time a woman opens her mouth, nothing that she says makes any sense except in relation to alpha male dick going into it. Everything a woman does is dick centric.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >You think that tiny changes in the fertility rate that might arguably be associated with boom and bust, war and peace, city and country matter enormously, but you don’t think a huge difference in the ratio of women voting for open borders to women voting against open borders is significant.
                  You don’t understand the concept of a “burden of proof”.

                  If someone claims X causes Y, they need to demonstrate it. It doesn’t start out as a 50/50 proposition.

                  You claimed MacArthur caused female emancipation, which caused a decline in fertility. There are a million possible causes of fertility changes, and several dozen plausible causes. In order to prove your case, you need to exclude the others. E.g. by establishing that fertility declined AT THE SAME TIME that the law changed. If it declined five years after the law changed, then your hypothesis isn’t looking very good.

                  You also claimed that women vote for invaders. There are a thousand possible explanations for the voting gap (including the most obvious – that the democrats pursue pro-single-female gibs). Your hypothesis needs to be proven, which is a rather difficult task. And if you cannot prove it, it’s just a speculative hypothesis, like string theory.

                • jim says:

                  > > You think that tiny changes in the fertility rate that might arguably be associated with boom and bust, war and peace, city and country matter enormously, but you don’t think a huge difference in the ratio of women voting for open borders to women voting against open borders is significant.

                  > You don’t understand the concept of a “burden of proof”.

                  If fertility is significantly affected by war and peace, boom and bust, country and city, your data should show something one hell of a lot more impressive than what it shows and a hell of a lot more consistent than what it shows. Sometimes fertility goes slightly up for a brief period when war ends, sometimes slightly down when war ends. Looks random and no real relationship.

                  But if fertility is primarily affected by status of women, we should see what we do in fact see. Talibanic fertility, pre-emancipation Japanese fertility. Whopping great big effects every single time.

                  And similarly, we see that getting married makes a huge difference to a woman’s propensity to vote for open borders, indicating that sex and penetration has something do with it.

                  > There are a thousand possible explanations for the voting gap

                  You had no similar problems finding one definitive explanation for slight rises and declines in fertility, even though your explanation for one country and one time was the opposite of your explanation for another country and another time.

                  We have a whopping big voting gap between single and married women. If there are a thousand explanations, start with one of them.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Still a whopping big difference, and one that is obviously sex related.
                  >Black males are voting for gimmiedat. Single white women are voting for dick.
                  I don’t buy it.

                  If we don’t count old women (who probably voted Trump), single women are mostly either single mothers, or childless urban “career” women.

                  Single mothers are rarely self-sufficient. They depend on gibs more than most black males. Free education for their kids, free health care for them and their kids, free police protection (cops cost money, and you know single mothers aren’t paying enough in taxes to hire the police). Plus free child support and alimony. And a million other things.

                  Black males just get affirmative action, and unemployment checks. And maybe police go a little softer on them (but – the black that really hate cops are felons, and often can’t vote).

                  Urban childless “career” women, are the interesting group. Their economic interests are not necessarily aligned with the Democratic party. They seem to vote based on weird emotional baggage – which you’re right, is sometimes sexual. But it’s often non-sexual. And it’s never about Muslims.

                  And Hillary didn’t even run on that stuff. Trump said all sorts of stuff about Muslims, and I never heard an ad saying “Trump wants to deport Muslims”. The only Democratic-party-approved message I can recall is that Muslim guy at the Democratic Convention who held up that copy of the Constitution.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Talibanic fertility, pre-emancipation Japanese fertility. Whopping great big effects every single time.
                  Firstly, no. We already discussed the only large modern area with Afghanistan-type birth rates: subsaharan Africa. Which is home to the least owned women in the world.

                  Secondly, places with super low fertility are not super feminist. We find a ridiculously low ethnic Russian birth rate. But I wouldn’t describe Russia as “more liberated” than the rest of the planet, would you?

                  I also observe a substantial difference in birth rates between countries like Italy, Spain and Japan, and countries like Sweden and Finland. But I don’t really think that the Swedes are “less liberated” than the Italians, do you?

                  Thirdly, in history/sociology, there was a well-known correlation between two factors: cultures tended to adopt monogamy at about the same time they began creating wine. This prompted all sorts of hypothesis (the development of monogamous marriage rituals! increased agricultural cultivation made a more egalitarian society!).

                  Until someone pointed out the obvious fact that Roman (and post-Roman Christian) cultural influence brought both monogamy, and wine-drinking traditions.

                  Correlation does not imply causation. It might suggest it. If modern Western/American influence depresses fertility, it could be female emancipation, or it could be one of the other thousand cultural influences that the US has on other countries. Maybe it’s consumerism, or the decline in traditional religions.

                  >we see that getting married makes a huge difference to a woman’s propensity to vote for open borders
                  Whoa man. We didn’t establish that. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but we just observed a correlation between being a single white female, and voting for Hillary.

                  If you married off all those single white females, how many would suddenly decide to vote Trump? We don’t know. It’s not an experiment we can perform.

                  >You had no similar problems finding one definitive explanation for slight rises and declines in fertility
                  What? I never made any “definite” explanations. In fact, the only explanations I suggested were

                  1) About the decrease in Japan’s birth rate in 1937 – which seems rather reasonable – if her husband is in Manchuria, a woman can’t get pregnant. Since this cause is direct, and doesn’t depend on assumptions about human nature, or anything, I think it’s probable.

                  2) The weird statistical outlier in 1966. Which coincides with a sudden change in abortion laws in 1966. Which seems probable.

                  Dude, I never offered an alternative theory to explain Japan’s declining fertility rate. No do I need to.

                • jim says:

                  > > Talibanic fertility, pre-emancipation Japanese fertility. Whopping great big effects every single time.

                  > Firstly, no.

                  liar.

                  > We already discussed the only large modern area with Afghanistan-type birth rates: subsaharan Africa. Which is home to the least owned women in the world.

                  Not true. Boko Haram’s women are the most owned in the world. And they are going to war to keep it that way. And in any case, there is notoriously a large racial difference in sexual behavior between blacks and non blacks.

                  Your argument was “heterosexual aids, therefore unowned”, but heterosexual aids is a myth invented to make homosexuals and homosexuality seem less bad.

                  > Secondly, places with super low fertility are not super feminist. We find a ridiculously low ethnic Russian birth rate. But I wouldn’t describe Russia as “more liberated” than the rest of the planet, would you?

                  A good measure of female emancipation is the ratio of females in tertiary education to males: Which in Russia is similar to, but slightly higher than, the US and Europe, hence by that measure, females are somewhat more emancipated in Russia, but there is very little difference.

                  Not enough to fully explain the low low fertility, but recollect we don’t actually know white fertility in the US. If you go to a maternity hospital, it is all brown and black women on welfare, suggesting that white fertility in the US is very similar to white fertility in Russia – extremely low. Similarly, Swedish births to white women seem to be mostly fatherless mixed race children conceived in rape, so the Swedish white on white fertility is probably a good deal lower than Russia.

                  > > we see that getting married makes a huge difference to a woman’s propensity to vote for open borders

                  > Whoa man. We didn’t establish that

                  We did establish that.

                  And if you just stubbornly repeat claims already refuted without explanation, I am going to start deleting your posts. Not going to fill up my comments section with “is so” “is not”

                  > If you married off all those single white females, how many would suddenly decide to vote Trump? We don’t know. It’s not an experiment we can perform.

                  It is an experiment that is continually being performed, since women are continually getting married and getting divorced.

                  Further, we have an experiment in Australia in 1790-1810, where they did marry them all off under threat of the lash, many of them within hours of arriving on the docks, and the experiment resulted in a bunch of slutty criminal rebellious women hostile to authority turning respectable, chaste, and adopting middle class conservative values.

                  It was all a shit test, and all about dick.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Boko Haram’s women are the most owned in the world.
                  I’m not disagreeing that Nigerian Muslims are more authoritative with women than Nigerian Christians. Remember when Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls and married them? Look at what happened to those forced marriages:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_schoolgirls_kidnapping
                  >57 of the schoolgirls managed to escape over the next few months
                  >82 more girls were freed in May 2017

                  In other words, over a period of four years, they lost about half of their wives to the Christian part of Nigeria. I am unimpressed. Are you impressed?

                  >If you go to a maternity hospital, it is all brown and black women on welfare, suggesting that white fertility in the US is very similar to white fertility in Russia – extremely low.

                  You have a tendency to only accept anecdotal evidence, and only accept it if it agrees with your viewpoint. I suggest that you revise that approach.

                  >Similarly, Swedish births to white women seem to be mostly fatherless mixed race children conceived in rape, so the Swedish white on white fertility is probably a good deal lower than Russia.

                  Finland is basically Sweden/Norway/Denmark, without any dark-skinned minorities. And … well, do you want to guess whether their fertility rate is closer to 1.2, or the fertility rate of Sweden/Norway/Denmark?

                  >We did establish that.
                  We established that women being single correlated with voting Democrat. Causality is open to interpretation.

                  >It is an experiment that is continually being performed, since women are continually getting married and getting divorced.
                  Not an experiment. There is a difference between empirical testing and correlation.

                  But enlighten me. How do recently-married women change their voting patterns?

                  >Further, we have an experiment in Australia in 1790-1810, where they did marry them all off under threat of the lash, many of them within hours of arriving on the docks, and the experiment resulted in a bunch of slutty criminal rebellious women hostile to authority turning respectable, chaste, and adopting middle class conservative values.
                  We were talking about voting patterns. Suddenly, you’ve moved to the behavior of Australian criminal exiles. I don’t think that’s germane to the argument we’re having.

                • jim says:

                  > You have a tendency to only accept anecdotal evidence, and only accept it if it agrees with your viewpoint. I suggest that you revise that approach.

                  You have an obstinate and stubborn resistance to what is in front of your face, and then when you see statistical evidence proving what is in front of your face you say “correlation is not causation, maybe someone could think of some other explanation for this correlation” – without the inconvenient need to actually propose another explanation for this correlation.

                  If the evidence is right in your face, you say “merely anecdote”. If the evidence is statistical, you say “correlation is not causation” or just flat out lie barefaced about the evidence, as you did with the Japanese fertility numbers.

                  Sometimes, as in the discussion of Japanese fertility figures, stubborn and instransigent resistance to what the evidence plainly shows amounts to flat out in-my-face barefaced lying about the evidence.

                  > > We did establish that.

                  > We established that women being single correlated with voting Democrat. Causality is open to interpretation.

                  You have not proposed any alternate causation, any alternate interpretation.

                  Everything women do and say is about dick. The one political program of every women is that in a just world, she should be considered hot. If you have another interpretation, propose it and present evidence and argument for it.

                • jim says:

                  > Finland is basically Sweden/Norway/Denmark, without any dark-skinned minorities.

                  Liar

                  > And … well, do you want to guess whether their fertility rate is closer to 1.2, or the fertility rate of Sweden/Norway/Denmark?

                  Finnish fertility rate 1.75, reflecting the fact that rape jihad in Finland is on a slightly smaller scale to rape Jihad in Sweden. Swedish fertility rate 1.88

                  Actual Swedish fertility rate without rape Jihad, white on white fertility rate, children with fathers fertility rate, anecdotally much lower, probably well below the Russian fertility rate.

                  Notice that in Sweden, on the rare occasions when a woman complains about conqueror rape accompanied by a knife to the throat and a slap in the face, police put it on the back burner, after the fashion of Rotherham, and just don’t follow up, giving much higher priority to illegally parked cars and dogs pooping on the sidewalk, and it is only men who complain about this bizarrely low priority. Women are fine with rape jihad, fine with conquerors raping them. They want to be the loot of the victors.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Liar
                  no u.

                  Finland is about 99% European.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland#Ethnic_minorities_and_languages

                  I glanced at your source. You know it never says different, right?

                • jim says:

                  Your source says “No official statistics are kept on ethnicities.”

                  Which tells us that if they did keep statistics, people would be horrified and outraged.

                  Your link shows that one person in forty in Finland speaks a mother’s tongue that suggests Islamic origins, which is sufficient to make a fairly good boost to Finnish white female fertility, though arguably not big enough to explain their higher fertility to Russia.

                  Mother’s tongue table indicates a bit less than 98% white and east asian and a bit over two percent Muslim – which I will grant you makes their superior fertility to Russia hard to explain by invader rape, though not entirely inexplicable by invader rape.

                  So let us check on my favorite indicator of female emancipation: The proportion of females in Tertiary Education

                  Well well, what do you know.

                  Women in Finland are substantially less emancipated than women in Russia, and a whole lot less emancipated than women in Sweden.

                  Oh, how very surprising.

                  That explains most of the difference between them and Russia. And I am pretty sure that that two percent Muslim minority have a Rotherham going, which would undoubtedly provide a significant boost to Finnish fertility, though probably not enough to explain the difference between Finnish and Russian fertility.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >You have an obstinate and stubborn resistance to what is in front of your face, and then when you see statistical evidence proving what is in front of your face you say “correlation is not causation, maybe someone could think of some other explanation for this correlation” – without the inconvenient need to actually propose another explanation for this correlation.
                  You don’t understand how this words. In the real world, there are all sorts of relationships between stuff. 99% of the time, when a correlation exists, no causal relationship exists.

                  Whether someone receives social security, effectively predicts whether someone gets cancer. Why? Must be the toxic chemicals in those social security envelopes, right?

                  So, if we notice a statistically significant correlation between proximity to a particular pollutant, and developing lung cancer, should we assume the pollutant is causing the cancer? Of course not. There are a thousand things that could cause an increased rate of cancer. The most obvious next step is to control for things like smoking, and age, and see whether non-smokers near the pollutant still have elevates rates of lung cancer, when compared with non-smokers away from the pollutant.

                  Or, better yet, expose mice to large amounts of the pollutant, and see whether they develop cancer at an increased rate. That’s an experiment.

                  >If the evidence is right in your face, you say “merely anecdote”.
                  A single story is an anecdote. A collection of stories is a collection of anecdotes. Experimental data is an empirical test. Non-experimental data is a correlation.

                  >If the evidence is statistical, you say “correlation is not causation” or just flat out lie barefaced about the evidence, as you did with the Japanese fertility numbers.
                  1) I never lied. In fact, so far as I can tell, I never even made a mistake in describing the data for Japan. For some reason, you decided that I was denying that fertility rapidly declined in 1949. Never said that.

                  Sometimes, as in the discussion of Japanese fertility figures, stubborn and instransigent resistance to what the evidence plainly shows amounts to flat out in-my-face barefaced lying about the evidence.

                  >>>We did establish that.
                  >>We established that women being single correlated with voting Democrat. Causality is open to interpretation.
                  >You have not proposed any alternate causation, any alternate interpretation.
                  Correct.

                  >If you have another interpretation, propose it and present evidence and argument for it.
                  I cannot prove this explanation. Feel free to tell me it’s stupid, and explain why you think it’s stupid. But don’t expect me to prove it, because I can’t.

                  I suspect that the modern decline in fertility is primarily because of urbanization, and the increasing cost of children. On a farm, and child is a small liability when he is less than five years old. They cost money – but not a lot – just food any some time spent caring for them.

                  But once a farm child becomes able to work, he is an asset. A ten year old can earn much more than he eats. In addition, he will support his parents in their old age.

                  Today, kids are now a liability from age 0 to about age 25. And a large liability. You’re required to pay for their school (either directly or through property taxes). You’re required to pay for their health care. Et cetera.

                  And modern kids are never an asset. We have social security, and 401(k)s. Nobody needs kids to provide for them in their old age. And lots of people either can’t afford to have any kids – or can only afford a couple.

                  This is especially true in Singapore/Tokyo/NYC/Silicon-Valley, or any other place with super-low fertility. A small percentage of the population can afford to buy a house, and if they try to raise several kids in an 1,000 square foot apartment, and don’t give their kids cars, problems occur. Their son can’t get laid, because he doesn’t have a car, and thus all the high school girls reject him. And their daughter goes to a public school, makes friends with the LGBT club, and ends up deciding she’s a lesbian.

                  The only Americans with an Afghani-level birth rate are the Amish. Who only educate their kids to the 8th grade, build cheap houses (no electricity, no heating), spend nothing on cars, and almost nothing on clothes. And the government keeps accusing them of child abuse, because they often avoid medical treatment for their children. And the kids are expected to begin full-time employment after they graduate the 8th grade.

                  And Amish communities that make furniture or lumber, have noticeably lower fertility than Amish communities that farm.

                  I suspect that female emancipation (and male emancipation – men used to have limited ability to divorce their wives, also), is not the cause, so much as an effect, of declining birth rates. If nobody can afford children, why do we need to force women to stick around?

                  Is there a counter-example? A rich, urban, developed country with an Afghani-like birth rates?

                  Of course, female emancipation is probably a contributing cause to the decline in birth rates. As is male emancipation. I can’t imagine that increased legal access to birth control, and increased divorce rates, wouldn’t have ANY effect.

                • jim says:

                  > Whether someone receives social security, effectively predicts whether someone gets cancer. Why? Must be the toxic chemicals in those social security envelopes, right?

                  There is an obvious plausible causal explanation, that social security is correlated with age, and that Social Security supplemental is correlated with age and poor health, and that cancer correlates with age and poor health.

                  You cannot just blow off correlations unless you have plausible causal explanations for the correlation. In your example, age causes both social security and cancer.

                  If there are multiple plausible causal mechanisms, then indeed “correlation is not causation”, but if you don’t have even one alternate plausible causal mechanism, then saying “correlation is not causation” is at best obstinate defiance of the evidence, at worst, it is flat out lying about the evidence.

                  Correlation does not tell us which causal mechanism is causing the correlation, but it tells us a causal mechanism is causing the correlation. In the case of single women voting, it tells us that something related to sexual gratification or sexual desire is causing the voting pattern.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Your link shows that one person in forty in Finland speaks a mother’s tongue that suggests Islamic origins,

                  Liar?

                  Arabic: 0.3%
                  Somali: 0.3%
                  Kurdish: 0.2%
                  Albanian: 0.2%
                  Persian: 0.1%
                  Turkish: 0.1%

                  every other language rounds to 0%

                  >So let us check on my favorite indicator of female emancipation: The proportion of females in Tertiary Education
                  Dude.

                  Women who get tertiary education, are just women who are pursuing a career, right? A woman who wants a family at a young age is likely to never attend college, or possibly drop out.

                  So, of course it that predicts fertility. Why not go with something like the ratio of males and females in the government’s legislature?

                  Plus:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Saudi_Arabia#Girls'_and_women's_education
                  >Women comprise 60% of Saudi Arabia’s college students

                  Obviously Saudi Arabia has a higher birth rate than anywhere is Europe. And yet…

                • jim says:

                  > > Your link shows that one person in forty in Finland speaks a mother’s tongue that suggests Islamic origins,

                  > Arabic: 0.3%
                  > Somali: 0.3%
                  > Kurdish: 0.2%
                  > Albanian: 0.2%
                  > Persian: 0.1%
                  > Turkish: 0.1%

                  My arithmetic gets about the double the number that your arithmetic gets. This is a rerun of our debate about Japanese fertility. But it hardly matters. Two percent is too little to explain Finnish fertility.

                  > > So let us check on my favorite indicator of female emancipation: The proportion of females in Tertiary Education

                  > Dude.
                  >
                  > Women who get tertiary education, are just women who are pursuing a career, right?

                  Wrong.

                  Do you see anything strange about the supposed fact that substantially more women are pursuing a career than men?

                  Something about your story seriously fails to add up. Much like your statistics on Japanese fertility and Finnish minorities.

                  The missing part of your story is efforts to lower the self esteem of boys by artificially marking them down, and raise the self esteem of girls by artificially marking them up and giving them unearned academic honors.

                  Which of course, impacts fertility by persuading eighty of women that they are far too good for eighty percent of men, and is indicative of other similar to efforts to suppress “toxic masculinity” – otherwise known as masculinity. Hard to reproduce unless men are masculine and women are feminine.

              • Walter Brown says:

                >>Again, if women can reproduce better by leaving, I would expect a strong selective pressure to encourage them to go wherever they are property, right?
                >That would result in them becoming the property of weak men. They want to become the property of invaders and conquerors.
                Are you saying that Afghanis are weak men?

                Women leaving, and going to the tribe with the reputation as the most powerful and violent men, would not result is a woman becoming the property of weak men. It would result in being the property of strong men – or at least men who could signal strength the most.

                >Everything women do is a shit test, and everything women do is about dick.
                You’re actually claiming that women choosing to move to NYC, rather than Afghanistan is a shit test?

                Obviously, women don’t mind leaving one area, and going to another. They do it all the time. But they don’t seem to be in the habit of moving toward Afghanistan.

                >The guy doing life in prison for rape, torture and cannibalism gets hot letters from hot chicks he has never met.
                No he doesn’t. He gets letters from weird chicks, who have some sort of emotional baggage. The kind that cut themselves, and had no friends in high school.

                And anyway, if women are willing to write letters to a serial killer, and visit him, to get married in prison, why won’t they do that with a guy in Afghanistan? Everybody knows that if you put a random Afghani up against Ted Bundy, the Afghani easily kills Ted Bundy. He’s got an Ak-47, and a tribe of violent men behind him. Bundy is a loner, who probably isn’t particularly good at fighting, and is presumably awful at conducting tribal warfare (he’d never effectively cooperate with other men).

                Now, Charles Manson, might be hot. He was a lot like a uber-violent tribal chieftain. Plus he was charismatic.

                >Billionaire Bezos on the other hand …
                Screwed a bunch of different women, apparently. That was the story I heard, at least.

                >Obviously violence that gets you executed or imprisoned is hugely attractive.
                Dead people are only attractive to necrophiliacs.

                Women usually like the winner of a fight. It demonstrates effectiveness in violence, which was a useful skill in the ancestral environment. If you’re executed, you’re the loser of the fight. If you’re imprisoned for the rest of your life, you’re the loser, but not in a blatant, visceral manner.

                I’m pretty sure no woman lusted after Rodney King. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the LAPD officers were seen as hot.

                >I have been doing this for a long time. I well know what women want.
                You have what, two kids?

                • jim says:

                  > > > Again, if women can reproduce better by leaving, I would expect a strong selective pressure to encourage them to go wherever they are property, right?

                  > > That would result in them becoming the property of weak men. They want to become the property of invaders and conquerors.

                  > Are you saying that Afghanis are weak men?

                  If we invade them, and they do not invade us, they have not demonstrated their strength to women.

                  Women’s measure of who is strong are crude. To be perceived as strong, have to come here and kill us. Thus, American women are happy with Somali rape jihad, but disinclined to go to Afghanistan.

                  > Women leaving, and going to the tribe with the reputation as the most powerful and violent men, would not result is a woman becoming the property of weak men.

                  If they really are the most powerful and violent men, why are they not coming for the women?

                  Thus somali rapeugees are perceived by women as strong, while Afghans are not.

                  > > The guy doing life in prison for rape, torture and cannibalism gets hot letters from hot chicks he has never met.

                  > No he doesn’t.

                  Yes he does. And Bezos does not.

                  I have been at this for some time. I know what women want. All Women Are Like That. No exceptions. Most of them do not write letters to prison inmates, but they all get hot for violent criminal losers when they run into them, while not getting all that hot for billionaires.

                  Every single one. Always.

                  > > Billionaire Bezos on the other hand …

                  > Screwed a bunch of different women, apparently. That was the story I heard, at least.

                  Not the story I heard. Cheated on his wife with an aging ugly broad. I always say I have low standards, but never with an old woman, except of course my wife.

                  > I’m pretty sure no woman lusted after Rodney King. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the LAPD officers were seen as hot.

                  We need to publicly beat criminals in a humiliating and degrading manner. That would stop women from getting the hots for them. But because we don’t beat them, women do get the hots for them. All women. Every single one.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >>Women leaving, and going to the tribe with the reputation as the most powerful and violent men, would not result is a woman becoming the property of weak men.
                  >If they really are the most powerful and violent men, why are they not coming for the women?
                  You keep insisting that they ARE coming for the women, and are quite successful at it.

                  Either women prefer Americans, or Afghanis. If they prefer Afghanis, why don’t they move there? If they prefer Americans – why don’t they vote to keep the Afghanis out?

                • jim says:

                  > > > Women leaving, and going to the tribe with the reputation as the most powerful and violent men, would not result is a woman becoming the property of weak men.

                  > > If they really are the most powerful and violent men, why are they not coming for the women?

                  > You keep insisting that they ARE coming for the women, and are quite successful at it.

                  Yes. When they come for our women, are quite successful at it. Observe, for example, Rotherham in Britain, and Somali rape jihad in the US.

                  The most basic and fundamental shit test of them all is that you have to go to the woman. She is not going to come to you. Thus you see chicks outside Starbucks waiting for guys to approach them, but you can sit outside Starbucks all day and chicks are not going to approach you.

                  Women are not complaining about Rotherham in England. They are not complaining about Cologne in Europe. And they are not complaining about Somali rape jihad in the USA.

                  American women love Somali rape jihad as much as they hate hate hate college fraternities.

                  > Either women prefer Americans, or Afghanis. If they prefer Afghanis, why don’t they move there? If they prefer Americans – why don’t they vote to keep the Afghanis out?

                  They don’t prefer either one. They prefer invaders and conquerors. Somalis practicing rape Jihad in the US are invaders and conquerors. Somalis in Somalia are not invaders and conquerors.

                • pterantula says:

                  Look at who “Russian hacker” Tamerlan Tsarnaev was banging while the MIT computer scientists he was trying to bomb had to settle for made in china. Migrants have the right to piss off natives, women see that as privilege and thus a free ticket to their mutations passing the threshold where they would die out to random walk to get selected for fitness.

                  Afghanistanis? Omar Mateen got plenty of pussy. Leftists used to say he was a native-born American, well, he did do us all a service.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  You imply women are a proactive sex, but women are not a proactive sex.

                  Women don’t go on invasions to find mates; they wait for invaders.

                  If there are women going along with the invasion, it is because the patriarchal colonists are bringing their wives along with them to form families and roots to people the lands they seek the conquer (after extirpating any indigens in the way, if there are any); as is the highest form of invasion.

              • Walter Brown says:

                Oh, and the Amish are pacifists. Extremely strict pacifists. They’re definitely not on board with your “violence against women” plan.

                Of course, given how fanatically strict, and religious they are, I think a PUA might say that the Amish have stronger “frame” than anyone else in America. But still, structure is not violence.

                Are you going to claim that they’re all secretly beating their women within an inch of their lives?

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Whoops, this was supposed to follow my Amish comment.

                • jim says:

                  Violence against women does not involve “beating women within an inch of their wives”

                  According to my television, telling someone “You throw like a girl” constitutes violence against women. Kicking a woman out because she is disinclined to sleep with you and is disappearing at strange hours to attend some other guy’s booty call is violence against women.

                  Real life “violence against women” typically means grabbing her hand and dragging her when she refuses to come along, after the fashion of “Green Acres”, picking her up and carrying her off to bed and then proceeding to have sex with her regardless of her protests, after the fashion of “Gone with the wind”, and spanking her on the backside, after the fashion of “McLintock”

                  The Amish don’t regard any of this as violence against women, particularly spanking, which leads me to conclude that they do it all the time.

                  If you spank a girl with a stick no bigger than her thumb, the marks only last for a few minutes, even though she may well feel her entire backside is on fire and you are playing propane torch across it.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for repetitious obstinacy in the face of the evidence.

                  You are repetitiously giving generic all purpose explanations that suffice to deny all possible evidence for anything. You already said all that several times.

                  Waste of bandwidth.

                  If you are going to dispute evidence, need to give an explanation specific to the evidence, rather than a generic explanation that equally suffices to reject all possible evidence for anything.

                  Correlation does indicate causation – though not necessarily the causation claimed, or immediately implied.

                  If my evidence fails to support my conclusions, you need to explain why in terms particular and specific to the my evidence and my conclusions, rather than giving a generic all purpose explanation that can equally serve to reject any evidence for any conclusion

                • Walter Brown says:

                  > > Your link shows that one person in forty in Finland speaks a mother’s tongue that suggests Islamic origins,
                  >My arithmetic gets about the double the number that your arithmetic gets. This is a rerun of our debate about Japanese fertility. You are a liar.

                  You said “one in forty”. I said “about 99% are European”. Data says

                  > Arabic: 0.3%
                  > Somali: 0.3%
                  > Kurdish: 0.2%
                  > Albanian: 0.2%
                  > Persian: 0.1%
                  > Turkish: 0.1%
                  = 1.2%

                  (And I’m giving you Albanians, who European, and sometimes Christian. Am I not generous?)

                  Math is hard, isn’t it?

                  >>Women who get tertiary education, are just women who are pursuing a career, right?
                  >Wrong.
                  >You see anything strange about the supposed fact that substantially more women are pursuing a career than men?

                  This isn’t particularly relevant to what we’re discussing. Women have a choice between college/career and family. It’s hard to do both. So examining the ratio of females to males in tertiary education, is just examining whether the average woman wants academic status, and a career, or if they want a family.

                  It will predict fertility, regardless of whether your theory about women is correct.

                  (Also, women are still the minority of people pursuing a career.. Males are like 95% of the electrical and plumbing apprentices, and solid majorities in high-income sales jobs.)

                  Also, you still didn’t respond to my Saudi Arabia point.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  It would be interesting to learn whether the Amish spank their wives. But the primary method of Amish discipline is obviously shunning.

                  >she may well feel her entire backside is on fire and you are playing propane torch across it.
                  You either have either never been burned, or have never been spanked. (As a child, presumably)

                  You wouldn’t be able to keep her in her lap, if it felt like a torch.

                • jim says:

                  Every man is substantially stronger than any woman, as near to all men and any women as makes no difference. I cannot keep her in my lap while whacking her backside with a stick, but I can pick her up, toss her on the bed, and hold her down on the bed.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Also, the Amish have legally emancipated women.

                  They live under the same legal system as us. There are a bunch of Amish farms 20ish miles from where I live.

                  Same laws. Sharply different culture. Sharply different birth rate.

                  But, of course, fertility rates are all about emancipated women, right?

                • jim says:

                  Notice that Amish live in the countryside, which gives them substantial protection against “Child Protective Services” and the like. They also insist on running their own education system, which also gives them substantial protection.

                  Running your own schools means you do not in fact live under the same legal system as the rest of society, since the schools are the major vector for state intervention in people’s families.

                  Children get pressured to rat out their fathers, and get told what they are supposed to say about their fathers. Child protective services shows up on your doorstep while you are at work and tells your wife she has to leave you or else they will take her children away from you and give them to gays as sex toys.

                  Amish don’t live under the same legal system as the rest of us.

                  During the uprising against the Sandinistas, the rebels would burn down the schools with the teachers inside for this reason, that the schools were being used to identify and destroy thought criminals.

                  Similarly “Boko Haram” means “Western Education is forbidden”. Boko Haram were and are primarily rebelling against the use of schools as a weapon of social control.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >I can pick her up, toss her on the bed, and hold her down on the bed.
                  That wasn’t my point. Spanking doesn’t hurt like being burned. I was frequently spanked as a child, with PVC tubing. I’ve been burned. Not in the same category.

                  >Notice that Amish live in the countryside, which gives them substantial protection against “Child Protective Services” and the like. They also insist on running their own education system, which also gives them substantial protection.

                  Wait. Are we talking about children, or women?

                  The only point I see, is that living in the country, inside an insular community, might enable them to avoid police visits about “domestic violence”, whenever the couple is screaming at each other. But you can mostly avoid those calls, just by buying a house in the suburbs.

                  >Running your own schools means you do not in fact live under the same legal system as the rest of society
                  Wrong. Anybody can start their own schools. Anyone can homeschool (in most states). It’s not an exclusive privilege of the Amish. They’re just the only people who want alternative schools enough to create them.

                  The Amish are subject to almost exactly the same laws as us – the only exceptions relate to Social Security and Obamacare, which the Amish have managed to gain exceptions to, because they refuse government benefits.

                  >since the schools are the major vector for state intervention in people’s families.
                  We’re talking about female emancipation. How does sending little Johnny to a public school emancipate his mother?

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Children get pressured to rat out their fathers, and get told what they are supposed to say about their fathers. Child protective services shows up on your doorstep while you are at work and tells your wife she has to leave you or else they will take her children away from you and give them to gays as sex toys.

                  In my personal life, I have met only one married couple, which lost their children to CPS. And it wasn’t even over physical abuse. It related to possession of illegal drugs. Either I have had bizarre and non-representative experiences, or your version of reality is false.

                • jim says:

                  Your version of reality depicts women behaving in a way strikingly discrepant with what I see in front of my face, and my personal experience of female conduct is confirmed by the overwhelming evidence regularly presented on Heartiste. So I lack confidence in your personal experience of child protective services.

                  Plus, my version of what goes on with schools and child protective services is consistent with the tactics pursued by the Amish, by the rebellion against the Sandinistas, and by Boko Haram.

                  The women of child protective services are aging cat ladies who are hostile to women who, unlike them, have reproduced successfully. They are not hostile to children, but are alarmingly indifferent to their welfare.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >the schools were being used to identify and destroy thought criminals.
                  Did the Sandinistas let anybody homeschool, or start their own school? No?

                  Hmmmm. Funny how our overlords are remarkably tolerant of the extreme Amish thought-criminals. As well as the homeschooling movement.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Heartiste
                  Except for the “invader creates vagina tingles” point, he’s solidly on my side.

                  Look at his Dating Market Value test. See anything about violence? I see

                  >17. Have you ever been in a serious fight where real punches were thrown and you felt like you wanted to kill your opponent(s)?

                  >18. Have you ever been arrested?

                  >(potential answer for 22) (C) kiss for a little bit then push her gently away and look distracted for a second.

                  So, about 3 of 27 questions relate to violence. And that’s assuming I give you “push her gently” as a kind of violence. Which it probably isn’t. And none of these implies even “Green Acres” style grabbing.

                  So, Heartiste doesn’t think spanking women ought to be factored into your Dating Market Sexual value. And you obviously do.

                • jim says:

                  Dating is gay.

                  Spanking women does not help with picking up sluts.

                  Potential willingness to spank your wife or long term girlfriend, and in a substantial proportion of cases, actual spankings, do help substantially. The seeming potential to deliver a serious spanking is required for a long term relationship to be successful.

                  Heartise recommends that you pretend to have actually engaged in serious criminal violence in order to pick up chicks and date them. I confirm that this works.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  You know, a significant fraction of the Amish attend public schools. Of course, they leave them at 8th grade.

                  It used to be a much larger fraction.

                • jim says:

                  I doubt this, and if true, I doubt that those Amish are the ones successfully reproducing.

                  In our social and legal environment, home schooling or running your own school system is a necessary precondition to successful reproduction.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >I doubt this,
                  It is true. My Dad had some Amish go to his elementary school.

                  >and if true, I doubt that those Amish are the ones successfully reproducing.
                  I don’t have data on that. Plausible.

                • jim says:

                  Your dad lived in a time when schools were not yet used so coercively and drastically as instruments to break up families and prevent successful white reproduction, and when child protective services were usually applied to protect children, rather than destroy their families.

                  Child protective services and the schools turned evil in the early 1980s, at about the same time as the Soviet Union began to show symptoms of its imminent fall.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Your dad lived in a time when schools were not yet used so coercively and drastically as instruments to break up families and prevent successful white reproduction, and when child protective services were usually applied to protect children, rather than destroy their families.

                  He spent most of his school days in the 70s. Which had a divorce rate roughly equivalent to today, and a significantly lower illegitimacy rate.

                  If CPS really caused that, you’re probably half right.

                  The more obvious problem for the Amish, is stuff like the modern ubiquity of cell phones among children. Your Amish kids will now see hardcore porn, because his non-Amish friend showed it to him.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Alright, so hitting women works more than anything to attract a woman, except Heartiste doesn’t recommend it? Because he’s talking about dating, not long term relationships? Is that what you’re going for?

                  >Heartise recommends that you pretend to have actually engaged in serious criminal violence in order to pick up chicks and date them. I confirm that this works.

                  1) Does he recommend spanking women? That’s what we were talking about.

                  2) I don’t recall anything about “pretend”. He said you’re supposed to have gotten arrested.

                  3) Obviously, successful violence is attractive. Much in the same way that a high-status job is attractive. But does Heartise want you to get into a bar fight, or does he want you to spank your woman like John Wayne?

                • jim says:

                  > Obviously, successful violence is attractive. Much in the same way that a high-status job is attractive.

                  Nuts

                  You are in obstinate denial of what is in front of your face, or just plain lying.

                  Even unsuccessful violence is attractive in ways that a high status job is clearly not attractive. The guy in the corner office does not get hot letters from hot chicks he has never met. The guy doing life for rape, murder, and cannibalism does.

                  I was at a pool party, and there was a husband there tasked with looking after his wife’s demonspawn – two kids fathered by a man with no job, an extensive criminal record, a massive drug habit, and propensity to stupid acts self destructive acts of violence and arson. The father of the demonspawn is now in prison for a long time. The husband, who was by far the most handsome man at the party, and the second most intelligent man at the party, had a high status job, but it was obvious his wife was an alpha widow, was not sexually attracted to her husband, did not respect him, and was not grateful to him.

                  Bezos is a billionaire. Can he attract women? Obviously not. If there were even a handful of women who had the characteristics that blue pillers attribute to them, Bezos, Einstein, and Brad Pitt would be up their armpits in hot pussy.

                  All women are the way I describe them. All Women are Like That. No women are the way you describe them. No Women are Like That.

                  No exceptions, because if one exception existed, she would have found her way to Richard Feynman.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >Dating is gay.
                  1) I was just quoting Heartiste. “Dating Market Value Test for Men”.

                  2) I’m pretty sure gay men don’t date much. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lesbians do, but I’ve never known a Lesbian very well.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  In my personal life, I have met only one married couple, which lost their children to CPS.

                  The thing about threats is that you don’t have to carry them out for them to be effective.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >The thing about threats is that you don’t have to carry them out for them to be effective.
                  Yeah you do.

                  Threats have to be credible. If they are NEVER carried out, they are usually not credible. If they are RARELY carried out, they are somewhat credible. If they are OFTEN carried out, they are very credible.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Threats have to be credible. If they are NEVER carried out, they are usually not credible. If they are RARELY carried out, they are somewhat credible. If they are OFTEN carried out, they are very credible.

                  Right, and CPS often intervenes and often takes kids away from (almost always) mothers. They don’t often do it to upstanding normal people because those people are terrified of stepping out of line by the threat that is a real threat to them but is a mild inconvenience to people who put as much effort into raising children as salmon do.

                  Do you even anarcho-tyranny?

                • alf says:

                  and the second most intelligent man at the party

                  I am confused. If he was only the second most intelligent man at the party, who was the most intelligent man??

          • Walter Brown says:

            Also, your HIV explanation is bullshit.

            In the US, HIV is mostly male, because homos, and to a lesser extent, drug users. The only majority-female path of HIV transmission is heterosexual contact – where Male-to-Female transmission is much more common than Female-to-Male transmission.

            In Africa, about 2/3 of all people who get HIV are female. Compared to about 1/3 in the USA. This implies heterosexual transmission is the primary route of HIV infection.

            Also, HIV is much more common in urban areas, than rural areas. And in urban areas, the male:female ratio often gets even more extreme, with 5 females with HIV for every 1 male.

            Also, HIV is more common in non-Muslims, than Muslims.

            And non-black populations have very low HIV rates. The Chinese in Nigeria, and Whites in South Africa have low rates of HIV. Including, by the way, East Africans like Somalis and Ethiopians.

            There is a long history of African females having multiple simultaneous sexual partners. And the peculiar progressive pearl-clutching about people who say this. (“You mean that African immorality is the root cause of HIV? That’s Racist”)

            This all points to a pattern of urban black females, who have multiple simultaneous sexual partners. And South Africa, which has the most urbanized, non-Muslim black population in the world, has the highest (or close to the highest) rate in the world.

            • jim says:

              “Heterosexual” aids is not transmitted heterosexually.

              It is transmitted by clinics funded by foreign aid.

              • Walter Brown says:

                Why are these clinics only run in subsaharan Africa? Why do they primarily serve females? Why do they avoid Muslims? (who, on average, are poorer, and presumably in more need of free clinics).

                Why is there relatively little “heterosexual” transmission of HIV in the US? We have a lot more clinics, and they are run in a much more progressive fashion.

                • jim says:

                  Most “heterosexual” aids infections happen when a pregnant female attends a clinic. I would guess that most of their clientele are female because because caring for women has better optics for do gooders than caring for black males, especially caring for pregnant women.

                  Muslims correctly view Western aid facilities as missionary activities of a hostile religion, and are therefore less inclined to patronize them.

                  Progressive clinics in the US don’t re-use needles because some of their customers come from the same social circle as their paymasters. The greater the distance between the man who pays, and the woman who receives the services, the more neglectful and irresponsible the service.

                  If clinics are private, don’t reuse needles because paying customers would object. If clinics are public, but some of your customers may be connected to the government that is paying you, don’t re-use needles because a scandal would ensue.

                  If all of your customers are the other side of the world from your paymasters, then your paymasters don’t give a tinker’s dam about needle re-use or bubbles in drip lines.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Ok, your Muslim and female explanations are plausible. Especially the Muslim one.

                  Why do these clinics only exist in subsaharan Africa? Why not the US? Why not Sweden? Why not Ethiopia? (Ethiopia has a 2.3% HIV prevalence rate, and boatloads of foreign aid).

                • jim says:

                  Aids spread by foreign funded clinics exist in both Subsaharan Africa and South Asia.

                  You have a point about Ethiopia, so, checking DuckDuckGo for the Ethiopian healthcare system: Wikipedia depicts Ethiopian healthcare as controlled and funded by the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian private sector. “Heterosexual” aids occurs when the government throws up its hands, and lets far away foreigners run its healthcare system.

                  When locals fund and control the clinics, as in Ethiopia, you don’t get “heterosexual” aids.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Ignore the above comment. It was a response to your first, shorter response.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  There are loads of free clincs all around the world.

                  But HIV is mostly a subsaharan African problem. There are only a few non-African countries that have a significant “heterosexual transmission of HIV” problem.

                  >Progressive clinics in the US don’t re-use needles because some of their customers come from the same social circle as their paymasters.
                  That’s bullshit. Free clincs are for the American poor. American civil servants have nothing in common with some negro in rural Alabama.

                  And a civil servant in Washington DC certainly isn’t giving HIV to Russians, who are one of the few non-African countries that has a large problem with heterosexual HIV transmission.

                • jim says:

                  I find your data hard to believe as usual.

                  Aids in Russia seems to be spread, as usual, by gays and by drug users using dirty needles. I see no evidence that any significant “heterosexual” aids exists in Russia.

                  People talk vaguely about high rates of infection among “sex workers” failing to distinguish between gay and female sex workers, and failing to distinguish between female sex workers who use intravenous drugs and female sex workers who do not. Not seeing any data that would indicate high rates of heterosexually transmitted aids in Russia.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >In 2015 44% of new infections occurred through heterosexual sex.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Russia

                  And that proportion is increasing.

                • jim says:

                  How do they know?

                  It is politically correct to believe in the existence of heterosexual aids, people want it to exist, therefore any claims that heterosexual aids exists need to be checked against the alleged source data.

                  What does the Russian government, which has the ability to know the truth, and reason to want to know the truth, say on this matter?

                  I see Wikipedia depicting the Russian government as an unreliable source, which is obviously unlikely. Wikipedia’s source seems to be some people in the US, and western sponsored opponents of the Russian government.

                  According to Wikipedia: “The key demographic to reach with targeted interventions is the population of intravenous drug users. At the time the agreement was made, various estimates placed the percentage of the HIV positive population that are IDUs at 70-95%,[9] making IDUs by far the most at-risk group”

                  Indicating that the Russian government believed at the time of that agreement that the overwhelming majority of HIV cases are spread by intravenous drugs. The Russian government also believes that the overwhelming majority of the remaining cases are gays.

                  This is incompatible with the 46% heterosexual statistic. The policies of the Russian government indicate that they believe that heterosexual aids in Russia is rare or nonexistent.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  >It is politically correct to believe in the existence of heterosexual aids

                  Right, because Nelson Mandela and the ANC are soooooo politically incorrect, right?

                  HIV/AIDS denialism (in Africa) is/was primarily a left-wing project, centering around lefties, especially in South Africa. They usually claimed that they needed more foriegn aid, because racism.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism_in_South_Africa
                  >Mbeki considered HIV/AIDS to be “a fabrication foisted on Africans by whites determined to distract the continent from real problems of racism and poverty, and accepted by blacks afflicted with the slave mentality engendered by apartheid.

                • jim says:

                  > > It is politically correct to believe in the existence of heterosexual aids

                  > Right, because Nelson Mandela and the ANC are soooooo politically incorrect, right?

                  It is politically correct to disbelieve in HIV/AIDs because wrath of God disease, because it is a disease of gays and drug addicts.

                  If, however, one reluctantly accepts the existence of HIV/AIDS, one is then required to disbelieve that it is a disease of gays and drug addicts. Hence the ever more crazed search for “Heterosexual aids”, similar to the ever more crazed search for hate crimes by white males.

                  The statistical data is consistent with zero heterosexual aids, but also consistent with three percent heterosexual aids – it does not rule out the existence of a very small amount of heterosexual aids. The shortage of poster girls, however, suggests that the actual rate of heterosexual aids is considerably less than three percent.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  If you don’t believe Wikipedia, that’s fine. I don’t think either of us care enough about this to try finding an “objective” source – who would that even be?

                  1) Wikipedia agrees with the Russian government. The period you’re referring to is in 2002. Wikipedia says “In 2007, 83% of HIV infections in Russia were registered among IDUs, 6% among sex workers, and 5% among prisoners.”

                  2) Behaviors shift over time – in the early 1980s, gays were essentially 100% of the HIV transmissions in the USA, because they were the most vulnerable-to-infection population.

                • jim says:

                  > If you don’t believe Wikipedia, that’s fine.

                  The Russian government does not agree with Wikipedia that heterosexual HIV exists in Russia.

                  So where is Wikipedia getting this information from?

                  How is it that they know there is a huge amount of heterosexual aids in Russia, and the Russian government does not know?

                  If Wikipedia agrees that: “In 2007, 83% of HIV infections in Russia were registered among IDUs, 6% among sex workers, and 5% among prisoners.” this would indicate that at most three percent of HIV infections were heterosexual in 2007. (Since roughly half of all sex workers are gay or transexual, and large proportion of them use intravenous drugs without necessarily being detected) How then does Wikipedia it get 46% heterosexual except through wishful thinking and politically correctness.

                  Heterosexual aids is, like rape by white fratboys and attacks on synagogues and blacks by white males, frantically desired to exist, but despite search of deranged intensity, few or no plausible cases are discovered.

                  Despite frantic desire to find a postergirl, and maniacal search for a postergirl, no satisfactory poster girls are ever found. It is like the Rolling Stone looking for rape by white frat boys on Virginia Campus.

                  If one suitable poster girl existed, everyone would have heard of her until they were sick to death of hearing about her.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  See my above post.

                  Infection patterns change. The first set of data is about people who are ALREADY infected, and it was collected in 2007. The second set of data is about NEW INFECTIONS, and it was collected in 2015.

                  It is obviously plausible that the infection pattern of HIV changed. The US went from 100% of new infections being homosexual men in 1980, to 63% of new infections being homosexual men today.

                  >where is Wikipedia getting this information from?
                  Something called avert.org, which gets it from some scientific journal.

                  What source would you believe? If the answer is “none”, or “none except the Russian ministry of health”, then why does it matter where they get it from?

                • jim says:

                  Journal is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. Someone in Russia counting infected people is evidence. Russian government counts infected people. Wikipedia makes claims about someone making claims who makes his claims based on someone else making claims who makes his claims based on who knows what?

                  Given the subject matter, likely makes his claims based on pious political correctness. At each level of indirection and derivation, the data is going to be twisted further in the passionately desired direction of superior holiness. It is a game of telephone, with self proclaimed holy saints manning the telephones.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Not everything that disagrees with you is political correctness.

                  You would have a reasonable point, if you could establish a link between political correctness, and promoting the idea that heterosexual HIV transmissions exists. In practice, the people denying HIV/AIDS are all leftists.

                  As it stands, you’re just saying “I don’t believe this journal, because I arbitrarily declare it’s conclusion to be politically correct”.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  And by the way,

                  >Journal is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. Someone in Russia counting infected people is evidence.

                  Do you know how that guy in Russia, counting infected people, publishes his results? I’ll give you a hint, it starts with “J” and rymes with Bournal.

                • jim says:

                  And what that guy in Russia says in his journal is that there is no detectable heterosexual aids in Russia.

                  A second guy who has never been within a thousand miles of Russia publishes in another journal a re-analysis of the Russian guy’s results that concludes that there may well be some heterosexual aids in Russia, even though that evil Russian troll failed to detect any.

                  A third guy who has never been within a thousand miles of Russia publishes a chatty article about the second guys re-analysis, and concludes that there is lots of of heterosexual aids in Russia.

                  A fourth guy …

                  And umpteen guys later down the chain Wikipedia publishes 46% heterosexual aids in Russia based on the umpteenth guys interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of …

                • eternal anglo says:

                  In practice, the people denying HIV/Aids are all leftists.

                  You gave the example of Mandela and the ANC. I don’t know about back then, but when Mbeki, the president after Mandela, denied AIDS, all the lovely nice rich liberal anglo whites, and our newspapers, and Jewish cartoonists, etc, made tremendous mockery of him, stopping just short of calling him a stupid nigger. So if it is leftist, it is not Cathedral leftist.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Again, not everything you disagree with is political correctness.

                  I’m certain that journals might (in various ways) suppress politically incorrect research.

                  But I have no reason to suppose that denying hetero HIV is politically incorrect. It seems to be a pet project of Nelson Mandela, and other black Communists.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously the journals are suppressing politically incorrect speech on global warming: WattsUpWith that has a pile of examples – as for example the failure to publish ice cores that show nothing unusual about global warming, in particular the Law Dome ice core.

                  But you are writing as if evidence existed in the journals for the existence of heterosexual aids.

                  There is no primary evidence in the journals for heterosexual aids: no one goes looking at cases, finds heterosexual aids, and reports his findings in a journal; no one writes in a journal “I found this case and that case of heterosexual aids.” There is only secondary evidence. Someone claims that evidence exists somewhere else, that somewhere else being nowhere very clear.

                • jim says:

                  Claiming that hetero aids exists and is large enough to matter is political correctness. The claim denies that there is anything wrong with drug addicts and gays.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  They made fun of him. Oh, the horror!

                  >if it is leftist, it is not Cathedral leftist.
                  The Cathedral is not unitary. There are different sections of it, and all invent their own sales pitches. Sometimes those sales pitches conflict.

                  It’s entirely possible for one section to demand more foreign aid, because AIDS doesn’t exist, while another section demands more foreign aid, because AIDS does exists.

                  So long as everybody agrees that America ought to spend more on foreign aid, they get along quite well.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  I am not qualified to make any comment on climate (or whatever), but it’s rather obvious that the forces of political correctness demand that everybody believe in global warming. Anybody can see the censorship, and it’s not a stretch to assume that it extends into journals.

                  You have provided no reason (WHATSOEVER) that establishes a connection between political correctness and the promotion of hetero HIV.

                  >But you are writing as if evidence existed in the journals for the existence of heterosexual aids.
                  Fine, I found a Russian government source. It’s from the Russian equivalent of the CDC. It says 40% of HIV transmission are hetero.

                  https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.hivrussia.ru/stat/bulletin.shtml&prev=search

                  Do you believe that?

                • pterantula says:

                  main causes of HIV infection among HIV-positive people first identified in 2014 with established risk factors for infection are:
                  – drug use non-sterile equipment: 57.3%
                  – heterosexual contacts: 40.3%

                  lol… okay… listen to The Daily Shoah more about the things faggots do to try to get or transmit AIDS. Heterosexual transmission is not a thing regardless of how many times your sex ed instructor warned you to use a condom or get AIDS. Exception for if you put AIDS-containing bodily fluids on an open wound or in her rectum if it’s injured.

                  Isaac Asimov should be the poster boy of non-homosexual non-drug use AIDS. A bunch of Canadians once got blood-borne diseases because American capitalists sold blood from an American prison full of African-Americans to them.

                • pterantula says:

                  There are lots of venereal diseases spead through heterosexual contact, confucius say man who fish in other man’s well often catch crabs, catladies often get herpes from men that they regret touching. Dunny why they would be muffmiffed that the only way to acquire immunodeficiency syndrome is from an african-american anal action afictionado. Black women are a shocking x times more likely to get aids than normal women.

                  Also there are occasional high profile cases of White women who do sex tourism bringing back AIDS. I’m sure they got it through ordinary vanilla safe sex.

        • alf says:

          50 shades of grey ends with Mr Grey marrying and impregnating Dakota Johnson. He takes complete ownership of her.

          • Walter Brown says:

            Last paragraph of the plot.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)

            >After returning home, Ana continues seeing Christian, who wants further sexual experimentation. Ana initially consents, but Christian keeps emotionally distant, upsetting her. While still considering the contract, and in an effort to understand Christian psychologically, Ana asks him to demonstrate how he would “punish” her for rule breaking. Christian whips Ana’s buttocks with a belt. Upset and disgusted, Ana breaks up with Christian after concluding that he is wrong for her and his practices border on being deviant and excessive.

            • alf says:

              It is a trilogy.

              The reason they are split up at the end of book 1 is because every woman knows they’ll be back together at the end of book 3. Grey in the end takes complete ownership of her. That is the fantasy.

              • Walter Brown says:

                It only became a trilogy after the first book sold really well.

                • alf says:

                  “This reworked and extended version of Master of the Universe was split into three parts. The first, titled Fifty Shades of Grey, was released as an e-book and a print on demand paperback in May 2011 by The Writers’ Coffee Shop, a virtual publisher based in Australia. The second volume, Fifty Shades Darker, was released in September 2011; and the third, Fifty Shades Freed, followed in January 2012. “

                  You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

                • Walter Brown says:

                  Ok, I was wrong. Although in most instances, that’s how it works with romance novels. Nobody pre-plans sequels for trashy books.

                  >You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
                  Fair enough, at least on the subject of 50 shades of grey.

        • Dave says:

          Bad example because sub-Saharan Africans aren’t people; they’re animals adapted to an environment where food is always available. To survive a winter or dry season requires food storage, which requires property rights, which requires men to enforce, which requires men to be owners of women and food. Africans live outside the tropics only as chattal slaves or wards of the state; one winter without EBT cards would wipe them out.

  19. Koanic says:

    “Purple-pilled” is a good description for Vox and co. “Midwestern” and “half-Yankee” is another. The Bible is clear that one is not supposed to associated with reprobate sodomites such as Milo, much less eat with them. He’s a great man for moving the center right, but he’s no Grand Inquisitor, and his thought leadership at the fringe is unreliable.

    • Koanic says:

      What Vox has trouble understanding is that although HE doesn’t need to go red pill on wamen, other men do. Vox is acculturated Midwestern niceness atop apex partying, full contact MMA, and half-savage DNA. He needs the Midwestern nice to be a decent guy. So he finds violations of that decency uncivilized and offensive. Whereas I genetically don’t need it, and therefore find it disgusting and outrageous.

  20. Zach says:

    Vox has zero self awareness. Reading his comments on his last debate was funny, but sad in a way.

    His designs in the games-o-sphere are absolutely atrocious. I’m a little shocked the guy can write a good book as others have said (I haven’t read one), seeing his ungodly non-top-tier level everywhere else I’ve looked.

    Still, I hope he succeeds, becomes rich, and keeps doing what he’s doing.

    Hat tip: Lunarch Studios kicks ass, and Prismata is a masterpiece of inventive design. Look it up folks.

  21. Steve Johnson says:

    So the standard that Vox and guys like Vox – intelligent skeptics – take is that science isn’t science until it’s turned into engineering (or at least this is the strongest version of their argument rather than something that nit picks and defense lawyer arguments the point).

    Here’s the thing though – evolution by natural selection explicitly *has* been turned into engineering. Want to solve a problem like creating a computer program that can beat anyone in the world at go? Use a genetic algorithm – analyze recorded games to start then unleash random mutations and simulate generations where winning at go means you reproduce and not winning at go means you get cut out of the gene pool. Run it for long enough and you’ve got a program that beats humans at go.

    Case closed – natural selection is so true that it’s powerful enough to solve previously unsolvable problems.

  22. Timothy Shaw-Zak says:

    Vox does not have a solid grounding in evolutionary biology. He believes he has nailed a stake through the heart of the central organizing principle of design. He does not seem to have as firm a grasp on the meaning of natural selection or it’s empirical context. His often sycophantic followers are being mislead. (Themselves often trotting out badly simplistic ideas like lack of transitional fossils, ignoring the fact that the continuity of descent is the only remotely plausible account of the history of life – and a massive amounts of evidence reflects this.)

    The unpredictability reflects radical contingency of life’s particular form of development. Selection, however, is really the process by which adaptations to conditions accumulate. Evolution operates on a scale of time for which our minds are poorly adapted. He should not expect a pop culture education to imply he has a solid model, when it encompasses so little of the process.

    Whether he develops his conception beyond his half-cooked mutational models will be a test of character more than intellect. The main impediment to his understanding of evolution is not his mistaken analysis or theology, but his pride.

    I am a fan of Vox, truly his SJWs Always Lie is an art of war for the media generation. I too once thought I could topple the edifice of evolution. Both of us were wrong. Although he is much cleverer than I, it remains to be seen whether he

  23. Life is crap, God will destroy the earth says:

    [deleted*]

    • Koanic says:

      > I can take a Schopenhauer or Mainländer seriois, but not this kind of phantasmagorical idiocy.

      Said the Catholic, unironically.

    • jim says:

      Deleted for repetitious gnosticism. Yes, we know, we have heard it before

Leave a Reply