The false life plan

Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.

The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.

So girls followed that plan. With the result that the male plan (get a career and what you need to support a family, and a good wife will show up) stopped working. So males stopped working. And here we are.

Girls should be taught the female life plan, in domestic science classes, and in the stories they see on television.

Women have a natural tendency to hypergamy, resulting in the mating patterns of chimps, the ghetto, and some primitive tribes. Successful civilizations come down hard against this mating pattern, which necessarily requires that they come down hard on females, the uncontrollably lustful sex, systematically treating them as in substantially greater need than men of control, protection, and protection from their own selves, treating them all as Medeas, Pandoras, and Eves. The very least we can do it tell girls that the life plan that leads to this outcome, leads to the outcomes that it does.

Of course a civilization that could tell the truth on this question, would be capable of denying the vote to inferior groups, categories, races, and individuals, so would probably be capable of applying greater control to those groups in need of greater control.

I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.

Our culture lacks the eighteenth century role model of the gentleman, the man who is polite, respectful, conventional, but still capable of deadly violence, which contributes to females despising high status as high status is measured among civilized males, for a perception of high status more appropriate among chimps or in the ghetto. They need to be taught to respect and admire the kind of male that is likely to be able and willing to marry them. Males are socially controlled to behave in a manner perceived by females as low status and feminine, so the extent that males comply with socialization, females don’t want to have sex with them. We need to adjust socialization of males to make socialized behavior more attractive, which is to say, more masculine and less feminine, and adjust socialization of females to encourage them to associate with socialized males. A broader role for private violence by the affluent and respectable in upholding order, and a lesser role for police violence in upholding order would help considerably. Hard to change the nature of females, easier to change the organization of prosocial violence for the maintenance of order, so that females come to perceive the males that they ought to be interested in as the males who will win a violent conflict.

As I remarked earlier, the female’s pussy perceives status in ways appropriate to our ancestral environment, rather than our more recent environment, and there is not a lot that can be done about this other than reduce those differences between the ancestral environment and our more recent environment that tend to mislead females. Just as we need to avoid foods that are simultaneously sweet and fatty, so we need to avoid making civilized men into eunuchs. High socioeconomic status males need to be scarier, if women are going to breed with high socioeconomic status males. Excessive repression of private violence has led to dysgenic sexual choices by women. Partly we should solve this by preventing female sexual choice, but another part of the solution is more selective and less repressive repression of violence by high socioeconomic status males. High socioeconomic status males need to be able to get away with more manly behavior, including more of the primitive behavior that females understand as manliness. In addition to stronger guidance and restraint on female sexual choice, we need less feminization of high socioeconomic status males to reduce dysgenesis driven by female choice.

Not only are females educated to follow the false life plan, males are educated to be unattractive to females. Education becomes a genetic sink, reducing the reproduction of the most highly educated males and females, not only by wasting their time during their most important reproductive years, but by teaching them behaviors that make them less likely to reproduce and more likely to fail in their attempts to reproduce. We should teach, particularly in sex education, behaviors that make them more likely to succeed in reproduction. We need manlier men and more feminine women, but especially, we need manlier men. What is needed for women is primarily to deny them their most strongly preferred sexual choices to prevent them from rewarding unproductive and anti social behavior.

Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.

Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.

She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.

And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.

At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)

Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.

The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.

Now theoretically, if a woman is chaste, men will only approach her that are appropriate to her marriage market value, and she will avoid getting an inflated perception of her value, but no man believes that a chaste women is likely to remain chaste, because, they are not likely to remain chaste. So a woman faces a storm of approaches that would never happen if the boys had to ask her dad before approaching her, and if her dad said yes, they would get not a date with the opportunity of physical contact, but merely the opportunity to court her for marriage. These approaches lead Kate Gosselin to believe that she is entitled to marry a six foot tall physically fit millionaire, and that life, her husband, and the male dominated society is being terribly unfair to her in not giving her what she is entitled to have.

And another of my proposed sex education videos, this one for females only, since it depicts male polygyny.

Scene: An office. A young handsome man in a business suit strides through the office, and everyone’s reaction shows that he is the boss, or very important. He guestures at an attractive thirtyish woman to follow him, and strides on without bothering to check that she is following him. Because of his long swift strides, while she is wearing a tight dress and high heeled shoes, hard for her to keep up. He arrives at the executive toilet, and furtively looks around. Then goes into the toilet. She arrives at the toilet, hesitates a moment, furtively looks around, and follows him into the executive toilet. The camera follows her into the toilet. She goes into one of the stalls, closes the door behind, and we immediately hear the sound of panties being pulled down, followed by her gasp. The camera circles around and we see above the stall door the head of the woman, and the head and shoulders of the boss, still fully dressed on the upper parts of their bodies, obviously having sex. After a bit the woman says:

“Grunt. My husband. Grunt. Is going to. Grunt. Divorce me.”

Boss bursts through the stall door fleeing her, without bothering to open the door first. The image freezes, with flying shattered parts of the stall door obscuring the view of the most vital parts of the boss and the employee. His pants are a few inches down, her skirt is up, her panties are around her thighs.

Freeze image fades, replaced by a patriarchal father figure who directly addresses the camera, explaining that men are polygynous, and will therefore have sex with women well below their sexual market value, but when they do so, one of the factors important to them is how easily they can get rid of the woman once they have finished using her. When a high value man has sex with a low value woman, he fears that she will cling.

Patriarchal father figure fades, and once again we see the toilet. Woman, now fully dressed, walks to the door, opens it, revealing the toilet symbol and an audience of office workers, presumably non executives. End video.

The purpose of the video is to inform Kate Gosselin that replacing her husband is likely to be less easy than she imagines, something that no woman is likely to learn from our present schools, movies, books and television shows.

Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.

Tags: , , ,

26 Responses to “The false life plan”

  1. Every relationship will take time because no
    relationships are created instantly. A healthy relationship could only be sustained
    when two different people are going to accept that they both hold the to certainly an independent space for
    themselves. You need to consider the possibility that
    the partner might be reacting that other activities have learned to edge their
    way into your health, which she thinks are pulling you far from her.

  2. […] these decisions are still terribly harmful and should never have been permitted. For example Kate Gosselin should not have been permitted to be rude, hateful and shrewish to her husband, and sh…, and making her husband pay for her wicked, foolish, and self destructive behavior did not much […]

  3. Zach says:

    Someone else brought up story telling.

    Paramount IMO. Hundreds of people got the last Sex Ed post. Don’t know if they read it, but they got it.

    Simple. Honest. Genius.

    It’s a fucking tell all of what needs to be told.

  4. oscar the grinch says:

    The argument for dueling is interesting but probably unrealistic. A version of it of course exists in ghetto culture, where men routinely kill each other over trivial insults — I suppose the badass does get the girl, but it causes way too much societal damage.

    I think for whites, a simple beginner’s solution would be a reintroduction of a seriously developed culture of chivalry. Properly executed chivalry telegraphs masculine strength and firmness without being overtly threatening. Back when I was younger and did pretty well with girls, I did two things: I had sort of old-fashioned manners that were formal and not fawning, and I studied a martial art for a few months — not to become an expert or a fighter, but to learn basic principles of biomechanics and movement. I learned how to carry myself as a real man, and developed clipped, precise movements in ordinary activities that drew a female’s eye to me. I wasn’t Mister Macho, but I exuded an air of confidence and strength and that was enough to work.

    Like I say, it’d be a start. I think ritualized violence is an extreme solution and would be too much; sport of course is ritualized violence though, and it’s less extreme. White men should concentrate on reclaiming some tough sports where they’re now edged out by black talent. Or maybe start developing sports expertise in areas that blacks don’t like much.

    • spark says:

      Sports like hockey or mma? Yeah we got some …. ive even heard that white boxers are starting to dominate.

  5. […] false life plan. Related: The feminist goal is an unhappy woman. Related: Women’s mating optimism in youth. […]

  6. Zach says:

    This was a fascinating read. Always thought provoking.

    I thought your first proposed sex education video was hilarious, and absolutely fucking true.

    This comes in a close 2nd.

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Good post, “Jim”. It’s interesting how important story-telling is for successful societies… That is a characteristic of “reactionary” culture, and it’s got to move into the mainstream.

    Best regards,


  8. Dave says:

    The final irony of the cat lady: A liberated woman spends her entire life voting for single-payer health care, or for an unstable isotope that decays into single-payer health care. Then she develops her first non-trivial health problem, and the government decides that the most cost-effective treatment is to let her die.

  9. blackest aryan says:

    Great and very insightful post, especially on bringing back some more violence. It’s an urge every man has, yet we’re made into women.
    This is a porn manga, but it’s more of an educational piece I think. Young woman decides to look the prettiest she can be and get’s taken advantage of to the max. Shows how irresponsible and cruel it is to let women do what they want. (very nsfw and dirty)

    • Samson J. says:

      Great and very insightful post, especially on bringing back some more violence.

      Yes, this is an under-appreciated issue. Certainly dueling ought to be resurrected, possibly even encouraged in some circumstances and social classes.

      • nydwracu says:

        Dueling would be useful. It could even slow the pace of memetic mutation, insofar as memetic mutation is fueled by attempts to change a memeplex by lowering the status of one’s opponents. (Snark, essentially.)

        If Jon Stewart pulls a picture of you on the screen, makes a funny face, and goes “abwuhhh!!!”, you can’t challenge him to a duel. If you could challenge him to a duel, he’d be less likely to do it. Snark is politically-weaponized bullying, and bullies target people who don’t fight back.

        If Jon Stewart pulls a picture of you on the screen, makes a funny face, and goes “abwuhhh!!!”, it’s because he wants his viewers to think you’re low-status, that you talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded. Why? Because if his viewers think you talk like a fag, that’s all they’ll think of when they see anything they associate with you. Status concerns come first.

        (Intelligence may even have evolved due [in part] to the complexity of human status competitions. Presumably in a feedback loop: more intelligence meant better ability to get ahead in status competitions, but also ability to comprehend more complex status dynamics, which created more pressure to get ahead in status competitions and therefore to evolve more intelligence, and so on.)

        If we assume that Burke and Chesterton were basically right, or that the memetics-genetics analogy holds here, or that complex structures are easier to break than to build — that is, that a random mutation is more likely to be negative than positive (and, as you can see, there are many ways of ending up with this conclusion), this means that ability to slow memetic mutation is a very good thing to have. If snark becomes heavily disincentivized, that’s one fewer avenue open for memetic mutation.

        Is there any way this could work to accelerate memetic mutation?

        Smarm operates on a higher level than snark: it appeals to status through non-status values (morality, etc.), so the ability of smarm to be deployed as a counterweight to snark could be removed by the legalization of dueling. But smarm is not a strategy of bullies: it’s a strategy of moralists. Sometimes moralists turn out to be bullies (Whitecloaks), but moralists are more likely to willingly risk or face violence than bullies, and I suspect smarm-peddlers would be less disincentivized by dueling than snark-peddlers. Since smarm has to appeal to pre-existing non-status values, it’s not as much of a mutation risk as snark; it may even be a counterweight to it.

        However, if smarm, snark, and all other methods of passing off insults as arguments are all heavily disincentivized by dueling — what would happen then?

        What would happen if, for example, the only things left were intellectual argument and sophistry? This would probably reduce memetic mutation speed: everyone can understand status, but hardly anyone can understand Rawls, and a large percentage of the population probably couldn’t understand a heavily simplified explanation of Rawls.

        This could never happen, of course: there are many other avenues by which the portion of the population that couldn’t understand a heavily simplified explanation of Rawls can be influenced, as is shown by the fact that history furnishes countless examples of their being influenced. Metapolitics, charisma, etc.

        The danger, then, would be if some of these methods were more effective than snark and had a similar in-built direction of weaponization (that is, lent themselves more readily to mutation than to prevention of mutation), and if the legalization of dueling pushed would-be snark-peddlers into those methods instead.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Young White” & “Blackest Aryan” certainly have vengeance on their or his mind today… L.O.L…

  10. youngwhite says:

    You bitch about women every damn day. It old news. We get it old man.

    But its not their fault. Its not their fault! They are what they are. Their whoredom is the fault of (white)men for letting them be that way. Men ultimately make the rules, because we are the masters of violence.

    Or at least we used to be. We dont seem to care anymore.

    The woman is not to blame. Only the man, for he is the only responsible actor. How much longer are you gonna beat the dead horse or feminism? Seriously. You want to get rant against someone, rant against yourself, rant against the white man for having everything, then letting it all slip away.

    • Xenonon says:

      Both are to blame. You won’t get anywhere if you make excuses for an entire half of the human race. No matter which half.

      • Dan Kurt says:

        Close, but no cigar.

        The lessons of History demonstrate that humans that have the brains to create civilization form empires that dominate their world for a time, circa 200 years, then invariably self destruct. The rise of feminism is a marker for the end stage as is the welfare state.

        Dan Kurt

        • fnn says:

          But now it’s not just the Murican Empire-we can see that the entire West is rapidly dying,

          Of course the whole West is now part of the American Empire-but it didn’t have to be that way. The Anglo-Americans could have stayed out of the Great War and allowed (horrors :)) Germany to dominate the Continent. If the silly Brits were too buggerred to do that they could have made a deal with Hitler with 1940. Today we all realize that Hitler was preferable to Stalin and not Satan come to earth like the rubes are led to believe.

          But go ahead and believe Goldhagenian theology about the Germans carrying the Devil’s seed, it then would have been better to allow the Red Army to go all the way to Brest. The West Europeans would have civilized the Soviet ruling elites before long and Western Civilization could have been preserved. THe latter period of Soviet rule was of course culturally quite conservative.

          • jim says:

            Nazi Germany would not have fixed the problem. Nazis were leftists also. Fertility collapsed under Wiemar, and Nazis could not restore it. World War II was just three branches of leftism fighting over who would rule the world. The outcome would be much the same whoever was victorious. The outcome we got was probably the least bad possible.

            The German common people do carry the devil’s seed. The cure would have been a military coup to restore aristocratic rule.

    • red says:

      Who the fuck cares about blame? The presentation is how to fix things, not how aportionment blame.

    • I don’t want to control women. I don’t want to dominate them. Let them fuck Jeremy Meeks. Then castrate the women that do. I would much rather modify the genes of the female sex to make them the way they are supposed to be.

      Cheat on your husband? Castrate. Act like a bitch? Castrate. Feminist? Castrate. Lack common sense? Castrate. Castrate Jeremy Meeks for that matter. Meanwhile the good women are incentivized to pop out 20 children using subsidies paid for by the slave labor of castrated white progressives and castrated violent vibrants.

      In 200 years the human race will be a paradise. The problem with your approach is that by having men control women the same destructive traits are selected for. A want a strong selection AGAINST these types of human that simply destroys their DNA utterly.

      • jim says:

        I don’t want to control women. I don’t want to dominate them. Let them fuck Jeremy Meeks

        Then you are unlikely to reproduce successfully. You have just removed yourself from the gene pool.

        To raise children successfully, a man and a woman must form one household. One household must have one captain.

        In order to be close, people must be unequal.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its not their “fault” in the same way that untrained feral dogs behaviour isn’t their fault… they lack agency sure. And sure they are conforming to the Cathedral memeplex in their feral lack of agency.

      But that doesn’t change the fact that the way women are acting now is far more a problem than the way the common man is acting now. And that this problem cannot be solved without abolishing Democracy in order to put women back in order…

Leave a Reply