The three magic words

Civilization is collapsing, the revolutionary political crisis is approaching, but, worse than that Heartiste has stopped posting on game, and Roosh has turned tradcuck. So even though I have sworn this is not going to be a game blog, and my life has demonstrated times without number that no end of men are better qualified to post on game than I am, I guess I will have to step into the gap, at least a little bit.

The three magic words are not “I love you”

The three magic words are “You are mine”.

Every now and then I grab my woman while she is doing something and start groping her, and she protests indignantly and sometimes struggles a bit, but she loves it. And sometimes when I do so, I say “Mine”, or “You are mine”.

Men want to own women, and women want to be owned by manly men, but no one gets what they want. Instead we spin plates, while she waits for the next booty call from someone more manly than ourselves.

When a chick says “I love you”, it is always a shit test. She wants to see if she can control you by making you tell her you love her on demand. If she can, you have failed the shit test, she will not remember you exist, and will look all the way through you. You should tell her you love her unpredictably and considerably less often than she tells you she loves you.

If you regularly fail at shit tests, she will scarcely remember your name. It will be like one of those names she had to remember in order to pass a history test, and this is an important and frequent shit test.

This is commandment One and Five in Heartiste’s Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Though I would give it several months between when she says “I love you” and you eventually getting around to saying it, and I say “I love you” back about one third of the time that she says “I love you”.

I have followed the Sixteen Commandments of Poon both instinctively, and through long and painful experience, long before Heartiste started blogging, and they are the greatest short summary of that small part of game that can be put into readily intelligible words.

Game, however is more readily intelligible if we understand it through the lens of Evolutionary Game Theory, which should be understood as a materialistic account of the spiritual truths of the first part of the Book of Genesis, Evolutionary Game theory being, for higher animals, primarily evolutionary psychology, evolutionary psychology being in large part the application of game theory in the context of natural selection, the moral consequences of material and effective causation, the Logos.

Evolutionary Game theory is an account in terms of material and effective causation, in terms of chance and necessity, the Book of Genesis tells us something about how the consequences of Evolutionary Game Theory are the Will of Gnon.

The ancestral environment of the higher races of man was the interior of the Eurasian land mass, and this is where successive waves of more advanced humans came from, the most recent such wave being the Aryans, who emerged from somewhere near the Caspian sea, equipped with bronze weapons, small horses (the horse had not yet been bred the capacity to carry a man on its back) and chariots, with their homes and possessions in carts. This is an environment where extreme seasonal differences made it necessary to accumulate capital and maintain technology. You cannot survive there without stuff and considerable thought and preparation for the next season. Thus not only were they under higher selection for forethought, industriousness, scientific thought, and smarts (hence the bronze weapons) they were under higher selection for successful family formation. Mars is a harsher environment, and will be a stronger filter.

A single women cannot effectively own stuff, particularly in the ancestral environment where being able to defend stuff is a very large part of being able to own it, and are maladapted to possessing property except on behalf of an alpha male. Hence the common pattern in a divorce where the wife expects the last guy who gave her a booty call, who is way handsomer and more charismatic than her husband, to marry her, but no more booty calls are forthcoming, then her husband gets a new woman way younger than she is, wherupon she pisses away her share of the family assets and wrecks the lives of her children. Mars will not succeed with a system that allows assets to get into weak hands.

For the higher races to reproduce, have to prevent women from continuing to cruise for a higher alpha all their fertile years. If not allowed to cruise, property of the first male they have sex with, and compelled to honor and obey.

For about the cost of two dates, you can have a hooker, and it is not an adequate substitute. Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men, a rotating series of hookups, is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

Roosh eventually discovered the downside of spinning plates and serial hookups.

Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized for life.

It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime, and hookups a marginal improvement on whores. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

We are maladapted to watching the decline from the pool.

Roosh took the wrong redpill from realizing that banging sloots becomes unfufilling after a while. He wants a 50s family life as men generally do, but needs to realize its impossible without a restoration of some degree of de jure patriarchal authority.A convincing claim to be backed by the supreme alpha, and a plausible willingness to carry out his will on adultery, adultery as defined in the Old Testament, serves as a substitute for de jure backing of patriarchal authority.

The Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for a man who sleeps with someone else’s wife or betrothed, and the death penalty for the woman if she consented. And who gets to carry out that penalty?

Well, that is not defined. In the time of judges, Israel was somewhat anarchic, so presumably the husband and his family and friends. In the book of Proverbs, King Solomon assumes that system, though he implies some regulatory restraints, so that continued to be the system under King Solomon.

That is the best system, because the state or the official priesthood monopolizing the killing of adulterers emasculates the husband, and thus makes adultery more likely.

We should be wise as serpents, and I fear that Roosh has lost focus on the wisdom of serpents.

Roosh now advocates not using game to find a wife because women that need game and PUA tactics to catch will most likely not make for loyal Christian wives.

Once, however you meet a woman, it is game on. If he suggests otherwise he is absolutely wrong.

It is always game on. There is no rest for men. We are always on stage. We can only be ourselves when there are no women around.

I have a serious disagreement with him about wise behavior in a fallen world. In a fallen world, we should be as wise, and preferably wiser, than the minions of Satan, as well as cooperating more successfully.

Most of the minions of Satan are fools and liars, and should not be listened to, but Heartiste speaks the truth. Roosh feels, correctly, that the wisdom of Heartiste and himself is apt to be used for evil and destruction, that it facilitates choices that are unwise for oneself, and damaging to others, but that is a choice that each of us must make for ourselves. Good people must be armed with the same or better knowledge than bad people. When Jesus told his followers to get swords, he meant sharp swords, and not to draw them lightly, but have them at the ready to be drawn.

You have to bang them, or they are not going to stick around. If a man and woman spend more than a week together without banging, they are going break up, unless the woman is literally kept locked in by her father between suitor visits. Plus you want very much to bang them. Same night lays are difficult (though if in an international tourist spot where you can plausibly claim that you have to go to the airport tomorrow afternoon, less difficult) but second week lays are also difficult.

There is no substantial distinction between the fast seduction arsenal, and the seduction at all arsenal. A sword cuts the same whether wielded for good or evil.

The prohibition against adultery is against sleeping with other men’s wives and betrothed, and the prohibition against fornication is against disrupting other people’s families and other men’s patriarchal authority. Since marriage as traditionally understood has long been illegal, and the family court and child protective services are rapidly moving towards making family illegal, there is not much likelihood of committing adultery or fornication these days.

Listen to Heartiste, but, as Roosh discovered, there are better lives than watching the decline. Heartiste speaks the truth, and an important truth, and everything he says is true and important, and unlike most of Satan’s servants should be listened to with attention, but when he truthfully tells you that that watching the decline from poolside is the easiest way, and the better way is hard and dangerous, and likely to end in terrible failure, he is telling a truth that serves his master.

The redpill must always outrank everything… Otherwise you are preaching something other than truth, and Roosh is now preaching something subtly different from the truth. The Old Testament celebrates physical desire. There is just no mention of this chaste eros stuff. Sexual love and sexual desire are inseparable. That is what makes them sexual.

Roosh suggests that you search for a good woman. Wrong! Women are blown where the winds take them. All women are like that. A good woman is good because she is subject to the authority of a good man. All woman are naturally bad unless under the authority of a good man. There are no unicorns. No Women Are Like That. (You should however search for a woman with a low count, and a count of zero is infinitely preferable, for otherwise she is likely to forever carry a torch for the bad boy who got away, regarding you as a regrettable and inferior temporary substitute.) All women are good when nestled securely under the thumb of right patriarchal authority. The late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australian authorities had seemingly complete success in turning whores into wives, by making their husbands strong.

You cannot make a housewife out of a ho in our current environment, because she will see you as weak compared to numerous pimps she has been with. However late eighteenth, early nineteenth century Australia had swift and total success in making ho’s into wives. When the elite shotgun married them off, they reacted as if abducted from the weaker tribe into the stronger tribe, and completely internalized the values of the stronger tribe – which required and expected respectable female behavior. Female virtue is more easily obtained if you are more manly than anyone she has been with previously and a bit scary than by searching for it. Of course, in today’s environment, you don’t have backing from your tribe, you have hostility from your tribe. This makes things far more difficult than in late eighteenth century Australia, but not impossibly so. You have backing from God.

Evolutionary psychology predicts that women want the semen of men who are successful with women, while also wanting to hang with men who will protect them and look after them, because such a man is likely to look after his children. The female fantasy, expressed in a number of films, is a loving husband whom they do not have sex with, and a parade of alpha male cads whom they do. This is the equivalent of the male harem fantasy, except that the harem is serial rather than parallel. Most women do not however attempt this, expecting the obvious reaction, just as males are frequently a little nervous about asking a girl for a threesome with her sister.

A propensity to beat her and treat her as easily replaceable is indication that she is easily replaceable, hence indication of success with other women. Actual infidelity is also evidence of success with other women. Thus evolutionary psychology predicts that women will like an alpha asshole with a touch of beta provider – will like someone who looks after her and protects her, but also beats her, treats her as easily replaceable, and sleeps with other women.

It is the nature of women to think of their man before they think of themselves. If she thinks of you after she thinks of herself, then she still carries a torch for the bad boy who got away.

Sex is not a reciprocal activity. Men conquer, woman surrender, but men perform and woman choose.

The mating dance has not been accurately depicted in media since the sixties. (Though it is still accurately depicted in Communist Chinese media, but the Chinese are too alien, too different.)

If you don’t perform the mating dance correctly, will get nowhere fast. The dance is complimentary but asymmetric.

Women want to be commanded, want to serve, want to surrender, want to be valuable to a strong man, want to make him a sandwich, want to bear him children and warm his bed. But they want a strong man, preferably in a strong tribe, and their perception of strength is primitive compared to that of males. And they will never stop testing you for strength.

This is why, when you are trying to get a chicks attention, it never helps to do something nice for her, even to rescue her from danger. Rescuing the damsel in distress is a trope for male viewers. In books and movies targeted at women, the male love interest never rescues the damsel, he endangers her. Negs work, asking her to do something for you works, commanding her works. Stuff that a man would find ridiculous or insulting, and would either make him angry or make him laugh at your pretensions, works.

Negs work astonishingly well, even if so lacking in wit that they are actually insults and would make a man bristle up.

I have actually rescued a chick from danger in real life, with entirely predictable results. Protecting people registers with men as strength, but not with women as strength. Endangering people, innocent people, including the woman herself, registers as strength. I know this from my personal life experience. If you doubt me, check out the love interests in books written by women for women. All women are like that.

Women like men who frighten them. If you don’t kill a man, but beat him, he’ll resent you and wait until his chance to strike back. If you don’t kill a woman, but beat her, she’ll get “Stockholm syndrome” and be pretty loyal

A man needs to own a woman, he needs a house, and land and children. A man that does not own a woman breaks, and a rotating collection of sluts is not ownership.

If she is free to suspend cooperation at any time, men are disinclined to invest in her and her children. You pump and dump, so that if you are lucky, you dump her before she dumps you. You spin the plates to avoid being spun. There is always someone more alpha than you are. You pump and dump because it hurts less that way. Evolution shaped you that way, evolution makes it hurt, so that you would not waste time looking after a chick that becomes pregnant with Jeremy Meeks’s demon spawn. Evolution has planted the knowledge in you that investing in a woman you do not own is a bad investment.

You don’t plant trees on land you don’t own, and if you don’t have some land and plant some trees for your grandkids, it hurts.

Roissy truthfully tells us how to operate in defect/defect equilibrium with women. But the point is to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

My wife, after making me my morning coffee, “jokingly” threatened to charge me with rape, domestic violence, and all that. Just friendly joking ha ha. She observed that this would make her rich, which made it not very funny at all. I “jokingly” quoted the Old Testament, and “jokingly” pointed at the ocean. (Implying that if she called the cops on us she might go for a very long swim.) Haha. Just having fun. We laughed. I laughed for real, because when I pointed at the ocean, I passed her shit test, and she loved me for passing her shit test. Alpha male backed by the supreme alpha male. She points at alpha cop, I point at alpha God. She points at my assets, I point at the ocean.

That is how you reach cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Let us imagine two mafia guys. Cops put each one in separate cells, and tell them.

“If neither of you rat the other out, we will punish you for carrying a gun without a carry permit and stuff. If you rat your pal out, and your pal fails to rat you out, you get off free, your pal takes all the blame, and gets the electric chair. If both of you rat each other out, we will let you off with forty years in prison. If you don’t rat your pal out, and your pal rats you out, you get the electric chair.”

The prisoner would be much better off if he was sure that the mafia would kill the rat.

In a prisoner’s dilemma, you want and need external enforcement. It is in a woman’s individual biological self interest to be in a situation where if she runs off with the wedding singer, she gets dragged back on a leash and beaten, and the wedding singer gets beaten to death, just as it is in the prisoner’s individual self interest to be a member of an organization that will kill him should he rat on the other prisoner.

Women are unable to reproduce, because they have an abundance of choice, and no way of irrevocably escaping choice. So they love a man who can deny them choice. Trouble with Roissy’s framing is that he correctly says that women love bad men, and correctly concludes you should be bad, but fails to notice that a good man can be strong enough to take away a woman’s unwanted freedom.

Female behavior that appears wicked, foolish, and self destructive to a man is entirely intelligible when we realize that the proud independent rapidly aging overweight barista with one hundred thousand dollars in college and credit card debt is unlikely to have children, and is likely to die alone and be eaten by her numerous cats, but if abducted by Islamic State and sold on the auction block naked and in chains would probably have seven children and twenty five grandchildren, and would die surrounded by loving family.

If a man is defeated, conquered and subdued, perhaps because his tribe and country is conquered and subdued, he is unlikely to reproduce. If a woman is defeated, conquered and subdued, she has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium, escaped from prisoner’s dilemma, and also been transferred from weak men and a weak tribe to strong men and a strong tribe, and is therefore likely to be highly successful in reproducing. As a result, women have no country, no tribe, and no ingroup. When they are daughters, they have their father’s tribe, when wives, their husband’s tribe. A woman without a father or a husband is a stateless person, and if a state piously declares her to be a citizen, the state is deluding itself, or deluding its actual citizens in order to commit treason against them.

Thus female behavior that is seemingly wicked, self destructive, and crazy, makes sense when looked at through the lens of Evolutionary Game Theory.

Betas think they will be happiest if they have what alpha males have, happiest with a rotating series of sterile girlfriends, but if this was truly male nature it would be inconsistent with Darwin’s sexual selection. It is inconsistent with the fact that when men have all the power and women are powerless, fertility is high and whores nonexistent, and inconsistent with what I see in front of my nose.

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

I was at a party and I was talking about women to a blue pilled normie, who is, predictably, raising two boys who are not his own, their actual father, predictably, being in jail, and the normie, predictably, being childless.

I attempted to start a conversation about our past misadventures with women. He fearfully remarked “Women don’t like that” – meaning women don’t like men talking about their past women and he did not want to upset his girlfriend.

To which I replied: “Women love what they hate.” His girlfriend supposedly likes nice guys like himself, but somehow during a protracted fit of absent mindedness wound up bearing two sons to a violent stoner with no job who spends all his mysteriously acquired money on drugs.

When she was with the violent stoner, she had a job and he did not, while now she is with the nice guy, he has a job and she does not. I never saw her hug him, or look at him admiringly, at the party, even though he was by far the most handsome man at the party, and except for myself the most intelligent. Handsome, wealthy, intelligent, kind, and he predictably gets another man’s leavings. Women like dangerous men, or men who plausibly seem dangerous, and she likes most of all a man who can plausibly appear to seem dangerous to herself. Escaping from defect/defect into cooperate/defect is no escape. Your mission is to escape into cooperate/cooperate and to live in accordance with the will of Gnon.

But there is no escape from shit tests. Mohammed had a large harem, absolute power, and it clear he had a hard time. This is a chronic problem with large harems, and empires frequently die of it, as the Turkish empire did and the Chinese empires often did. Genghis Khan had no women problems, and neither did his sons, but his grandsons were lesser men than he. Women will find a way to shit test you.

Tags: ,

410 Responses to “The three magic words”

  1. […] Jim’s Blog: The three magic words (2020/8/7) […]

  2. […] Jim’s Blog: The three magic words (2020/8/7) […]

  3. […] Blog: The three magic words […]

  4. […] Put simply, in fellow blogger Jim’s words, […]

  5. […] game theory in the absence of social control. Men and women fall into a defect-defect pattern (as noted by Jim) and those few who still cooperate, lose. Especially when there’s a sex imbalance, as you point […]

  6. […] to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, we need to make women property […]

  7. […] “Jim also states, quite accurately, that there are almost no men that can balance the alpha and beta roles successfully, either before or after marriage.  The few men who can be both are the rare exceptions, because they must be both in a way that is credible to a specific woman. Women’s definition of credible is weighed heavily towards the sexual authority line of men, while the support/intimacy traits are merely an afterthought. Scoring well in the sexual authority area typically requires that a man has already proved himself to be credible to other specific women (pre-selection), and this necessarily requires a long list of pre-marital sexual conquests.  Moreover, it should be obvious that the man is the first kind of man described above, those for whom women will not impose rules for sex — that means he has broad sexual authority with women generally, and is in control, and therefore is the kind of man they want the dominant monkey sex from, and not the second kind of man who has to trade something (negotiate) for sex.  Thus, the nature of the beast requires that the man’s history should involve “conquests” and not only girlfriends.” […]

  8. […] Jim says in The Three Magic Words (2020 August 7), women’s ideal world is a world of women having unlimited access to loving, […]

  9. Ardvark says:

    Jim. Let’s say you’re a fairly young man and you get burned and go dark. Lets say you were together, I don’t know, 3 years, but not married because you have not earned enough money for property, but are pretty close. Then you get reached out to after remaining dark, is it worth it to chase her if she is valuable (good genes, good family, etc.) and you have history? Or better to hard reset and replace her. Hypothetical.

    • jim says:

      What is her count, and does “burn” mean “cuckolded”?

      • Ardvark says:

        3 and no, not to his knowledge. Thermonuclear shit test, big fight.

        • Karl says:

          So he failed the shit test? If so, successfully chasing her is extremely difficult, especially if she realizes that he is chasing her.

          I’d try replacing her and regaining her at the same time. If you want to succeed, she must see the man as the prize which means that the man must have options (or more precisely she must be convinced that the man has other options).

          Three years is a problematic time. After such a long time, it is time to start a family. If that is not done, unease naturally starts.

          • jim says:

            > I’d try replacing her and regaining her at the same time.

            Replace and regame, rather than regain. She is not going to return so long as she feels she has the option to return. Loss of options will frighten her.

            And she needs to be frightened, because otherwise even if she returns, she is going to continue to exercise options.

        • jim says:

          Then leaving is a shit test.

          Pass the shit test.

          Get seen with chicks on social media, signal you are moving on.

          She will attempt to return. Don’t let her do so easily or costlessly.

          If she can return at will, you have failed the shit test.

          • Ardvark says:

            Thanks Jim. Maybe field report in future, if successful, to add to your list of anecdotal evidence.

  10. BC says:

    I’m watching video of Trump supporters in big trucks driving through Portland bear macing anyone who tries to block the road. In the sidelines fertile young women watch on with longing as they drive by.

    • Dave says:

      Reminiscent of American “thunder runs” during the second Iraq war. Drive through an enemy city without stopping, annihilating anything that tries to get in your way. Very confusing and demoralizing to the enemy. I suppose that after months of being attacked by Antifa, the cops are making no effort to stop these patriot raids.

  11. Frederick Algernon says:

    Why are there so few mentions of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? It could potentially “legally” hand a complete victory to either candidate.

    For reference:

    • Not Tom says:

      Complaining about the popular vote compact implies that voting is important, but it is not very important and quickly becoming irrelevant. It implies that we otherwise live under rule of law, not in a country where one party openly conspires to commit massive election fraud and instigate a civil war if they lose.

      Moreover, the only states signing into this are the ones that are already reliably blue.

      Out of every weapon in the Cathedral’s arsenal of dirty tricks, this one is among the least scary. A strong government could easily nullify the effect of this compact by nullifying the votes associated with it (I’m not even going to bother enumerating all the ways), and a weak government could be taken out by much simpler and more direct means.

  12. info says:

    So comments on the latest Netflix shenanigans?

    • jim says:

      The left always moves lefter.

      • info says:

        Massive backlash:

        99% dislike ratio and almost universal outrage.

        • jim says:

          They don’t care and it does not matter.

          The left has become more hateful every day, and they started going bad two centuries ago.

          Every decade, then every year, and now every month, left meming has become more hostile to normies. It has worked for them for two centuries. Is it going to stop working now?

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            Pasolini, the homosexual pedophile and director of Salo, was found gruesomely beaten to death, just a couple of weeks before that infamous movie was released. Did that help? Perhaps a bit.


            Pasolini was murdered on 2 November 1975 on the beach at Ostia.[24] He had been run over several times by his own car. Multiple bones were broken and his testicles were crushed by what appeared to be a metal bar. An autopsy revealed that his body had been partially burned with gasoline after death. The crime was long viewed as a Mafia-style revenge killing, one extremely unlikely to have been carried out by only one person. Pasolini was buried in Casarsa.

            Giuseppe (Pino) Pelosi (1958–2017), then 17 years old, was caught driving Pasolini’s car and confessed to the murder. He was convicted in 1976, initially with “unknown others”, but this phrase was later removed from the verdict.[25][26] Twenty-nine years later, on 7 May 2005, Pelosi retracted his confession, which he said had been made under the threat of violence to his family. He claimed that three people “with a Southern accent” had committed the murder, insulting Pasolini as a “dirty communist”.[27]

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              Another example would be how muslims have systematically made it quite unpleasant to be an artist critical of islam. From Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo on down to lesser figures who now spend their lives guarded by police 24/7 like Rushdie or the Muhammad cartoon people. The strategy seems to have worked.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                It is very impressive what the Believers have accomplished, but aping their tactics won’t work for us. The Left recognizes them as allies, and is therefore willing to tolerate things from them that would provoke apocalyptic retribution if we were to do them.

                • Starman says:

                  @Contaminated NEET

                  Islam is a useful host religion for the feminist left, for now. Christianity has since ceased to be a host religion for the feminist left.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  There are of course other possibilities — martyrdom, or organized crime for that matter, is not for everyone — but I expect with most of them you will have to experience increasing hostility, in the form of memes as well as actions.

                  A peaceful option is Moldbug’s approach of ‘becoming worthy’, which I take to mean accumulating wealth, power and numbers under the radar. (Along with societal respect in some form.) It does require one to actively work towards that goal, of course.

                  We are seeing the spiral speed up. One approach could be to join the other side and see if you can implement a Napoleon/Stalin path to power, which also would permit normalization. Napoleon was a useful newcomer who, starting as a low-ranking officer, took over the revolution in something like six years.

          • info says:

            You are right that they don’t care:

            Their mealy mouthed corporate response to a simple yes and no question shows what they are.

    • ten says:

      Waddayaknow, they’re depicting tween girls as uncontrollable whores now? Just one step removed from implying they must be controlled.

      • info says:

        Sure but YouTube comments would seem a good barometer of normie commentary.

        They don’t like this at all.

        • jim says:

          They never did.

          Normies have been not liking stuff for two centuries.

          The good and the great will sneer at them till they shut up and pretend to like it. If that does not work, punish them.

          If they continue not liking it, raids by child protective services. Not this year, a few years down the road, if this road is not shut by greater violence against those two far left than the violence we have long experienced against those too far right.

          • The Cominator says:

            I liked a lot of pop music through the late 1980s (though the late 50s and early 60s was the peak) and television and movies had a lot of good things until say the mid 2000s…

            So I think there has been a very recent and steep decline in normie popular culture. It may have been degenerate forever and the early Simpsons and Married with Children may have made a horrible mockery out of family life as it should be (with the Simpsons being worse as at least Married with Children also portrayed the women as selfish useless cunts)… but they were damned entertaining.

            Now the only entertaining show is the over the top degenerates of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and I’m wondering if they’ll ever make any new episodes…

            • jim says:

              > So I think there has been a very recent and steep decline in normie popular culture.

              The propaganda has been getting steadily more heavy handed and less and less entertaining.

              But this is the continuation of a program that has been working for the left for two centuries.

              Currently the first man to stop cheering at a gay wedding loses his job, so they keep cheering until the wedding organizer gives them the signal to stop, and the wedding organizer often sadistically waits a long time before giving the signal. Soon the first man to stop cheering early female sexuality will lose his children to child protective services.

              Maybe they tried this too soon, and will back off for a little while. But they will apply more pressure, and more violence, and eventually people will eat shit and say it is ice cream.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Which is why Right Wing memeing is so entertaining. It is a truism that the “Left can’t meme” because they have absolutely no sense of humor.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                I’m amazed at the absolutely prodigious output of the Babylon Bee. They always seem to nail a bullseye and it never seems to get boring or stale. The Onion just seems to be boring by comparison.

            • Not Tom says:

              and television and movies had a lot of good things until say the mid 2000s

              I used to think so too, but the endless lockdowns have seen me rewatching a few movies and shows from that period, and finding them to be shockingly heavy-handed. I guess I just didn’t notice it so much when I was younger.

              Movies and games since at least the mid 90s and in some cases the late 80s are nauseatingly feminist and antiracist – not always, but startlingly often. There were occasional “good” ones that simply avoided the topics and just aimed to entertain, but of the ones that did wade into those waters, I don’t recall seeing a single one that even hinted at the idea that people might discriminate for good reason, that putting women into men’s roles might be a mistake, or that any “regressive” behavior or ideas according to the progressive norms of the time might be defensible or justified in any way.

              It’s like Razor says: Hollywood was always red. The communist wing was cancelling uppity actors and directors even before the 80s-90s. Blazing Saddles shit on the entire Western genre – then the only remaining genre that positively portrayed masculinity – and it was released in 1974. The rabbit hole goes deeper than any of us can really even imagine.

              By the time the 90s rolled around, it was totally pozzed. I think sci-fi and comics were the tip of the sword; after they ditched the old pulp style, they all almost unanimously portrayed Utopia as the progressive Eschaton: post-scarcity, mixed-race and mixed-species groups everywhere, the UN and other supranational organizations as great defenders, and so on. Sometimes an alternate vision of the future was depicted, but always as a miserable dystopia in which elites and “corporations” were the villains. For decades the entire genre spoke with one voice, and eventually it seeped into every other genre because crossovers are popular.

              At least that’s my theory. Whether or not I’m correct on the specifics, it really cannot be denied that the whole industry has been on this course for a long time. They’ve had the pedal to the metal for decades, you just finally noticed the vast cliff up ahead.

              • The Cominator says:

                It was pozzed yes but still at least entertaining… My father said he noticed the portrayal of men has been pozzed since the show “Maude”.

                • Pooch says:

                  Nixon noticed homosexuality being pushed in the show “All in the Family” in his tapes.

                • Not Tom says:

                  To be honest, a lot of it seems a lot less entertaining today than it did back when I was 12 years old. Lack of alternatives color one’s judgment, and nostalgia colors memories.

                  The 90s and 00s were a pukefest of mediocre acting, horrible CGI, formulaic scripts, irritating tropes, and hamfisted moralizing – but overall production values took a huge leap over the 80s, so maybe that seemed to cancel out some of the awfulness.

                  80s entertainment in turn was a cringefest of bad hairstyles and worse fashion, garbage synthpop soundtracks, excessive sentimentality, and plot holes you could drive a truck though. The late 80s in particular marked the explosion of the evil rom-com genre. If it wasn’t for Arnold, I’d label the whole decade of entertainment as being totally worthless, if not a stain on history.

                  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, but my eyesight has been getting a lot clearer lately and I don’t particularly like what I see. It’s plain to me why so many dudes choose to go all-in on sports instead.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The writers and producers of all in the family were distraught over how popular Archie Bunker was and how disliked the meathead was.

                • BC says:

                  Same thing with Rorschach in The Watchmen. Writer wanted people to hate him and everyone loved him.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A writer possessed by modernity often resolves their own cognitive dissonance by putting truth in the mouth of antagonists.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:


                  And, then through the ritual performance of having them be cast down by the designated protagonist, psychically banishes it to the unrecalled hinterlands of low associative status, without having to truly entangle themselves with it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Perhaps a lot of the putrid art coming out today is precisely because the writers realized that their designated antagonists were just too darned sympathetic, so in order to make certain that their audiences don’t “get it wrong”, they must now make sure that their heroes have absolutely no vices and their villains have absolutely no virtues.

                  Or maybe they’ve just gotten so out of touch with reality that they can’t even comprehend concepts like virtue and vice anymore.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its deliberate propaganda and deliberately awful its not a lack of talent…

                  Killing everything in popular culture also weakens social bonds… Cardi B isn’t promoted because her “music” is good.

          • info says:

            You are right. They won’t stop. Its evil in plain sight. As voxday even observed.


            The best the normies can do is to force Hellmouth(Hollywood) and Netflix to go broke.

            • Not Tom says:

              Teddy refuses to name the gay and natters on about Hollywood “exploiting” “children”, most of whom are young female whores.

              He’s picked out a good target, but his perspective on it is skewed to the point of uselessness. Nothing about Hollywood would change for the better if you rounded up all the heterosexual men who banged underage starlets; very little would change if you rounded up the actual pederasts (although we might as well, because why not?); and the industry would actually get even worse if you rounded up the men whom women blame – the betas who wanted a piece of the action but didn’t get much (or any), whom the women and girls of all ages immediately perceived as creepy and later fabricated stories of “rape” and “abuse”.

              Teddy chooses to believe and promote the narrative of those women, likely because he quite correctly presumes it will damage the institution that he despises. However, you should know by now that attacking the left from the left moves us further toward the Eschaton, not away.

              • jim says:

                > whom the women and girls of all ages immediately perceived as creepy and later fabricated stories of “rape” and “abuse”

                They were genuinely disturbed and creeped out, and expressed this disturbance in socially approved language. Nature of women. Rape and sexual harassment laws are unworkable if we treat the woman as the victim and complainant. You can see this with sexual harassment laws in the workplace.

                The man who has rightful ownership of the woman has to be the victim and complainant, with female consent of no significance to the question of whether one male has wronged another male, and we have to substantially legalized personal and individual violence provoked by this conduct.

                Female consent cannot have legal status because it is opaque to the woman herself. The dance is pursuit and predation, men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose.

                The idea that female consent mattered goes back a long way, but it is a product of a Church composed of celibates and fags, which lost contact with female nature, and capitulated to the Romance movement.

              • info says:


                • jim says:

                  Not going to debate with someone who argues by confidently repeating the same madness with double the confidence. Try argument and evidence.

                • info says:

                  That is Vox’s position whether you like it or not. But I am not making any claims myself to paraphrase.

              • info says:


                • jim says:


                  Here, we go by the consensus of millennia. Appealing to the consensus of last week is not allowed.

                • info says:

                  2018 isn’t last weeks consensus.

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  Before holding a conversation as to whether you are misrepresenting other people’s beliefs, lets start by acknowledging my beliefs.

                  Why no such word as “pedophile” or equivalent before 1944? Why is this terrible sin mentioned nowhere in any holy book?

                  What do I say about early female sexuality?

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  Argument by appeal to false consensus. Why no such thing as “pedophilia” in the bible?

                  Why no such thing as “pedophilia” until the end of World War II, when our rulers decided they had no more need for masculinity?

                  I am happy to tell you why, but you don’t seem interested.

                  The word “pedophile” was created so that they could demonize older men having sex with fertile age women, while looking the other way when gays predated upon nine year old boys.

                • info says:

                  [*Unresponsive, and uses the trigger word “children” in a grossly deceptive and manipulative way*]

                • jim says:

                  Please respond to my posts on anticoncepts, and stop using anticoncepts or at least argue in defense of them, instead of just using them as if everyone agreed.

                  We don’t agree. The problem is not adult male sexuality towards young girls. The problem is young girls, often alarmingly young girls, sexuality towards adult males. To end defect/defect equilibrium and make above replacement fertility possible, We need to control females, not males. Engage our argument, rather than just assuming consensus on Cathedral memes.

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  As long as you refuse to acknowledge the position you are arguing with, and instead argue with the position our enemies attribute to us, I am not going to allow it.

                  I am not going to allow you to debate a straw man, a hateful and demonized distortion of the right wing position.

                  Our position is that the problem of heterosexual sex with young women is completely different from the problem of gay sex with little boys, necessitating the use of gendered language to talk about it: That the word “pedophile” was created to free gays and young women from social controls on their sexual inclinations.

                  Anyone who uses gender neutral language to refer to these issues knowingly or unknowingly supports moral principles that require boys of single mothers to be fed to drag queens at Drag Queen Story hour to be transgendered and Ariana Grande promoting the whore lifestyle to eight year old girls.

                  Every comment of yours that I have recently censored, I have censored for assuming shared agreement on a position that promotes and morally obligates fatherless boys being fed to drag queens to be transgendered.

                  If you want to support Drag Queen Story Hour and Ariana Grande concerts, you are going to have to acknowledge that you are arguing with people who vehemently reject them, and engage with our arguments.

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  If you want to argue our position differs from the right wing consensus, you have to be able to say what position it is that differs from the right wing consensus and in what does it differ.

                  Hard to discuss whether the right wing consensus agrees or disagrees with Drag Queen story hour and Ariana Grande concerts, if no other position is thinkable or speakable.

                  I am not going to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge the position of anyone who disagrees with blue pill morality that normalizes Drag Queen Story hour and Ariana Green concerts. (Unless, of course, they disagree solely because they hate empowered women and transgendered boys, and solely and exclusively because they hate empowered women and transgendered nine year old boys, that being the only conceivable reason for opposing it.)

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  You still refuse to acknowledge the position you disagree with.

                  I want to debate with you, but this is not debate.

                  In order to disagree with my position, you have to disagree with a position that is not “Jim wants to rape nine year old girls”.

                  You have to disagree with our position, not the position the left invents for people who object to gays fucking nine year old boys and Ariana Grande promoting the whore lifestyle to eight year old girs.

                • info says:

                  “In order to disagree with my position, you have to disagree with a position that is not “Jim wants to rape nine year old girls”.”

                  Where in the deleted messages. Did I in anyway say such a thing. You have no proof because you destroyed the proof and didn’t keep them on file?

                  You say
                  “The word “pedophile” was created so that they could demonize older men having sex with fertile age women, while looking the other way when gays predated upon nine year old boys.”

                  Sure that may be the case. But even if one can prove the word is inaccurate and an Anti-concept.

                  Doesn’t change the fact that many even in the Right-Wing consider girls under 18 as children.

                  Therefore coloring the entire perspective.

                • jim says:

                  > Doesn’t change the fact that many even in the Right-Wing consider girls under 18 as children.

                  Do they now?

                  The majority view in the dissident right is that all women are children regardless of age, and that this should not make heterosexuality illegal.

                  As for the non dissident right, the mainstream right, the people at the Republican National Convention, hard to tell what they think, for speaking stuff that was bland mainstream Republicanism a few years ago, will now get you fired, cancelled, demonetized, deplatformed, and very possibly beaten up or killed.

                  You are appealing to the “consensus” of people subject to political intimidation, which intimidation is rapidly drifting towards political terror.

                  Under these circumstances, argument from consensus is unconvincing.

                  The reason there was no such word as “pedophile” before the late twentieth century is that that the universal, mainstream, uncontroversial view (back when the consensus on the issue was consensus and not intimidation) was that female sexuality was explosive, dangerous, volcanic, socially disruptive, that it needed to be controlled regardless of age starting at a very young age.

                  The word “pedophile” is an attack on the universal consensus of the past millennia. It is a claim that letting unaccompanied eight year old girls attend an Ariana Grande concert is perfectly fine and nothing bad is going to happen. It is an attack on the consensus, that started to backed by intimidation about nineteen years after the term was introduced to undermine the existing consensus. The swift resort to intimidation suggests that mere subversion of the consensus was not working.

                • info says:

                  “Under these circumstances, argument from consensus is unconvincing.”

                  Contrary to impressions I am not even making a truth claim in regards to objective reality.

                  Aside from what people believe at this particular time.

                  I quote Voxday for this very reason. Why people believe the way they do.

                  And an explanation as to why the writings and observations by said people are the way they are.

                  So I find your earlier deletions of my comments as puzzling. Like you are missing the point of what I am actually saying.

                • jim says:

                  In a situation of intimidation, it is not apparent what people do in fact believe at a given time.

                  And those who are demonstrably not intimidated for the most part do not believe it.

                  Yes, Voxday believes it. But Voxday is demonstrably blue pilled on women, while the dissident right is generally not blue pilled.

                  And, because Voxday has his true name out there, he is ultimately a namefag, not everything he says should be taken at face value.

                • info says:

                  I do remember one time they did speak their true beliefs. But that only resulted in some commentators calling for their blood.

                  If it’s a huge problem then there will need to be a lot of people taken out.

      • RedBible says:

        It’s interesting, how all the normie outrage is about “sexualizing children” while ignoring that (from what I saw in the ad) the movie is claiming that 11 year old girl sees fellow 11 year old girl “twerking” and our protagonist goes “I want to do that too.” (never mind the parts in the ad that point to fellow 9-11 year old girls and social media pushing girls to be more “sexy”.)

        Just interesting how nothing seems to be able to get people to move on their “girls are innocent sexless angels” position, not even girls “twerking” on tiktok among other things. There must ALWAYS be a bad evil man FORCING HER to do it.

        • Dave says:

          What’s more, the protagonist is an African girl whose dancing creates much conflict with her traditional Senegalese family. They want her to learn housewife skills, marry young, and have at least six children, which of course won’t happen because she’d rather be a dancing whore. Is France more aggressive that the USA at pushing non-white immigrants to adopt progressive values?

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Perhaps a partial amount of the later (muslims are much more numerous and open about their desire for dar-al-islam in europe compared to america – relatively speaking).

            But a larger part of it i think is that not even the inner parties own caricaturists can imagine the credible existence of an openly based and redpilled sub-cultural community of french living in france to use as a foil for this kind of story.

        • info says:

          The Producer and the Director had the option of portraying it as a negative. But they make it seem like a good thing.

          So they put the actors/actresses up to it or more likely their parents.

  13. Mister Grumpus says:

    A number of blogroll links are dead. Please fix if you can.

    • Mike in Boston says:

      A number of blogroll links are dead. Please fix if you can.

      In particular Spandrell’s “Bloody Shovel” is now at

      I don’t know what happened to @the_arv. The domain he was using seems to have expired earlier this month and been taken over by speculators.

      @Not Tom, when are you going to start a blog? I would read it.

      • jim says: is dead. Spandrel is trying to regain control of it, last I heard. All the others are alive, and I am waiting to see what spandrel does.

        • uspsso says:

 seems fine to me on 2020-08-28.

        • lscbof says:

          From :

          You know a culture is dead when a big portion of the population follows foreign religions, and there’s loads of Christians in Taiwan.

          This is also the situation in most of Europe and USA. Mexicans/South Americans are dominating Anglocucks partly because their “Catholicism” is suspiciously similar to their ancestral Blood God. An Aztec feels the call of his blood unlike Eurofags who have been conditioned over centuries to be cucked. The Spanish and Portugese who settled South America actually converted to the local religion, while nominally bringing the local heathens to “Christ.”

          You are the only one in the reactionary right, that I know of, who has attempted to reconcile Cuckstianity/Middle Eastern foolishness with nature, equating God = GNON etc. You also specifically reject the temporal aspect of Cuckstianity (because it is logically falsifiable and thus prone to be spiralled out of control) and limit it to spiritual aspects only, which is also far different from the standard Cuckstian practice of Catholics/Protestants, and to some extent even Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church only seems to buck this trend because that Church has been an arm of the Russian State for a very long time, and the Soviet Deep Freezer (unintentionally) protected it from poz unlike the Anglican Church. Still, there is quite a lot of poz in Russia and its Church, and it will take more than Putin to clean it up. Unless he re-establishes Rule of Reality and becomes Vladimir I, Tsar of All Russia. Moscow really is Third Rome.

          The next step would be re-establishing Second Rome, of course :P.

  14. someDude says:

    Jim, Is your thinking regarding QAnon the same as your thinking about Alex Jones, i.e. enemy shills designed to make Trump supporters seem insane?

    • The Cominator says:

      Q is disinformation because Q said trust Sessions.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        You’ve said “trust Sessions.”

        • The Cominator says:

          I thought Sessions was a good guy BEFORE he became AG but ive never said it unironically after that, i might have said it to mock a qtard but otherwise no.

          • BC says:

            You ready to admit you were wrong about Michelle Obama being the nom, or are you going to hold onto that all the way to the election?

            • The Cominator says:

              Im happy i was wrong about that Trump’s reelection is prettymuch guaranteed now because the dems picked a retarded unelectable ticket.

              • jim says:

                The nominal presidential candidate is senile, keeps forgetting where he is, what he is doing, what year it is, and sometimes fails to recognize close family, the actual presidential candidate, people just hate on sight.

                But I doubt that from here on, votes are going to have much effect on presidential elections.

                • Tom Hart says:

                  In New Zealand, there is talk of delaying their election due to Covid-19. Given that Covid will not be gone by November, it is likely to disrupt the voting process in the US as well–the form of disruption is as yet unknown. The uproar around the disruption, the claims by both sides that the vote’s fairness has been violated, will be a catalyst for major change. Back in 2000, the Bush-Gore dispute lingered for months, and the accusations of a stolen election continued until 2004; but the general climate was different then. However this vote is disrupted and whoever wins, it will be interpreted as a stolen election–coming on months of violent political tension.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The VP is a dirty cop high yellow that is going to COST Biden black votes…

                  Biden will only get the unowned and theoretically married but henpeck marriage Karen vote.

                  I doubt whatever the Dems do for vote fraud will be enough.

                • jim says:

                  The Democrat plan is that states with Democratic governors will declare victory regardless of the outcome, and then, they think, it is up to the generals, who are in their pocket.

                  They have been war gaming this plan. They are organizing at the top level for Civil War II. They intend to muddy the election waters, then declare victory. They expect the military to become involved. This is not conjecture. Their war games are leaking.

                  The praetorians, however, are not in their pocket. When Sulla’s troops met Marius’s troops, they kept defecting to Sulla or cooperated with Sulla’s chain of command, ignoring the orders of their chain of command.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  But I doubt that from here on, votes are going to have much effect on presidential elections.

                  From what I can tell, the democrats will take a win as a nice bonus but won’t mind disqualifying a Trump win, tearing the country up and, let’s say, imposing temporary peaceful non-political controls on what remains.

                  Best to have the contingency plans done by then. Where to deploy the road blocks of peace; what cellphone towers, points of presence and surveillance centers to take down for peaceful long-term maintenance; which officials to peacefully put on leave, etc.

              • BC says:

                BTW, leftists are attacking Comey hardcore on twitter these days, blaming him for Hillary losing. If there was ever a time when he should turn states evidence, it’s right now. He’s unlikely to live for more than a year if the Dems gain official power. Maybe your prediction of Comey trying to help Trump will come true after all, lol.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m pissed that he hasn’t gotten to testify to congress yet, Romney the commie is apparently blocking him from testifying.

    • BC says:

      Q started as a 4 or 8chan hoax. It’s unclear who’s controlling it now, but anything that told people to trust sessions is a working for our foes.

    • jim says:

      Hard to say. There seem to be multiple Qanon, some of them are government shills, and some of them are genuinely stupid and crazy. Anyone that says “Rothschild” is a shill. The Rothschilds ceased to matter in the run up to World War II. If someone actually is worried about Jewish power, he is going to say “Soros, Soros, Soros”. He is not going to say “Rothschild, Tel Aviv”.

      And if someone is actually bothered by Israel enthusiastically spying on its greatest ally and bribing state department officials and politicians, he is going to say “Jerusalem”, he is not going to say “Tel Aviv”. All the shills are terribly upset by the US moving the embassy to the capital. Why?

      Because the state department, which is paying them, is terribly upset, even though the bribes that they have been taken were all authorized by officers located in Jerusalem. It causes them inconvenience when they are collecting bribes for Arabs and Israelis at the same time, frequently do to opposite things.

  15. Frederick Algernon says:

    These ads are spectacular. Open comment sections too.

  16. stan says:

    I have a Game question. I danced like 10 or 20 times with this girl at dance lessons. At the end of the dance course I invited her to a dance event. She gladly accepted and we had many text conversations about which event to attend. During those conversations she acted like I was the best guy she had met in the last 5 years if not in her life. Very eager to meet me.

    When we finally met at the dance event she acted very cold from the very first second she came. After an hour of laborious dancing and talking she left. Wtf? Why? I have two hypotheses:
    – First, ten minutes before coming she got a booty call from Jeremy Meeks a suddently found me utterly useless. I think that’s low probability.
    – Second, it was a shit test. I am a quintessential nice guy, a nerd (although a good looking one, I guess). I was expecting a shit test. But not at the first second given the eagerness she showed in the texts. I used Heartiste’s rule ignore and plow on. But that didn’t make it. I contemplated some kind of nuclear neg. But I wasn’t able to come up with any that I would be able to deliver in a congruent way.

    Do you have anything to say about about my bad luck? Do you think a hard neg could help? If so, would you have any neg suggestions?

    • stan says:

      Meeks a suddently = Meeks and suddenly

    • jim says:

      Not really, the best neg comes from inner frame, rather than some clever script. Also, less work that way than to have a script. A script is always going to come out incongruent.

      You have to be the sort of guy who will say unkind things, or things that possibly have unkind implications.

      You have to start judging her immediately. Asking her “are you good enough for me” type questions.

      And you have to detect and detonate shit tests.

      If a chick sends you a hot text as if you are the hottest thing ever that is itself usually a shit test. Girls simply never act like that genuinely. The shit test is that she is fishing for the “Oh wow, this girl likes me! That is amazing. No girls have ever liked me.” reaction. The correct reaction when you get a hot text is to answer it belatedly, one time in two, as if you get so many hot texts that you cannot deal with them all.

      Chances are that she earlier sent a text to Jeremy Meeks, who of course did not answer. So then she sent much the same text to you. Treat it accordingly.

      Texts are cheap, and chicks send far too many of them.

    • Pooch says:

      we had many text conversations

      To continue Jim’s point, You messed up in text. Alpha males don’t have time to be texting women all day. Let her build up excitement to see you.

    • If you don’t have game, I don’t recommend dance. Girls get turned on while dancing, because “man touches woman and leads her around”, but a lot of nerdy guys who dance are a lot less alpha off the dance floor. I used to get laid like a truckload of bricks from dance, because it facilitated what I could do anyway, but dance scenes are hives of regret rape because full of betas who seem like alphas on the dance floor.

      “Many text conversations” is your first problem. Turned on at first meet, then shriveled up as you chatted with her, faggily punching in endless conversation with your thumb, your man-fingers struggling with keys designed for fourteen year old girls to press.

      Second problem is talking to her for an hour. You talked to a girl with a bad attitude for an hour when you could’ve and should’ve wandered off and talked to, and danced with, a shitton of pretty young girls at the event. In fact it’s expected of you. Women are interchangeable pre-sex. A dance is a preselection paradise. She sees you throwing another girl around, and the other girl loving it. I would go to dances with my girlfriend, and she would fuck me like a wild animal afterwards because of the jealousy.

      A girl being overly friendly is a sign that she considers you far beneath her, and she doesn’t see you as a sexual prospect. Girls are overly friendly to their nice guy orbiters way below their league, and to gigachad way above her league, but unless you’ve banged her or are a celebrity, not going to get the second very often. When you have a shot at her, there is always tension. When you respond to her bubbly energy, and act excited to be talking to her, you lose your shot.

      Newbies always fixate on negs, because it is something they never do, and looks like a magic key that opens up the pussy, but in reality, every part of who you are and how you act should be subtly communicating your higher status, which means either putting on a monkey suit and playing a character, or having solid inner frame

    • Javier says:

      I don’t know what a dance event is exactly but it sounds like you waited too long.

      She didn’t want more dancing she wanted you to lead her into a situation where you could be alone. Repeat after me, “Let’s grab a drink later.” It’s important to phrase it as a command instead of a question, i.e. do not say “Would you like to…?” etc.

      When selecting first drink locations (it’s not a date, do not call it a date, triggers too many safeguards), the ideal place is a crummy bar with bad food. Let her show up first and sit at the bar, so you’re sitting side by side. Sitting at a table forces you to stare at each other which will almost certainly make you nervous and puts physical obstacles in the way, which is bad. Side by side means you’re actually close and easier to touch.

      If she arrives first she will probably buy her own drink too, but if she didn’t then go ahead and pay, a 5-10$ tab shouldn’t kill you. Don’t make a big deal out of it either, just grab it and pay like it’s nothing. If she tries to pay or objects or whatever, be wary, you may have a drama case.

      Since this bar has bad food and the drinking will make you hungry, invite her back to your place for pizza. You do have some frozen pizzas right? All girls like pizza but maybe calibrate a little depending on your general feeling for the girl. Ideally your place is close to this crummy bar. If walking distance, perfect, but may not be possible. Again, use the command “Let’s get pizza at my place,” not a question. If the girl refuses or makes an excuse, she’s probably not feeling you and that’s fine, just let her go, don’t whine, beg, convince, etc. You can use some reverse psych here like “I’m not sure if I can trust you in my apartment…” or something. But don’t try that unless you can make it real ‘cocky and funny’ style. If it’s forced she’ll pick up on it easy.

      When you get back to your place, put the pizza in and make her a drink. Just make it and offer it to her. You can ask “what are you drinking” but she has no idea what you have, so just make something light. A weak rum and coke or whiskey and ginger ale is good. Put a movie on or something while you wait for the pizza. I had a friend who swore by Monsters Inc. Or just sit and chat. For conversation, always remember to just let her run her mouth. Don’t talk about your job, or your family, or anything really. Try to avoid any real direct answers and turn it back on her. She really just wants to talk about herself so let her do that.

      At some point ask her, “How tall are you? Let’s compare heights.” She will be intrigued by this odd request, and stand very close to you. Then kiss her. Don’t hesitate, don’t make a big deal out of it. Ideally if you have been doing everything right so far this kiss will make her melt. Proceed to make out. You can still watch the movie and eat pizza too, then more making out and hopefully sex. Kissing is important because male saliva contains testosterone which will make her horny. I have never had a girl back out at this point.

      Follow up questions:
      “What if she realizes I’m bad at sex/inexperienced/virgin?”
      Doesn’t matter, had sex. Have some rubbers and don’t try anything fancy.

      “When do I call her?”
      Probably don’t. Modern girls will text you. Act like it wasn’t a big deal.

      “What if I like her and…”
      Doesn’t matter, had sex.

      “How do I ask her to be my girlfriend/wife?”
      Keep having sex with her.

      • yewotm8 says:

        This is way too much work. Just lead her into the bedroom when you get in the door. You are overcomplicating things to the level of PUAs who do routines.

        • jim says:


          Lead her to someplace suitable for fooling around, with the door closed against all others, your ownership of this comfortable safe place with a comfortable beckoning horizontal surface. Start fooling around. Soon the time for words and thoughts will end, and in your both your heads the narrator that says what is happening will fall silent. The script you need is vastly more ancient than human speech.

        • Javier says:

          Most guys struggle with smooth escalation and moving things to the next step. They awkwardly fumble and sit around waiting for the girl to make the next move. So I give them a set of steps. A lot of men find it very hard to get a woman to come home with them, and how to make them comfortable once home, and how to make the first physical move.

          I think part of this is ‘veterans amnesia’ where you forget the practice you took to learn a skill. When you are comfortable with women you just do what comes natural and it all works, but when guys are starting out it helps to have a plan.

          • The Cominator says:

            I appreciate steps because I’m an awkward sperg and wish everything would be broken down to the most minute detail…

            • While I have not yet tried it in practice, for a sperg who likes precisely prescribed and ritualized interaction, the right ritual is BDSM. It used to be an underground perversion, but Fifty Shades mainstreamed it and now womens mags tell them to explore their “kinks”. So now it is politically correct for women to submit to men as long as it is called a “kink”. This is a good thing, both because it creates the right kind of dynamic, and because it gives clear ritual rules for spergs to follow. So far I have tried it only minimally, put a handcuff on the wife as a part of foreplay. It did put us both into the right kind of mood. I got more confident, she got more submissive. These things are struts. Real alphas do not need them but for the rest of us they are useful helpers.

              • Sorry, struts is not the right English expression, more like “training wheels” but in reality I do not even really mean that. More like “following a script” or “precisely scripted formal etiquette”. Spergs will get it because spergs like, need those. BDSM (BDSM Lite, not disgusting shit like scat and needles in genitals) domination is a precisely scripted etiquette about interacting women in sexual situations.

              • The Cominator says:

                As far as I know bondage is for a girl who you are already fucking regularly who wants to be tied up whipped and to get the facialabuse treatment… I’ll choke em and spank em if they are into it (and nearly all women are into those things) but the rest of that shit to me is just a pain in the ass.

                I’m really not into all that its mainly women that are, the female love of so called bondage is a subconscious reaction to society pedalstalizing them when they want to be owned…

                • yewotm8 says:

                  I’ve always thought the idea of premeditated ropes/handcuffs to be too gay. Unexpected bondage, like pulling off my belt and binding her wrists, has been a much better success.

              • Javier says:

                Ha, bondage. Well that’s one way to escalate.

                If you’re into bondage then you’re probably already a sex god and don’t need any pointers. Then again, since women will *assume* that any guy into bondage is a sex god, if you can throw the right bait out to plant the idea in her head she may escalate for you.

                But that’s more like something to do if you don’t give a shit and just want to see what will happen. Not something I would recommend as a serious strategy.

                • jim says:

                  > But that’s more like something to do if you don’t give a shit and just want to see what will happen.

                  Women love men who don’t give a shit.

                  But you had better expect a tough shit test if you try it.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Bondage is actually a beta tell. Men should be able to manhandle women effortlessly. If you want to tie up your woman, it has to be very clear that it isn’t because you think you’re not physically strong enough to have sex with her normally. And if you clearly are much stronger than her, what’s the point? If you have psychological dominance, the kind they really care about, what’s the point?

                  From my unscientific sampling, attractive women put BDSM enthusiasts on a par with cosplayers. E.L. James is an unattractive old woman, and her book sells to unattractive old women. But even she made the protagonist a fit suave billionaire as well.

          • ten says:

            I’m not an awkward sperg really, and have no problem escalating aggressively, but i still have found myself in many situations where i didn’t know how to pass resistance or otherwise would have found your rather to the point script good to have in the back of the head.

  17. Russian Orthodox QT Respecter says:

    Would it be worth it to join an Orthodox Christian church to look for a wife? I’m thinking I should find a church that isn’t completely faggotized but I’m not sure how to go about doing this. Dating sites are nothing but fat tattooed women and single mothers, and nobody seems to leave their houses anymore. It’s bad out here.

    • jim says:

      Probably if you were in Russia. Might not be such a good idea in the US.

      • miu says:

        have tried a Russian Orthodox and an Antiochian Orthodox church in my area. from the church itself to the leading metropolitans of each, i found both to be rather cucked with few marriage age women in attendance. what opportunity was present i am certain was racking up their n-counts in public school under the noses of oblivious parents.

        the WQ was indeed beyond the pale

    • Pooch says:

      If I were single and looking for a wife, I’d screen that she’s a Trump supporter and then apply the usual red pill techniques. That’s the best you are going to do in today’s climate.

      • jim says:

        Women do not have genuine political opinions in the way that men do, so political screening is likely to produce meaningless results.

        Women do not do large group cooperation and collective action, do not have large scale tribal affiliation, hence have no real political involvement in the way that men do.

        • Pooch says:

          You are right. If anything, it’s a quick imperfect screen that she has an alpha based father that she respects (and likely a lower notch count because of that). Personally, I would value that.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            In the past men screened women according to their family, particular male family members. This is harder to do today without substantial pre-commitment.

            • jim says:

              In the past, marriage was a union between families. Now marriage is illegal, and family becoming illegal. Most women are unowned.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Women are unowned, but the traits they will pass to their male children are those of their brothers and father. It’s the most meaningful way of screening them. But it’s hard to get to know their family until you’re already deeply involved.

                • Pooch says:

                  The best you can do quickly is ask if her parents are still married and how she feels about her father. Green flag, if they are and she speaks about him glowingly.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        As far as factors subject to influence go, notch count is the most obvious one.

        The feminine is that which is blown by the wind, but it’s a lot easier to get a girl who hasn’t had her oxytocin receptors burnt out to get along.

        Not like a chick is just going to tell you of course. Younger is better, but not a guarantee in of itself. There are certain situations in our most current of years where a girl fucking around is all but inevitable. Such as, a girl in public school, a girl in college, or a girl who ‘has a job’. Or in other words, the ‘false life plan’ that inmates are all but inevitably canalized into by brahmin underlords.

        So basically the short of it is, find a girl from a family that homeschools their children.

    • polifugue says:

      Only join an Orthodox Christian church if you genuinely believe in the faith, if you can affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord. Do not think that just because Russia is on the right track all Orthodox Churches follow suit. My spiritual father, a priest of an Orthodox parish on the East coast, mentioned that many of his colleagues have difficulty with their parishioners taking the faith seriously. Abortion rates in Orthodox countries are high; Serbia has the highest abortion rate in Europe, Russia still not far behind.

      The first person I met in the Orthodox church was a seminarian whose mission was to bring diversity and equality into the Orthodox church through the World Council of Churches. According to Pew Research statistics, Orthodox Christians in the US have high support for gay marriage, abortion, and diversity. They for the most part do not practice homeschooling, let alone early marriage, so I would not go to an Orthodox Christian church in this country unless you genuinely believed in the faith.

      It is difficult to go to a church for a wife, an action that requires a cooperative and moral church body, when parishioners have neither the will nor the sense of righteousness to implement the values of their own supposed religion for their own children. We can say that feminism causes the decline, that if only men had the power to control women we would have our eugenic enforced loli monogamy, but the real reason why people do not reproduce successfully is that they no longer have any integrity.

      Since contemporary Western mating is done by consent, the effective way to cultivate a wife is the same way a capitalist makes deals, by making cold calls. You build up your profile, memorize Heartiste, get a solid career, get in shape, and then make 2000 cold calls and by the numbers game come across a woman who is manageable. An Orthodox church may be a good place to go after you find a woman if the priest is alright, but do not expect to find a wife.

      If you cannot play that game, and need to find a wife through a church, there are other churches that practice homeschooling and have young couples, even if they are rare. Sure, the women may not be that intelligent, but it would be better to survive as Musk terms it “the Great Filter” with less smart children than marry a more-intelligent college-educated feminist whore and have your genes die in the cesspool of modernity.

      Studying the sociology of Medieval Ireland, Rome, and France, one comes to the conclusion that people to a large extent never cared about basic sexual morality, that people got married primarily because they had to. Reproduction is no longer possible for people with casual morals, and the only men of the higher races who will have descendants 200 years from now will be men who have the ability to possess the integrity to see through a society bent on suicide.

  18. Frederick Algernon says:

    Was Ian Watkins an alpha? Was he gay playing straight?

    • jim says:

      He was a gay who raped the boys of single mother fag hags.

      A fag hag is a woman who is sexually attracted to gays, because the fag registers as sexually successful, and is unimpressed by their beauty.

      • miu says:

        it never occurred to me that this was why the fruit flies hung around the fruits 🤔

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      You should use archive links. That article was absolute trash, and that is coming from the guy who wades through trash to find grains of truth. I regret giving NYT the (you).

      • Pooch says:

        Yeah sorry. That was the first source breaking the news at the time. The key takeaway is the headline, that it appears finally deep staters are going to pay for their crimes which is quite significant indeed.

        Obviously NYT is going to lie about the facts. There are many right wing sources you can get the real story.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Hey, it’s cool. I was heavy handed in my response. I got excited too. But, and I apologise if this sounds sycophantic, read the Bible and read Jim. We must be shrewd as serpents. No one is coming to save us. No commission, no inquest, no godking, at least not yet. Buy ammo, train hard, make friends.

          • Pooch says:

            Jim has repeatedly stated that Trump can save us if he is able to gain power. One Democrat criminal going to jail is indicative of the possibility of many Democrat criminals going to jail culminating with the arrest of Clinton, Obama, and Biden. It’s a significant event.

            Now of course Trump can lose, after which he will likely be executed followed by Trump supporters. We should be prepared that eventuality as well.

            • The Cominator says:

              If all the good things we want come true along these lines Trump will spare Obama himself (barring a video of him sacrificing a kid comes out) because he won’t want to go after former Presidents for obvious reasons.

              • Pooch says:

                I guess it depends if the Trump monarchy starts or not. If it does, there’s no reason to spare him.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even if Trump becomes king he will not call himself that… So likely to retain the title of President.

                • Pooch says:

                  True. Trump has been put through hell, a lot of which Obama had a heavy hand in and he continues to antagonize. I’m not so sure Trump would let that slide.

      • jim says:

        Use, not only to deny the enemy clicks, but because the past is apt to change with startling rapidity.

        Search for an existing archive of the article on archive.js, before creating a new archive, so that everyone uses the same link for the same content.

        Soviet joke. “The past is ever changing, only the future is certain.”

        There is a substantial likelihood that the story of Trump arresting his enemies within the state apparatus, for the numerous illegal acts that they have been openly committing with impunity for years, is going to be rewritten with each new event in the story.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          Generally a good idea, but if you will recall, even the Internet Archive is under attack, lately for archiving heterodox wuflu articles, criticized as “zombie content”.

  19. Oscar_Cc says:

    Is this you, Jim? 🙂

    «In late July, Manette Sharick and her three-year-old daughter Zhuri drew ‘Black Lives Matter’ in chalk on the sidewalk outside their Concord home for several days.

    But by the following morning the word ‘Black’ was mysteriously erased.

    One day Sharick’s home security camera caught the culprit – a white man named Jimwho poured water over the word to wash it away.

    Sharick filmed the moment she confronted Jim as he used a water bottle to pour water on the chalk message and warned he’ll continue to remove the word ‘as long as she keeps on doing this.’»

      • Eli says:

        If you were an old and frequent reader of this blog, you would’ve known that Jim would never side with anything as silly as “[All] Lives Matter.” Because they don’t all matter equally, at all.

      • The Cominator says:

        All lives matter is a cuckservative statement, the position of the reactionary right is that while we should not be so callous of life as say communists that very few lives matter in the scheme of things. Isaac Newton’s life and John Von Neumann’s life mattered. Mine in the scheme of things does not.

        • Pooch says:

          There’s nothing wrong with saying “All lives matter”.

          The fact the left labels you worse than Hitler for saying it and people are losing their jobs over saying it is a reflection of that and means even cuckservatives are scared to say it.

        • Eli says:

          Do you pay taxes? If so, your life matters infinitely more than some nigger welfare queen.

          Same goes for those who produce some important knowledge or product or positive sum service, even if the taxes aren’t paid.

          • Pooch says:

            Come the restoration, she is enslaved and forced to work. So her life matters to the extent that her being alive produces positive value in that arrangement. Now of course all lives do not matter equally.

          • The Cominator says:

            I’m essentially a professional gambler now though… yeah I pay taxes but I cannot consider what I do all that productive.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Worth is hard to quantify. You can pick out examples, like Musk or Tesla, to say who really matters, but the subtle message is that these examples matter most. We tend to forget that those that matter most are able to do so by those who matter at all. Further out, the effect of those who matter most and those who matter is largest on how it influences those who “just” exist.

            I study warfare and there is this childish tendency to focus on certain battalions, detachments, companies, etc. in any given conflict. WWII is a good example. People focus very hard on Easy Company, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment. Due to the Brand of Brothers, people get this idea that somehow 500 dudes won the war for the US. The reality is that there were @~14 million men under arms. The US cranked out a B24 every hour, a Liberty Ship every couple of days, Ultra rendered so much intel they couldn’t act on it, and a ton of other factoids that demonstrate the power of the faceless mass of the willing and able.

            • jim says:

              > there is this childish tendency to focus on certain battalions, detachments, companies, etc. in any given conflict

              Not so childish. A war is generally won or lost when people think it is won or lost. Quantity matters, but victory matters more.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Of course. I should have clarified the retrospective v. the contemporaneous. Say what you will about FDR era statists, their propaganda game was on point. They hammered unity, cooperation, sacrifice; try and find a descent primary source documenting conscientious objectors or antiwar elements. Of course they existed, America First had a huge and growing following. But it all gets obliterated in 1942 and by 1943 the perception is one of unity of purpose. Have to be careful cultivating heros in that kind of environment. Can’t run the risk of having a supposed hero decry the war effort. After the fact though, you can’t have too many. Fucking Tom Hanks has won WWII like 6 times. As the actual participants fully die off, watch the legend grow.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              It did not matter very much for the US, because the US never fought except by choice and in places where victory was guaranteed. It did not matter very much what the US did after the Normandy landings.

              Specific formations matter most in holding up morale. If there is a section of the army that will never break and that will punish parts that do break, then the entire army won’t break. If there is no such hard core, the army may have a tendency to fall apart. Compare the performance of Italy and Germany in WWII. The economic difference wasn’t nearly so vast.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          ‘All lives matter’ is one of those things that you can call a rhetorical landmine; it’s funny in that you can use it to provoke tranzis into denying it; thus undermining their own ‘surface level’ rhetoric in the first place, and showing that we’re all united by our shared belief in racism.

    • someDude says:

      Try not to use smileys

      • jim says:

        What is wrong with smileys?

        I recommend using the irony to indicate sarcasm,“🙃”, since sarcasm is hard to detect in text, and there is so much genuine insanity around, especially on the kind of issues discussed here.

        • Pooch says:

          Portraying sarcasm is one thing but emoji’s of any kind are generally regarded as feminine behavior in the manosphere.

        • someDude says:

          That particular smiley seemed passive aggressive

          Some guys can make smileys work. Most can’t. I myself prefer not to use them. And Oscar_Cc would be better off not using them.

    • jim says:

      The expectation, and indeed the rule, is that when a male cop needs to wrestle with a resisting female, the female cop will do the wrestling.

      Which rule is in practice never followed, because female cops are only there to fill out the affirmative action quota, not to do any actual policing. That is simply not a role that women can actually perform.

      • BC says:

        One of the worst things I ever read about was detective and his new female “partner” interrogating a harden criminal. The guy attacked the detective and they got into a fight. Tthe male detective urged her to do help or go get help. Instead she hunkered down and watched them until the criminal got the a hold of detective’s weapon and shot him to death. He then shot himself to death. At that point she ran screaming out of the interrogation room.

        I didn’t know exactly what to make of that story when I was younger beyond the fact that women should not be in law enforcement, but it’s clear now that she was observing 2 alpha males fight it out and she was ready to go with the winner.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        If you go on, you can take a multitude of training courses in various disaster response topics. The courses are by and large worthless, but if you look at the accompanying stock photos and photography an interesting lesson is taught: every model in the stock is diverse™, and almost every person in the en vivo shots is a white male, joined occasionally by those blocky, mannish looking older white females. After the fourth course I took, I became convinced that it was some dude’s attempt at redpilling.

  20. […] is a competition to see who is the most sexist man on the internet, Jim wins it every year.  This fairly typical post is linked here not because I agree with anything he says (gasp), but just so you can see how […]

  21. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    In other news, Biden giving the person who was the most explicitly scornful and vituperative of him on stage out of anyone else his VP spot, is exactly what i would expect from the kind of white man who would put ‘D for democrat’ on his census form.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its beautiful, Harris will actually COST Biden black votes.

      Imagine thinking nogs are going to be enthusiastic about a dirty cop high yellow whore.

      • RedBible says:

        Since I didn’t care much to look at the democrat debates, never saw her face til now, but when I saw her face, I went: sure, she is a “woman of color”, but I don’t think the blacks are going to care much for her.
        now that I’ve learn that she is “part black” and “part asian” I thinking: The blacks are going to be even less on board with her than I thought.

        Trump should have the “legitimate” side of this election in the bag. Now just to take care of the vote counters and mail in fraud.

      • BC says:

        Imagine thinking nogs are going to be enthusiastic about a dirty cop high yellow whore.

        You’d might be surprised. Blacks primary objection to cops, is the fact they’re not black. The best overseers and the most brutal on the plantations of the Old South were freed black men. I don’t know if that will translate to a female cop.

        • The Cominator says:

          Shes a woman, a high yellow and a DIRTY cop and prosecutor who railroaded people… None of them liked her in the primary. I’m not going to be surprised.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for her. Maybe the Orange Man can bump his share of the Black vote from 8% all the way up to 10%, but probably not. Who cares, anyway? A Black vote is still worth the same as a White vote, despite what all the politicians and talking heads say. 2% of 13% is nothing to get worked up over.

            • The Cominator says:

              They will vote overwhelmingly for her the way they voted overwhelmingly for Obama in fact she won’t even do as well as Hillary and as such the only way the Democrats can win is vote fraud.

              • The Cominator says:

                Grrrrr I meant they won’t vote for her the way they did Obama…

              • Pooch says:

                I’m already seeing media putting out pieces to prepare us for “Election Week” and not election day with the expectation that state races won’t be able to be called until that Friday at the earliest and probably longer. Discussion about legitimate vote is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

                How can Trump possibly stop this?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Judging from history including 2016 there is a limit to what vote fraud can achieve.

                • jim says:

                  Vote fraud has escalated in every presidential election, and is likely to escalate a great deal further in this one.

                • jim says:

                  > How can Trump possibly stop this?

                  With the loyalist cops that stopped them from burning down federal buildings in Portland.

                  And, quite likely, with the loyalist soldiers he readied a short distance from Layfayette Park to provide backing for his loyalist cops in Lafayette Park should things have become really ugly.

                  It took him nearly four years to get a wall.

                  And it took him nearly four years to get law enforcement. But he has a wall, and has law enforcement.

                  Democrats have threatened to arrest loyalist cops. But so far cops under Democratic authority do not appear to be obeying. They will arrest good husbands, good fathers, and “pedophile” men with fertile age women, though I have noticed a distinct reluctance to arrest “pedophile” men who are with fertile age women, and it is likely that there is similar reluctance to arrest good husbands and good fathers, but they will not arrest good cops, so far.

                  If push comes to shove, the pointy end of the spear will strike as the commander in chief wills.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  > How can Trump possibly stop this?

                  I think this business with bringing troops home from abroad, and staging them around the country to “help distribute the coronavirus vaccine”, are part of his answer to this.

                  Maybe you can get vaccinated for free (with saline solution?) by the nice fellows by the Humvee in the mall parking lot, but you’ll definitely be able to drop off your mail-in ballot.


                  You just need 270 electoral votes. If he gets 270, while California and Illinois still even haven’t shown up because they’re busy blocking roads and throwing poop, you still win. Is there anything in the Constitution that every state has to send somebody? Did everyone show up to the electoral college in 1864?

                  This Godfather Don guy is smart as fuck and doesn’t blindly trust anything to just work if he sends out nice-guy imagine-if-you-can happy-rays.

                  Surely this thing with his guy smashing up the postal service top ranks has something to do with forcing exactly this emergency, in some places at least, to drive people toward more-legit polling places under his control.

                  If they dip people’s fingers in purple dye like in Iraq too then that would be awesome. Let’s see them cry about that.

      • Pooch says:

        Nixon got 15% of the black vote after the ’68 riots running on law and order.

        I don’t see that out of the question which would double his ’16 black share as long as he stays on law and order and not dumb “Biden and Kamala are the real racists!” messaging.

        But yes the illegitimate mail vote seems to be the bigger issue which is why he is (correctly) spending so much political capital on it.

  22. ten says:

    While reading some backlog, after surprisedly finding a few psychotic shills for the satanist cult “order of nine angles”, striving to reshape the aryan reichsvolk to a self conscious spacesuperpredator, in the comments, who went unrecognized and were responded to as being anti racist progressives, i came across

    “I am working on a non pinker graph of war through time, which I expect to show that European monarchies were peaceful, while progressivism has become more and more violent.”

    Did you produce this graph or a post on this, or is such info elsewere available? I would need it to smack aquaintances in dear parts with.

    • jim says:

      I got the data to my satisfaction, but neglected to finalize it a form satisfactory for publication. You keep Europe separate from China, because they had their left singularity a very long time ago, then got started again on leftism later than the others, and had a more recent left singularity which progressed more rapidly to its culmination.

      I have long ago forgotten what I did with the data. I need to dig it up, finish it off, and publish it.

      • ten says:

        Would be great. One particularly ingrained Truth known by everyone from left to cuckright is that christianity and “religion” ever was the primary driver for war, against the peaceful nature of rousseauean man.

        • iov says:

          The left hasn’t really made much use of the “violent xtian dark ages” meme since, at least, Bush’s second term. Vox Day tries to take credit for this, having compiled a book showing it not to be truth; maybe there’s something to it.

          • ten says:

            When talking to actual people, not observing the culture war, i still hear it all the time.

  23. Morgan says:

    Covid-19 is marital game career killer. If ambitious, driven, male need to make more than $150k. To make $150k+ must work with many others. If work with many others likely forced to work from home. If forced to work from home, wife sees one working with many others, shit tests constantly.

    • jim says:

      Not a problem when one texts people and writes code.

      Huge problem with frequent teleconferencing, since only one man in a teleconference can be seen by women as the alpha male of the group.

      Need a place to teleconference from which the wife is excluded during teleconferencing.

      • Morgan says:

        Need to be on calls, near constantly. Lot of give and take. Wife throw up obstacles to me creating workspace at home. Territorial.

        • jim says:

          You have to own your house, or else your wife will not safe and comfortable in it.

          You have be able to exclude your wife from any part of the house, or the entire house and have her hang out in the garden and the garage, for any reason or no reason all at any time.

          Obviously you should seldom do this, but your ability and authority to do this needs to be unquestioned and unquestionable.

          If you don’t own your house, she will end up chasing you into a man cave and then invading your man cave to force you to man up and take ownership.

        • jim says:

          Wife territorial is a shit test. You are failing.

          Women are never secure or comfortable owning property themselves, only operating it and managing it under the authority of an alpha male who can and will defend it. If you are not that alpha male, she is likely to find one, bring him in, and throw you out.

          You need to be able and willing to say “You are distracting and bothering me. Shut up and get out of my sight.” And she shuts up and gets out. If the alpha male cannot throw her out of a space, she will not feel comfortable and safe in that space.

          You are asking her for a man cave. A woman will never give you man cave, because that reveals her man’s weakness and makes the entire rest of the house unsafe. You are the man of the house. It is your house and land. It belongs to you, and she belongs to you.

  24. epimetheus says:

    The term “shit tests” is flawed.

    It appears that the relationship between men and women is in a kind of meta-level harmony with the act of coitus itself. Sex is a symbol of Love.

    A man with a potent and erect personality – a soul with spine and balls – will continually penetrate the tight, fertile, wet, yielding nature of a woman. The greater the erection and potency, the greater the sweetness which comes out of her.

    What we call shit tests are a woman’s natural inclination to enjoy the strength and hardness of her man’s soul, just as the vagina tightens around the penis while in pleasure. A woman in distress will do it even more, as she feels too much emptiness within.

    A woman with a strong man feels full, and the friction of the relationship itself is pleasurable, just as it is when they have sex; one must remember that the sex act itself is a form of non-harmful pleasurable violence, and relationships can be the same.

    It’s so elegant, it’s almost symphonic, almost as if beautifully designed by God.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      A shit test is a shit test because it is not a loyalty test.

      A loyalty test says, ‘jump through those hoops’, and if they jump through those hoops, you are pleased, as they have demonstrated their loyalty in following your word.

      A shittest says, ‘jump through those hoops’, and if they jump through those hoops, you are displeased, as they have demonstrated their weakness in following your word.

    • Not Tom says:

      Sex is a symbol of Love.


      “Love” does not even mean the same thing for men and women, but one thing that is definitely true for both sexes is that the act of sex and the emotions and behaviors that are labeled as love are entirely separate and only incidentally connected.

      For a woman, “love” is the feeling of being owned, which includes but is absolutely not limited to sex. It’s a metaphorical renewable contract with the man that owns her; one with variable expiration and a litany of exit conditions. If he does anything that either severely reduces her estimation of his fitness (failing too many shit tests) or strongly implies that he no longer wishes to own her (which may include, but again is not limited to, refusal to fuck or inability to get aroused), then the contract is void, she is no longer in love. Patriarchal systems back the metaphorical contract with a real one – the Pauline vows that Jim often speaks of.

      And for a man, “love” is infatuation, which is temporary, non-renewable, and fades with both time and options. Heartiste called it “oneitis” and he’s not wrong, it’s practically a mental disease, causing betas the world over to behave in horrible self-destructive ways. The cure for male love is options.

      Sex is just sex. Animals do it all the time. As Aidan says, it’s zoological. It’s not a “symbol” of anything, except perhaps evolutionary survival.

  25. Snivkers says:

    How best deliver corrective spanking?

  26. Kruger says:

    Talk me out of becoming a Mormon

    • The Cominator says:

      The elders will be marching in pride parades and slutwalks inside of 10 years. If you are not born FDLS you definitely wont get a wife if you join because not really a member of the tribe.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Years ago I (a gentile) visited the SLC temple with a buddy, and two friendly, adorable LDS girls on their mission gave us a tour of the grounds. My friend was very taken with them, as was no doubt intended, and to this day he talks about possibly joining the church. I tell him they’re not going to give him a wife like that. They might try to hook him up with an aging, bitter divorcee, but the cute 20-somethings are not for the likes of us.

        • The Cominator says:

          With the tribe thing I was talking about the FLDS whos leaders will certainly NOT be marching in slutwalks but also the inner circle monopolizes all the good pussy.

  27. Pooch says:

    Jim (or others), do you ever discuss politics with your wife? I’ve tried to avoid it, but it’s been harder given the current state of things. She seems incapable of understanding why we shouldn’t be showing empathy for the poor oppressed blacks or people dieing from COVID. Probably best to avoid all political discussion around women but just curious what the correct position is.

    • jim says:

      It is always a shit test.

      Which I always win, but why invite shit tests?

      The only thing that interests women about politics is checking how their man relates to men with more power than he does. Why remind a woman about men more famous and more powerful than you are?

      • ten says:

        My girl talks about politics all the time. She reads Moldbug, and it’s not even really my fault. I sent her Nick Lands “meltdown” because she likes that sort of stuff, and she kept going from there. I’m not encouraging it, but she asks me things she is interested in, and i answer.

        Guess she recognized a lot of what i think in Moldbug.

        Can’t see how it’s a shit test. Is it?

        • simplyconnected says:

          You are lucky then. Most men have girlfriends/wifes that are to the left of them.

          • jim says:

            No they don’t. Women don’t really have opinions on politics. They have opinions on alpha males who possess or are seeking political power. If Trump arrests a bunch of political opponents or disappears them, all their wives and girlfriends will become Trumpists.

            The reason single women are voting against Trump is that they can sense that the permanent government denies him political power. Every time Twitter suspends a Trump supporter for supporting Trump, he looks weak.

            Every time Twitter “fact checks” him he looks weak.

            • The Cominator says:

              In my experience they conform to their social group politically…

              As I was surprised that the young single women in the non urban South were generally Trump supporters because well everyone else here is.

            • simplyconnected says:

              Makes sense, since politics is a male power struggle.

              I have seen that fake interest from women in male fields, science for example.
              I recall Steve Moxon in a House of Commons deposition arguing that it’s hard to find the female motivation for being in the workplace, other than putting themselves “in the path of high status males”.

              On a lighter note I was hoping for my first “Nuts”. There will be time I hope.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            I think this often present relationship (man-right/woman-left) is a social control measure, something introduced via media/entertainment to get men to just accept that someone else’s dick is in your woman’s ear. Loyal women are often more with the Program, even if they came to it specifically because of their man. And I think something Jim said is obtuse, bordering on incorrect, due to a lack of caveats. He said that if Trump locked up a bunch of political opponents, their wives would become Trumpists. Maybe, if they were faithless, childless, gym-rat, eggless husks. If they were good mothers, loyal wives, I posit that they would fall off the status cliff, raise their bastards in the dirt, and fill the children’s hearts with venomous revenge.

            • BC says:

              >And I think something Jim said is obtuse, bordering on incorrect, due to a lack of caveats. He said that if Trump locked up a bunch of political opponents, their wives would become Trumpists. Maybe, if they were faithless, childless, gym-rat, eggless husks. If they were good mothers, loyal wives, I posit that they would fall off the status cliff, raise their bastards in the dirt, and fill the children’s hearts with venomous revenge.

              There’s a difference between owned women and unowned women. And you would be correct if the women were owned by men. But as a rule, most women today are owned by the state, not by men and the result would be as Jim describes.

              However, if a women is truly owned by a man, taking the man away is adapt to result in Aryan wives of Jewish men problem the Nazis encountered where they endlessly attacked the Nazis for taking their men. Which of course can be solved via the new tribe gang raping them, which is probably what’s happening to Uyghurs women right now.

            • jim says:

              > > If Trump arrests a bunch of political opponents or disappears them, all their wives and girlfriends will become Trumpists.

              > Maybe, if they were faithless, childless, gym-rat, eggless husks. If they were good mothers, loyal wives, I posit that they would fall off the status cliff, raise their bastards in the dirt, and fill the children’s hearts with venomous revenge.

              If good wives and mothers past fertile age they would indeed fall off the status cliff, raise their bastards in the dirt, and fill the children’s hearts with venomous revenge.

              If, however, fertile age, and were a Trump victory to result in a society where all single fertile age women get married, would marry the winners and assimilate overnight to their husband’s faction.

              Women assimilate to the winning tribe more or less instantaneously, if banged into it.

              Plus, I don’t think any of the people Trump is likely to arrest have loyal wives and good mothers for their children.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                For some reason I can’t comment in-line.

                Ok Jim. We make a distinction between unowned and owned. And I will readily admit that I would be surprised to find loyal women in leftist ranks, if I had not already. The same goes for the crowds of disloyal sluts hiding their worthlessness behind skin deep faithfulness in every faith on earth. This is why I believe AWALT. Not Tom’s post absolutely nailed it. Their conduct isn’t criminal, it is subconscious.

                Moving further down the list of why I think the position is obtuse bordering on incorrect. You seem to assert that across culture and race, AWALT. Does this mean you believe in HUI or whatever it is called? This rings false to me. If men can diverge so dramatically, why wouldn’t women?

                • Not Tom says:

                  If men can diverge so dramatically, why wouldn’t women?

                  Simple, and been explained already: for millennia, men exercised sexual choice, and women did not. Therefore, men evolved sexually, women did not.

                  Likely, if female emancipation were allowed to run for millennia, women might eventually evolve to make more optimal mate choices (I say “might” because I can’t validates the assumption that current behavior is not already evolutionarily optional). Trouble is, civilization can’t survive a thousand years under female emancipation; it can barely last a hundred. So ’round and ’round we go, running the same experiment over and over again, never even coming close to being able to complete it, entire civilizations becoming extinct every time it gets tried. Maybe we should stop trying.

                  (P.S. Not sure if this reply is going to the right place, replies are behaving oddly today – if this appears as a new comment, it’s intended as a reply to FA.)

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Not Tom

                  I agree; female emancipation over time would crash society. Indeed it has. The niggling point for me is that I don’t understand how you can get such wide variation in male social behavior (yellow men v. white men v. black men) while female remains so noticeably similar. Consider white harpies v. yellow hausfraus; there are yellow harpies and white fraus, and the determining factor seems to be status evaluation of the society in question. But then look at black females. Ages ago I read a link about how female IQ goes up when male IQ tanks. Look at tribal societies subjected to multiple generations of internecine violence. The female led societies of central Africa aren’t going to the stars, but I would bet good money they will get to the 22nd century. Understand, I’m not trying to “1 lie all lie” Jimian Social Dynamic Theory, but I absolutely assert it requires refinement in order to hold up to rigorous critique.

                • jim says:

                  > The niggling point for me is that I don’t understand how you can get such wide variation in male social behavior (yellow men v. white men v. black men) while female remains so noticeably similar

                  Women have not been subject to selective pressures on their sexual behavior since we looked rather like apes, because populations that allowed female sexual choice disappeared. The men were disinclined to invest in children, or defend land.

                  I think this goes all the way back to coming down from the trees and out onto the savanna. If you don’t have some handy trees, need to be able to stand off lions, so you need reasonably sized group with strong male/male cohesion. And the males have to have some mighty strong motives to defend females and young. And, out on the savannah, no fruit, or considerably less fruit. The stable isotope ratios in the bones of all our ancestors that walked, rather than swung through the trees, shows that they ate high on the trophic chain, deer, fish, and other predators. Humans do fine on an all meat diet, die on an all veggie diet. (Vegan without fish, eggs, cheese, and milk)

                  Only males hunt, because adult males are pre-adapted physically and psychologically for violence. So women and children relied on the mighty hunter bringing home the bacon. And if you have defect/defect equilibrium, well, the women can eat by whoring themselves out, until they are past fertile age, whereupon they starve or get eaten by lions, but their children are going to die.

                  And the simplest way to end defect/defect equilibrium is that the males assign the women according to deals they make with each other, and let the women think that the top alpha assigned the women.

                  Further, we seem to be adapted to eating a substantial proportion of other carnivores, hence the health advantages of fish. We are not true omnivores, because we cannot survive on an all vegetable diet, and we are adapted to getting a significant portion of our meat from other carnivores. We have been top predator for a very long time. And women have not been, which means that they have been property for a very long time.

                • Important distinction, Jim: controlling women, not letting them whore themselves out might be an ancient adaptation, but controlling them in an egalitarian-monogamous way is not. Sultan’s Harems survived into recent times, not only Muslims but also Shaka the Zulu and the Inca. Or, heh, Charles Manson.

                  This matters, because while women might prefer a gutter criminal over the Sultan, being one of the Sultans five hundred concubines is still far more preferable to them than being the wife of a blacksmith. Being more preferable implies less of a need for control. Easier control.

                  This is something similar to what I raised before. Okay, women might prefer a gutter criminal over Trump (someone a man thinks is alpha), but they vastly prefer Trump over a random average dude. Marrying women monogamously to random average dudes requires a lot of control, making them the 500th concubine of Sultan Trump (prosocial alpha male men approve of) requires far less control.

                  Thus, in many populations – needless to say, not mostly not white Christians, with exceptions like the absolutely debased sexual mores of the Medieval Irish – where the Sultan’s Harem survived into recent times, the need to control women was lower, and thus they adapted less to that.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Okay, women might prefer a gutter criminal over Trump (someone a man thinks is alpha), but they vastly prefer Trump over a random average dude.

                  Probably not the best example. It should be recalled that Trump over the years has enjoyed a broad selection of top shelf women. I’m sure we all remember the media outrage when he mentioned how easy it was.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The niggling point for me is that I don’t understand how you can get such wide variation in male social behavior (yellow men v. white men v. black men) while female remains so noticeably similar.

                  There are enormous racial differences between women. Black women are nothing like white women, no matter how much social pressure they’re under.

                  But they’re all still women, just like we’re all still men. All of us men, regardless of tribe, will attempt to cooperate within our tribe to raise the power and status of our tribe and destroy the enemy tribes, and compete within the tribe to win recognition and prime pussy. And all women, regardless of tribe, will try to instigate fights between men, regardless of the men’s tribes, and fuck the winners, regardless of their own tribe or the winner’s tribe.

                  There’s nothing surprising about this to me. Given the essential cooperate-compete-conquer dynamic of men, women have to be this way, otherwise our species would have died out long ago. If women did not shit test, we’d be too weak to carry on as an apex predator, and if women were perfectly loyal to their tribe, we’d have very few surviving nations as conquerors would have had to kill off the women as well as the men. We are the way we are because we must be that way, and the profound differences between races complement, but do not override, the profound differences between men and women.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Not Tom
                  Ok, I get it now. Sorry for being the slow horse.

                  In summation, variability for race and culture do not change the utility of defect-prone women in advanced primate populations. It is a feature, not a flaw. Men are steel, women are rock.

                • @Not Tom women and loyalty to the tribe. So there is this story that the Romans kidnapped the Sabine women, and the Sabin men attacked Rome, and the Sabine women did not care as long as their Sabin men were appearing to be winning, but once the Romans got the upper hand, they intervened, and convinced the Sabine men to deal with it. And went on fucking the winners. So yes, not perfect loyalty and fucking the winners. But what the story illuminates is that it is not as dark as it may seem. They would have been okay with their outgroup kidnappers-husbands being slaughtered by their own fathers and brothers, but once it would have been their own fathers and others slaughters, they did not want that, so arranged what is the only possible peaceful solution in that situation, the women fuck the kidnappers and the fathers and brothers have to accept that. They weren’t being evil, it was the only way to keep their male relatives alive. So I guess this is some sort of a silver lining. That this disloyalty is not necessarily evil, it is more along the lines of a long evolutionary process where some invader is really stronger than you and wants to take your sister and if you object to that, you are dead. So how can your sister save your life? By telling you she loves that man and will marry him. So this makes the pill kinda a bit less black.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “There’s nothing surprising about this to me. Given the essential cooperate-compete-conquer dynamic of men, women have to be this way, otherwise our species would have died out long ago. If women did not shit test, we’d be too weak to carry on as an apex predator, and if women were perfectly loyal to their tribe, we’d have very few surviving nations as conquerors would have had to kill off the women as well as the men.”

                  Probably we are a species weaker today because that didn’t tend to happen. It does serve the individual interests of the women as gene carriers though and that’s all that matters evolutionarily.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That this disloyalty is not necessarily evil, it is more along the lines of a long evolutionary process

                  Yes. But I wonder how many times we’ll have to keep saying flat-out that woman’s nature isn’t inherently evil or wicked, before the average reader will believe that we don’t consider it evil or wicked. We describe it factually, and are accused of moralizing it; it’s the accusers who are moralizing.

                  Gnon made women the way they are, so they can’t possibly be evil. We are the evil ones if we try to convince ourselves and each other that women are anything else and refuse to build a flourishing civilization around the reality of life. Progressives are the most evil, for dealing out harsh punishments to anyone who merely notices that reality.

                  Probably we are a species weaker today because [killing off the women of conquered tribes] didn’t tend to happen.

                  It’s possible, though it may not have made much difference if the important traits are all on the Y chromosome.

                  It’s a fascinating design, really. In principle there’s an inherent evolutionary trade-off between quality and quantity – between being strong/smart/etc. and being numerous. Human females, relative to other species, take forever to give birth and only produce one offspring each time (two or three if they’re lucky). That means our growth is hard-limited by the number of fertile women and their ability to bring babies to term. But, if evolutionarily speaking it’s not all that important who the mother is… well then we can continue to improve ourselves as a species through male competition and still maximize our growth by using all available females.

                  We could fill the planet within a few generations, the solar system within a century, and probably the whole galaxy within a millennium, if we had the technology and the fertility; but that only works if we avoid killing off any women, which only works if women want to bear the children of the winners, whomever they are. Of course, the Cathedral is killing both female fertility and male competition, but that’s a separate issue. We broke the Malthusian limit a few centuries ago, our fertility should have exploded based on how we’re built.

        • jim says:

          Perhaps not.

          Women are interested in what their men are interested in, which is not a shit test, but love.

          On the other hand, women will back the up and coming contender if he has faith in his mission, and if you have faith in our mission, you may have unknowingly passed a shit test, which every so often she revisits. Once a shit test has been passed, a woman will revisit it every now and then for old times sake, but it is no longer stressful (unless she is returning to it because she is unsure that you can pass it all over again.)

          Everything a person does is ultimately motivated by survival and reproduction, and if it is not, they are sexually deviant or have some kind of mental defect. But because women do not pursue sex in the direct goal oriented manner that men do, the connection to reproduction is usually harder to read.

          Women are utterly bored by politics, but they are interested in men’s interest in politics. You can pick up on the difference when you pay attention.

  28. Great job, Jim, as usual, but sounds like you are starting the course at Intermediate level, not at Beginner level (and Aidan’s three rules are starting it at Advanced level).

    For the Beginner level course, the Book of Pook is excellent. Esp. Lession 8:

    “Yet, he noticed that guys who did knew nothing of seduction scored left and right. How did they do it?

    Also, he faced a big problem. Talking to a woman normally he was fine with. Talking to her with a sexual outcome made him feel guilty and dirty.

    He knew being desireless was keeping him from being desperate, but it wasn’t getting him women. In fact, it seemed that those guys desiring the women would have their desire reflected back.

    Then it hit him,

    “Only the Sexual Ones get the girls.””

    One reason Game is hard to put into words is that being driven by sexual desire can make one look thirsty and desperate, but then again not being driven by sexual desire or suppressing it does not work well either.

    And this second is more common, at least for the nerdy.

    BTW Jim, you really need to make up your mind whether you want the nerdy to reproduce or not. Because the “May I kiss you?” thing tends to come from not having much social life, and thus trying to learn this from novels and movies. If this type deserves to not reproduce, then that sounds like contradicting with you saying marriage should be as easy as falling of a log, every man who can hold down a productive job should be able to.

    But it is hard to put these things into words. Seems like most of these require a certain kind of balance.

    For example, “Knock on door, say “hello, I would like to see my daughter”. Spend a little while with daughter, pick up daughter, say “honey, we are going home now. Dad will be taking time off to look after you because Mama is upset.” Leave.” sounds like you are describing alphadom as a calm balance being too fearful vs. chimping the fuck out. And that is clearly what most men would do on their own, either too afraid or chimp the fuck out and bang on her door yelling threats until carried away by the police.

    Balance between not being desireless and not repressing one’s sexuality vs. not looking thirsty and desperate. Balance between too afraid and too chimpouty.

    • Interestingly, on the Beginner course level it does not even require any special knowledge on the nature of women, rather it is sort of the same logic as a job interview. To win any job interview, one needs two things. A visible desire to actually do the work and not just to hold the position (i.e. to want fuck her brains out and not just be her boyfriend), and a strong confidence one is able to do it well. Most fucked up job interviews are either because of being evasive about actually doing the work (just wants the position) or unsure about being able to do it, hence being nervous.

      From this angle, it is not as much being desireless but more like being ashamed and nervous about one’s desire that is a very bad thing, as it signals “I am not at all convinced the product I am selling is any good”.

      Actual desirelessness is weirder. It does not work well, but works surprisingly better than being ashamed or nervous. Like on job interviews, me not being much interested whether I get it or not made me unfazed and not nervous, and the employers often mistakenly interpreted it as having a lot of options and being supremely confident. Similar things happened with girls, actually having little desire means one does not get intimidated by a girls hotness and tells her to shut the fuck up if she is getting annoying, which sometimes results in her developing a big desire. But I think being actually desireless in sex or career is sort of a rare thing, it is just my weirdness, probably this information is not much helpful for most.

    • Tom Hart says:

      Ah Pook is here.

      Pick up tips from the Mayan gods, via William S. Burroughs—a curious combination…

  29. Atavisionary says:

    You talk about beating women. And while they mostly deserve it, there is a better way. Instead of causing damage, which a man certainly could do, you can cause non-damaging pain. Specifically, pinching the wrists of a woman will get the point across very, very well while also preventing any retaliation. It may take slightly longer, a few minutes perhaps, but a pinched wrist is a sort of suffering a woman wants to stop just as much as a punched face. And you can specifically determine its intensity to suit the situation. And then, when she wants to complain to the state, the only evidence is two bruises smaller than the size of a nickle. pinching wrists offer all the advantages of an alpha, without any of the evidence.

    • RedBible says:

      When Jim mentions “Beating a woman” he is almost* always talking about spanking her, or physical compelling her to “do” something. (i.e. picking her up and taking her somewhere, Marital “duty”, etc.) Punching a woman in the face is both likely to leave lasting damage, and it also marks her as his equal. A man should have the strength to bend her over his knee, pin both her hands/arms behind her back ,and spank her with the other hand til she submits to a level of his pleasing.

      Pinching her wrists just sound kind of weak, gay and faggy to me.

      *(the only exception I can think of off the top of my head was Jim agreeing with Vox Day about if she tries to kill you, that you need to beat her within an inch of her life.)

      • James says:

        “Pinching wrists” sounds beyond faggy, it sounds like something an angry, scared beta male would come up with.

      • kawaii_kike says:

        “Punching a woman in the face is both likely to leave lasting damage, and it also marks her as his equal”

        I don’t think a woman would perceive being punched in the face as a sign of equality or respect. Since when is being dominated a sign of equality? If an MMA fighter started roundhouse kicking me in the head, I wouldn’t think “wow, he must think I’m his equal”. A woman being punched in the face probably just gets turned on and thinks the guy beating her is alpha.

        • jim says:

          You spank a child. You punch an equal.

          Equality makes women feel insecure.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            Women like to be dominated and subjugated by men. So let’s say there’s a continuum of force for physically disciplining women; starting at slapping, then hitting them with a stick and then maybe flogging them. I don’t see how punching them in the face marks them as my equal. Why does the continuum of force stop at punching them in the face. Killing misbehaving women for adultery or divorce is also morally permissible so besides the fact that punching them in the face could fuck up their looks, I don’t understand the arbitrary embargo on punching women.

            In the post Hitting your woman with a stick Jim said “Fear turns women on, and comfort and security turns women on”, so using excessive violence to dominate and discipline a woman satisfies all aspects of fear, domination, and security. She would fear me whenever I got angry and hopefully that fear would prevent future shit tests. But she would also feel comfort and security because I would have demonstrated myself as alpha.

            Women are notorious for making false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment allegations because women want to be raped,assaulted, and harassed and are upset when they don’t. So punching a woman in the face is potentially necessary to pass a shit test. Women only respect power and beating them with just your fists or beating them within in a inch of their life seems like a simple and fast way to establish dominance and discourage future shit tests.

            Jim said “Women like men who frighten them. If you don’t kill a man, but beat him, he’ll resent you and wait until his chance to strike back. If you don’t kill a woman, but beat her, she’ll get “Stockholm syndrome” and be pretty loyal”, so the more severe the beating, the more loyal she will become. If slapping a woman works well then beating her with my fists should work even better.

            • RedBible says:

              I think you are misunderstanding what Jim as well as I have said, because you are equating things that are not the same. Pinning/subduing a woman followed by spanking her bottom is NOT the same as slapping her.

              When you punch a woman, what she sees is that you can’t subdue/restrain her without having to punch her, which suggest that such a man is much weaker than pretty much all other men.

              Now if the goal is to “beat her within an inch of her life”, then punching can be on the table, as well as pretty much everything else. That said, you can only use the “beat her within an inch of her life” a few times (if not just once) because the point of a “beat her within an inch of her life” session is the show her that if she crosses said line again, you will kill her. so each time you do a “beat her within an inch of her life” session, it will reduce the potency of all other times you did so.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              Also note that the Senator in question is known from before: “Wiener, who co-sponsored a 2017 bill that made knowingly exposing a partner to HIV no longer a felony”

            • RedBible says:

              I remember a few times some 4 and 8 chan boards talked about the pedo question.

              You had one camp saying that the left is the one who is pro-pedo and thus “we” need to be anti-pedo.
              But the other camp made an interesting claim (that at the time there weren’t a lot of good sources for). The claim was that the left is pushing certain types of pro-pedo, namely: Interracial, Youth-on-Youth, and Homosexual.
              Interracial is semi-straight forward, since adult whites will follow laws at higher rates than non=whites.
              Youth-on-Youth ensures a majority of women are not virgins, and thus damage the family unit
              Many Homosexual men have stated the “importance” of man-boy love, so clearly the gays already will break this law, thus turn more boys into gays.

              The other thing camp #2 claimed was that the current pedo laws are Anti-male and even more so, Anti-Marriage. (The father should be the one to decide if his daughter should be married.)

              I bring this up, since the article you linked really bolsters the argument of camp #2.

  30. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      Unresponsive. You need to tell me which post or comment you are objecting to, and if it is not the immediately preceding comment or post you need to quote the objectionable material

      You appear to be complaining about the positions that your boss imagines that neoreactionaries take that might provoke conflict within the alt right and within throne and altar reaction. But your comment contained insufficient information for me to guess what position your boss attributes to me.

      You have to actually read the posts or the comments to find one that plausibly relates to your script.

  31. ERTZ says:

    Are ALL women really like that?
    I have doubts and think there’s considerable variation in women.
    While they all share basic instincts, not all woman are controlled by them completely.

    The same argument could be made about men: they’re all the same and would have sex with any bimbo at once, if only they could. This would be wrong, too, though it’s true that all men feel an impulse to do so, but some have impulse control and can think before they act, execute self-restraint, decide the sex isn’t worth the potential costs (STD, child support for genetically inferior kid, reputation loss, …).

    Some people, especially higher classes, draw a line between the type of people they have sex with for recreational and for reproductive purposes.
    Bimbos and Jeremy Meeks types are used as human sex toys for fun, by men and women, because they satisfy evolved instincts, but better types of people make sure that their kids are produced from better human stock.
    Most billionaires have surprisingly plain, even ugly, wives – but they are from “good families” (proven competent genetic stock), or at least screened for cognitive ability.
    Example: Bill Gates’ wife is quite ugly, but very bright.

    It seems rare that daughters from “good families” marry thugs, though they may play around with them in college or as an affair.

    Lower class women, well, of course they act more primitively, but so do lower class men.
    Many middle class ones as well.

    It’s the same as with food: Just about everybody loves pizza and chocolate, but higher classes of people much more rarely allow themselves to become obese.

    But it might be that such women only show calculated sexual self-restraint because of social pressure from their parents/families/peers or socialization and would indeed act purely emotionally if completely free and on their own.
    To test this, one would need to see if and how often truly independent higher class women have kids with lower class thugs, Negroes, drug dealers, rappers and such. I have no data, but my gut feeling tells me the numbers are negligible.

    • The Cominator says:

      All women BECOME like that.

      Women have a very very great instinct to conform to other women… this is even more powerful than their sexual instinct to go for low IQ thugs its almost impossible for them to resist this instinct for long.

      AWALT outliers (generally women who try to distance themselves from other women) eventually get dragged into the horrible norm once they get convinced to not avoid other women. I saw this happen to a girl I really loved for the years she was truly AWALTish.

      • ERTZ says:

        Women are evolutionary driven to copy other women’s opinions/mate choice preferences because their sons’ traits must satisfy the inherited sexual preferences of other women to become sexually successful;
        a trait a single specific woman likes in a man but is hated by all other women is, if inherited, dooming her son, and therefore partially or completely herself, to extinction.

        So key seems to be the exact peer group a woman compares herself with;
        if she considers wider society, largely lower and middle class women, as peers and copies their sexual choices to maximize her reproductive success accordingly, she will prefer thugs, rappers, etc.
        But if she considers a higher class of women her peers, through her own conscious decision or manipulation by her father/family/husband, her instincts should make a different, better, kind of man attractive to her.
        At least for her mate choice instinct component that is a function of her evolved instinct to copy other women’s mate choice preferences.

        According to that logic, it makes a difference with what kind of other women a girl is socialized with,
        which schools she attends and types of friends she has, which neighborhood she lives in, even which kind of media she is allowed to consume to base her mate choice instinct selection on (her “social reality”).
        If most of her peers (real ones and synthetic ones from media) idolize good men and show contempt for Jeremy Meeks types (or don’t even know they exist?) her own preferences should follow suit.

        Perhaps that is the reason why Mormons, some Christians, orthodox Jews etc. are so strict about which type of media, friends, socializing they allow their kids:
        If you allow your kids in a critical formative development phase to be exposed to mass culture (rap, music videos, gang culture, all that stuff) you shape their instincts and desires accordingly, damaging them.

    • Not Tom says:

      Did you seriously post a NAWALT reply after years of Jim writing about this topic and months of you personally following the blog?

      Absolutely worthless. There is no possible way that you’re commenting in good faith. This is a shill script.

    • jim says:

      > Are ALL women really like that?


      > But it might be that such women only show calculated sexual self-restraint because of social pressure from their parents/families/peers

      Not seeing this calculated self restraint. All I see is that a fertile age woman of average attractiveness is apt to conclude that only Mister One in Thirty is good enough.

      Female sexuality is not under conscious control. They are not aware of what they are doing, and do not decide whether or not to do it. Calculation does not happen.

      Women are strongly inhibited by other people around, and particularly family and friends around, but this is not rational calculation.

      • Not Tom says:

        this is not rational calculation

        Yeah, the threat of social ostracism or even loss of social status evokes primordial terror in women, but I doubt if any of that even registers in the neocortex.

        The house pet can tell by your tone and body language that you’re angry, but doesn’t understand why. Eventually she may learn to connect that anger with peeing on the carpet, and stop peeing on the carpet in order to avoid discipline, but still has no idea why the carpet isn’t a bathroom, and never will. She’s incapable of that higher understanding, and human women are incapable of understanding when and why excessive shit-testing, serial polyandry or virtue-signaling might lead to social dysfunction, civilizational decline and the deep unhappiness of spinsterhood. Even the simple act of attempting to label the behavior (never mind consequences) will trigger a fight-or-flight response. Has anyone ever tried telling a woman something as simple as “you’re being irrational”, and if so, how did that turn out?

        Her biology tells her to do it, so she does it, unless she has reason to be afraid of immediate and direct consequences – and even then, it might be a toss-up. This process is no more under conscious control than a horse submitting or refusing to submit to a mount.

      • I too used to argue about NAWALT because my observations were different from Jim’s, but I think Jims observation’s are more representative of statistical averages while mine are outliers, so I stopped. However, one has to somehow still has to explain having different observations.

        My current model is 1) as alpha is positional, relative to other men 2) women tend to behave based on how their small social circles work like, not how the greater world does, I think that all women who have a chance of ending up on Jeremy Meeks booty call list will be absolutely like that, and my outlier experiences may have something to do with knowing women who never ever got the chance to ever fuck Meeks or the likes. This seems to be the most likely explanation at the moment. So their definition of alpha is based on the far, far meeker men they actually met and/or fucked.

        Like there are women whose boyfriends were so indecisive that even being able to make a decision made one look like super alpha to them. They really do exist, though I don’t know if they do exist in the Anglosphere. Why did they never got around to fuck a real alpha is a really big question, maybe not being hot enough, maybe just not going to bars because they think they are not hot enough (I very often met girls who were very nervous about their bodies even though their bodies were not that bad), maybe just being tired from doing not a career job but more like a physical job in some chicken gutting factory and thus staying out of nightlife, or living in a small village with no nightlife etc. Also they never went to college.

        “Good girls” are ones who somehow never really had a chance to be bad. Never really ended up meeting Meeks. Somehow in their small social circle every man is an indecisive weakling, they do not know men outside that circle, and thus any man with a basic amount of confidence and decisiveness is alpha to them. If they would ever get out of that social circle, they would very quickly become bad girls. The quickest way for them to get out of that circle is college…

        • jim says:

          Female perceptions of alpha are apt to be grossly incongruous with male perceptions of alpha.

          Vox Day has a elaborate rationalizations for this. My account of this tends to be rather harsh on females.

          • miu says:

            would ya kindly elucidate upon what you refer to as your harsher take? i’ve read Vox Day’s Alpha Game blog and so am familiar with his perspective.

            • jim says:

              Vox Day thinks women would make wise choices except bad men fool them.

              I say that the alpha male dance, as women want it to be danced, is incompatible with civilization and large scale cooperation.

              • Not Tom says:

                I don’t think that’s Vox’s position. His position is that women do generally make wise sexual choices, or at least rational ones; that a woman’s perception of Alpha is the same as a man’s perception of Alpha; that men whom women clearly perceive as Alpha but other men do not are called epicycles Sigmas; that men whom other men perceive as Alpha but women don’t are really Betas (which is sort of true – it’s right for the wrong reasons); and that in order to really fail with women you have to be in some special sub-Beta category.

                It’s a confusing mess that tries to merge two orthogonal concepts (male perception of status and female perception of status) into a single hierarchy, with predictably poor results, and creates entire categories out of random personality tics that happen to piss him off. But I don’t think he’s known for saying that women get tricked by bad men, because he’s not known for criticizing women’s sexual choices at all. Voting and lifestyle choices, yes, but not mate choices.

                His ideas totally fit within the “high IQ evangelical Christian” frame. He comes off as being more than a little uncomfortable discussing or thinking about the baser aspects of female sexuality; he doesn’t want to truly understand the hamster wheel or gina tingles, assuming, perhaps correctly, that it could lead to insanity; so he starts from a male-framed perspective and abstracts and over-intellectualizes everything until it sort of hangs together.

                We need to observe like Steve Irwin, studying female sexuality and behavior as an animal phenomenon with childlike fascination, celebrating all of it as Gnon’s handiwork no matter how disturbing or bizarre, always thinking about how to tame the wild beast. Vox studies women more like how liberal academics used to study third-world cultures, taking their stated claims at face value and trying to interpret their thoughts and behavior in the western frame. It’s not exactly blue-pilled, just generally “out there” and of limited practical use.

                • jim says:

                  > I don’t think that’s Vox’s position. His position is that women do generally make wise sexual choices, or at least rational ones; that a woman’s perception of Alpha is the same as a man’s perception of Alpha

                  Well my position is that No Women Are Like That, and I don’t see any important difference between my perception of Vox Day’s position and your perception of his position.

                  > he’s not known for criticizing women’s sexual choices at all. Voting and lifestyle choices

                  Perhaps when I described his position I was excessively laconic. Since we observe women conspicuously making unwise choices, I interpret his position as attempting to gloss over this and rationalize this away, rather than flat out denying it.

                  As a general rule, when you interact with someone whose position makes no sense, because thought crime, you should interpret him as saying what he means, rather than what he would rather be thought of as meaning. You should call out what he really means, rather than what he is purportedly saying.

                  This sounds like, and is, awfully like Steel Manning, which is a fallacy and illegitimate method of argument, and a hateful and evil practice.

                  The difference between Steel Manning someone’s argument, and calling out what the other party is actually saying, is which party’s crimestop is obstructing communication.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “We need to observe like Steve Irwin, studying female sexuality and behavior as an animal phenomenon with childlike fascination, celebrating all of it as Gnon’s handiwork no matter how disturbing or bizarre, always thinking about how to tame the wild beast. Vox studies women more like how liberal academics used to study third-world cultures, taking their stated claims at face value and trying to interpret their thoughts and behavior in the western frame. It’s not exactly blue-pilled, just generally “out there” and of limited practical use.”

                  I’m saving this! This is Heartiste’ing level prose! And timeless.

                • Not Tom says:

                  This sounds like, and is, awfully like Steel Manning, which is a fallacy and illegitimate method of argument, and a hateful and evil practice.

                  I don’t think that someone like VD would invest so much time or energy into something like the SSH if he didn’t believe in its essential truth. You know his personality – he’s literal-minded and doesn’t like to let things slide.

                  His theory is wrong, and by the human-flourishing definition of good and evil, we can even say that it is evil; but I can’t find convincing evidence that he means something other than what he says.

                  With progressives and communists and emancipated women, we have strong evidence that they mean something other than what they say, because their revealed preferences don’t align at all with their stated preferences. Being wrong does not automatically mean having a secret agenda, and imputing a secret agenda to everyone who is wrong sounds like the fast track to defect-defect.

                • jim says:

                  > I can’t find convincing evidence that he means something other than what he says.

                  Does Vox Day in fact mean that women have the same concept of alpha as men do, and that women are apt to make sound sexual choices. That is what he is saying. You think that is what he means?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Does Vox Day in fact mean that women have the same concept of alpha as men do, and that women are apt to make sound sexual choices. That is what he is saying. You think that is what he means?

                  Sort of. His premise is that women rank men according to his SSH categories, and that men can’t understand how women select men until they understand those categories – in other words, that women don’t have the same concept of alpha as many men do, but only because most men are ignorant.

                  This isn’t some overly-charitable interpretation. There’s an actual post somewhere on AG in which he explicitly states that Alphas, according to his definition of Alpha, are getting the most pussy; that Betas get less, then Deltas, then Gammas, then Omegas. That’s what he says, and he puts actual ratios on it. And since he says that an Alpha is a man who is powerful, charismatic, competitive and confident, and that these Alphas get laid more than any other group, that implies (in his view) that women do choose wisely.

                  I can’t recall him ever trying to offer much of an explanation for Jeremy Meeks, but my guess is, if you pressed him on it, he would come up with some explanation revolving around fractal hierarchies and/or Sigma unicorns.

                  Note, again, that I’m not endorsing this view, just summarizing it. I like to think I can tell the difference between a mostly self-consistent theory with some seriously flawed premises (as geocentrism was, and as SSH is) and one that’s blatantly, insultingly false and clearly intended to mislead (like universalism). I think that he thinks that his theory is correct, which doesn’t excuse the fact that isn’t, but means he is simply purple-pilled, rather than an agent of Satan.

                • jim says:

                  And since he says that an Alpha is a man who is powerful, charismatic, competitive and confident,

                  I, a real alpha as men measure alpha, am walking along the street with my girl. Streetcorner Man, who with great confidence believes he owns this corner, aggressively seeks interaction with me, which is mighty competitive. I ignore him, which is alpha, but I also avoid him, which is beta. Is Streetcorner man being powerful, competitive, and confident?

                  In order to walk past Streetcorner man in a way that women will perceive as alpha, I have to persuade myself that he is not likely to impose interaction on me, because if he does so, he will very likely die, as would happen in the ancestral environment if a beta attempted to impose unwanted interaction on an alpha.

                  In order to make female preference less dysgenic, we have to restore a system where if Streetcorner Man attempts to impose interaction on a man high in the male status hierarchy, he quite likely really will die.

                  Of course, it is far more urgent and important to suppress female sexual choice, rather than to accommodate it, since even if they made good eugenic choices, we would still wind up in defect/defect equilibrium, but this is difficult, and there is always considerable leakage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Vox’s Days categories are bullshit so if thats his theory he is just heaping bullshit on top of bullshit. There are no Gammas there are only Omegas.

                  There are sort of loner Alphas (his Sigmas) but they tend to be real psychopaths who are even scary as loners.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Vox’s Days categories are bullshit so…

                  I haven’t been claiming otherwise. I simply think he believes his own bullshit, and not that he’s making it up for some ulterior motive.

              • >Vox Day thinks women would make wise choices except bad men fool them.

                >I say that the alpha male dance, as women want it to be danced, is incompatible with civilization and large scale cooperation.

                I *think* I understand what you mean. Not sure. Basically, when I first learned about this thing, my impression was that someone whom men consider a good leader (say, Trump) women would also consider a sexy alpha. And I think it is true so far that as long as a good leader has only average chumps to compete with, he wins. But what you seem to be saying is that not only General Butt Naked would outcompete Trump (which should be a very rare, very extreme case) but even some jailbird gang-member drug-dealer (which is becoming a not so rare thing) would outcompete him at women?

                BTW your standing example of Jeremy Meeks is not ideal, as he is very handsome, and thus throws another variable into the mix. Better find someone violent, but ugly as a standing example.

                Also I am not sure whether you have really answered my proposed model with this. My proposed model is that all women would fuck even an ugly version of Jeremy Meeks, but the reason “good girls” exist is that many of them have never ever met anyone like that, that their own social circles, from which they picked their boyfriends, were average normies (or even below average). This is true as long as they stuck to their own social circlces and did not go much into urban nightlife for example.

                • jim says:

                  Invalid priors.

                  There are no inherently good women, and no inherently bad women. The Australian authorities in the late 1700s, early 1800s had one hundred percent success in turning whores into wives, though under our present circumstances, that is difficult or impossible.

                  The name “Penelope” was a popular name, because she was the archetype of a good woman, and Medea the archetype of a bad woman, but Penelope’s husband performed as General Butt Naked when he came home, while Jason, when he brought Medea home, stopped being a pirate king, and, his career stalled, set to kissing King’s asses.

                • But I was not talking about inherent goodness but about bad alphas missing from their social circles.

                • jim says:

                  > bad alphas missing from their social circles.

                  And what happens when a bad alpha shows up in their social circle?

                  The problem is that a good woman is a woman that will not promptly give her husband a difficult shit test when a bad alpha shows up in her social circle.

                  I have noticed that if a woman had an alpha father who is alpha in the male hierarchy, both as women perceive alpha and as men perceive alpha, well, being a father, likely to be a good alpha. And he gives her the image of what it is to be alpha, and that tends to be what she recognizes as alpha, and so she will tend to have a sexual preference for prosocial forms of alpha, and her perception of alpha will be closer to the male perception of alpha, since her father impressed her as alpha, and her father was prosocial and alpha by male standards.

                  But the social environment is stronger, and new things are continually appearing in that social environment. If Penelope was strong against a wicked social environment, it is because her long absent husband was a smarter version of General BuckNaked.

                  When the state in Australia backed husbands against wives, forced women to marry, and married them off to men adequately backed by the state against lesser men, that was a social environment that makes any women good. When a chick goes to an international tourist resort to party, that is a social environment that makes any woman bad.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “There are no inherently good women, and no inherently bad women.”

                  This I have to take issue with…

                  All women are easily corrupted by their herd instinct if the herd is insane and corrupt but its totally false to posit equality of virtue between them.

                  There are certainly inherently bad women. The ones with more inherent “goodness” are still easily corrupted and in this society almost universally are.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There are certainly inherently bad women. The ones with more inherent “goodness” are still easily corrupted and in this society almost universally are.

                  Also sounds like poor framing. The problem is that “good” and “bad” are being defined here both in terms of ideal absolutes and by male norms.

                  The equivalent statement to “women are neither inherently good nor inherently bad” would be “men are neither inherently alpha nor inherently beta”. That should make it easier to understand; some men are certainly more naturally inclined toward alpha behaviors, but every man is capable of being alpha enough for some woman, somewhere, given the right conditioning and the right environment. In similar fashion, some women (for example, less pretty ones) are going to be inclined to shit test less severely and less often, while other women may only be good for General Butt Naked. But they will be good for General Butt Naked; they’ll be at the top of his harem.

                  Good and bad, alpha and beta – we’re talking about a continuum of behaviors here, not a Platonic ideal. Platonic ideals don’t exist, and comparing everything to the Platonic ideal is satanic. AWALT, and the precise degree to which they’re LT is a matter for your personal tastes, not a philosophical imperative.

                • jim says:

                  > > There are certainly inherently bad women. The ones with more inherent “goodness” are still easily corrupted and in this society almost universally are.

                  > Also sounds like poor framing. The problem is that “good” and “bad” are being defined here both in terms of ideal absolutes and by male norms.

                  Belief in unicorns is a result of belief that the nature that is in inherent in all women is wicked, and people rightly refuse to believe that all women are wicked, so they refuse to believe in inherent female nature. Hence they deludedly say NAWALT, not all women are like that.

                  Inherent female nature is not wicked. Rather, the problem is that women are the weaker vessel:

                  1 Peter 3:7

                  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

                  If a woman is denied the male supervision, control, and authority that she hungers for, she will behave badly. All Women Are Like That.

                  If she gets it, she will love and serve. All Women Are Like That. Unfortunately, in our society, this is apt to mean that only very bad men, and men who convincingly emulate being very bad, get love and service.

                  The problem with a high notch count is that, in our society, the ghost of the bad boy that got away will get in the way of her subjecting herself to good male authority. If we had the government policies of the Australian authorities in the late seventeen hundreds, early eighteen hundreds, all women would be good, regardless of notch count.

                  Female sexual preference, female perception of alpha, inherently differs from male perception of alpha, and alpha as women understand it is incompatible with the extended cooperation required for civilization and military victory. All Women Are Like That.

                  I deal with this in my personal life by performing for women, which performance exposes me to significant risk of violence, arrest, and loss of my assets, and civilization needs to deal with it by providing a safe emulation of our ancestral society for the benefit of women, as a garden is a safe emulation of our beloved ancestral savanna. Wherever men go, we impose on the native ecology something rather like the savanna, and wherever we take women with us, we need to provide a safe emulation of our ancestral society as it was before we developed means for extended cooperation.

                  An important part of this emulation is that the peasant is a King under the leaky roof of his hovel, and should the King visit the peasant’s hovel, he will treat the peasant as a fellow King while under the peasant’s small and leaky roof. And should the King fail to do so, then he will find that at that critical moment when men cannot be compelled to obey, he will find that men will not obey his command to fight.

                  In a healthy and strong society, when men cannot be compelled to fight for the King, they will fight for their King regardless, so that their King can lead them when their homes and families face collective threats larger than they can deal with individually. This is core functionality of the dynamic that makes civilization scale cooperate/cooperate equilibrium possible. If the King does not defend their homes and families, will they defend their King? The King of France fell because he failed to defend the peasant’s grain and the baker’s bakery. And after the mob had cleaned out the bakery, they were soon hungry again (because the crops of peasants unable to exercise ownership over their grain had mysteriously and inexplicably🙃 failed) and soon the mob arrived at the palace.

                  The King can only stay King if the patriarch is King over his family, his home, and his garden. The King is King because each father is a King.

                  We need to deny women moment to moment sexual choice, in order to enable cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but we also need to deny them sexual choice at all, so that their discivilizational sexual preference will have less impact, and the necessary imperfection of our emulation of our ancestral society will be less critical. The Sovereign needs to defend and uphold that emulation, so that when the moment comes that he cannot compel obedience, he will be obeyed by men with homes and families. Everything we do is ultimately driven by survival and reproduction, thus everything we do, we do for women. The authority of the sovereign must ultimately rest on his defense of the ultimate property right, men’s property right in women’s sexual and reproductive services. Everything else rests on sand, and sand will shift.

              • miu says:

                thank you, that was helpful. i find your evaluation of females to be more congruent with at least my own lived experience. how it looks from here is that Vox indeed glosses over certain aspects of what women do, aspects that you actually deign to explain or notice. it’s like he doesn’t see these parts at all or simply fails to mention them if he does, for whatever reason

                either way, your illustration of women and the rationale underpinning what they do feels more comprehensive and consistent in contrast.

                i have no evidence of this, yet i get the sense Vox hasn’t actually had so many women

  32. Yul Bornhold says:

    Aidan is better than Heartiste. He has purpose. His game is for keeps not for pump-and-dump. Practically, his three rules teach more more clearly than the sixteen commandments. Heartiste is still good for min-maxing but start with Aidan.

  33. Ash Staub says:

    “But there is no escape from shit tests.”

    You’ve probably already read Schopenhauer’s On Women, but that reminded me of a quote of his: “A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility.”

    The idea is that shit tests are so hardwired into the female brain, attenuating every interaction and mediating every perception, and so thorough is the predilection to masking their deceit, that they convince even themselves. Their evolutionary biology precludes introspection, prevents them from examining their preferences.

    Women don’t know what they want.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      And we must be just as instinctively dishonest with ourselves and each other as well.

      But in a different way. Somehow.

      • jim says:


        Men are much more in contact with the reality of what we are doing and why we are doing it than women are.

        • David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey says:

          Precisely why we should abolish female suffrage; voting requires contact with reality.

          • ten says:

            Contact with reality is not enough to make voting work.

            Supreme wisdom and skin in the game together is hardly enough to make voting work, and if it did work, the vote would be for a king and no more voting.

            We did voting, in lots of different ways in lots of different places, didn’t work out, in lots of different ways, but always providing an entry point for chaos and entropy into the highest power functions.

            I recently visited a very beta friend of mine. We, and a bunch of other visitors, were going to a beach, and there were three options. He stubbornly refused to just pick the best one, instead informing us about the options, and when someone suggested beach 1, he told us it would lie in shadow when we got there, so it was out. When someone suggested beach 2, he told us the seafloor was full of sharp or slippery rocks, so it was out. He should have just led the way to beach 3, but from some misguided ideal of letting us in on the decision making process wasted our time and annoyed us greatly. We did not want to make decisions we knew nothing about and which he knew everything about. He refused to be the king in his home, and noone was better off, although in this case the correct choice was made, because it was such an easy one. Had there been a workers beach 1 party and a liberal beach 2 party, we would have had a bad day.

          • Jehu says:

            ten is correct, more is needed than contact with reality for voting to work.
            Voting actually ‘works’ when a vote accurately reflects what would happen if a revolt were held on the subject—in the sense that it gives you the result you’d get in such circumstances anyway, not that that result is in some way optimal or holy. Voting actually works in a social sense only also when there’s overwhelming consensus on things that actually matter, and thus voting is just determining whether there’s 15% or 14% effective tax rates.

            • The root issue with voting is moral hazard: your decision has a very low chance to affect the outcome on yourself, but it affects everybody else. Hence “exit over voice”. Similar to Milton Friedmans spending other peoples money on other people: one neither cares about price nor quality.

              The second issue is the power of sophists who manipulate voters.

              The third is that not only millions of sovereigns are too many, even two sovereigns are too many as it means a power struggle.

      • simplyconnected says:

        […] we must be […] instinctively dishonest with ourselves

        Physical arousal tests show men perceive their own arousal accurately, but women don’t (they are aroused by things they say they are not aroused by). It does seem men’s reproductive strategy is reasonably understood by men themselves. My understanding is not everything is left up to you though: erection is involuntary (your conscious brain is not to meddle with really important things like engaging in sex, that part is activated without you, thank you very much).

        • jim says:

          For men, erection and ejaculation is involuntary. For women, just about everything connected to sex is unconscious and involuntary.

  34. Stanon says:

    something was bugging me about the frames here the last couple weeks and it took awhile for me to figure out what. It’s that it seems excessively bitter and negative about the strategies that women are implementing in response to their environment (civilization, weak fathers, normalized thottery, etc.). There’s always the frame that women are inherently wicked, but this elides the essential purpose things like shit tests serve.

    A cooperate bot is a player who mindlessly cooperates with whoever comes along, including defectors. A person in a cooperate cooperate equilibrium *should* be testing whether they are with a cooperate bot, not so that they can take advantage but because cooperate bots are also known in the game theory literature as *second order free riders*, as in they free ride on the enforcement costs that people take on in order to defect against defectors and therby prevent defection from being a profitable strategy. Punishing second order free riders is also correct and stabilizing behavior.

    How does this relate back, if it isn’t obvious? The higher quality a woman the more likely she is to be violently expropriated of her value, so the more credible she needs the threat of violence from her mate to be. Of course she’s taking the tit-for-tat escalation a few steps farther, words are cheap and she wants a less fakeable credible sign of willingness to do violence. Whether towards her own person or not, she wants to see it. Most of the women I’ve been with are satisfied with the fact of gun ownership, the physique from normal gym attendance, and the occasional question about what I would do if there was a home invasion along with credible signs of preparedness for disaster. My usual reaction if there is a in-poor-taste shit test is that I failed somewhere else in the stack. Middle and upper class sheltered women who don’t know what the law of the jungle is actually like first hand are more neurotic about this.

    • Stanon says:

      there’s also the question of why I’m bothering to explain all this, and it’s because many of the commentariat are younger, impressionable guys who had weak or absent fathers and are looking for a strong male figure to look up to. I think people should be alerted to the fact that the negative framings on all this stuff keeps it in an adversarial frame, and the true cooperate cooperate equilibrium that is metastable includes self awareness on both ends. This self awareness is hard to cultivate if the frame is ‘woman bad’ but much easier with the view exemplified by snakes and ladders that we choose which level to live on with our actions.

      • Anonymous says:

        literally helped me to actually understand why some want to be beaten (a little bit). thanks for this.

        deductively Im thinking shed want to know that you wont go all the way. so must know youre a bit tempered or she can win you over with her pussy. so her temptations must have a little bit of success.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Consider an example from a source you might not expect:

          There is the obvious surface level premise – a group of entertainment personalities bantering – but pay attention to the flow of conversation, and you can also see a teachable moment. One will throw out a provocative statement, and when her counterpart dances through it, it provokes coos of delight.

          That’s it right there. That is women’s entertainment. She will throw out statements, precisely because she wants to see how you respond to them. Very much like a kid wowed by a magic trick. The subjects in question here are all wearing ‘masks’, so to speak, which makes them even less inhibited than otherwise.

          If you turn on daytime tv and watch general hospital or some other actual soap operas, you will probably see something that looks like a confusing disjointed mess with no clear plot or narrative structure or goal progression. Cut to a scene of two or three people having some interpersonal interaction; bam, cut to another scene of some other set of two or three people having some interpersonal interaction; bam, cut to another scene of *yet another* group of two or three people having some interpersonal interaction; bam-

          And so on and so forth in that vein, non stop, for a whole episode strait. A pure distillation of relationship crack, shorn of any extraneous elements chicks don’t care about.

          There’s nothing women like more than watching the patterns of ripples in the waters of the interpersonal sphere; and if she’s not seeing any, she will get bored, lacking her favorite form of entertainment, and start throwing in bait to get them churning again.

    • jim says:

      Yes, men who cooperate with defectors (Scott Alexander, I am looking at you) deserve defection.

      Any man who asks a woman “may I kiss you?” deserves to pay thirty thousand for an engagement ring with a big diamond, fifty thousand for a big wedding which his family attends but her family mostly ignores, and then watch her bang the best man and the wedding organizer on the altar.

      And very likely will.

      Conversely, observed female behavior is that a woman who cooperates with a man who defects, will defect on a man who cooperates. (Because she sees cooperation as weakness and vulnerability, so is going to shit test mighty hard for weakness.) The worst woman is an always cooperator, because she spends six months chastely waiting for Jeremy Meeks next booty call.

      The “woman are whores and sluts” black pill comes from expecting blue pill behavior to be rewarded. Not only is it not rewarded, it should be punished and ridiculed, and it is.

      If women rewarded blue pill behavior, we would be in even worse shape than we are, because the blue pill presupposes friendly cooperation, suspendible at will, in the middle of a lifetime project, indeed, right in the middle of the sexual act. And that it is totally fine to suspend cooperation in the middle and everyone should go on being best buddies. Which would mean that such projects would never get launched, and if launched, never completed.

      Blue pill behavior should go unrewarded and be ruthlessly exploited.

    • Not Tom says:

      It’s always been our explicit position that female shit-testing is not wicked, it’s simply nature. Not “woman bad”, but “woman woman”, which is only “bad” when a man adopts a white-knight/courtly-love frame.

      What is wicked is any social arrangement that denies men the ability to pass shit tests, or brands them criminals and outcasts for doing so. It is not wicked for a woman to think “my husband is boring, maybe I should leave him and go on an exciting road trip with my unmarried friend, visit lots of nightclubs and get banged by random cads”. It is wicked for men in uniforms to tell the husband that he not only isn’t permitted to drag her back in the house and pimp-slap her, but must leave her the kids and the house and pay half his income to support her adventure.

      It isn’t wicked for a woman to have drunken sex at a frat house and get to wondering, some days later, if that guy is really still worth her time. It is wicked for her friends to inform her that, actually, this was an act of Rape, and for the school administrators to agree with this and have the guy expelled from the school and branded a sex offender.

      It isn’t wicked for older women to burn with jealousy at the attention much younger women get from their husbands or from men in general. It is wicked for society to support her insane demand that he have eyes for her only, to relentlessly shame the man for being disloyal (or men in general for being “shallow”) and even criminalize sexual relationships with fertile women at what was historically considered to be prime marrying age.

      Women are women, men are men. Wickedness only ensues we criminalize normal male behavior, which normal behavior includes “punishing” women who go overboard with their shit tests.

  35. Oscar_Cc says:

    Quite a reactionary game tour-de-force, Jim.

    I think that coming to grips with the idea that the game never ends, that men must always perform, is one of the most unpleasant parts of the redpill.

    • Dave says:

      Yeah, the guy never really “gets the girl” because girls don’t stay gotten.

      • jim says:

        If the girl never gets gotten, you are still in defect/defect equilibrium.

        Which is better than involuntary celibacy or whores, but as Roosh found out, not a huge improvement.

        As I said, the player lifestyle, while a gigantic improvement over the involuntary celibate lifestyle, is the victory of the female always-defect strategy over the male always-defect strategy. Every pimp is a cuck.

      • ERTZ says:

        >the guy never really “gets the girl” because girls don’t stay gotten.

        Isn’t the real prize not a woman, but successful reproduction? The kid(s)?
        If the kids are born and grow up well enough a man’s victorious.
        He may as well then leave that woman (especially after she gets old/infertile) and get himself a fresher one to make more babies with: No mercy, no loyalty to old/infertile women, because women also have no and cannot afford to have sexual-reproductive mercy with inferior men (they would bear children with inferior genes, disadvantaging them in the struggle for reproduction in the next generation).

        Once his babies are born, in our welfare-secured modern societies,
        a man is the winner and could (should?) defect – perhaps he loses very little by having less direct influence on rising his kids of this generation, but he can win much more by having more kids with another woman.

        The prize is successfully forcing one’s genes into the next generation, preferably with good genes from a good-genes-woman, thereby exterminating other men/their potential offspring.
        Once that is achieved, a particular woman’s utility – and thus power in a relationship – falls precipitously.

        Because nowadays welfare systems guarantee rising offspring of single-mothers successfully,
        the optimum strategy of a man should(?) be to use a false identity to father kids with as many women as he can, always vanishing after the baby is born to impregnate a new woman, thereby maximizing his evolutionary fitness in the given environment.
        At least that seems to be the raw logic of the welfare state from a male POV.

        • jim says:

          This is an alien and hostile environment, resembling the African jungle rather than the Siberian steppes, and a behavioral strategy to which blacks are better adapted than whites. We cannot compete. We are becoming wiggers.

          It is also an environment that selects for low IQ, low conscientiousness, and lack of forethought.

          For whites to compete successfully with blacks and wiggers, and to restore eugenic fertility, have to restore an environment where reproduction is conducted via homes and gardens.

          • Tom Hart says:

            “…have to restore an environment where reproduction is conducted via homes and gardens.“

            Stoicism is promoted in the contemporary West as a secular religion because it is a philosophy for slaves and emperors, two groups with very few choices who just have to make the best of things—it also works well for PoWs and shipwreck survivors.

            The Epicurean approach—specifically celebrating the good life as a home, a garden, and select friends—is not marketed as a secular religion, because it is elitist and effectively anti-system. The system promotes ancient philosophies that teach men to endure suffering and events passively, as Aurelius had to endure court politics or Epictetus his brutish masters—in other words, it trains people to deal with rent-a-life bugmanism without complaint. The idea of making choices and building a walled garden that excludes ugliness and your enemies is not encouraged (Nietzsche admired the Epicureans).

            The West will be a different place when the most popular self-help books are about how to live like Epicurus; for now, the system forbids that life to a great many and intends to take it from those that have it.

            • jim says:

              Stoicism is psychological adaption to an environment that is hostile and dysgenic. The stoic stoically fails to reproduce and stoically dies.

              • Mike says:

                There is a grain of truth to it though no? I’m not inclined to think Stoicism is wrong when I see limp-wristed “men” and women saying that “stoically guarding your emotions” is a patriarchal, damaging social norm and that men should be instead be open about their emotions/feelings. If my enemy says something is bad, that means it is not bad.

                • jim says:

                  Stoicism is almost the same manly virtues as are celebrated in Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If”

                  Which is why they do not like it.


                  The difference between “If” and stoicism is that “If” celebrates stoically enduring adversity and the virtues required to overcome adversity and attain a more satisfactory outcome.

                  Epicureanism celebrates attaining a more satisfactory outcome, celebrates wanting the right things, and getting them.

                  When I say “there is no rest for men” that is stoicism, when I say you should want an obedient and faithful wife, a home, a garden, and children, that is Epicureanism.

                  When I say you can get them if you are determined, brave and lucky, that is the virtue celebrated in Rudyard Kipling’s poem.

                  Stoicism says you should remain manly under circumstances that make you unmanly. Progressives say you should be unmanly.

                  I say you should not only remain manly, but live a manly life.

                  If you pursue happiness, you will not find it. You should pursue your right telos.

                  But pursuing your right telos will not make you happy either. What will make you happy is attaining it.

  36. This is solid eucivilizational Game, and much better than Roosh’s current output, which I ignore.

    It’s interesting that Roosh’s faith is probably more sincere or doubtless than yours, being precipitated by a psychedelic epiphany, yet yours is better rooted in Bible and reality, whereas his is more mired in tradcucked moral sentiment. There is a hardbitten practicality evident in the Biblical navigators of degenerate times which Roosh lacks. The Orthodox solution is presumably a functional model in Orthodox lands, but it has no answer to the Cathedral. Roosh has also used faith to reject evolution, another bluepilling.

    The great danger of individual Bible reading is that the average man is not qualified to perform advanced reading comprehension of any sort, much less interpretation of ancient texts.

    I believe that a Christian shouldn’t attempt to read the Bible for himself until he has measured his own reading comprehension and found himself wanting, through the objective metric of standardized test reading passage questions. He will then be insulated from the worst follies of dogmatism by a well-founded skepticism not of Revelation, but of his own Reason.

    Then, I suppose, a man should read The Epic of Gilgamesh before touching the Bible, to transport his mind to the dusty testosterone-laden milieu of the ancient Near East. Though the Epic has depth, it is suitable for a beginner. It permits him to appreciate the alienness of the Biblical context, avoiding many absurdities of modern and postmodern interpretation.

    The Bible was meant to be heard by the vast majority of its recipients, not read. The Bible was delivered at varying times to varying audiences, and in its whole represents a complete statement on the human condition and God’s relation to Man. It is important that no part be elevated above another, whether out of personal or sectarian or temporal or accessibility bias.

    To that end, a man should listen to Scourby’s KJV delivery on random chapter shuffle. On this rock he may found his soul. Such a foundation is invaluable for a Westerner whose available masculine role models are history’s greatest traitors, the Boomers, who inherited the Earth and bequeathed the whirlwind.

    Random chapter shuffle will of course prompt other less chaotic forms of study. It is meant to prevent tunnel vision, not orderly comprehension. And if God still speaks through lots, then it leaves a channel open for hints that incur little debt in the Great Game between Satan and Jehovah. But only a fool deceives himself into believing he is better than all those righteous men to whose earnest prayers God gave no reply.

    AKA Koanic

  37. NXR-newbie says:

    Very apropos new article to my current situation. Young guy here, and have a wife that believes in biblical patriarchal marriage but occasionally will do shit tests, which I have been able to pass well up to this point. But I think sometimes I have shown a little too much weakness and when I do inevitably the next shit test is a few days or weeks down the corner.

    Yesterday was the biggest shit test yet, and seems impossible to pass: she took our young child and walked out on our marriage by having her sister come pick her up, and is staying at her sister’s for the time being. Wife has a list of demands, one of the big ones is demanding that no language using “reward” or punishing (“threatening”) behavior be used anymore, says she can’t believe she put up with it for all these years. Basically says for our marriage to continue she has a long list of requirements that I know fully caving to will obviously not get me out of this.

    Hypothetically how should a red pilled man handle this or a similar situation? Even if it doesn’t help me, maybe the advice regarding this or preventative wisdom might be helpful to other readers. I know it was a fuck up on my part for being too open about my emotions and struggles (work, life, etc.) this month that led to this, but now I am just trying to figure out if it is fixable.

    • jim says:

      As you know, caving will just make her more unhappy.

      “Reward and punishment” probably means you have been using weak and mild mannered means to assert your rightful authority as head of household, and the actual substance of this shit test is to provoke you to use decisively firmer measures. She probably wants a spanking. Lots of women will not be at peace with anything less. Not all women need a spanking, but all women need a man who might spank them.

      Your first and highest priority however should be to kidnap your child back – women using children as hostages are extremely dangerous to children – they are apt to subconsciously eradicate the spawn of weakness. Getting your child out of the line of fire of a shit test should be your highest priority, and state of the marriage you can worry about afterwards.

      Even the best of wives can be quite dangerous to children in the throes of a major shit test. All women are Medea. They get carried away with passion. Hate is not the opposite of love.

      But, once your child is out of the line of fire, go dark, and when she attempts to re-establish contact, at least establish a credible likelihood that continued misbehavior will result in a spanking. Unfortunately, if there is any doubt about the matter, she will then act to resolve that question beyond all doubt.

      Get your child out of the line of fire, then do nothing and wait for the storm to pass. If she shows up, tell her the husband is the head of the household, and that one ship needs one captain. Do whatever it takes to make time to look after your child. Even if you are thinking that if she leaves it would be a good idea in the long run for the child to be with her mother, right now it is a very bad idea. Women go crazy and evil in big shit tests.

      Child first. Marriage second. Job third.

      The set of demands is unfulfillable, is not intended to be fulfilled, and is an indication that she should not be looking after your child right now. Worry about the latter first.

      • someDude says:

        This information is likely to be very useful to me in the future.

        Kidnap the child back how? Turn up there and just grab the kid? Show up when no one is there and make off with the Kid? Show up at school, Meet the kid after school and make off with him/her?

        What if she calls the cops? I guess that’s where Go dark applies.

        Go dark how? Leave the country? Go to the country? Shack with friends? Parents? Siblings? Empty out the bank account to make it in the foreign country? I guess this is where multiple passports, bank accounts which the wife does not know apply.

        Looks like we all need friends in low places as we no longer have friends in high places. How to get a friend in a low place?

        • INDY says:

          Good friends in low places know who they are and what they are about. And good friends help their friends.

        • jim says:

          Knock on door, say “hello, I would like to see my daughter”. Spend a little while with daughter, pick up daughter, say “honey, we are going home now. Dad will be taking time off to look after you because Mama is upset.” Leave.

          She does not have separate custody, has not officially broken up, the child is going home. Totally legal. Dad is taking daughter home because he thinks Mama is stressed and needs a break.

          Before she can call the cops, has to go through a pile of stuff that she probably has not done and has no real intention of doing.

          After doing this, child is home. That is her address. Needs a court order to be removed from home – which, given the automatic bias in favor of women is probably easy to get, but still, child at home with dad, you have to go through at least a superficial appearance of finding cause, which involves wading through a pile of paper.

          The pile of paper may well be forthcoming pretty fast, but in the meantime, the child is away from drama. The wife has unfinished business with her husband, and while she is settling business with her husband, it is safer if the child is out of reach. The wife wants to be in a state of ambiguity between having broken up and threatening a breakup to bring him to heel. To send in the cops, has to officially deem the marriage over and she has broken up. Which is not going to happen until the husband decisively fails her shit test.

          The child may well become a missile to be launched at the husband quite soon, but getting the child out of immediate reach will not cause the child to be launched any sooner, and may well forestall her being launched at all.

          The pile of vague and open ended demands is a shit test. Women leave when their husband becomes invisible to them. If shit testing, husband still visible. Officially declaring herself broken up is unlikely to be on the agenda at this point. If actually leaving, would be too bored by him to make demands, other than for his assets.

          Time to figure out what is on the agenda after the child is safe at home. Love and hate are not opposites.

          It is a shit test. Shit tests are intended to be passed. But get the kid out of the way first.

          This is a shit test. She intends him to pass it. She wants him to pass it. But get the child out of the way of the shit test first.

          If she actually intended to break up with him she would not move out. She would claim physical and psychological abuse, sexual abuse of his child etc, and have the cops move him out. It is merely another shit test, and to take it too seriously is to fail it. But she could use the child to make him take it seriously. When children become props in adult psychodrama, it is absolutely terrifying how far they will go.

          • someDude says:

            Hahahahaha! Very Cheeky! Jim, I’m pretty sure you’ve helped someone pull off something like this before. And not only this, even in cases where your friend’s wife was about to move to file divorce. Hahaha!

            More than once.

          • Dave says:

            My mom’s parents had a lot of fights in the 1940s when money was tight. Neighbors joked that “we got loud last night but everyone assumed it was them going at it again”. Her mother would pack a couple of duffel bags to take to her parents’ place down the street, and her dad would send the kids to intercept her in the front room and beg her to stay. The mother taking the kids with her was not even thought of.

            They eventually had four children, their financial situation improved, and they stayed together until passing away in the 1970s.

      • INDY says:

        I live in the country with two houses in the property. My retirement age parents live in a suburb of a large city, far away. I want my parents to move to one of my houses for their protection and because grandparents should be near their grandchildren. My dad is in. My mom is not. She doesn’t acknowledge reality and clams up when my Dad mentions retirement/selling their house/moving out here and coming out. He has been approaching the situation with a 50/50 decision attitude which obviously isn’t and can’t work.

        My Dad knows his job is to protect her and he can’t do his job if she won’t let him. It is easy for me to tell him that he has to put his foot down, it is difficult for him to put his foot down. Growing up, he was the man of the house and she always looked to him for direction. She’s not accepting his direction at this time.

        He’s going to have a talk with her tomorrow, tell her this is the way things are going to be. Can you guys give me any strategy tips to pass to him? Does he say “put in your papers, we’re selling the house.” I absolutely can’t see a divorce in the cards. They’ll end up here eventually or destitute/subjugated in the the city. Or worse. I would like to see them get good money for their house while they can.

        • jim says:

          Seems crazy. If retiring, and one has the opportunity to be near children and grandchildren, should take it. Does your mother plan on being eaten by her cats?

          Maybe she has been waiting forty years for Jeremy Meeks next booty call.

          • INDY says:

            She is crazy. And that might could be.

            I’m trying to help my Dad here.

          • INDY says:

            No cats. She’s supposed to retire in a year but has the option to put in notice at any time with no penalty. She wants to keep paying into her pension.

            I’m of the thought that her pension is not guaranteed and will likely not be honored at some point. Their housing market is strong now and I don’t think it will last. My Dad agrees on both counts.

    • Dave says:

      God tells women to obey their husbands. Satan tells women that their husbands are abusive jerks who deserve to be destroyed in divorce court. Not sure what Satan is telling your wife to do to the child, but it probably isn’t good.

    • polifugue says:

      First step is to get your children away from her. If you let this kind of behavior continue further down the road, your wife will subject your child to horrendous psychological and perhaps even physical abuse, and if your child were a teenager he could develop all sorts of psychological issues. I know people who were raised by borderline mothers; they become extremely fucked up. Save your kids by any means necessary.

      Second thing is to understand that everything coming out of your wife’s mouth is complete bullshit. Do not think for a second that she means a word she says, or that she is even conscious of a single word she says. She will try to guilt trip you, she will call you names, she might even threaten divorce, do not pay an ounce of attention to it. Be as cold as ice to whatever she throws at you. If you pass her test, she will forget she threatened divorce better than a Leftist forgetting he supported the Khmer Rouge.

      Third thing is to understand that your wife is testing your manliness. She is upset that you were open about your emotions and struggles and she doesn’t feel secure with you. Your wife is not your mommy. You can complain to your mom or your friends, not your wife. A man is a rock a woman rests on. She probably needs a spanking.

    • The best way to pass would have been to prevent her from leaving in the first place. A woman walking out in front of your face wants to be restrained, a woman walking out while you are not present wants to be brought back. I hope for your sake that she left while you were at work, because I can’t imagine the low-T that allows a man to sit there while his child is carried off in front of him. If she left in front of your face, you already failed the test. If she left while you were away, you have not passed or failed yet.

      In the human ancestral environment, this test would have resulted in you and your friends putting her entire family to the sword, and dragging her back to your hut by her hair. This is what her feral side wants and expects. As Jim said, taking the child home “you are not bringing my daughter into this” is your best option.

      I am reminded of the custom in ancient Indo-European society in which a woman, on her wedding day, was required to denounce her father’s household gods and curse their rites before accepting her husband’s. This completely cut her off from her previous family. There is no going back, and the option to go back to daddy and his family hurts marriage.

      The “reward and punishment” game practiced by some fundamentalist Christians reminds me of a gay BDSM larp. Rewarding and punishing your wife is zoological, and formalizing it lends it unreality. I wouldn’t tell her you’re dropping it, but stop with the “yes wifey, you’ve been a good girl, time for your reward” sort of autistic shit.

      • jim says:

        > I hope for your sake that she left while you were at work, because I can’t imagine the low-T that allows a man to sit there while his child is carried off in front of him. If she left in front of your face, you already failed the test

        What he said.

        That was the first Medea maneuver. It is likely to escalate until the matter is resolved one way or another. If she took the child saying she was taking the child, that was a massive shit test, and letting it happen a massive failure. In which case the most likely outcome is that you become invisible to her, she forgets you ever existed, and the child is lost, but safe for the moment, until it becomes an inconvenience or a toy for the next male more alpha than you. If, on the other hand, the situation is still ambiguous, and she is still demanding that you pass the shit test, the child is not lost, but is in danger.

        Women should expect terrible violence if they are taking a man’s children – they do expect terrible violence, and are profoundly disappointed if they don’t get it. Men should expect lethal violence, if alpha male Bob takes alpha male Dave’s children on behalf of their mother Carol.

        My understanding of the situation is that she did not pull a Medea maneuver in front of you face – she took the child to her sister supposedly to visit her sister, and then announced the child is not necessarily returning, which means the shit test is still on, the child is still in immediate danger, and she expects you to pass the shit test.

        Rescue the child, then think about passing the shit test.

        • simplyconnected says:

          Women should expect terrible violence if they are taking a man’s children – they do expect terrible violence, and are profoundly disappointed if they don’t get it.

          They certainly do expect it.
          But this is a very tricky situation, because we are no longer in the ancestral environment. I recall you said you try to pass shit test short of breaking the law.
          If one must signal that violence would occur in certain cases, eventually she may want to see proof. In that case what to do:
          1- give her proof, on the assumption that women don’t report the men who pass her shit tests, however dangerous the situation gets.
          2- don’t give her proof, disappointing her.
          3- use a broken windows strategy in the hopes she mentally extrapolates your reaction to a hypothetical much more severe misbehavior from her to “severe violence”.
          Neither seems attractive, even 3) runs the risk that she isn’t fully convinced and one day her hindbrain decides to put it to the test.

      • NRX-newbie says:

        I was at work at the time.

        On her laundry list of demands was ‘don’t try to prevent me from leaving if I want to leave’ in the middle of a fight. I wouldn’t be a man if I let my woman storm out of the house in the middle of resolving an issue (there are exceptions to this, but few and far between: I think it’s generally a good rule to make her stay till a resolution is reached rather than to let her run away from the issue).

        “Reward and punishment” wasn’t ever explicitly like that, but more of “you cooperate with our rules, agreements, and boundaries you get more privileges and freedoms, you do the opposite you get the opposite” sort of deal. “You want to run off to visit with [friend] or [family member], do it after we talk about it and are on the same page first, or else I won’t want to ever visit [friend] or [family member].” It was my way of enforcing my rule without resorting to physical force, as not only taboo but a modern culture very hostile to men using measured and limited violence in their home.

        Since she returned [see post below], I am actively trying to work on better methods to achieve cooperation. I think having better frame control (to use PUA lingo) and investing more time into our marriage (I was too focused on my personal goals that I essentially invested no effort into our marriage) at this point are two better solutions; though I still think that for patriarchal marriage headship to work, has to have teeth, being able to inflict consequences for serious misbehavior, and ultimately violence for extreme situations.

        • jim says:

          Bad idea to fight – fighting is for equals. Women do not like to be equal with their man – it is an insecure situation that is unsafe for raising children. When my wife is causing me grief I tell her to shut up, stop bothering me, and get out of my sight. She vanishes into the laundry to do some cleaning, or into the garden to do some gardening. Maybe she hides from sight and chats to her friends – I don’t know, I don’t pay attention.

          Women like attention, they like the anger, they like the drama. You punish bad behavior by withdrawing contact and withdrawing attention, and reward good conduct by paying them pleasant attention. If I paid attention to what she was doing after being told to shut up and get out of my sight, I would be rewarding the behavior that caused me to tell her that.

          If you give them unpleasant attention, if you get angry with them and continue to argue, you are rewarding bad behavior.

          Suppose you need your woman to do something, or to stop doing something, or do something different from what she is doing:

          You don’t argue about it. You discuss it, you hear her reasons sympathetically, and then you decide and impose that decision on her. Physically if need be.

          Women like it that way: Commandment XV of the sixteen commandments of poon:

          XV. Maintain your state control

          You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

          • Not Tom says:

            Don’t forget the third commandment:

            III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

            Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

            Which is in nearly direct opposition to

            investing more time into our marriage (I was too focused on my personal goals that I essentially invested no effort into our marriage)

            unless this statement means something very different from its most obvious interpretation.

            She doesn’t need you to spend more time with her, she needs to know that (a) you have options and (b) she doesn’t. Only thing I can think of that would justify this intent is if you had stopped fucking her and “invest” means start again.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              FWIW I interpret “investing time in our marriage” as spending thought cycles on it, not trimming roses and strumming a lute. I was letting my marriage get away from me not long ago, and it required a pretty hard reset of my behavior and approach to my daily routine. Ironically, it resulted in me being somewhat less physically present, but it was what I was doing for Me that turned around what was happening to Us. She didn’t need more Me hanging around, she needed more Me. Gotta put yourself first to be the bedrock of your family. This is not easy to do for a lot of men for some reason.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      This makes me so angry, so disheartened, and so very resolved. I hope you do what’s right. I’m glad you are asking for help, but I hope you realize that no one is coming to save you. You have to be the man GNON intended you to be. I’m not preaching at you. Look inside with the same hunger that pushed you to look outside. It is so often the case that GNON buries the answers to our prayers right next to the altar of our request.

    • NRX-newbie says:


      It turns out that having decent game for most of your marriage (and marrying a virgin) makes an impossible shit test salvageable. I think stronger methods may have been useful if things continued, but it turned out that keeping a solid frame from the moment she left saved the day, and she reconciled. For anyone interested on how I navigated out of it:

      From our initial interactions after she left I made it clear that walking out was displeasing to God and dishonoring me, and more importantly that whatever she chose to do, things would work out in my favor: I would consider this giving me a small break from family trouble, but that if she kept it up too long, that the option to come home wouldn’t be open.

      I changed the house locks on day 2 to reinforce this, noting that insofar as she walked out of my home, the locks get changed. She send a list of demands for our marriage to continue. I responded focusing on the ones I was favorable to making, but then she responded coldly: ‘I’m not sure yet, you caved 1 hour later’, etc. I retorted that most of the requests were things we had discussed weeks prior and I was already of a mind to do, and the couple other things were based on suggestions from my parents to be a bit more flexible (while noting that they supported me on the issue). I reiterated that I was being generous, and that my offer wouldn’t be open forever, and that she better not wait too long.

      The next morning she announced her intentions to reconcile based on agreed terms and return home after one more day with family. She returned home the following day, cooking my food and warming my bed, twice in soft remorse mentioning a feeling of guilt for leaving.

      But a strong reminder to never emotionally lean on your woman, and to never be completely yourself. Every problem out of your control, every weight on your shoulders, and every trouble someone else inflicts on you that you share with her, affects her on a subconscious level, even if she doesn’t realize it. Truly, always a stage and always game on; especially if you think you solidly have her enough to relax and let your game down.

      • Dave says:

        A guy once told me of a girlfriend he had high hopes of marrying. He took her on a two-week camping vacation, foolishly leaving his brokerage account with lots of highly sensitive open positions. A week into their blissful isolation, he logs in with his phone. Oops, his bets went bad and he’s down a quarter-million dollars. He totally freaks out, she totally freaks out because he’s freaking out, and it’s over.

        The message I get from game blogs is that it’s always easier to start fresh with another girl than try to save a botched relationship, but that sounds rather sub-optimal for successful reproduction, and it dumps a lot of damaged girls onto guys with weaker game.

        • jim says:

          > The message I get from game blogs is that it’s always easier to start fresh with another girl than try to save a botched relationship

          That message is an accurate depiction of defect/defect equilibrium, which in this day and age usually results in the triumph of the female always-defect strategy over the male always-defect strategy. She gets a booty call from Jeremy Meeks, while you are struggling to get bang a chick of median attractiveness.

          Not all women need to be beaten, but all women need to be physically dominated. If you are arguing with your wife, you are not physically dominating her.

          He has a child, which is the real telos of sex. He cannot ditch her and she knows it.

          What he needs to do is create a relationship that provides a secure environment for bringing up children, in which environment, she, being stuck as he is stuck, will be very comfortable. A ship can have only one captain, and if it has two captains, it is going to hit the rocks, so she is likely to eventually move out.

          To attain the telos of sex and love, he needs to own her, and she needs to be owned. They have not attained their shared telos, and she rightly expects and demands that he attain it.

      • Not Tom says:

        I truly hope everything works out for you, but going by your latest replies, sounds like you conceded way too much, allowed her to stay in control of the kids, and only made a few token gestures that wouldn’t have mattered in the end (changing locks, the “option” to come back… she really doesn’t care about any of that).

        My impression is that you got extremely lucky and someone else talked her down – perhaps a family member – and you’ll be walking on eggshells until the next major shit test which is coming soon, probably in a few months, possibly in weeks. That one will be even harder to pass, maybe she won’t try to run off with the kids but nevertheless her demands will escalate.

        Like I said though, best of luck. Hopefully there’s more to the story than how it appears.

        • Ron says:

          If a test is coming, then how can he prepare both the environment and himself to easily pass it?

  38. Pooch says:

    Roosh suggests that you search for a good woman. Wrong! Women are blown where the winds take them. All women are like that. A good woman is good because she is subject to the authority of a good man. All woman are naturally bad unless under the authority of a good man. There are no unicorns. No Women Are Like That.

    After reading him a bit more, Roosh’s expectations for a future wife are indeed unreasonable in today’s world (strong relationship with god, daily prayer, etc). AWALT, however, there is nothing wrong with searching for a woman with positive external influences (green flags) to maximize the chances for a successful marriage. Being raised in a healthy traditional Christian family structure with a conservative Trump supporting father who she respects is going to be a big plus. Even better if she is one too. Probably correlates with low n count as well (father able to control her behavior better).

  39. Askance says:

    What a hassle. Reading stuff like this makes me so relieved to be a faggot.

  40. Johnny Caustic says:

    Jim, you carefully spelled out all four possible cases in the Prisoners’ Dilemma for prisoners, but what are the analogous cases for men and women? I don’t quite see how the metaphor works.

    • jim says:

      We spin plates, they wait for Jeremy Meeks. We avoid commitment and any expenditure. They demand commitment, and, shortly after receiving it, send an “innocent” text to Jeremy Meeks in case he has lost her phone number.

      Neither invests in a home or children that could be taken away.

      That is defect/defect equilibrium, the male selfish always-defect strategy up against the female selfish always-defect strategy. Heartiste and the old Roosh.

      My friend at the party with two demon spawn kids, a wife who probably doesn’t have sex with him, and substantial assets that the divorce court lawyers will probably take is male cooperate, female defect.

      When his wife was with the father of her children, female cooperate, male defect.

      Cooperate-cooperate is Pauline marriage. Wife and husband are one flesh, one person, and that person is the husband.

      • Dave says:

        Theodore Dalrymple tells how in England, guys are extremely loving and attentive to their pregnant girlfriends until a few days after the baby is born, then break up with her. That’s how cads reproduce in a country where abortion is legal and free up to the moment of birth. Gotta dump that fat slag before she dumps you!

  41. Halion says:

    I have a question: when the patriarchy is restored and women are owned by their father or husband, what should we do if the man is deranged or simply evil? I mean that you don’t just pass the physical test, but abuse and hit excessively or for free, because you are sadistic or you cannot control yourself.

    • The Cominator says:

      Jim seemingly thinks any measures against this will undermine patriarchal authority and freehold…

      The Orthodox Jews used to sort of have a mafia to deal with this kind of problem (for money of course) informally but the federal government shut them down.

      I think perhaps the authorities should turn a blind eye to a kind of mafia that deals with this thing, but in extreme cases only.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        A few posts back I outlined a possible concentric structure of responsibility/punishment: Man, Mob, Marshal, Court, King.

        It is the responsibility of every man to run his household. But life often intervenes. This is why natural tribes still retain utility in the era of civilizations.

        The mob is the natural tribes, an expression of the organic alpha. Good fathers, good men, will know sickness when they see it. If the rot is from an evil man who is incurable, good men know what to do. So long as evil is not protected by precedent or a higher power, the mob should take care of it.

        The marshal is the expression of the synthetic alpha. He is the knife of the king. He doesn’t write tickets. He doesn’t arbitrate disputes between spouses. Imagine the US Marshal Service with a wig and gown. The marshal executes the king’s will and nothing more. If the king hasn’t spoken on a thing, the marshal is blind to it.

        The court is comprised of leading men of good standing who do the legwork of the king. Picture a SCOTUS clerk, but old and wise, as opposed to young and willing. They draw the king’s attention to issues of science and conscience in situations lacking precedent.

        The king is GNON embodied.

    • Bob says:

      Our current system doesn’t stop evil and deranged men from abusing children. It’s happening right now, with the knowledge of the gov officials, in your town. Abuse isn’t going to suddenly start once patriarchy is established.

      I think it’s a part of neoreaction that we recognize that there is no magic way to organize everyone to prevent every bad thing. Men are fallen, so be prepared for bad things. We’re not blank slates that can be perfected if we just have the right environment.

      So which would you prefer: blue-haired cat ladies who can send the police to take your children because of your facebook post or knowing that there’s a guy in your town who’s nuts and beating his family?

      Would you rather have a thousand kings watching everything you do, waiting to ruin your life? Or would you rather have a home the king can’t walk into without your permission?

    • jim says:

      Right now today, if you are a good Christian father you run a significant risk that Child Protective Services will take your children away and very likely sell them to a “married” gay couple for use as party toys, and a significant risk that you might be divorced, and your children violently mistreated by the numerous cruel and violent males passing briefly through their mother’s bedroom.

      Fathers have natural fatherly affection, and knowledge of their particular families unique idiosyncrasies. Courts and bureaucrats are indifferent to the welfare of other people’s children, and routinely demonstrate brutal and terrifying indifference. They know nothing and care nothing about the often terrifying and extravagantly destructive consequences of their arbitrary commands. How can they know? Why should they care?

      If we deploy courts and bureaucrats to deal with rare and extraordinary problem of anomalously brutal fathers, what are we going to deploy to deal with the vastly more common problem of anomalously brutal courts and bureaucrats?

      How are your good intentions going to be given practical effect?

      • Halion says:

        I believe that The Cominator and Frederik Algernon have given a good solution to the problem: leaving a legal vacuum in which the State does not intervene and that the initiative of civil society or local community (in this case, the criteria of the patriarchs) fixes the problem as they see fit. That is perfect for me, it had not occurred to me.

    • Mike in Boston says:

      what should we do if the man is deranged or simply evil?

      When I was a kid, a man in our Russian Orthodox community passed away while his youngest daughter was still young. She met and married a guy who turned out to abuse her and their children.

      After some years, he must have crossed some line. The men in her family had her older sister pick up the kids for a sleep-over with their cousins. Then they went to the house for a talk with the husband. All those guys carried guns as a matter of course.

      The husband left town and her older brother handled the paperwork for a divorce. As far as I can tell, he took care of his younger sister for the rest of his life.

      A decade or two later, the ex-husband did start coming around again occasionally to see his children and grandchildren, and the family was fine with that.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Mob in motion. Is it perfect? No. Did lil’ princess deserve better? Obviously. Do deadbeat fathers exist? Yes, but it isn’t a bullet or triggers issue. There is a lot of hate for police on this blog. I understand it. I accept it. But Blue Team never asked to be social workers or marriage counselors. Problem people should be dealt with by the community. The state is for marauders, not malingerers.

  42. Cloudswrest says:

    Saw this on Twitter this morning. Teasing and pursuit.

  43. Dave says:

    A two-paragraph chunk starting with “Roosh took the wrong redpill” is repeated.

    If only Steve Bing read your blog, he’d have bought a penthouse in Dubai and a couple of young Moldovan sex slaves to be his wives instead of splattering himself on the sidewalk. He wasn’t just afraid of going to prison, he no doubt internalized leftist values and thought he was a horrible person for wanting to plow young pussy.

  44. nerdbash2020 says:

    Just pullout dude. Don’t listen to what cucks and feminists say, it absolutely works. You just can’t pull out when you’re already starting to nut. You have to pull out when you’re really close but still have to stroke it for a few seconds to finish.

    And then you need to piss before round 2 (and in between any further rounds) to clear out any leftover sperm. Precum itself doesn’t contain sperm.

    I was a complete cad from 19-26 and never got a girl pregnant and never wore a condom. Got my wife pregnant immediately when we started trying. I imagine dudes have been doing exactly what I did for a longtime.

    No impulse control criminal chads with a bunch of bastard children don’t actually pull out because nutting inside feels better and they just roll with it

  45. someDude says:

    > It is always game on. There is no rest for men. We are always on stage. We can only be ourselves when there are no women around

    So what’s a married man to do. Not be himself around his wife? That would be tiring. In practice, this means severely limit the time spent with wife. Do I have it right?

    > Implying that if she called the cops on us she might go for a very long swim

    Did you actually intend to follow through on your threat is she followed through on her shit test? If you did not, would she have been able to intuit it? Sweet Lord, that is one hell of Nuclear Shit test.

    > and except for myself the most intelligent

    While a woman would wet her panties upon hearing this, I get an erection and demand that you lead me and by brothers into Battle to crush our foes & grab their land and women, Yeehaa!

    • Thales says:

      [[[It is always game on. There is no rest for men. We are always on stage. We can only be ourselves when there are no women around.]]]

      I take issue with this point — it implies that man is really just a weak, beta shlub. You should be alpha at rest. Chad is the ground state. Learning this is what adolescence is for.

      Further, you shouldn’t be in a LTR — let alone contemplating marriage — with a girl that doesn’t respect your frame 100% while you put out minimal effort. There’s a huge difference between jaded stripper and church mouse, so you have to find the sweet spot that works for you: maximum hotness with sustainable effort.

      • Jehu says:

        Women differ in the amount of game that they require. As Jim correctly surmises, all women are like that, but the degree to which they are like that has a distribution.
        Some few unicorns will be satisfied with what I’d call ‘zero game’. Pretty much no woman will long tolerate ‘negative game’, and ‘negative game’ is what the Cathedral is trying to indoctrinate people into, especially with its fetish for explicit consent. Women nearer the middle of the bell curve expect more game.

      • INDY says:

        “You should be alpha at rest. Chad is the ground state. Learning this is what adolescence is for.”

        Chad is Chad because he is Chad. Has there ever been a community of Chad’s? No.

        • jim says:

          Alpha as women understand alpha is not capable of working together with other men. Women cannot do large group socialization.

          So males have to present one social reality to women, and a different social reality to each other.

    • BC says:

      >So what’s a married man to do. Not be himself around his wife? That would be tiring. In practice, this means severely limit the time spent with wife. Do I have it right?

      Some women shit test harder than others. A friend of mine played the tightest thug game I’ve ever seen his total bitch of a girl friend for years, and we he got soft for a bit, she tortured him for 6 months and dumped him. She of course had a long history of fucking bad boy drug dealers, murders, etc. It was a tall order for him to keep that sort of thing going forever.

      The point of marrying a women with a low notch count is she’s unlikely to shit test you to see if you compare with the sort of alpha thugs she was banging before. Marry a virgin and the amount of shit tests should be much lighter than if you marry a whore. I’d recommend not marrying whores until the restoration.

    • jim says:

      > So what’s a married man to do. Not be himself around his wife? That would be tiring. In practice, this means severely limit the time spent with wife. Do I have it right?

      I am never myself around fertile age women. That is instinctive to me, and I got better at it as I got older.

      And yes, it does get tiring.

      The level of alpha your wife requires depends to a considerable extent on her notch count. My late wife was a virgin, which compensated for my game being crappy when I was young.

      After a while, you do not run into new shit tests all that often. It gets easier.

      • someDude says:

        Well, we don’t get virgins these days. A girl with a notch count of 2-3 might be the best we can do. My girl behaves for the most part with mostly cute shit tests, but that’s because she knows I have the option to bail and can easily get another girl. Plus I too am fortified by the knowledge that I can bail if she gets too pricey.

        But facing a shit test as a married man is a whole other thing to facing one as a husband. It’s the difference between war Games and actual war. You actually have something substantial to lose in the second instance and that might weaken your frame and worse of all, she will sense it.

        • someDude says:

          > But facing a shit test as a married man is a whole other thing to facing one as a husband.

          I meant to say facing a shit test as a husband is a whole other thing to facing one as a boyfriend.

        • polifugue says:

          As a reactionary marriage should not make you more vulnerable to a woman. It only raises the stakes of the engagement. If your wife divorces you and steals your kids, your line has a good chance that it will cease within the next century.

          Chen Sheng turns to Wu Guang and asks, “what’s the penalty for being late?”
          “Death,” says Wu.
          “And what’s the penalty for rebellion?”
          “Death,” says Wu.
          “Well then,” says Chen.

          As described in the post, the response to a woman threatening divorce is to threaten to toss her in the swamp or the ocean, because whether you do nothing or fail to kill her your line will end up in the same place. Marriage is only a hazard for a man if he is not willing to buy a shovel and some wire netting.

          As for virgins, the problem is not that we don’t get virgins, it’s that we can’t keep the virgins that are offered to us.

          Statutory rape laws are a form of anarcho-tyranny. The vast majority of statutory rape is never punished because not just little girls but women in general don’t report their own misbehavior. You can look it up but pretty much every case where statutory rape is brought to trial it is because an adult or friend finds out. In practice the only effect the laws have is to remove virgins from the marriage pool. They never stop the “pedophiles” that people actually want to stop.

          Musicians like myself are given many opportunities to screw virgins but only a moron would think to be in any type of serious relationship with one. You can pop them but never marry them.

    • I can’t advise, as I have a hard time understanding the men who have difficulties keeping their women around. Once I have fucked a girl, I can “be myself”, and they usually fall quite hard in love. I used to wish that I was a natural at getting them into the sack, but now I think that I’ve been blessed with a far superior talent.

      There is a reason Jim’s avatar is a rooster and mine is a cat. A cock is always performing for his hens. Once a lioness enters a lion’s orbit, she tends to stick around and do most of the work, and the lion’s power is only roused when his authority is in danger.

      • someDude says:

        I’ve read your blog. I can tell that you have a lot of lays with pretty decent looking chicks. But experience as a married man in this poisonous environment is a bit different. As a PUA, you always the option to bail if the shit test gets so nuclear that violence is required. Therefore, I’ll believe this comment of yours only after you have Grandkids and your wife does not divorce rape you in between.

        • Karl says:

          Why do you mention grandkids? Game gives a man children, but how does it help him get grandchildren?

          • someDude says:

            Having grandkids means a man raised his kids well as well inspite of all the challenges society and state threw at him.

            This is very difficult to do these days with the compulsory schooling that system that seeks to alienate the kids from the father and turn girls into boys and vice versa.

            Kids also grow up seeing Mum nagging the hell out of Dad which can’t be good psychologically. At the very least, it will put them off marriage. It means that Dad does not have the mandate of heaven. Kids don’t like it, Mum does not like it but the state enforces it. So Grandkids means Kids grew up healthy psychologically and grew up desiring marriage.

            If Jim has achieved all that in the face of a hostile state and society, it is a much bigger achievement to me than a lay count in three figures which is not rocket science, it’s just a lot of work. But what Jim achieved, sounds like Rocket science to me.

      • Tom Hart says:

        @AM Jim’s avatar is a rooster because he’s the older man who rules the roost. Foghorn Leghorn is an exuberant Southerner who teaches younger chickens about how it was in the good ‘ole days and shows them how it really is—sometimes with comical results. “Now, now look here, boy. You’re doin’ it all wrong! Now look here, sister, you say you wanna get married—better have that rollin’ pin ready. Nah, just kiddin’, that comes later!”

        Your cat is a liminal symbol; it’s a portal to the dark side and the underworld—especially a black cat, very witchy. The red sun behind it stands for the rubedo stage, individuation. The cat is the black sun (sol niger) that is being surpassed by the red sun of completion—the maturity obtained by moving between this underworld and the overworld. Both cat and sun stand over a city, indicating rulership and full maturity.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Symbology aside, I just tried to imagine what it would be like if someone built an application that translated every JB post into Cleghornese.

  46. RedBible says:

    I remember reading a comment on this blog some time ago that said that a man should not use a condom when have sex with his woman. (since it helps her bond to him, and helps her metal health, according to a study I read.)
    That said, what should a man do if he really need to avoid getting his woman pregnant for the time being?
    The Pill (or any other hormonal treatment) is unacceptable since it screws up the woman hormalally, emotionally, and mentally. (Also seems to cause issues with getting pregnant later on.)
    And all the other contraceptives I looked at seem to have relatively bad rates of actually stoning pregnancy over a long time.
    So is there something I’m missing? any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Maybe don’t fuck sluts?

      • jim says:

        All women are like that.

        The problem is not “sluts”. The problem is women chastely waiting for years for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, until one day they look in the mirror and say “I guess there will never be another booty call from Jeremy Meeks. I will have to reluctantly tolerate intimacy from that irritating nice guy who has been buying me dinners for the last twenty years.”

        If you cannot bang a woman in a reasonably short time, she is just not into you and probably never will be.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          The issue here is a fear of fatherhood. Slut Event Horizon is a thing. Regard

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            …less, society has both programmed it’s memes and arrayed its civil structure to punish parents, more so males but obedient females as well. OP wants to dip his wick without consequences. Catholics are typically losers, but having drank deep the drought of meaningless sex and come away scarred, I stand by the most horrible phrase ever posted on 4chan:

            I have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.

            • Kryst says:

              You won’t be procreating, because losers like you were commanded to fuck with condoms on. You don’t have sex either. When and if you ever get sex- it is sterile, lifeless, robotic, and waspy. Gee, I wonder why?

    • jim says:

      If you feel your ownership of a woman and the children you will have with you are secure, you probably will not worry about getting her pregnant.

      • There is the issue of women getting fat when pregnant and staying fat afterwards, and sometimes men are worried about that, but that in itself might be a shit test, lack of adequate ownership kind of issue.

        • James says:

          Every single girlfriend I’ve had has been terrified of getting fat. My current girlfriend weighs less than when I met her. I supervise her workout routines and she asks for my approval on virtually all of it.

          This is the natural state of a decent woman who is with a strong man.

          • The Cominator says:

            This is the state of natural decent women but not modern American women.

            To show how things used to be as recently as the early 60s…

            In the Ian Fleming From Russia With Love NOVEL (short but good) Tatiana asks James Bond that when they get to England that he won’t let her get fat that he’ll beat her to discourage that.

            James Bond replies that of course he will.

            • James says:

              There are enough decent-enough women that for the extraordinarily rare man who actually has a spine, you can find one and make her decent. It may take a few years to get to a place in life where you have the resources, competence, and so on to do it, but it can be done.

              Reproduction and a good woman isn’t a guarantee, and especially in times like this it should really be viewed as a filter. We don’t need more limp-wristed soyboys who can’t keep a woman in line reproducing.

              The en-masse shit test of American women, right now, is a filter along two criteria. The first is that you are smart enough to see through the bullshit of modernity. The second is that you are strong enough to carve out a place for yourself in this world large enough and safe enough to have a family.

              If you fit that bill, you can find yourself a woman who is afraid of getting fat. No problem.

              • The Cominator says:

                “The en-masse shit test of American women, right now, is a filter along two criteria. The first is that you are smart enough to see through the bullshit of modernity. The second is that you are strong enough to carve out a place for yourself in this world large enough and safe enough to have a family.”

                Passing the en masse shit test isn’t legal and its essentially impossible for men who don’t have a lot of so called dark triad traits innately.

                Trump himself had to go out of the country. Don’t make apologies for American women.

                • James says:

                  So break the law. Big deal.

                  Men used to raid the coasts of their neighbors to acquire mates. That was a lot more dangerous than breaking the law is today. We don’t even give people the death penalty anymore. What happens if you go to prison? You are surrounded by other men who also pass the shit test, and you eventually get out, with street cred. That’s assuming anything actually happens to you — in case you didn’t notice, the police are resigning en masse in blue states, and busy actually dealing with hordes of rioters in red states.

                  And on top of all of that, women don’t call the cops on men who pass their shit tests. They giggle and squirm. The risks are overstated. You’re still thinking like a good boy.

                • someDude says:

                  You’re asking people to break the law as an individual. That’s insane and suicidal. The law is always broken or challenged in groups, preferably as a member of a cohesive tribe with cooperate-cooperate equilibrium between them. Much more scarier/insane/suicidal to break the law as an individual today as compared to raiding a ruthless neighbouring state as a member of a cohesive tribe.

                  If you’re planning to breaking the law in today’s society, see if you have a GodFather somewhere who has some power and whose backing you have. Also, it depends on the law. Some laws are not enforced and cannot be enforced, low risk of getting caught and mild punishment if caught. OK to break those.

                • jim says:

                  > You’re asking people to break the law as an individual. That’s insane and suicidal.

                  I break the law with great regularity, and no one can run a business without breaking more laws than you can shake a stick at. Everything that matters is illegal. For example, no one can comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, so they hire accountants with the necessary connections to get away with breaking it.

                  Reflect on the career of the Green River killer. Serial killer, killed at least forty nine girls for sexual reasons. Very early in his career, the Green River abducted a whore while her pimp was watching. The pimp got the truck number. Complained to no effect. So he searched the neighborhood and spots the truck, knocks on the door. Green river killer answers him, he sees it is the same guy. Complained to no effect. One of the chicks escaped part way through an abduction with the Green River killer’s driver’s license. Complained to no effect. The cops spent millions of dollars supposedly searching for the Green River killer. I suppose they were searching the donut shops and re-enacting the Dukes of Hazzard with cop cars. If the pimp had simply shot him, problem would have been solved. And I have a swamp, a backhoe, a boat, and the sea is near.

                  The major beneficial impact of cops is that if there is a disturbance in progress, they will show up, usually quite fast, and for the most part, they usually beat up the men that need it. The state has to be the largest gang, and cannot let other gangs benefit from being large and openly using violence. Otherwise the police are fairly useless, and in the case of the family court and child protective services, actively dangerous and harmful. That stuff about dusting for fingerprints and all that seldom happens except on television.

                • James says:

                  “Much more scarier/insane/suicidal to break the law as an individual today as compared to raiding a ruthless neighbouring state as a member of a cohesive tribe.”

                  Simply untrue. If you break the law today, you are virtually guaranteed to live through the process, unless you resist arrest in a bad neighborhood. If you go raiding the coasts with your brothers in arms, you are virtually guaranteed that some of you will die.

                  It was -socially- safer to go raiding the coasts with your tribe, but it wasn’t physically safer. I am suggesting to you that social safety in a society that increasingly wants you and yours dead or enslaved is a fool’s errand.

                  I, as an individual, break laws all the time. I doubt there is a month that has gone by without me breaking the law in the last 10 years. I intend to keep breaking the law in the future. And yet I’ve faced no legal repercussions, and in my limited interactions with cops, they’ve treated me well.

                  Police are busy, and getting busier, and they aren’t generally concerned with a man defending his property, or passing his woman’s shit tests. You have much more to fear from media spotlight. When the media comes the cops tend to more closely adhere to enforcing Cathedral laws and Cathedral interpretations of law, but even then, if you fight back the right way, you still have a good chance of getting away with it.

                  In the meantime, spank your woman if she talks back to you. Defend your property. Threaten your enemies. You’ll be fine.

                • someDude says:

                  Fascinating. I guess the laws we can break are the ones that are just on paper and not enforced except on political enemies. Thanks

                • RedBible says:

                  @someDude, more like, local and state police have limited funding, whereas the federal Police (FBI and CIA) have nearly unlimited funding.

                  Fingerprint tests and DNA tests cost a lot of money (a few hundred per an object tested) relative to what local police can normally allocate to a investigation. So unless they believe they are guaranteed a conviction, they won’t test on any old hair or fingerprint they find. (Of source if you cause a very rich person problems, they might very well be willing to fork over some of their own money for such testing.)

                  A close and nosy neighbor can be quite willing to call the cops on you, so having you house far enough apart from your neighbors is important. Alternatively, knowing your neighbors and making sure they are the kind of people who don’t snitch to the police at the first sign of “trouble” is also good. Also good for them to know and like you, since “clearly you are not THAT kind of person.”

    • kawaii_kike says:

      You could try the Catholic shit, Natural Family Planning (NFP). Its basically just making sure you only fuck at the times of the month when she can’t get pregnant. I know its not very appealing but if you’re out of options then that’s my two cents.

      • S.J., Esquire says:

        It IS very appealing. I have employed Catholic-style NFP for the entirety of my 12-year marriage and during that whole time my frequency of intercourse has averaged slightly less than once per day. This is because, while there is a good portion of the month in which we can’t “do it”, this is made-up for by pent-up twice-a-day the rest of the time.

        Sorry not sorry for the TMI, because there may be someone who benefits from hearing this. “Dead bedroom” is something I can’t fathom.

    • Pooch says:

      What is the probability that the pill causes long term damage?

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I’m with BAP on this one; fucking with hormones is tinkering with GNON’S plan. Dangerous territory.

        • Kryst says:

          I was raw dogging a jewish girl for years, over a decade ago. Raw, because condoms are for losers. Raw, because jewish girls love that pill. It worked out, and I got off a lot. Then her little beta moldbug daddy got insecure and scared of big no condom goy pounding his daughter, taking her virginity. Fucking Italians! First our shitty temple, and now my daughters virginity! Oy Vey. Well yes that is nature. Also nature, is that same jewish girl unable to find a husband no matter her high princess social status. Like, you got a phD but no husband now girl?

          Was it the pill, or me?

          Probably fuckin both. HA HA.

          She can never ruin her life with some little jewish moldbug boy after getting her plumbing done for the first time by a big dicked Italian all american guy. moldbug can’t hit cervix. Italians like me can.

          • Not Tom says:

            Sounds legit.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Guineas are a stain on any culture they attach themselves to. I don’t know who is more pitiful, Greeks or Dagos.

          • Eli says:

            Hey whoa-whoa, go easy on us, Tony! Little Cipollino here is proud of his curled spaghetti, and he wants to make it known to all in the neighborhood.

            He so proud! Every night he wakes up to chew on his own linguini — it makes him glad and satiated. Of course, nothing gets him going like a nice pair of meatballs in his face… except, again, chewing on that macaroni with some pasta splattered all over it.

            Tony, did you know that your hero, Salvatore Gravanno, the big scary guinea is a cuck? His daughter is married to a nigger.

            See, one thing lil Tony Cippolino is not mentioning is this fact: Italian girls prefer to take dick not from guinea boys, but from real niggas, hailing from da ‘hood. Apparently, those turd-cigars satiate them better than those Ol’ Country macaroni. Aw… poor Cippolino.


            • Eli says:

              Correct: “pasta” to “creamy white sauce”

              (Don’t know this crap, sorry. Honestly, their food is so cheap and unhealthy, it’s almost disgusting. Especially, when South Italians make it. Which is 95%+ of American Italians).

      • RedBible says:

        What I know mostly comes from personal observations and/or the observations of close friends and family.

        We’ve noticed that it seems that several women we know started taking the Pill for one reason or another. now the woman is around 24 and wants kids, so stops taking the Pill. 1,2, or 3 miscarriages and a few to several years later, and she finally can give birth to her first kid. After that it seems to me the effects of the pill are finally worn off.
        Still, I’d rather not have to wait 5-10 years to finally get the woman pregnant once having children is sane and safe to do.
        If I had to guess, I’d say that one year of the pill will promote miscarriages for one year after stopping.

        The other big issue with the pill, is that while on it, women prefer softer lower T men, and as soon as she stops taking the pill, shit tests to high heaven will start, and likely the man will not be ready for the challenge since he will be used to the “old balance”.

    • If she is worthy of bearing your kids, get her pregnant immediately.

      If she is not worthy of bearing your kids, dump her and find one who is.

      You do not need to “really avoid getting your woman pregnant”. Once she is pregnant, you will have nine months to get your shit together, and will be filled with a drive and fire to do so that you can scarcely imagine possible.

      • RedBible says:

        The issue isn’t if she is worthy or not, but that for reasons I can’t say (since I don’t want to reveal any strongly doxx-able information) for the next year or two, it would be be wisest to avoid getting her pregnant. After the issue has passed in 1-2 years, then I want to fill her with as many of my kids as possible.

        Jim stated above:

        If you cannot bang a woman in a reasonably short time, she is just not into you and probably never will be.

        The flip side of this is also true, and that is:

        If you do not bang a woman in a reasonably short time, she will assume you are just not into her and probably never will be.

        The relationship I have with this woman is in a point that if sex doesn’t occur soon, then the relationship will pretty much terminate.

        That said, I want to say I am grateful for all the comments and replies everyone has given, lots of great information and considerations.

        • You’ve heard my advice. Having kids will change the calculus of what is wise and what is not.

          Pulling out is extremely effective, which is why Scripture tells you not to do it.

  47. kawaii_kike says:

    “prohibition against fornication is against disrupting other people’s families and other men’s patriarchal authority”

    Doesn’t marriage by abduction disrupt a father’s patriarchal authority? I thought the husband was supposed to outrank the father when it came to marriage. Or do you mean that fucking a virgin and not marrying her would be a violation of the fathers patriarchal authority?

    • jim says:

      Sometimes yes, usually not so much. Less so than fornication, which is apt to dump demon seed onto maternal grandparents, and to render daughters unmarriageable, because she is likely to view a more suitable suitor as insufficiently manly.

      Suppose, as is commonly the case, that she could be abducted because her father was unable or unwilling to restrain her from behavior that put her at high risk of being abducted.

      State, Church, and Society needs to be somewhat relaxed about the irregular transfer of property from weak hands to strong hands, and to sometimes regularize it rather than always trying to reverse it.

      It is when property gets irregularly transferred from a strong hand to a stronger hand, that State, Church, and society needs to put its thumb on the scale to prevent violence by suppressing irregular transfer.

      Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for abduction of a betrothed daughter, which is obviously a lot more disruptive than abduction of an unbetrothed daughter.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I agree in theory. In practice, the wealthy baron protects the subjects he likes and ignores those he does not. The thumb comes out for some and not others.

        • Karl says:

          Of course the thumb comes out for some and not for others. There is no euquality and there should be none.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Equalism is cancer. Uniformity of enforcement is GNON’s will. Never accept a rule that isn’t universal. Rule-proving exceptions aside, if it doesn’t work, it shouldn’t be codified.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Any man attempting to formulate a non-trivial proposition he is fain to imagine would be universal, will inevitably be producing a calumny instead; for he is not the God Head, a component of Being, not the container of Being.

              Such is the chief error of kantianism, of the post renaissance ‘enlightenment’ philosophical movements in general.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Your prose intimidates me.

                Universal Rule #1 “There shall be no unjustified murder.”

                Universal Rule #2 “The property rights of the innocent are inviolate.”

                Universal Rule #3 “Service guarantees citizenship.”

                Your move, wordsmith.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A metaphysical rubicon is crossed when you go from offering a proposition as a general case, and proposing something as a *universal* case – such ventures inevitably exploding into a cloud of contradiction, where any use is eventually possible. And thus, the possibility of use in selective, tactical manners, by the disingenuous over the credulous.

                  The thing is not that there are not, indeed, transcendent, more or less transcendent, principles underlining the procession of Being – it is that one’s *apprehension* of them will not have the save felicity – can have more or less felicity.

                  For any given non-trivial proposition, there is a certain ‘design space’, an ‘operating envelope’, in which it is adaptive – and outside of which, it rapidly becomes catachretic.

                  Perhaps one of the most common intellectual sins – or commissions of sophism – is the act of rhetorical inflation; the transplantation of a given term, or phrase, or proposition, from an etymologically organic context, to be then applied to an increasingly vastly expanded scope of subjects – yet at the same time, posed as if retaining the same connotations as the original term, even though the conditions from which it acquired the original connotation(s) in the first place would no longer apply. A classic example of this dynamic in action would be ‘motte and bailey’ tactics.

                  The broader point is that genius is prior to the devices it confabulates. No product of genius suffices as it’s own replacement. A principle produced by one being can be a useful tool for other beings – right up until it isn’t – as any such thing inevitably will – and it is genius that tells the differences, on demand and on the fly. Before a teleology is verbalized, there must first be something that can conceive it, to begin with.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Can we stop with this Foucaultian crap? 200+ words to say “don’t over-generalize”.

                  It’s one thing to take advantage of unusual vocabulary to express something in fewer words, but this is crossing the line into obscurantism. People don’t speak or write like this because they happen to have a large vocabulary, they do it to confuse others and assert control of the conversation.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Saying ‘200+ words to say dont over generalize’ would be an over-generalization :^)

                • Starman says:


                  ” Saying ‘200+ words to say dont over generalize’ would be an over-generalization :^)”

                  [ability to reply in thread didn’t work]

                  Prophet Elon Musk often explains difficult concepts in straightforward simple words.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The more instrumental the context, the more rhetorical puritanism can be adaptive; the more transcendent the context, the less appropriate rhetorical puritanism becomes.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Your second response was probably better than the first, but the first was a good roadmap for parse purposes. Regardless, to me it highlights a very pressing issue in State formation: are Scientists priests, merchants, warriors, or property? It is fun to spin words and nitpick, but the reality is that if every inventory went to an intellectual before he started building, nothing would get made. Point being, nothing is fail proof, but some things are less failure prone. Thus, laws should be general, brief, simple, and Iron.

                  Put another way, how is patriarchy reinforced by massive, inscrutable lawmongering texts? How is GNON’S justice preserved by needing a law interpreter present to stand before judgement?

                  5 pages. I maintain that all society needs is 5 pages of law to govern itself. The details need to work themselves out in the cauldron of experience. Cops are not marriage counselors. Courts are not parents. Schools are a privilege not a necessity. Taxes are a shaving off the gross. Death, exile, and beatings are the only effective punishments. GNON over all, King over country, Marshal over mob, Mob over man, Man over home.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “5 pages. I maintain that all society needs is 5 pages of law to govern itself.”

                  I think the original twelve tables said something to the effect that “These are our written laws, some of our laws are written and some of our laws are unwritten”.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  There’s a longer response in a text file somewhere that i’ve chinked at every now and then, since this touches upon an important subject that deserves full justice, and i might get around to posting it eventually; but the basic point of man, over the systems created by man, is exactly the point that was being made. (Though also not the *only* point, of course.)

  48. simplyconnected says:

    What is this old testament quote you used?. Asking for a friend…

    I’ve been doing the groping thing to great effect for some time. While girlfriend is doing the dishes, I say “Oh, let me help you with that!”, start groping her while she’s washing. After I give her a kiss “let me know whenever you need help”. Every time, she’s smiling throughout.

    • simplyconnected says:

      Sorry, I meant “Old Testament”.

      It’s now probably worthwhile to look for such a short specific passage, to prepare for that kind of category 5 shit test.
      The stakes in the case one is administered such a shit test are so massive that it pays off to prepare, even if the likelihood is low.

      It also sounds like a very difficult situation to finesse: transmitting the intended message without freaking her out.

    • Littlebook says:

      Old Testament quotes concerning divorce rape, domestic violence accusations, forced alimony, etc:

      Exodus 21:16 “And he that steals a man, and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

      The woman’s obvious intent to commit adultery after state-enforced robbery and separation is also a capital crime.

      My preferred response: “The patriarch Judah would burn you alive for that.”

Leave a Reply