www.blog.reaction.la

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

I have tried lots of different personas on women. I know what persona works. Heartiste is correct, and indeed understates his case. Playing a really bad man, even worse than that recommended by Heartiste, works best. I can play that character convincingly because I have monsters inside, and I let them out to play, but I am not really that person. I must dance, and women call the tune. The solution is not to clean up your room, but to project the masculinity of the vicious psychopathic criminal, combined with the assets and material lifestyle of the respectable male, staying out of jail while superficially seeming the kind of man that they would find in jail. Jordan offers fatherless boys the same old blue pill solutions to dealing with women, which result in them living in involuntary celibacy.

Of course insufficient spitting looks to the left like hard core genocidal nazism, so you still get the same enemies. Peterson gets in trouble for saying that commies murdered a hundred million or so, and are entirely unrepentant. Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again, and that Democrats are on the same course, a course headed directly for the Red Terror of 1794, which eighteenth century horror prefigured the enormously larger mass murders of the twentieth century, and the extraordinary increase in war, state violence, and private criminal violence that we have seen starting with the French Revolution.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior, their attraction to very bad men, makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren. It also makes total sense according to curse of Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

In order that we can make men into sheep dogs rather than wolves, have to make women into property. For men to become sheep dogs, women must become sheep.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Trump, in accordance with his campaign promises to the rust belt and flyover country, has just slapped a tariff on steel and aluminum.

If you look at the Nucor product catalog, you can see that the USA has ceded high end steel production to foreigners.

Ceding high end steel production to foreigners is militarily unwise.

Ceding the high end is also likely to have externalities. A network of skills unravels. If company A does something high tech, it cultivates employees, customers, and suppliers that make it substantially easier and cheaper for company B to do something high tech, and this benefit is not captured by company A, unless, as in South Korea during the dictatorship, the state gives company A substantial monopolistic privileges, something difficult to do in a democracy, particularly a democracy where covetousness is deemed the highest virtue and high status.

And if company A stops doing something high tech causing other companies to stop doing high tech stuff – you have the rust belt, which is the network of high skilled white males unravelling. You have smart white men deskilling, taking opiates, and committing suicide.

That the rust belt is rusting means that white males commit suicide or move to the big coastal megacities. Which means they move from where their votes are useful to Trump and Republicans, to where their votes are useless, because massively outvoted by hordes of aliens imported to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.

Stopping the rust gives republicans a little more time, regardless of whether it is economically justified or not. Even if it was a total money loser (and quite likely externalities make it economically lucrative) it would still be politically a big winner, by halting the great centralization.

Recollect that the government was importing hordes of black male military age Mohammedans screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and bombing marginal electorates in flyover country with them. The permanent government continued doing this for the first year of the Trump presidency, but in 2017 December, Trump finally managed to put a stop to it. This also gives Trump and Republicans a little more time.

A policy of economic autarky ruined Nazi Germany. The very similar Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was also an economic disaster, ruining the USA. And, similarly, India’s program of economic autarky kept India stagnant and desperately poor for decades. But these three examples of bad, indeed utterly disastrous, protectionism were accompanied by massive regulation. Trump is deregulating. That is a big and important difference.

Jim #racist blog.reaction.la

The Florida school shootings did not happen for lack of gun control. They happened because of refusal to enforce law and maintain order when blacks and hispanics attack white children.

Back in 2015 I said:

> Difficult to say what will happen to Mestizos and Indios. In Mexico, the old gods walk again, but this has not happened in the US,

Well now the Old Gods have walked from Mexico to Florida, and spoken to Nikolas Cruz.

Nicolas Cruz had a long history of violence, menace, evil, and madness. And, of course, the school’s response was:

> “We do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”

Maybe when someone hears voices commanding him to terrible things and willfully chooses to obey those voices, it is time to think about not about helping him, but helping those near him.

But, instead:

> that harsh approach fell out of favor amid concerns that it was funneling too many young people — and particularly black and Hispanic students — into the juvenile justice system.

When a fat feminist who is hitting the wall complains that group of white males have an unhealthy attitude to women, does anyone say “We should do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”. No, they say “Let us throw the book at them, and not worry whether these accusations are true, false, or even remotely believable.”

When white males are accused of misbehavior, everyone has total confidence in the effectiveness of swift and harsh penalties, which should not be slowed down by old fashioned concerns about evidence or guilt. When a bunch of white males get together for some purpose that does not involve fucking each other, they are automatically suspected of being an evil terrorist organization.

> In recent years, Broward schools became a leader in the national move toward a different kind of discipline — one that would not just punish students, but also would help them address the root causes of their misbehavior. Such policies aim to combat what is known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” giving teenagers a chance to stick with their education rather than get derailed, often permanently, by criminal charges.

In other words, a free pass for blacks and Hispanics to attack people at random, while if a white kid nibbles a slice of bread into the shape of a gun, the social workers get called to take him from his parents.

Blacks attack kids to take lunch money and such, without much regard for race, religion, ethnicity or social class. They are dangerous to everyone near them, ingroup or outgroup. Education and culture has little effect. Harvard blacks almost as dangerous as ghetto blacks. Blacks are more responsive to effective law enforcement than whites, thus black misbehavior is always a symptom of refusal to enforce the law on blacks.

But in Mexico, killings are generally human sacrifices of outgroup members to the old gods. People say they are drug cartel related, but this is politically correct bullshit. War is good for business only if someone else is paying for it. War is bad for business if you are paying for it. If a black drug gang commits mass murder, it is because they are doing it for business reasons but are incompetent at business. If a Mexican drug cartel in Mexico commits mass murder, they are murdering members of the a near outgroup because they hear the voices of the Old Gods. The black drug gang commits murders because too stupid to find a peaceful resolution of a business dispute. The Mexican drug gang commits mass murders because listening to demons.

And now the voices of old gods have been heard in Florida.

Koanic and peppermint #fundie blog.reaction.la

(Koanic)
> Jesus said “resist not evil”,

https://infogalactic.com/info/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation

> We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion

No, it dampens the culture of honor dueling by submitting the aggressor’s personal insults to the community for judgment, instead of personally enforcing one’s own justice, which renders murky who’s at fault.

(peppermint)
((Jesus)) was a gommie, and the destruction of personal honor in favor of ((community judgement)) is an early form of gommieism, like forbidding men from seeing whores instead of stuffing whores into convents.

(Koanic)

It does not destroy personal honor. King David had plenty of honor, but he did not revenge personal insults. Those were avenged by God and his son. He revenged insults against his ambassadors, for example, with genocide.

Idiots in bars fight on their own account, each being right in his own eyes. This is not honor.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Many women deserve to be punched, and do not get punched, but punching a woman indicates loss of control and weakness. You should avoid getting into fights except where you can bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and you should always be able to bring overwhelming supremacy to bear on a woman. If you have overwhelming supremacy, you can pin the opponent, and either put a painful submission hold on them, or whack him part of the body where it is safe to do so without likelihood of causing injury.

I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.

Part of being able to control what kind of fights you get into is to be well prepared for a terrible, destructive, and uncontrolled fight where you cannot bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and I am always prepared for such a fight. I am trained in unarmed combat, and when going into an unpredictable situation carry the most dangerous concealed weapon legally permitted, but the reason to be prepared for such a fight is not to get into such a fight and win, but to be able to better get out of such a fight by offering your opponent a safer path, offering your opponent a dignified way out of such a fight. One prepares for such a fight in order to better obtain your opponents cooperation in staying out of such fights, not to fight and win them, for even if you win, seldom profitable. Even if you win, you lose. Having the potential to do your adversary great harm is often profitable. Actually exercising that potential is rarely profitable.

Jesus said “resist not evil”, but we cannot take this literally, because if evil smells that you are a soft target, evil will be on to you like a dingo on a baby. We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion, and pointing at our inability to attain salvation by personal virtue in a fallen world. Literal application of the Sermon on the Mount would be suicidal in a fallen world. We apply it by always being willing to do what it takes to find the path that does not involve terrible and destructive combat. But it takes two to make peace, only one to make war, and to find the peaceful path requires the ability to dissuade your opponent from the path of combat.

White knights are evil men – a man who white knights another man’s woman is a man who will spread hateful lies about his friend behind his friend’s back to sow discord and anger between friends. A man who white knights another man’s woman also engages in every kind of depraved and cowardly evil. When you punch a woman, no matter how much she deserves it, you show weakness and loss of frame, and weakness attracts evil. Deal with a misbehaving woman with firmness and strength, you will have no problems. Deal with her from weakness, white knights will materialize like flies on rotting meat.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.

...

I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

If Trump has a military parade with snappy parade uniforms, we may well win. Trouble is that our elite has been busy making soldiers dress androgynously, because they hate and fear the military. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. If soldiers continue to dress like Elon Musk’s rocket scientists, soldiers, like nerds, will remain low status, and priestly rule will continue.

They probably will not make the marines wear high heeled shoes, but they will make them wear baggy clothes that are interchangeable with the similarly baggy clothes worn by female “soldiers”.

If they parade wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

People in large masses toting guns and moving in unison is impressive, and big rockets are impressive, but to translate that impressiveness into power, need to dress the part. Clothes make the man. Consider Musk’s show with the heavy rocket.

Musk is a showman and Trump is showman, but Musk’s show sucked because everyone was dressed in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually casual. Needed to dress them in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually Silicon Valley Cool.

You look at a bunch of very smart rocket scientists acting and looking like World of Warcraft players who have just cleared a dungeon, and you think “low status”

I want warriors in power, and I want people who make cool toys for warriors in power, and they will need to dress the part.

If the soldiers in Trump’s parade come out wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

Let us imagine how Musk’s heavy rocket launch would have gone if he draped a bikini model over the sportscar that he launched to Mars, if his rocket scientists were better dressed, and if he himself posed with the bikini model and the sportscar wearing nice clothes with a touch of mad scientist. Similarly, however cool a military parade is, (and a military parade, like a rocket launch, is very cool indeed) you are not going to visualize those parading in power unless they dress the part.

Obviously the parade will raise Trump’s approval rating significantly. The problem is, however, at some point he is going to have to demonstrate that an airforce commando outranks a supreme court justice, so we need to raise the approval rating of air force commandos.

My assessment of the fall of Kings that began in the nineteenth century is that kings did not fail because of gunpowder, did not fail because industry rather than land became the source of wealth. Kings failed because George the fourth was fat, lazy, had a fat mistress, a bad tailor, and slept with other men’s wives, but most of all, Kings failed because Beau Brummel made the Puritan aesthetic cool. If King George the Fourth had had better fashion sense and hotter mistresses than Beau Brummel, and if his mistresses had, like Beau Brummel’s mistresses, only been sleeping with him, instead of sleeping with him and their husbands, we would have been fine. Also, if he had gotten off his fat ass and did some kinging, we would have been fine. He failed in the job of being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine (which is to say the job of regulating status competition into prosocial positive sum displays, rather than antisocial negative sum displays). The successors of the puritans took that job, ran with it, and have never let go of it.

So far, however, our attempts to produce reactionary fashion have all been miserable failures, and perhaps we will always fail until we have victorious soldiers exercising power, for all the cool reactionary fashions of the past are based on the uniforms worn by soldiers in victory parades.

But I am now coming around to the view that fashion should feature physically fit men wearing tight clothes that have been personally tailored to them. Standard stretch pants that fit without requiring a belt, and on the top a shirt, perhaps a T shirt, that has been tailored to fit, and tailored to end just below the point on your pants where a belt would be if they needed a belt, which your pants should not. The shirt goes outside the pants, but is almost, but not quite, tight around the pants.

Well fitting clothes are automatically high status. It is the last sumptuary display. An off the rack business suit is not high status. A custom fitted T shirt is high status. Baggy pants are low status. Men wear baggy pants because gangsters who claimed high status on the basis of violence were countersignaling by wearing baggy pants, but baggy pants do not work unless you can also plausibly signal real capability and will to commit violence. Such plausible signals are apt to get you killed, so make sure your pants fit. If you countersignal by poorly fitting pants, have to signal by violence, which can get costly.

Secondly, the costume should contain some element of peacocking, ideally a unique and idiosyncratic element. I now wear a fighting cock feather in my hat, the tail feather of a fighting cock that died in battle. Unfortunately, such feathers do not last a whole lot longer than the cock that donated them. It is tricky to get the right feather attached in the right place. Each fighting cock feather is unique and different (fighting cocks themselves peacock, with longer, floppier, and more diverse feathers than regular cocks). Most fighting cock feathers will do something bad like flopping in your eyes. Need a feather that flops around, but stays out of your eyes and your field of view, while flopping around in the other guys’s field of view.

Big hats are good, and better with something decorating them.

image

Gold chains also good, though male gold chains need to be big. Fine gold chains are girly. Not sure if multiple peacocking elements are a good idea. The Regency Aesthetic failed through excess, which excess justified the Puritan Aesthetic. A gold chain needs to be accompanied by bros or a bodyguard. If no wingman, then no gold chain. if a weak geek neck, cannot support a fighting cock feather.

You cannot peacock unless the alpha male of the group is also peacocking, or unless it is plausible that you are, by at least some metric, the alpha male of the group. Your boss is not going to be peacocking, and if your subordinate is peacocking while you are not peacocking, you will need to do something about it.

Any item of peacocking that draws attention to your head needs a suitably large neck to support its metaphorical weight, as if it had actual physical weight. I have therefore added neck exercises to my exercise regimen. I attach a looped belt to a resistance cord, and pull with my head in different directions, in order for my neck to be strong enough to support the mighty weight of the fighting cock feather in my hat. If you have a geek neck, don’t try to wear a big hat.

Obviously you cannot wear something to job interview or similar occasion that is more dramatic or unusual than your interviewer will be wearing. No peacocking allowed at work or in job interviews, but you can wear better fitting clothes than your interviewer. If Silicon Valley Casual is socially required, you can wear Silicon Valley Casual that just happens to fit you perfectly, as Steve Jobs invariably did. Also, matching colors combined with dramatic clash of colors, so that the clash is clearly intentional, rather than the result of whatever passed the sniff test that morning. If you are going to have a dramatic clash of colors, superhero style, make sure that one major part of your costume matches another part.

Well, this is the latest in a long string of attempts to conjure reactionary meanswear into existence, and all previous attempts have failed embarassingly. Let us see how this one goes. We still need a victory parade with cool manly military parade dress uniforms to really make reactionary fashion stick.

But, lacking a victory parade, physical fitness is something. Reactionary males tend to be markedly stronger and slimmer than progressive males, due to fasting, diet, and lifting iron. Reactionary fashion will succeed, if associated with reactionaty phenotypes.

In the age of feral woman and family breakdown, when fatherhood is illegal, when everyone is a bastard, menswear that is associated with being able to beat people up is likely to succeed. The difference between today and past ages was that in successful civilizations, top fashions were associated with being a member of a group that was able to beat up other groups in organized collective disciplined physical violence, hence the connection to victory parades, while in an age of social collapse and family breakdown, in a civilization in decline, in a time when a dark age looms, when fatherhood has been criminalized, successful fashion tends to be more associated with the capability to perform individual thuggery, hence the perverse and ugly baggy pants fashion. When fatherhood is illegal, only criminals can be fathers. The underlying problem with menswear fashion is that the state is violently, coercively, brutally, and forcefully imposing black mating patterns and white gay mating patterns on white heterosexual males, which mating pattern in turn causes unattractive clothing to be fashionable, and attractive clothing to be unfashionable, the baggy pants fashion being an example of this problem.

If reactionaries are having troubles restoring reactionary fashion, it is because we are having troubles restoring reactionary families, and reactionary families require reactionary male social groups that collectively enforce reactionary socialization on potentially feral women. But, on the principle of fake it till you make it, reactionary fashion can cause the social conditions that will in turn cause reactionary fashion.

Dress like a patriarch, dress like an aristocrat, and have your women dress as if under patriarchal authority. Good fit is patriarchal, and peacocking and physical fitness is aristocratic. You cannot peacock at work if your boss is not peacocking, but you can be physically fit and wear well fitted clothes.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

A little while ago I saw cited yet another Harvard study supposedly proving that women CEOs are just as good as men, except better, not withstanding the fact that anyone can see that women in charge are profoundly disruptive and destructive, that women can no more run a large group than they can chop wood with an axe, pilot a plane, do science, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete, that putting a woman in charge is pissing away shareholder’s assets, as divorced women piss away their husband’s and their children’s assets, so I thought I would remind you of this golden oldie:

image

Click on the graph to see it in its full glory.

Is not science wonderful? I have been finding a pile of similar science data not just in global warmering, and in studies of demonic males viciously oppressing saintly women, but also dietary science, medical science, biology, and even string theory and materials science. These days, the way to get ahead in any area of science is to discover that your field has some political relevance that is unlikely to occur to any sane person, and then produce data that supposedly comforts the oppressed and saves the earth from cruel exploitation by white males. For an added bonus, you can destroy the careers of your colleagues as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable, because back in the bad old days they upheld the old evil theory (now refuted by your new data) for no reason other than hatred of some saintly victims and desire to cause harm to those saintly and long suffering victims.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

It is perfectly obvious that few if any rape accusations against white heterosexual males are true, and the “rape on campus” case confirmed what was obvious to everyone who was not keeping his eyes tight shut. There were thirty six rape accusations that year on Virginia University Campus, none of which led to disciplinary action, and if any of them had been the slightest bit believable, Rolling Stone would have run with them instead of Jackey Coakley’s story.

It is equally obvious that almost no convictions of white males for heterosexual rape are true. If you look at the details of the case, they always sound suspiciously like “domestic abuse” cases, and anyone who knows women knows that few domestic abuse charges are true, probably none of them are true. If a woman actually suffers domestic abuse that she does not want and does not aggressively seek out, not hard for her to wander off to another lover who will treat her like a princess. But these women have the strange habit of wandering off from one “abuser” to the next. And if they don’t get “abused” they will attack their lover with a kitchen knife till he is forced to defend himself. “Domestic violence” is merely a shit test that gets physical. Watch female cats shit test tomcats. Human female sexuality resembles feline female sexuality more than it resembles ape female sexuality, perhaps because we are primarily carnivores, while apes are primarily vegetarians.

But a progressive will tell you that they all true, because women never lie, and it is absolutely a miscarriage of justice that so few complaints to the police result in rape convictions, and that what seems glaringly obvious to me, is the exact opposite of what seems glaringly obvious to him.

One in nine rape complaints investigated by Scotland Yard resulted in conviction. So, of those few convicted, how many were actually guilty? Well, from what I know of women, I would say none of them, or none of them in the sense that a half drunk woman wandering in a dark alley with her boobs about to pop out of her dress who then gets into a car with a total stranger is not exactly a rape victim, but other people disagree with my assessment of women, so how will we empirically test this question?

Well, two Scotland Yard rape trials have recently collapsed, when it was discovered that the police had been concealing convincing evidence of innocence. In both cases the accused was savagely defamed in the newspapers, his life was destroyed, and he had been kept in jail for a long time without trial as “a danger to the public”, on the whimsical and changeable word of some drunken sow, whose identity was protected, and who continues to be protected, despite evidently being guilty of malice and perjury.

So, with police cutting corners to get rape convictions, and imprisoning men without trial, they still only manage to get one in nine convictions, and their two most recent rape cases were revealed to be abuse of police power and miscarriages of justice.

If the most recent two, likely all of them. The UK is now re-examining all currently active rape cases, which will no doubt mean the release of a great many males locked up without trial as “a danger to the public”. How about re-examining all recent rape convictions? But evidently the government does not want to go there, which itself tells me what they would likely find.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that. When people say that not all women are like that, NAWALT, it is like aging fat feminists saying that different men have different types so you can't say one type of beauty overrules the others. Not so: Men want to fuck young, beautiful and fertile women. Women want to fuck arrogant, violent, criminal men. That is all there is to it. We may nuance after accepting that, but only after accepting that. Brad Pitt got horribly burned. Einstein wound up with a KGB girl friend who cared more about Stalin than Einstein. Feynman needed to learn game, put on an asshole persona, did pretty much what I am doing. If not all women were like that, these famous men would have done better. Feynman scored, I scored, but if General Butt Naked had shown up, wearing a necklace of human eyeballs, an AK47, and nothing else, we would have been shit out of luck. All women react to the same stimuli in the same way. It is just a matter of which stimuli they get exposed to. If Feynman cannot score merely being brilliant, famous, and admired, Brad Pitt gets burned despite being rich, famous, and handsome, Einstein winds up having sex with the KGB and serving as a communist loudspeaker, then all women are like that. The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him killing her kittens. To align the crude, cruel, simplistic, vicious, and brutal female perception of the male status hierarchy with the subtle, complex, multidimensional, and nuanced reality of the male status hierarchy as actually organized by males, we need to legalize and socially support domestic discipline by taxpaying husbands and fathers, also husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries. (McLintock), and back that discipline with conspicuously public state violence. We also need to make it legal to use violence on men who come sniffing round your women, as the law was under King Solomon. Then hypergamy will be eugenic, rather than dysgenic. Right now, hypergamy is massively dysgenic. Hence the character I play when interacting with fertile age women.

Women have a primitive concept of power. And we men are all dancing monkeys. So, the thing we are forced to do is to become powerful as women understand power.

Which unfortunately is anti civilizational and counter civilizational. Hence the need to modify civilization so that high status males get to perform more private violence. It is easier to have more private policing, to make male status hierarchies more convincing to women, than it is to make women have sex with the men that they should, and refrain from having sex with the men that they should not.

When affluent respectable middle class white males beat misbehaving daughters and wives, and receive any necessary public assistance in so doing from police and authorities, while low lives do not receive similar assistance, then IQ<80 criminals will stop being so strangely attractive to women, and the guy in the corner office will find himself receiving hot letters from women he has never met. But that said, women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out. Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men. We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly. So we take power away from men and give it to women. “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men. The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better? Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies. We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs. A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person. I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet. I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people. To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

To the immense disappointment of his base, and indeed the immense disappoint of the vast majority of American voters left and right, Trump, breaking his election promises, decided to continue war in Afghanistan, while making the war slightly less infested by lawyers, transexuals, and women’s rights activists.

Well, delawyering the war will certainly help, but lawyers are not the core of the problem.

To put the Afghan war in perspective: In 1983 Reagan invaded Grenada, won the war in about the same time as our initial victory in Afghanistan, purged the permanent government very thoroughly, including numerous “non governmental aid organizations”, installed a new government at bayonet point, and left one month after invading. The new right wing government promptly held an election, which produced a very similar right wing government, and since then there has been no trouble in Grenada, and all elections since then have produced similarly Reaganite results, even though all elections before the invasion produced radical left wing results.

Reagan put his foot down for one month, and the place remains quietly Reaganite forever, without an American soldier in sight.

The Afghan war, on the other hand, has been running for sixteen years, and the Afghan government, despite being supposedly democratically elected, is so corrupt and bitterly unpopular that it would collapse overnight without constant violent American support. And this simply shows no sign of changing. Even if we fight a lot more effectively, thanks to delawyering the war, there is still a power vacuum in Afghanistan waiting for the Taliban.

The problem in Afghanistan is not winning the war. We won the war overnight immediately after invading. The problem is, what do you do with victory?

The problem is not that the US army in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making marines wear high heeled shoes. The problem is that the government in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making schoolgirls put a condom on a banana, who are trying in an ineffectual limp wristed fashion to impose the American state religion in an environment where a hostile and armed opposing religion has deep roots. Further, every Afghan who matters can see that victory for the State Department religion would mean that he probably will not get his dick wet. Communism in Grenada had no roots except the permanent government and the quasi statal NGOs. Purge the permanent government and the NGOs, problem solved. Mohammedanism in Afghanistan has considerably deeper roots.

You need to bring a gun to a gun fight, and a religion to a holy war. The State Department has brought a religion to a holy war, but the problem is that their religion stinks.

How do you win in Afghanistan?

You install a King whose religious practices and official state religion are acceptable to the vast majority of his subjects, which is to say, totally unacceptable to the State Department. You install a conservative Mohammedan King, one who does not think that Mohammedanism, rightly understood, is progressivism. You install a King with a striking resemblance to Dost Mohammad Khan.

The cause of these wars is that the State Department is violating the peace of Westphalia, by imposing our state religion on the entire world.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.

Bullshit.

The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole in front of women. A confrontational bully. It works. What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

But the character I play is not the man that that builds or maintains civilizations. It is the man that is high status in a world of female dominance, where women are more equal than men. It is not the man who should be high status, not the man that a civilization needs to make high status in order for that civilization to succeed.

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

But recognizing that this is the man that women want is a good corrective to what progs teach men to be. That man is a lot closer to the man that builds civilization than the emasculated man.

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

When whites are driven out of affluent middle class areas which then become terrifying run down burned out urban jungles, it is not Jews that they are fleeing.

The inner city used to be where the affluent, the rich, and the upwardly mobile lived. It is not Jews that destroyed the inner city, Detroit, Ferguson, and are now destroying Chicago.

Female bad behavior comes from desire to fuck taciturn narcissistic assholes, starting at age eight or nine. If it was Jewish influence, they would want to fuck neurotic talkative dweebs resembling Woody Allen. Margaret Mead fucked people of both sexes and numerous races, but did not fuck Franz Boas.

Blaming Jews is yet another good news religion, because it is easy to gas the Jews, but considerably more difficult, and more disturbing, to keep women under loc parentis supervision from eight to menopause. So the program of restoring civilization sounds a lot easier if all you have to do to get things back on track is gas the Jews.

If we blame the Enlightenment, in particular and especially the extravagantly absurd claim that all men are created equal, if we blame blacks, single women, and the holiness spiral, then it looks like a harder problem, that requires us to do things that are inherently unpopular and unholy, whereas exterminating a market dominant minority is always popular, and you can very easily get away with representing it as holy. Jews are a market dominant minority, and we whites are about to become a market dominant minority.

People who hope to win an election with a universal franchise have to blame the Jews, or else blame whites in general. You cannot shut down a holiness spiral in a democracy except with another holiness spiral.

Muslims in Europe and America are very close to successfully representing gassing the Jews as holy, and shortly thereafter will go to work on similar representation of whites.

Notice eager Jewish collaboration in Muslim efforts to represent gassing the Jews as holy. This falsifies the doctrine that Jewish misbehavior is collectively rational behavior that advances the interests of “the Jews”.

I have often said that going after the Jews is goring the matador’s cape, rather than goring the matador. You have to shut down the holiness spiral itself, rather than a category of people that contains a disturbingly large proportion of exceptionally enthusiastic demon worshipers.

Shutting down the holiness spiral requires something like an inquisition. We don’t need to burn people at the stake, though Charles the second did need to burn a few people at the stake, in particular one alarmingly and excessively holy female heretic, whose holiness was inconveniently and irritatingly genuine, and whose Unitarian Christian derived belief system was alarmingly twenty first century. But mostly what Charles the second did was fire everyone in state and quasi state jobs, and invite them to re-apply for their old jobs. In the job interview, the applicant was asked whether he would “conform” – conform to the new standard of moderate holiness, which prohibited excessive holiness in general, and the old form of holiness in particular. If one declined to say he would conform, he did not get burned at the stake – but neither did he get his old job back. Many who declined to conform departed under their own power to New England. A few said they would conform, got their old jobs back, but then engaged in apostacy, and those ones Charles came down on pretty hard, but usually they got ridiculed and their careers got ruined, rather than burned at the stake. Looks to me that only one genuinely sincere and genuinely holy heretic got burned at the stake by Charles the Second, and all the others that were burned were two faced slimy lying hypocrites, and that most of the apostates just got laughed at and their careers stalled, rather than burned at the stake, or even fired. But you really do need to sometimes take firm measures against stubborn and excessively ostentatious holiness.

The problem with Jews is that they are a market dominant minority with a strong identity. Being a market dominant minority with a strong identity they are particularly subject to potential persecution, plus, in even in the absence of actual persecution, they still have an extremely strong persecution mythos, which makes them paranoid and hostile. Since one is going to get treated as a persecutor no matter what, one feels inclined to actually persecute them.

Jews are are inclined to attack the fabric of the host society, because when it’s strong it attacks them, and when it’s weak it lays off. The fabric of society is essentially everything “fascist”, so they are naturally anti-fascist insofar as they identify as jewish. Obviously this pattern has been reinforced. The reform jews most so because they are actually trying to integrate, which they can’t if everyone is Nordic Catholic “Fascists”.

When they engage in a holiness spiral, they don’t have any personal attachment to the things that their utopian schemes will destroy, or any concern about the reasons it won’t work. Whereas a white man would say “what about my job, family, community, ancestors, people, church, business”, your typical academic jew would say “Certain elements of the bourgeois will feel the move to equality as oppression (and I never liked those dumb goyim anyways)”.

Their talents make them useful to short-sighted elites, which puts them in the position of High, but with more mobility, more of a mobile bandit; they can always go elsewhere and feel just as at home. In addition to the insecurity they feel as a persecuted minority, they are naturally aligned with High which has in our recent history been engaged in destructive anti-fascism.

Their talents further mean that they are quite good at the subversion, which, lacking attachment to their host society, they naturally get into.

But the problem is not Jewish participation in subversion, it is that subversion is profitable, respected, and rewarded. Make it unprofitable, despised, and dangerous, and there will not be a Jew in sight.

Civilization is the art of people living together in large numbers: The basic problems of civilization are shutting down violence, ensuring that men and women agree to stick together for richer or poorer, or better or worse, and are forced to stick by that agreement, and securing property rights. Leftism is an attack on all of these, leftism is siding with the forces of entropy for political advantage, and Nazism is just leftism that has been left behind by a hundred years of movement even further left. “Fascism” is freedom, freedom is made possible by law, law is made possible by first establishing order, order is made possible by peace, peace first require victory, and victory requires war. Leftism reverses this chain of causation and moves us back towards the war of all against all. Leftism weaponizes covetousness and envy to attack property rights and female sexual lust to attack marriage. Single women, rather than Jews, vote for the mass import of rapeugees, because unconsciously they hope to be sold naked in chains on the auction block.

Observe what is happening with the Rohingya. The Rohingya correctly believe that a good Muslim should live under Muslim rule, and that a Muslim should establish Muslim rule wherever he lives. They attempted to establish a Muslim state in Burma, the Burmese were not having any, and are now expelling them. The expelled Rohingya don’t want to go to the USA. They want to go to a Muslim state, but Islamic states fear that if they accept the Rohingya, the Rohingya will decide that their hosts are insufficiently Islamic, or the wrong kind of Islamic. The US government wants them, wants to dump the on marginal electorates in flyover country, and you really cannot blame the Jews for this. You cannot blame the Rohingya for this. They don’t want to go to an infidel state. It is single female lust for men manly enough to subjugate them. If a bunch of east europeans were fleeing some place, I bet the PUAs would be keen on bringing them here.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

Trump has reversed course on Afghanistan. Perhaps he needed to do that to keep the officers on side, but this war needs to be won or lost. Keeping it going forever is costing far too much blood and treasure.

How do you win an Afghan war?

It is not hard: You need a genuinely Islamic strong monarch who can accomplish the difficult job of keeping order, and let him know that if trouble comes out of Afghanistan and reaches you, he is going to die.

The problem with our existing war is that it is a holy war, fought to emancipate women in Afghanistan, and to destroy conservative Islam, not to create order under the control of someone who can be held responsible for any trouble coming out of Afghanistan. If you are going to fight a holy war against a live religion, need to kill huge numbers of people and level their cities, which we are reluctant to do – although if they were white Christians, I am sure there would be no hesitation.

If we are reluctant to slaughter and burn on the require scale, then we need to let Afghans be Afghans. It is time to shut down those prog schools in Afghanistan.

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

We forbid our soldiers to piss one hundred yards upwind of Koran, we forbid them to carry bibles, while we attempt to destroy the values taught in that Koran.

I would totally support holy war against the Afghans, fought with the methods necessary to win a holy war. I am not so keen on unholy war. We are fighting to destroy what is right with Islam, rather than what is wrong, fighting to corrupt Islam as Christianity was corrupted, and the Taliban rightly sees this as wickedness.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

In the ancestral environment, if you were a reproductively unsuccessful male, you formed a tribe of young men, who went off and stole some land and enslaved some women. Holiness signalling about racial purity is tribe formation.

What their genes really want them to do is confiscate the Ivy League endowments, kill the males at Harvard, occupy the Ivy League buildings, and enslave the Ivy League women. Given that the alternative is near certain genetic extinction, this is not a stupid ambition, though purity spiraling, which generates the solidarity needed to accomplish this program, also distracts from this program.

Getting overly obsessed about Jews creates the cohesion necessary to address this problem – but also results in not conquering and enslaving women, which is actually the whole point of the program, just as females shit testing results in those females not having children and not forming relationships, even though from the point of the genes the whole point of shit testing is family formation – girls are behaving provocatively to find a male powerful enough to subdue them, but girls think they are behaving provocatively because they actually want power, freedom, and independence, with the result that they attain neither power nor family, and achieve freedom and independence as cat ladies.

Your genes don’t actually want you to gas the Jews. That is just a flag to rally around, and a club with which to attack your enemies. (Hence the tendency of Nazis to denounce everyone they don’t like as Jewish.) Your genes want you to gas the enemy males, take their land, revenue sources, and buildings, and enslave their women. Krystalnacht was assets being smashed, rather than transferred to individuals competent to use them. If you gas the Jews without winding up supported by the revenue from the campus endowment, in a nice home with a couple of ivy league slave girls serving you in what used to be an ivy league campus, it has all gone horribly wrong, like a thirty year old woman issuing an inappropriately brutal shit test to a beta provider male.

It is a “masculine failure mode” only if you don’t get the land, the house, and the slave girls. Recollect that in the American Revolution, the Whigs dispossesed the Tories, drove them out of America, and took their stuff. The alt right are today’s Tories, and their genes want a re-run.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Although science has been stagnating since Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, technology that makes money continues to advance. We have a problem with new blue sky technologies. No one in the west is developing new technologies any more, just polishing up existing profitable technologies. We are not getting any replacement for chip patterning usin one hundred and ninety three nanometer excimer laser lithography, just ever more minute improvements in excimer laser lithography, with the result that Moore’s law has run out of puff. People keep talking about ten nanometer, but it is just not going anywhere. They keep saying they will use both one ninety and ten. If ten was working, would not use one ninety. If they were talking ninety nanometer, rather than ten, then I would be impressed. If someone could make money out of supersonic jets, we would get better and better supersonics, but instead, planes are slowing down, not speeding up. But people could make money out of drilling and stimulating oil fields, so drilling and oilfield stimulation got better and better, and continues to improve.

Physical resources are effectively infinite, in that physical limits to growth are unlikely to be a significant problem in the reasonably foreseeable future. The problem is social decay.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

I am not disowning my fellow alt rightists who happen to be nazis. I am inviting them to become better friends and allies than they already are by discarding their blue pill illusions about women – by becoming even more evil than they already are.

Progs tell me that Andrew Anglin is the leading force for Nazism in the America, and have forced him to flee to Nigeria, where the locals do not see anything odd, evil, surprising, or unusual, about a white advocating for the interests of whites, or the interests of those whites ethnically similar to himself. Doesn’t everyone do that? Nigerians are too busy hating Nigerians who are a different breed of black to themselves to worry about whites.

My problem with Andrew Angelin is that if he is the leading force, progs don’t have much to worry about. This a man who thinks that twelve year old girls would be pure and chaste if it was not for evil males preying upon them.

He tells us that the problems we have with women are due to evil Jewish mind rays. If it was not for those damned Jews, women would never give us such tough shit tests. This is the sort of thinking that led to Hitler having only moderate success in raising the German birthrate.

The trouble with Nazis is that they leftists stuck in the 1930s, while the rest of the left has moved even further left. And the left was mighty bluepilled back in the 1930s.

His truly impressive loli collection suggests to me a man who does not score a whole lot of real life women, though I would guess he does considerably better than Scott Alexander.

There is a man in urgent need of the red pill.

The trouble with blaming everything on Jews is not that it is unkind to Jews. Unkind to Jews is not my problem. I will let Jews worry about that. The problem with blaming everything on Jews is that it leads to the conclusion that 1930s leftism, leftism before we let the Jews into the left wing club, was just fine. And Andrew Anglin’s truly impressive loli collection is where that thinking gets you.

In fact, things started going bad early in the nineteenth century, when frothing at the mouth biting mad feminism gave us a marriage contract that was enforced on men, but not on women, resulting in the collapse of the family.

And, shortly after that, white man’s burden, with the corresponding attacks on unit cohesion and military discipline, with the result that inferior races started to defeat whites in 1841, and have been defeating us militarily worse and worse ever since.

That is when things went to hell – when marriage was successfully attacked by those holier than thou, when our military was successfully attacked by those holier than thou. Rolling things back to the 1930s is not going to help. We need to roll things back to the 1730s.

Yes, Jews have always been subversive, and they were subversive back in the 1730s also. But I am pretty sure it was not Jews that caused everything except science to turn to shit in the nineteenth century, and it was not Jews that caused science to turn to shit in the twentieth. What happened to science after World War II was plainly the result of Harvard strong arming the Royal Society. Andrew is blaming the flies for the condition of a corpse that has a bullet hole in the head. It is not that I support flies, it is that I oppose being shot in the head.

There is a correlation between flies and corpses, but Nazis have the causation backwards.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

Ewoolutionary Psychopathy Award

You fail everything forever.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Doubtless you have heard of the recent Idaho gang rape.

This was Islamic Rape Jihad, not just Muslim rapists, because the girl was five, because the boys put it on video, because the boys expected the support of their community, and because the boys received the support of their community.
You
Feminist response to this rape shows what feminists really want. Everyone reacting to this in an indignant manner is a male who is in favor of patriarchy to a greater or lesser extent, and many of them want to completely reverse female emancipation.

In the ancestral environment, and indeed today’s environment, if a woman was property the way a cow is property, she was likely to have substantially greater reproductive success than a free woman. If a man was property the way a cow is property, likely to have zero reproductive success.

In the ancestral environment, as today, male slaves don’t reproduce. Female slaves generally outreproduce free women. Thus the optimal strategy for a woman is to provoke until provocation results in enslavement.

The evolutionary optimal strategy for a female, in the ancestral environment, and in our present day environment, is to act in ways that gets the west conquered by Islamic State. If free, likely to have 1.5 children, and similarly her grandchildren, rapidly resulting in the total disappearance of her genes. If her menfolk are conquered and she is sold naked in chains on the auction block by Islamic state, likely to have six or seven children.

Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow. The optimal reproductive strategy for her owner is to treat her considerably better than he treats his cows, but the less he has power to do bad things to her, the more it is in his interests to do bad things to her. For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list, and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list, to spin as many plates as possible, without investing in any of them. For a slave, because the slave cannot defect, because the slave is guaranteed to play cooperate, cooperate is also a good move for the male owner of a female slave, because he has a biological interest in the welfare of her children. He is free to impose cooperate/defect on her, but that is not actually all that much in his biological interest, which biological interest manifests in the tendency of men to love and care for women that they regularly have sex with, provided that they believe those women are not having sex with other men.

Feminist demands for emancipation ever escalate, no matter how extraordinary the privilege women are granted, because they are pushing for someone strong enough to master them. In the ancestral environment, free women were unsuccessful at reproducing, because prisoner’s dilemma. That she can defect on a man guarantees defect/defect, guarantees that he will try to defect before she does – giving her no care, protection, or support, keeping as many plates spinning as he can, so they look for someone powerful enough to stop them from defecting. Slave women will generally outreproduce free women, because he who owns a woman absolutely has incentive to invest in her and her children. Similarly, cows are numerous, their wild ancestors are generally extinct. If animal liberationists liberate chickens and cows, there are not going to be very many chickens or cows. If the People’s Popular Committee for Food Abundance tells the farmer he does not own his land and his crops, there is going to be crop failure.

And feminists, in supporting Rape Jihad, are unconsciously pursuing their optimal evolutionary reproductive strategy, which is to be sold by Islamic state naked in chains on the auction block. We are descended from free men and unfree women. Peoples, nations religions, cultures and groups with strong, proud, free, and independent women died out. They always die out.

Female emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Feminists support Rape Jihad because they are unconsciously looking for men who will pass their shit test.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives us the official version of the enlightenment:

“Reason is man’s central capacity.”
“Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.”
“All men (including, on the view of many, women) are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”
“Man is by nature good. (Kant endorsed the Christian view of a “radical evil” in human nature, but held that it is possible to overcome it.)”
“Both an individual and humanity as a whole can progress to perfection.”
“Tolerance is to be extended to other creeds, and ways of life.”
“The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does.

All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.
The “progress to perfection.” line is that our nature is entirely the result of environment. Just raise the self esteem of women and blacks, and everything will be lovely. This has been tried, and the outcome is far from lovely, but they just keep trying harder. The grotesquely inflated self esteem of blacks leads to blacks committing acts of violence against whites, and the grotesquely inflated self esteem of women leads to disastrous choices. They divorce the father of their children expecting to marry a six foot six athletic billionaire, or they marry late, or they do not marry at all.

The extension of tolerance is notoriously selective, and necessarily selective, for if tolerance is mandatory, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech is forbidden, which is not very tolerant at all. Tolerance is not extended to the “intolerant” meaning not extended to those who prefer to cooperate with people who are cooperative, and who prefer to refrain from cooperating with those who defect. Hence the financial crisis. Official minorities and single women, and in particular minority single women, and in particular blacks, and in particular black single women, generally do not repay mortgages. Any criterion that leads to banks extending loans to people that are inclined to repay, leads to banks discriminating against minorities, single women, and especially blacks. Which is forbidden. And so the 2007-2008 financial crisis. So the enlightened tolerate Muslims blowing people up and raping infidel women, but do not tolerate whites hanging out with people who are inclined to pay their debts. That is one creed and one way of life that they are not inclined to extend tolerance to. Forbidding an ever increasing range of speech and association is necessarily intolerant. We should stick to suppressing dangerous lies and heresies that aggressively pursue political power (such as The Enlightenment). Any suppression of freedom of speech, association, and assembly that goes beyond this is excessive and damaging. Official tolerance is inherently and necessarily dangerously intolerant.

Civilization is the advance of technical and scientific knowledge, and most importantly, social organization. Most of all it is the capability to maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships in very large groups. You will notice that the enlightenment is a root and branch attack on civilization, and Rousseau explicitly framed it as an attack on civilization and intent to destroy civilization.

The devaluation of local prejudices and customs is the dismantling of Chesterton’s fence, the abandonment of the slowly and painfully accumulated habits, customs, laws and institutions that make civilization possible, the devaluation and abandonment of the roots of Western Civilization. Our Cathedrals are empty and abandoned.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Manchester’s response to the terror attack is “Manchester will not be divided”, meaning they will continue to embrace with open arms those that murder their children and rape their daughters.

If, however, a white male member of a college fraternity hits on a drunken slut, then they will continue to throw the book at him. Nothing divisive about that [there was a sarcasm tag but it caused a submission error].

Also, anecdotal reports that young women in Manchester are responding to violence in the way that women are notorious for responding to violence. Hence Trump’s wise and important point that they should be called losers, not monsters. Women love monsters. Looks like fresh crop of light brown fatherless babies is under way. Manchester females are not being divided from Muslim males. The attack, and Manchester’s response to the attack, confirms Muslims as high status, and men who work and pay taxes as low status.

But of course, men in a society where unaccompanied girls attend a Ariana Grande-Butera concert, where unaccompanied girls go to watch prostitutes perform and the prostitutes present as high status, are low status men. Come the restoration, girls who attend such an event will not be blown up, but if they attend unsupervised by their fathers, fiancees, or husbands, will be sent to a home for wayward girls.

The problem with prostitutes is not that sex happens. The problem with prostitutes is that if a whore is high status and well paid, you are low status and low paid. Hence the epidemic of “rape” on campus, and hence the response to the Manchester terror attack. It is illegal for white males to hit on white girls, because it is illegal for white males to be high status.

The problem with an Ariana Grande-Butera concert is that a large part of the audience is unaccompanied eight year old girls, who see whores presented as sexy, successful, and empowered, and an even bigger problem is that the whores that they see really are successful and empowered. We have to stop girls from learning that stuff. Because girls do learn that stuff, men have no reason, no motive, no will, to resist Muslim conquest. Prostitutes should not be sexy, successful, and empowered. But if they are, we should make sure that other girls do not find out about it.

Women should not be allowed to get a substantially better deal by screwing around, and if some women do get a substantially better deal by screwing around, other women should be prevented from discovering it. And if you do let women discover it, your beta males, who are most of your police and soldiers, will not get their dicks wet, in which case they will not fight. And so, Manchester will not be divided. Especially the women.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

image

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

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

And everything did fall apart.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Still has to pass the Senate, but already the Democrats are terrified.

The essential and important feature of Trumpcare is that it “denies insurance to millions of Americans”. In other words, when you seek medical care, when those who pay for and operate our system of medical care seek medical care, they will not find one hundred drug addicts looking for free drugs and one hundred bums looking for free food, a free bed, and human contact in front of them. Those people, drug addicts, criminals, and suchlike, are still going to get subsidy, but they will go literally or metaphorically through a different door to the people who are paying.

Now even if Trumpcare passes the Senate, we still have to pass it to find out what is in it. The details are going to be filled in by regulators – regulators who are theoretically under Trump’s supervision, but are in fact far more answerable to the permanent government. So we still could be screwed nine ways from Sunday.

But like Trump himself, Trumpcare offers remote possibility of success, as compared to the absolute certainty of failure.

A possible outcome of this vote, a successful outcome of this vote, is that the marginal voter, the swinging voter, gets reasonable healthcare, or at least healthcare that is less outrageously terrible, and the Democrat voter core (vagrants, drug addicts, whores, single mums, and criminals) loses out – which of course is going to mean a major swing to Trump and Republicans, and a major swing away from Democrats. Hence the widespread abject pants-wetting terror among democrat politicians.

Trumpcare protects people with pre-existing conditions, without however giving them the same insurance you get. Which may in practice mean that people who don’t pay go in through the same door you do, or may not mean that. If it means that people who don’t pay go in through the same door, then that means that people who pay get treated like criminals, vagrants and drug addicts, in short like Democratic party core voters, that being the vast majority of non paying people showing up at hospital. People say that the very old are costing us a bundle, that the very sick are costing us a bundle. No, it is Democratic Party core constituencies that are costing us a bundle.

Not needing to pay for healthcare and having plenty of time on your hands makes a vastly greater difference to how much healthcare you consume than being old and sick does. In short, being a Democratic core constituency is the major variable determining how much healthcare a person is going to consume.

Any system that guarantees that some morbidly obese alcoholic on the street is going to get the same standard of healthcare as an affluent middle class person is going to guarantee that that affluent middle class person is going to get very little healthcare. If Trumpcare is going to provide a reasonable standard of healthcare for the median voter, it has to deny a reasonable standard of healthcare for the modal Democratic party voter. Whether it will do so is far from clear, but it is absolutely certain that Obamacare will not provide a reasonable standard of healthcare for the median voter.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

The rule on hitting girls should be, “don’t hit someone else’s girl”. If a girl is misbehaving, you should call for the man who is in charge of her, ask him to take care of the problem, and if he does not, you should punch him out, not his girl.

Moldilocks went to the free speech rally in Berkeley declaring she was going to collect one hundred fascist scalps. She was wearing brass knuckle gloves, having watched too many Hollywood movies where action girl takes out five mooks while doing a backflip. She threw glass bottles at people.

A gentleman should never under any circumstances strike a lady, but Moldilocks was no lady.

If an unowned, unsupervised women, gets beaten by some male, your default presupposition, your prejudgment of the situation absent other evidence, should be that males are generally well behaved, unsupervised and uncontrolled women are frequently badly behaved, therefore chances are that she probably needed a beating.

Women are, of course, the precious sex, and men are the expendable sex. It is right that men should die for their women. Men have a duty to love and cherish their women, and women do not have a duty to love and cherish their men, but a duty to honor and obey. But not all women are precious. Unowned women frequently behave in ways that make them less valuable, and more expendable, than men. Observe that Moldilocks was beautiful, became a porngirl (her ranking is too low to qualify as pornstar) became unattractive with astonishing speed, her inner ugliness becoming externally manifest. Her inner ugliness made manifest revealed that this woman was worthless trash.

Some women are precious, not all women are precious. It is entirely OK to punch porngirls, especially unattractive porngirls. No punching cute porngirls in the face, but measures less likely to mar them are fine.

Women are precious because they can create life, whereas all a man can do is merely kill someone. A woman can make you immortal, whereas all a man can do is merely kill you. But porngirl Moldilocks is not going to make you immortal, so no great loss spoiling her face even further.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Trump’s CIA director, Pompeo, tells us that Julian Assange, the leader of wikileaks is “on the wrong side of history.”

That is commie language, commie thinking. To say that history has a side in earthly political struggles is history reified and personified as the Jewish God.

Probably he is a cultural Marxist rather than an old style Marxist, since old style Marxists are mighty thin on the ground these days.

Personifying “History” is characteristic of Jewish descended leftism via Marx. Puritan descended leftism via Harvard immanentizes salvation, rather the immanentizing the deity.

This ideology puts one on a course that necessarily results in the murder of very large number of people. Pompeo is ticked with Julian Assange for exposing, and thus disrupting, various color revolutions, but the biggest color revolution that is cooking right now is in America itself, which revolution, if it goes through, will likely result in the deaths of Trump and all his family, and probably most republicans in office. If you favor color revolutions, you favor antifa, you favor killing Trump, his family, and Trump supporters.

The Marxist does not think of himself as intending to murder the peasants, and the cultural Marxist does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag. Rather he thinks that if it was not for “bullying” all nine year old boys would be gay and they would all be fucking in the classroom a great big pile. When a great big pile fails to ensue in the classroom, escalates the war on “bullying”, until it eventually starts to look remarkably like sending all cisgender males to the Gulag.

The original Marxists were going to emancipate the peasants from the landlords, and utopia and abundance would ensue. Utopia and abundance failed to ensue. Obviously invisible intangible landlord oppression. Therefore, war on kulaks, which liberation of the peasants looked curiously similar to war on the peasants. And thus, today, instead of war on kulaks, war on cis hetero patriarchal oppressors. They are liberating us from being “bullied”. They are indignant at our lack of gratitude. And the war on bullying inevitably escalates.

“ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag – k bye!”

The Czar failed to support Pyotr Stolypin, and appointed a bunch of lefties to the council of ministers, who, when the Czar was away at the front, refrained from any serious effort to restrain revolutionaries who intended to kill the Czar and his family, and who when trouble broke out, resigned in favor of the revolutionaries. Giving Pompeo power and taking power away from Bannon is a similar error. Politics is war by other means, and for the past couple of decades has been drifting closer to war by the usual means.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Whosover wants to overthrow Assad of Syria, wants to murder all Alawites and murder or expel all Christians. There used to be a moderate opposition, composed entirely of do-gooder employees of “NGOs”, which is to say, employees of the State Department, but they all got out when things went bad, and are now employed on various do-gooder international grants all over the world, such as settling Somali refugees on middle American marginal electorates in flyover country. The opposition to Assad is now 100% head chopper Muslim. The Cathedral delusively imagines it can regain control once they have finished chopping off heads.

Whosoever wants to overthrow Assad of Syria, wants to ally with people unlike me, to murder people who are like me, to murder them for what they have in common with me. Murdering some people who are like me, murdering them because they are like me is a step towards murdering everyone like me.

It is striking that the advocates of reason, rationality, niceness, and maximizing everyone’s utility always wind up with pyramids of skulls. The French revolution was in large part a creation of the cult of reason, and I see the same evil and madness in today’s rationalist community, for example the Bay Area rationalist community, whose rationality is strikingly and conspicuously limited by their refusal to engage in thoughtcrime and their demented demonization of thought criminals.

Recall the Populares of Rome. “Populares” is latin for “Democrats”, or “People’s Party”. In the end they allied with the Samnites. I suppose the Populares wanted to give the Samnites citizenship and fairer treatment, because that is the kind of moldy bananas the Populares stood for, being nice to people, especially the oppressed, remedying justice and inequality, rationality, reason, and reasonableness, all that filthy disgusting garbage. The Samnites, however, wanted to overthrow the walls of Rome, kill every Roman male, and rape every fertile age Roman woman. The Populare/Samnite alliance strikingly resembles today’s progressive/Muslim alliance.

The fans of kindness, niceness, pleasantness, reason, and rationality tend to wind up quite unreasonably and unpleasantly torturing and murdering very large numbers of people. Hostility to near is a key foundational principle of leftism, goes down all the way to friends, family, and political allies.

War with Syria is war on the side of Jews against the side of Christians, since Assad is keeping Syrian Christians alive, and Israel is backing the side that wants Assad (and Christians) dead. I don’t think this is a matter of the Zionist Occupation Government ruling the world. Rather it is that the Cathedral, though it hates Israel, or rather hates Israel being Jewish, wants a non Jewish Israel, hates Christians even more. The Cathedral is allied with Israel the state, but there is a point of contention, since they cannot stand Israel being Jewish or India being Hindu, any more than they can stand America being Christian. Israel the state wants Syria the state in chaos, and the Cathedral wants to rule Syria and imagines it can rule through the head choppers. Were they to actually succeed in ruling through head choppers, Israel the state would find itself under a lot heavier pressure to become less Jewish, but the Israelis doubt that this outcome is very likely.

Trump’s attack on Syria was both real and fake – real enough to threaten Assad and Putin, real enough to get his judge through the senate, real enough to keep the Pentagon on his side, fake enough to avoid war with Assad and Putin. What is clear is that the left wants to overthrow Assad. If we continue to take substantial measures to overthrow Assad, then Trump will have cucked out to the left as the Czar did, which I think will likely be the death of Trump and his family, as it was the death of the Czar and his family. Any concessions to the left are just blood in the water. They are more likely to kill you if you play nice with them than if you piss on them.

When Obama took power, we were involved in two pointless unwinnable wars in the middle east, where we supporting the side that could perhaps be argued to be the good guys, though it was far from clear who the good guys were.

When Obama had governed for eight years, he had gotten us into five more pointless unwinnable wars in the middle east, where we are for the most part supporting sides that are appallingly evil and indiscriminately murderous.

When I say unwinnable, it is not that we lack the capacity to defeat a bunch of backward goat herders. It is that we lack the capacity to defeat a bunch of backward goat herders when our troops are required to behave like heavily armed nursemaids, and when I say pointless, I mean that the victory condition is defined as our enemies liking us, rather than our enemies being dead or enslaved. If you forbid our troops to kill civilians that are intermixed with our enemies, our enemies will grasp civilians to their chests. If you applied the the old laws of war, which allowed you to flatten enemy cities and such like, civilians would separate themselves from combatants, and combatants would have no reason to prevent them from doing so.

And now Trump is under extreme pressure to bring us into war with Syria, North Korea, Russia, and China, and may well be cucking out under that pressure, bringing us from seven low level wars in five of which we are allied to the bad guys, to eleven wars, in three of which we will be the bad guys, and two of them likely to go thermonuclear.

Why is it that the fans of niceness and rationality tend to be unpleasant and irrational, from the Bay Area Rationalist community to the Khmer Rouge?

It is because caring for your children, your spouse, your lover, your sisters, your brothers, and your friends is likely to be expensive and inconvenient. Caring for far away people located in places you cannot find on the map tends to be a whole lot cheaper and much more convenient.

And thus it is no surprise that Badwhites look after their children, their spouses, their kin, their lovers, and their friends, while Goodwhites do not look after their children, their spouses, and their kin, and routinely stab lovers and friends in the back. Often stab kin in the back also – observe what happens when the old man dies, and fights over the inheritance break out. Leftists lie, betray, and sometimes murder, in order to rob their brothers and sisters, sometimes even their parents and their children.

Can you imagine one of ours suckerpunching an Obama supporter to the enthusiastic cheers of everyone who voted against Obama? Reflect on the Yellow Hat incident – the video shows yellow hat being sucker punched, presumably because he formerly wore a Trump hat. There is just no way that could happen on our side. Nasty goings on when inheritance is being distributed always involve lefties behaving ruthlessly to close kin. Normal people generally cooperate with close kin. The rubbish and destruction left after left wing protests, as compared to the neatness and order of right wing protests. It is not like a ten percent greater likelihood of littering and vandalism, it is a thousand fold greater likelihood of littering and vandalism.

Lord Howe arranged for his men to die. The Victorian anti slaver movement committed perjury in court. Who kills commies? Commies kill commies. It is totally and completely one sided. Nazis, right wing dictators, right wing death squads kill hardly any commies by comparison. It is not like there is a ten percent greater tendency to murder their own, it is more like a thousand fold greater tendency to murder their own.

Would our people have produced something like the “10:10 no pressure” video?

The moral difference between lefties and normies is as clear as the trail of rubbish that they leave in their path.

Hostility to near is a key foundational principle of leftism, goes down all the way to friends, family, and political allies. Hence Lord Howe. If your commanding officer is a leftist and he orders you into danger, desert.

Leftism as an individual propensity is a propensity to game the systems for status, affiliation, alliance formation, and virtue signaling. Leftism as a movement is large scale organized gaming of the status, affiliation, and virtue signaling systems, and thus tends to work to the disadvantage of individual leftists. No friends to the right, no enemies to the left, means all your friends are your enemies and all your enemies are your friends, hence the greatest danger to leftists as members of a leftist movement is being murdered by their own movement.

If you are genuinely decent and conscientious, you are substantially less interested in cheap signals of decency and conscientiousness. Decent conscientious people are not attracted to whatever opinions are high status. People who want cheap ways of signaling decency and conscientiousness are attracted towards whatever opinions are high status.

Thus, observe …

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape“, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century where not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the second mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The first mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guineverein in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

One of my commenters asks “Why not just become Muslim?”

I presume he means conservative Muslim, since a whole lot of Muslims are pozzed, are not breeding and not getting any pussy.

That is the Mormon solution (control women’s socialization) plus the orthodox Jewish solution (make female status artificially low), plus the ever popular individual male solution (illegal violence or the quiet potential for it) plus you turn off the Cathedral’s ever vigilant immune system plus you have a pre-existing community. (Just grow a wildman beard, attend mosque, and you are in like Flynn.) If you want to marry those eighteen year old socially conservative virgins, you need high socioeconomic status (they are in high demand), which leads to a problem with the wildman beard (tricky to have high socioeconomic status with the wildman beard), but that one is easier to navigate than political correctness, plus if you are Muslim you get a pass for all political incorrectness relating to gays and women. No one is going to ask a Halal bakery to bake a gay wedding cake. I see a lot of engineers putting on a dress and declaring that they are trans women in order to get ahead. Declaring yourself to be a Muslim almost makes you trans brown. Should be almost as good for your career as declaring yourself a trans woman, a whole lot better for your sex life than declaring yourself a trans woman, and the wildman beard is not nearly as bad as the dress. You also get a free pass to be manly, which helps with the ridiculous beard. If you lift iron and do a little bit of high intensity training, the beard will not look quite as bad.

Plus this is the solution we are going to get if we don’t do anything dramatic, if we continue to drift along our present course, if the passengers don’t attack the cockpit and kill whoever is flying the plane to its doom. Wherever we get data on Muslim births in Western countries the data shows that Muslims are massively outbreeding the natives. I assume this is conservative Muslims, since anecdote suggests that pozzed Muslims have the same dreadfully low reproductive rate as pozzed Jews. Islam is quietly becoming the official religion, in that sacrilege against Islam effectively carries the death penalty (in most western countries if you drop bacon on the pavement outside a mosque the judge will give you a jail term comparable to that which he gives for raping and murdering small children, and while you are in jail some Muslims will kill you while the prison authorities turn a blind eye, like the blind eye Berkeley police turn to black bloc beating up pro-trump protestors) while sacrilege against Christianity is almost mandatory: (Gay wedding cake, Church required to pay for abortions, Pope kisses the feet of aids infested homosexual transvestite prostitutes, government funded sacrilegious “art”, free pass for gays and feminists to physically attack Christians and disrupt religious services.)

...

What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians. Keep the Episcopalian married clergy, plus Episcopalian subordination to earthly authority. Decorate the result with a few Episcopalian symbols and call the result Episcopalianism, and make it the official state religion of the US empire in place of progressivism, with all other religions subordinated to it, second class, and unequally backed by the state. In school, kids get taught that official Episcopalianism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions are stupid, much as today they are taught that official progressivism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions (except possibly Islam) are stupid and evil.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

If Milo was purged for being a Jewish coal burning gay, that would be one thing, but being purged having sex with an older man at the age of fourteen is a different thing. Gay sex is disgusting and self destructive regardless of age, and thirty year old women are no more competent to make unsupervised sexual choices than twelve year old girls.

Purging Milo for “pedo” concedes the left position that consent is all that matters, that anything is fine if it is consenting adults that do it.

We should view sex with properly owned women as rape if her guardian does not consent to it (which is what “rape” meant a couple of hundred years ago) and sex with feral women as a form of regrettable but unavoidable predation regardless of whether they consent or not, which predation is best remedied by shotgun marriage or similar, remedied by ensuring that a feral woman comes into the possession of a man who can plausibly be expected to have good intentions towards her and treat her with kindness – if necessary without regard for her undoubtedly foolish opinions on the matter.

And, of course, if a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We should not purge Milo for being a Jewish coal burning gay, for there are far worse on the left, and only after they get helicoptered or thrown from high buildings should we ask Milo to clean up his act. And if we did not purge him for being a Jewish coal burning gay, then we certainly should not purge him for underage sex.

If two people agree to exchange corn for iron, obviously the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not have agreed to it. So state and society should not interfere in such agreements, and if everyone is free to engage in commercial trade, then state and society is better off. If two people agree to have sex, this is a very poor indicator that having sex makes both of them better off, because sexual impulses are volcanically powerful and deeply irrational. The converse can also apply. A woman’s decision to cease having sex with the father of her children usually has appallingly bad consequences for everyone, especially her children. A fertile age woman who ceases to have sex with her husband is always motivated by having received semen from a male more alpha than her husband, or excessively realistic fantasies of receiving such semen.

There are lots of good reasons why we should purge Milo. But this is a very bad reason. We are purging him for insufficient progressivism.

Donald Bagdasarian #fundie blog.reaction.la

In an ideal society, most people would be steered roward a hands-on productive career long before the age of ten, and there would be apprenticeship systems in place to ensure that people had the skills necessary to work productively.

There will always be a need for a certain number of dedicated “thinkers.” But we honestly have far too many, and they are allowed far too much leeway. Once again, in an ideal society, there would be constraints placed on their work and research–if it was deemed appropriate to the good of society, it would be allowed to continue, if it defied natural social order and established precedent, it would be be stopped and that researcher prohibited from further work. A dedicated council should exist that would perform periodic audits and regularly review the work of researchers to determine if it constitutes a net public “good” or if it should be stopped–or even allowed to begin in the first place. The threat of censure would provide strong incentive to researchers and inventors to confine their work to practical, useful matters instead of airy-fairy, feel-good “progress” that wastes resources, time and money and endangers the stability of civilization while providing no tangible benefits. Progress for its own sake, technological or otherwise, benefits no one.

peppermint #fundie blog.reaction.la

The disgusting slander of the dark ages is that the level of scholarship is the way to determine how good a society is. In reality an explosion of scholarship is a sign of decadence and theough the mechanism of undermining traditional values precedes the collapse of a society.

There is no reason to have universities. They were founded to provide legal services to visiting scholars. Scholars are scum and deserve to be beaten at the slightest provocation.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

The discussion on the Jewish question raised several interesting and important issues, which tended to be drowned out by obsessive and repetitious discussion of the kill-them-all-and-take-their-stuff option. (If you think too much about outgroups, it is bad for your mental health.)

One of which is that Latin America browned out and went down the shithole because brownish people in the countryside reproduced and whitish people in the cities did not, and were replaced by brownish people from the countryside. Failure of elite reproduction.

But failure of elite reproduction is going to make us stupid even if the city imports fresh elites from a white countryside. Pretty soon we will need Jews to rule us (descended from rapidly reproducing orthodox urban Jews) just to keep the electricity and water going, just as Nigerians need whites and Chinese to keep the electricity and water going.

Mormons manage to reproduce in the cities. Right wing Jews manage to reproduce in the cities.

Men and women want to form families, but fail because of prisoner’s dilemma. There is an obvious state level solution to this: Empower husbands, disempower women. Authorize more violence by husbands, both in that they should be allowed to physically discipline wives and children, and in that they should be allowed to kill adulterers. Also death penalty for sleeping with another man’s wife, regardless of who carries the death penalty out. Enforce chastity on women, with “Homes for Wayward Girls”, similar to the female factory in late eighteenth century Australia. Lower the legal and social status of women. Prohibit women from exercising authority over men, other than their sons. Generally encourage manliness. Legalize dueling. Give property owners broader police authority. Videos should depict feminine women, manly men, patriarchal families, and obedient and respectful children.

Orthodox Jews and Amish are successful in reproducing in substantial part because they keep their kids out of an education system hostile to males, manliness, and household formation. Reversing credential inflation is important. Girls should finish formal education at puberty, and men not long thereafter. Engineers educate themselves informally all their lives. Everyone should do the same. It is easy now in the age of the internet. Unfortunately businesses are legally compelled to rely on educational credentials.

Trump’s family successfully reproduced in a society hostile to males and family formation, possibly because the Trump dynasty is uncomplicatedly and straightforwardly patriarchal. A large part of this is sheer force of personality, which men can and should cultivate. Be like Trump. Trump Trump Trump.

But force of personality will not do you much good if there are no marriageable women, and there are no marriageable women in Silicon Valley. Look at Zuckerberg’s wife and Bill Gates’ wife. In Silicon valley, the pump and dump lifestyle is simply the only viable strategy, because we have a social order dedicated to making women unmarriageable.

Fathers need to protect daughters from this social order, but it is hard for them to do so. If you are a silicon valley engineer, and you want to get married, need to take a year off and go for a trip around the world.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

It is mighty embarrassing if a sick person is turned away from hospital to die in the street because he has no money. So the kindly government insists that sick poor people be treated for free.

But if the hospital is going to treat poor people for free, then the hospital is going to besieged by people with carefully memorized symptoms for vague and difficult to treat diseases who show up looking for a bed, some food, and some human contact.

So, the next thing the government should do is empower to the hospital to turn away unwanted patients with a jab from a stun gun. But they don’t, because that looks kind of bad. But they do kind of sort of give the hospital some kind of monopoly power, and some power to hurry up patients who are taking too damned long to die. And then to the government’s surprise they find the hospital is mistreating and murdering affluent middle class patients. The government also finds that it still running up gigantic medical bills on bums, who are supposedly getting all sorts of extremely expensive medical treatment, though in fact they are getting this super expensive treatment only in the most superficial manner or not at all.

The hospital is rushing middle class patients out the door or into the morgue, while every corridor is piled high with incredibly expensive (and profitable) bums piled three to a urine soaked bed. (Yes, Canada, I am looking at you.)

When the government empowered the hospital to be quietly and furtively brutal and murderous, the intent was that the hospital only be brutal and murderous to the horde of bums besieging it – but they could not actually say that out loud, and if they had said it out loud would still find it difficult to get compliance.

So now the hospital is massively over treating bums, massively undertreating people who are genuinely ill with genuine diseases, and murdering any of its customers who are too sick and weak to protest. And medical costs are soaring.

So what should the government do?

Firstly, needs to hit who everyone lays down his head on a hospital bed with a high enough deductible that anyone who is not all that sick and who has to pay the deductible will not go near the hospital bed. It does not have to be all that high, does not need to be nearly as high as the Obamacare deductibles. Five hundred should do it. First thing that should happen on intake is a wallet inspection.

But suppose the patient does not have five hundred in his pocket, nor an acceptable credit card, and seems unlikely to pay. Then the nice friendly hospital for nice respectable middle class people sends him to the hospital for poor bums staffed by big ugly lesbian nurses with thick mustaches, where the first thing he meets is the death penal, with a big male guard holding stun gun, a baton, a taser, and a twelve gauge shotgun standing uncomfortably close beside him, and the death panel decides whether his treatment is likely to be cost effective.

Now at the nice friendly middle class hospital for nice middle class people we try to organize things so that the doctor and the hospital has to please the customer, if they are going to make some money, and the patient bears enough of the cost to scream bloody murder if overbilled or billed for nonexistent or barely provided services. Deductibles need to be high enough to hurt a bit, but not so high that they are, like Obamacare deductibles, frequently unpayable.

And at the hospital for poor bums, we provide all the wonders of socialist medicine so beloved by Bernie Sanders, modeled on the wonderful success of Cuban healthcare. [Fake Sarcasm tag removed because server error]

If the hospital is in the business of handing out free beds and food, it is going to need to be able to whack undeserving customers with a baton, jab them with a stungun, and throw them into the street hard enough to bounce several times. On the other hand, you would probably prefer to send your elderly grandma to hospital that does not do that sort of thing. So we need to keep a good separation between the hospital that hands out freebies, and the hospital that does not hand out freebies.

Or, equivalently you need to have very different rules in place for treating the people who are getting free food and free beds, from treating the people who want to get out of hospital as soon as they can. You have to treat one lot pretty much the opposite of the other lot.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Trump has explained the free market part of his healthcare plan in detail. It is heavily influenced by the free market part of Singapore’s tremendously successful free market healthcare system. I have no doubt that if implemented as described, it is going to work and work well.

Trumps plan for the free market healthcare system is great.

But what about Singapore’s socialist healthcare system for the poor and unfortunate?

Trump gets vague. Hospitals, he tells us, are going to get paid to take care of people “who really cannot take care of themselves”.

The trouble with this is that as I said earlier if bums, vagrants, and drug addicts go through the same intake, queue in the same line, and get the same treatment as you and me, there are going to be so many drug addicts looking for free drugs, and so many vagrants looking for free room and board, in line ahead of you and me that you and I are not going to get treated.

The way Obamacare deals with this problem is that you and I cannot afford to get treated because we are paying so much to look after drug addicts and vagrants.

Obamacare has provided insurance for everyone, by making everyone equally uninsured, provided equal access to everyone by equally denying everyone access. Obamacare has, predictably, collapsed. Ann Coulter cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer. If you cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer, not much point in having insurance at all. (Ah, but she is guaranteed free abortions, which get priority above broken legs.) If she suffers anything expensive, she will wind up with the same treatment options as the homeless bum who heads to hospital for free room and board. Which is to say, really crappy room and board, which is what you got in place of treatment in Cuban hospitals. Universal healthcare for the poor has become universal lack of healthcare for the well off.

The healthcare system has, predictably, collapsed, because it is being swarmed by bums, vagrants, and drug addicts.

When you fly, there is business class and cattle class. For Trump’s plan to work, hospitals are going to have to have separate intakes for those who are insured and paying deductible, and those who are getting free handouts. And those who are getting free handouts have to be made to really wish they were getting the kind of treatment that those who are insured and paying deductible get.

The big, big, problem, the problem he is being very quiet about, is preventing his plan for “Insurance for everyone” from devouring free market insurance the way Obamacare did. To prevent it from devouring the free market, you have to be mighty harsh on people who are getting medical care free.

You cannot adequately take care of bums, because bums will always demand more care than can be supplied. Thus a genuine universal scheme always winds up not providing care for anyone. If Ann Coulter breaks a leg or gets cancer, probably will wind up flying to Singapore, Thailand, or India.

For Trump’s scheme for “those who cannot take care of themselves” to work without destroying healthcare for paying customers, hospitals are going to have to have a separate door for “those who cannot take care of themselves”. And behind that door there needs to be someone with a taser, a stun gun, and a baton, plus doctors with a very simple and effective treatment for drug addition and obesity. They give the druggie no drugs till he completes withdrawal, and the obese person with no food at all till he is slim. Doctors have a hundred too clever by half rationales for not giving unpopular treatments. For non paying customers, however, need to give the most unpopular effective treatment possible.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Obviously you are not going to read this, because even though you keep patting yourself on the back about how open minded you are and how you refrain from cutting off contact with those who disagree with you, how you love all of humanity and want to maximize utility, you are in fact isolated in a self imposed bubble and blinded by hatred, self imposed ignorance, crimestop, and ignorant prejudice, which hatred and ignorance will quite likely get both of us killed, you more likely to be killed than me, because I lie low, have more than one passport, and more than one identity, while you hang out with totalitarians even more murderous, cruel, hateful, and intolerant than yourself. You know this, and at the same time you refuse to know it. You say it, and you deny it.

You are a very very smart guy – except that crimestop makes you very stupid. You think yourself a very good person, but have sold your soul to evil that is likely to devour you and all of western civilization.

And here is a good example of self imposed ignorance, willful stupidity, and self imposed isolation from outside thought.

" The emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling and blasphemy laws and the divine right of kings, women’s suffrage and participation in the workforce, gay marriage—all these strike me as crystal-clear examples of moral progress, as advances that will still be considered progress a thousand years from now, if there’s anyone around then to discuss such things. "

Obviously I disagree strongly with all of those things. I hope that Trump will make himself King to be succeeded by his sons, and so does pretty much everyone who uses the phrase “God Emperor Trump”. Which is a lot of people, many of them very smart people. You may think you are right, but if you think they are crystal clear, you are just suffering from ignorance and self imposed stupidity. You will not listen, and will not understand, why some people argue we need a King, that we are suffering from chronic Kinglessness.

If gay marriage is crystal clear and will be recognized as crystal clear in a thousand years, why was it not crystal clear eight years ago? Answer me!

Take my favorite topic: Female emancipation. Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

And, in case you have not noticed, we still have blasphemy laws – except that these days you cannot blaspheme against magic Negroes. For reasons I have explained at length, all societies need blasphemy laws, and prohibiting people from blaspheming against something like holy oil or the flag, causes considerably less harm and suffering than prohibiting people from blaspheming against John Lewis. All your objections to Trump are objections to blasphemy. What is supposedly crystal clear to you is in fact something you do not believe in the slightest. Elsewhere I argue that we should venerate holy oil from Mount Athos because of all the things we might venerate, that is likely to cause the least collateral damage.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

[Reminder that the subtitle in the blog header is "Liberty in an unfree world"]

Liberty allows and encourages the highest human flourishing. But when your enemies seek your destruction, it is time for liberty to go.

The time approaches for the warrior ethic, wherein the highest good is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

It takes two to keep the peace, only one to start war. Every time that Muslims drive a truck into a bunch of Christians, or Black Lives Matter ethnically cleanses the neighborhood of whites and burns down a shopping center, people start panicking “Oh, the terrible white backlash is forcing Muslims and blacks to become radicals.”, though no one has seen any white backlash yet.

The way to respond to war, is with war. History shows us that only war works.

Let us try massacring some peaceful Muslim men and enslaving their women, and see what the effect is on Muslim radicalism. Let us try reenslaving those blacks that are causing the most problems. That would be backlash.

For liberty to exist, there must first be law. For law to exist, there must first be order. For order to exist, there must first be peace. For peace to exist, there must first be victory. And victory usually requires the most horrifying means.

Submitting to your enemy’s war making is not liberty, nor order, nor is it peace.

It is been too long since the last war, people have forgotten how terrible war is, and our enemies have become too used to easy victories, where they make war unopposed, and this war making is answered by generous concessions, which necessarily leads to more extreme war making by our enemies. The only way to real peace, is now through real war.

jim #racist blog.reaction.la

If a white helps a black, the black reasonably and realistically believes this is tribute extorted by fear and violent supremacy, hence grounds for further attacks on that white. Similarly, if a non Muslim helps a Muslim.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Demon Worship

The Clinton circle ritually and collectively perform degenerate acts as a sacrament (Podesta’s Spirit Cooking). There are increasing grounds to suspect that they engaged in child sacrifice.

I don’t suppose they would think of it as demon worship, rather they think they are worshiping themselves and their own magical powers, but the connections to child traffickers reveal that it is demon worship. Hillary famously said “It takes a village”, and she has taken a few, or at least she applied State Department power to protect child traffickers that stole a few.

Meanwhile, the State Department some time ago installed Ms. Park Gyun-Hye as the President of South Korea, and was and is confident of her servile obedience, and continues to feel that were she replaced, it would be a bad thing for “the international community”.

But it was recently revealed that Ms. Park Gyun-Hye was the servile and mistreated puppet of a circle of people who claim magical powers and perform magic rituals.

So if she is the puppet of a religious leader, then the religious leader must be the puppet of the State Department, or, more likely, since cohesion usually comes from shared religion and ritual practice, the State Department is controlled by practitioners of the same religion, who meet together to do disgusting stuff like drinking the blood of children, which bonds them together.

The Cathedral is not so much a single conspiracy, as the net entropic consequence of a huge number of conspiracies. It cannot be accurately modeled as a single conscious being. Apple under Jobs was an extension of the will of Jobs, and its actions were explicable as the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of excellence. The American government cannot be modeled as the will of Obama, or the will of a small group capable of meeting around a coffee table and its actions cannot be modeled as the pursuit of anything coherent or sane. But the largest and most cohesive conspiracy will exercise the most power and gain the most privilege, and the largest and most cohesive conspiracy is apt to be the beneficiary of shared religious worship and belief.

Since the Clinton circle is clearly the most powerful conspiracy, we would expect it to be the largest and most cohesive, hence we would expect it to be held together by the glue of shared religious worship and belief – religion and belief that supplies plentiful amounts of blackmail material. It is inherent in the nature of the Cathedral that one is likely to find something like a cult of demon worshipers exercising the most power. You have inner circles, inner circles within inner circles, and natural selection for the meme system most capable of gaining and holding power.

You will notice that the pope and almost every christian authority has backed Hilton to the hilt, knowing that she engages in degenerate acts conducted as a sacrament.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Normally I recommend and practice non participation in democratic politics. It is a spectacle and a delusion. But this is the Flight 93 election. Vote early, vote often, and should opportunity permit it to be done safely, physically attack likely Hillary voters near polling booths.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

If ten year old girls were not restrained, most of them would be banging thirty and forty year old men. While ten year old boys are completely uninterested in sex and regard it as disgusting, girls start taking an interest in males well before puberty. Preteen girls are primarily interested in older males, and, just as male homosexuals don’t much like male homosexuals, preferring manly men or twelve year old boys, preteen girls don’t much like adult males that like preteen girls. Preteen girls are especially interested in older males that have recently had an adult sexual relationship with an adult female, are especially interested in divorced men, separated men, and widowers.

We don’t let preteen girls follow their desires because it is likely to be bad for them and bad for society. Seems to me that letting adult women follow their desires is worse for them and worse for society. All women are immature until menopause.

In the ancestral environment women seldom got to make their own sexual choices, and have not evolved to be very good at it.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

We observe high fertility in those nations and cultures where patriarchy is legally and socially enforced, in particular Muslim Afghanistan and Christian Timor Leste. Affordability of family formation has little effect. Clearly males in patriarchal societies are highly motivated to have children. They will do whatever it takes so that they can afford a family.

Thus, if pro social behavior in a patriarchal society is rewarded by a wife and the ability to support a family, you get highly motivated workers and soldiers.

...

I was the boss of my family and I found being a patriarch and having children hugely rewarding. But then I am a grade A asshole, and I am not afraid to commit illegal acts, though I tend to consult lawyers on ways to weasel out or buy my way out if caught, before I commit them. It is hard to be a patriarch if you are a nice guy, or if you have respect for law and social pressure, because marriages on the Pauline model are illegal, being marital rape and psychological abuse. Marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is illegal and criminal, so of course the population is collapsing. Workable families are similarly illegal. Indeed, these days any sexual interaction with women is illegal with the notable exception of hiring whores and escorts – whores, escorts, and porn stars being the only women who are likely to give you explicit verbal consent moment to moment.

Extrapolating my subjective experience, and the subjective experience depicted by Henry Dampier, fully explains observed fertility patterns, for example the very spectacular collapse of Japanese fertility.

People don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. If you think we can modify fertility with the tax system read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

"Although it seems you hate Islam for various ethno-nationalist-religious reasons, you obviously admire their commitment to patriarchy, theocracy, etc."

Yes. They are our enemies, but they get lots of stuff right that we get wrong.

"Given that a Christian revival is unlikely, should we root for Muslims to destroy Europe from within?"

Islam is the solution that we do not want. But, because of differential fertility, it is the solution we are likely to get.

I remarked elsewhere that if Islam kills our gays we lose sovereignty. We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves.

Come the restoration, will decree a period of amnesia to allow gays to get back in the closet. Gays that come out of the closet will get the high jump. We will claim, truthfully enough, that there was something about the pre restoration environment that caused people to become gay, and pretend, half truthfully, that come the restoration, large numbers of gays turned straight.

Next page