Women gone nuts

The Zman asks “Why Did Women Go Nuts?

Simple. When you repress bad sexual behavior by males, and do not repress bad sexual behavior by females, you get very little bad sexual behavior by males, and a whole lot of bad sexual behavior by females.

I see women behaving as if raised by apes in the jungle.

Things are going to hell because we fail to restrain bad behavior that gets right in our faces.  Male sexual behavior in the workplace is nigh nonexistent and male heterosexual rape is nigh nonexistent, but to the extent that it exists, the man is looking for a warm wet pussy.  Female sexual behavior is different.  She is trying to disqualify males, testing as many males as possible to see if they meet her exacting requirements.  This testing is necessarily stressful, for she is stress testing men to see if they break under pressure, thus necessarily more disruptive than male sexual behavior, more damaging to workplace productivity, male cohesion, and social cooperation.

In a normal and sane society, ninety percent of fertile age women would within a few minutes of behaving as they now do, be whacked hard with a stick, like a stray dog harassing a farmer’s chickens.  And then they would stop.  Their owner would be called, and they would be hauled off on a leash.

Yet everyone around me acts like zombies and fails to notice.

It is completely obvious to me that women in the workplace continually disrupt the workplace by fitness testing attractive male co-workers, and a minor and infrequent side effect of these fitness tests, when the fitness test goes explicitly and overtly sexual, is that the woman complains, and entirely believes, she was sexually harassed.  So am I insane, or is everyone else insane?  Am I hallucinating disruptive sexual behavior right in front of my face by lusty women fitness testing every attractive male they meet to see if he has the stones to beat them and rape them, or is everyone else hallucinating chaste sexless angels persecuted by lecherous men?

Slate Star Codex recently attempted to survey co-worker sexual harassment complaints by workplace type, and reviewed existing surveys.  The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.  These results were swiftly confirmed by subsequent work by other people, who also produced similar results for rape – or at least females complaining about “rape”.

But this only makes sense if incidents of men “raping” women and men “sexually harassing” women are generally female initiated, not male initiated, which is what I see in front of my nose, and what I see everyone else failing to see.   All workplace sexual harassment cases of males supposedly sexually harassing females, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are female initiated: It is a fitness test. The chick is looking for a coworker with the stones to beat her and rape her.

If workplace sexual harassment is male initiated, we would expect females in predominantly male workplaces to report a lot of it, in particular we would expect engineerettes and female miners to report lots of it, because outnumbered approximately a hundred to one by males, while we would expect actresses and supermarket checkout girls to report very little of it, because they heavily outnumber male co-workers. Survey data is the exact opposite. The more that female workers outnumber male workers (and thus the thirstier the female workers) the more “sexual harassment” by every plausible measure, indicating that all cases of males sexually harassing female co-workers are actually cases of female co-workers fitness testing attractive males, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

In the time period of the “Rape on campus” incident, University of Virginia investigated thirty eight rape complaints. None led to disciplinary action, therefore all fake, or University of Virginia horribly biased. The fallout of the “Rape on Campus” case indicates fake. If there were any real cases, Obama’s team would have come up with better poster girls. All reports of rape by white heterosexual males are lies, as near to all of them as makes no difference.  Recollect that the University of Virginia accusation “A Rape on Campus”, was driven by female sexual lust.

And, similarly, sex between middle aged men, and girls well below puberty.  Humbert Humbert wants to creep into bed with the sleeping twelve-year-old Dolores Haze, but does not do so, in part because she is not in her own bed, she has crept into the bed of the drunk and sleeping Jeremy Meeks.  Any time you hear that an old man has raped a female child, ascertain whose bed the “rape” occurred in.

We should not “teach women not to lie about rape”. We should throw women in jail for lying about rape, or else legalize rape when done on private property that a woman voluntarily chose to enter. But, far more importantly, need to fire women who shit test co-workers in the workplace, because their disruptive behavior profoundly damages productivity and social cohesion.

To win, we are going to need a red pilled Christianity that is willing to enforce order, patriarchy, and orthodoxy.  We will need to spin the story of the fall not as a literal account of mankind’s descent from a higher plane of existence, but rather a parable or metaphor about men becoming black pilled when we realized large scale cooperation was hard, knowing good and evil, and knowing we screwed up.  Evolutionary psychology and game theory leads to conclusions that parallel the traditional Christian understanding of the fall.

Tags: , , , ,

144 Responses to “Women gone nuts”

  1. some guy says:

    I wonder what jim thinks of the catholic church’s understanding of marriage as detailed in Casti Connubii


    • jim says:

      A total disaster.

      The abolition of marriage, while pretending to endorse and uphold it.

      The obligations of marriage as depicted by the Pope are unspecified and completely symmetric, contrary to the traditional understanding that the man’s obligation is to love and cherish, the woman’s is to honor and obey.

      • some guy says:

        ehh. that’s not really how I read it, given passages like this:

        The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man.

        More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

        but I guess it’s not as clear as it could be.

        • jim says:

          Granted, that point is there, and I missed that point.

          But it was kind of buried behind the water heater in the basement.

          The obedience of the wife is points 74, 75, and 76 – of 109 points. Easy to miss.

          And is immediately followed by total capitulation to romantic account of marriage, which make female love central to marriage

          This is a modern conception. Men were always expected to love their wives, wives were never expected to love their husbands.

          The doctrine that women should love their husbands rapidly turns into the doctrine that adultery is just fine, because somehow the wife always winds up not loving her husband, and “loving” someone markedly more alpha than her husband.

          • some guy says:

            I would agree that the emphasis on female love deviates significantly from the Pauline model of “male loves, female obeys.” It is also true that is buried in the document.

            • jim says:

              A lot of things are buried. It is a big document. But the top of the document talks of men and women in fully symmetric terms – which you do not see when reading Paul. That male and female roles are very different is not buried in Paul.

          • bruce says:

            “wives were never expected to love their husbands”

            I think really there is no distinction between a wife obeying and a wife loving. To love her man is to submit totally to him.

  2. bruce says:

    “The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.

    Hmm maybe you’re right but mining (like construction) women are usually fat & ugly – no one wants to harass them. Engineering chicks are usually nerdy or loud/mouthy (not feminine) so the same.

    • jim says:

      Nerd chicks are hot. Nerd males not hot. Female engineers are good chicks, if genuine (but they are usually cruising on affirmative action and have absolutely no interest, intention, or ability to do any actual engineering). Chicks with some genuine ability and interest in engineering are hot stuff.

      I don’t know what miner chicks act like or look like, but if engineer chicks are not getting harassed, it is not for lack of hots.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Chicks with some genuine ability and interest in engineering are hot stuff.”

        Nearly 100% of these unicorns are either Asian, Middle Eastern (including Persians) or Jews.

        • jim says:

          True, but the asian unicorns are hot stuff, the Jewish unicorns are a lot better than the typical Jewess, and the Persian unicorns are pretty good.

          • The Cominator says:

            The sole woman who probably made something of a fundamental contribution to technology was the jewish actress Hedy Lamarr (and she was considered a borderline porn actress back in Europe) who did it casually as a hobby she must have been interesting to know… but you have to wonder how much of her work was that of her male co inventor (he did maintain she did a lot of the work)…

          • John Sterne says:

            lol jim you think the hotness might have more to do with who hired them than the fact that they can kinda code?

            • John Sterne says:

              Put it this way if construction workers could hire the construction worker girls instead of the jew lawyers hiring them for us i guarantee you they would be even hotter than engineering chicks since you guys hire them yourselves I’m sure you do a better job at picking hot ones but then again jew lawyers have been targeting construction for affirmative action since the 70s tech has only been targeted two years my guess is pretty soon your chicks will also be ugly nigger chicks that look more buffalo than human

            • jim says:

              No, I think personality characteristics show on their faces, and nerd girls are attractive.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Physiognomy is real. Personality traits 100% do show on faces.

                You can look up pictures of averaged faces broken out by either end of the 5 OCEAN categories for the classic example. A recently published example shows that mental health shows up on faces.

        • bruce says:

          In the defense industry here. The nerd-engineer chicks here are mostly white (I assume gentile – I’m not great at detecting Jewishness unless it’s really obvious).

      • bruce says:

        I am going to assume miner chicks are like the construction chicks I see – not something a guy would want to harass.
        Maybe the nerdiness of the males is what keeps harassment rates low in engineering. Male nerds don’t do the harassment thing?

    • Piers says:

      There are a fair number of hit chicks in mining, especially when you consider they are the only women for a hundred miles so that makes them look better. Men in mining are also higher T and a lot less uptight than office nerds.

      What a chick surrounded by office dweebs considers harassment a chick surrounded by miners considers a compliment.

      There are 3 golden rules for a man to follow to avoid being accused of workplace sexual harassment:

      1. Be handsome
      2. Be attractive
      3. Don’t be unattractive

  3. vxxc2014 says:

    O/T on the ‘demise’ of the alt-right.

    Darwin must weed.

    But no more grasshoppers – the ant work must be done.

  4. John Sterne says:

    actually jim marital rape has always been a thing to a certain extent. you can read literature and history and even myth and find if not a prosecutable offence a recognizable social aprobrium. that said Im not and did not as it came to be understood support the concept as enshrined in modern law. but i do have a thing about sticking to reality. one issue that touches this is how one defines rape as we discussed ad nauseum no doesn’t always mean no.
    I suppose i will have to specify that we are talking about white people not niggers. white people have a trait millenia old of higher than average status to females
    i suppose you will snark for a citation so off the top of my head Lysistrata really if your honest you could come up with a dozen yourself without trying. yes we can also come up with as many where marital rape is thought to be funny and that true is part of the nuance that once recognized both the higher than average female status and the real gender differences between the sexes. Im not nitpicking jim but frankly while your speil is humorous and refreshing and restoring a modicum of balance, it lacks nuance and nuance is what we whites do that makes us hegomic. we fine tune the shit out of social construction for maximal productivity.its a delicate dance easily disrupted fragile is taleb would say but when we get it dialed in it rocks. frankly a lot of your suggestions are to adopt nigger behavior because its simpler to define and not fragile. better to solve the fragile problem and go back to what works, the fragile problem is non whites in our nations.

    • Markus says:

      Men who can’t even spank their wives will not expel niggers from their countries.

      • John Sterne says:

        disnt say you couldnt spank your wife didnt say you could rape her even specifically said it was legal to rape her said it has always been frowned upon to rape rape her as opposed to rape her when shes asking to be raped. jims bombasticism aside actual cruelty to women children and beast has always and everywhere in the euro culture been frowned upon. we also frown upon the cruder races attempts at codefying in law things we think we are civilized enough to finesse culturally on a case by case basis, its what we white do we get granualr it cant be perfect because lifes not black and white we cover the basics in law and the rest culturally. so until recently when the left tried to cover everything in law like jim or some sand nigger or jews- you could legally rape your wife or beat your horse or child but then again somewhere there was also line as a white man you are expected to be able to infer and not cross and the penalty varies you might be considered no longer a gentleman or no longer received someone might punch you in the nose and the cop laugh at your complaint lots of things might happen you might get away with it you might like a jew insist on your pound of flesh as a free white man but find it was a pyrrhic victory.You are looking for easy answers to what has no easy answers humans white humans in particular didnt evolve rationally we evolved in random response to chaos and have to make up some cultural patch to get by. a nigger or at least a sand nigger might come up with a jim like universal law , competent white people are marked by the ability to do a it better than a universal law can manage not for social justice for efficiency.

        • jim says:

          I remember a time when no one could comprehend that compelling your wife to perform her marital duty was cruelty and rape.

          I was there then. Maybe when you are my age, you will talk to younger people who will with great confidence tell you that western civilization has always upheld the right of men to be women and women to be men, and that to doubt this inalienable human right is to attack western civilization.

          • Oscar C. says:

            Something that strikes me all the time is how so many people can not think beyond the “it’s the current year” meme.

            I have always been left-wing, but NRx has really broaden my understanding of reality.

            Particularly striking to me right now is how a literal transsexual (Lady MAGA) is campaigning for the allegedly “conservative” party in America and nobody bats an eyelid.

    • jim says:

      > actually jim marital rape has always been a thing to a certain extent. you can read literature and history and even myth and find if not a prosecutable offence a recognizable social aprobrium.

      Not seeing this. Give examples from literature, history, or myth. “Lysistrata” no more indicates that “marital rape” is bad than Hyacinth Bucket in “Keeping Up Appearances” indicates that backseat driving is good. In Lysistrata, it is not horrible that they might be marital raped, it is hilarious that they are not. As in “Keeping Up Appearances”,the weakness of the men is comical, rather than the wickedness of the men being tragic.

      Within living memory, within my memory, within my lifetime, there was a time when marital rape was not a thing.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        >Within living memory, within my memory, within my lifetime, there was a time when marital rape was not a thing.

        Not only was it not a thing, but refusal of marital duties by a spouse was considered an example of sexual depravity. It still is, at least officially / on paper, in traditional Christian churches.

  5. John Sterne says:

    save a ho ? well the best way to save a ho is to not create a ho in the first place. one problem that leftism exploits is false information. women are told men like sexy hos and will marry them. men know this is not true but cant say so. the leftist of men dont think a mudshark is girlfriend material.
    It seems we are at the point that facial recognition and internet search would be able to used with an app that searched womens pics for things like mud sharking and number of previous partners. such an app lets call it GFM/ NGFM might prove really popular and if any of you millenials develop it i want my cut. now you would have to mask the slut shaming a bit or they will just outlaw it. so women will use it too on men, that might not be too bad a thing either. but its real purpose would be to signal to women that men actually do not want hos and that their behavior is not going to be anonymous.a sort of scarlet letter will follow you forever and while you can rant about how unfair and sexist it is you cant really do anything about mens tastes. The ad campaign would be delicious meme warfare. Think -“Is your girlfriend hot in bed? ever wonder how she got that way?

    • John Sterne says:

      we could give them a score like a credit score. previous boyfriends can rate them and they can appeal but if they are say found to have indeed cheated lowers score a lot.if you think about it there’s a lot of accurately measurable factors that would easily be ascertained and give a good info on a woman’s value as a possible mother. And it would be self adjusting at this point in time a lot of leeway would by necessity be given over time though scores would improve.
      what could be elements of a score?

      number of previous relationships
      length of relationships
      age of first relationship
      did she ever cheat
      did she ever date outside race or religion

      rate your ex an the following
      sweet natured

      come on this would be so much fun

      • John Sterne says:

        worth mentioning court today found revenge porn laws unconstitutional breach of first amendment.Not sure i agree with this ruling though imagine its about who owns the pics and laws in a state about two party permission. my opinion would off the top of head be such images should be assumed to be communal property for private use only and not distributable without permission perhaps a civil matter only. yeah of course your an idiot if you allow someone to take naked pics of you but theres no accounting for stupidity. anyway point is that ruling sounds like an app like i describe can not be stopped legally

      • The Cominator says:

        Like the idea of your rating system but the education and media system turns most modern women into monsters and the herd instinct they have get the few who resist the initial programming (which is why the small % of good women declines as they age).

        There is no not creating a ho, the system mass produces them.

        The only exceptions are those who either don’t associate closely with most other women (they all have a sister or best friend they talk to) and whose best friend/sister etc is also good and also doesn’t interact outside the closed loop.

        • John Sterne says:

          no actually there’s quite a few pretty decent women less in leftist cities quite a lot in red rural areas. No one gets out of here unpozed but if you apply the same excuses to them as we do ourselves. its not as bad as all that,oh its fucking bad but we aint dead yet.saying we cant not make hos is defeatist for that matter insisting its adopting afghanistan culture or death is pretty much admitting defeat, even in zombie apocalypse whites are never going to adopt afghani culture. claiming eit year olds are fair game whores is not only lazy thinking its going to get you all killed if the situation youre counting on to bring it about ever happens at the hands of the only men in the west who might ally with nrx fags.

          • jim says:

            You assume extremely recent values are universal and unchanging. On the contrary, as people adopted these new values overnight, when the wind blows in a different direction, they will return to older values overnight.

  6. Mister Grumpus says:

    NOW I understand why you’re anonymous online. Plenty of people would come and fire-bomb your house for this one if they knew where you lived.

    • alf says:

      A bonus of Jimspeak is that it sounds so bizarre to leftists’ ears that it sort of goes over their heads. Of course once they figure out that stuff like ‘genociding in a Christian manner’ is seriously meant ánd that Jim is taken seriously, violence becomes the only option. So hail the anonymous madman.

  7. Alrenous says:

    Women not only avoid punishment for deviant behaviour, but receive fabulous cash and prizes to compensate the poor dears for the fact nobody wants to cooperate with deviants. The prisoner’s dilemma is sexist.

  8. John Sterne says:

    yeah but how exactly? how do you get from here to there the devils in the details. when i tell you reactionaries to move to the white blue collar areas and find a good blue collar girl you don’t abhor the status signalling you start signalling your elite status like crazy oh no im too smart to live among mouth breathing proles theyre too demotist icky.

    BOBOs status signal their non status signaling Portlandia? nrx are really reminiscent of elites in fact sometimes its impossible to tell them apart. you above racial status signalling like those lowbrown alt righters. youre against the cathedral but what moldberg describes is exactly the same thing just re oriented. no one but jim has an answer to what nrx patriarchy would look like and his answer is afghanistan.

    • peppermint says:

      Look, it’s great that you and yours exist. I can’t just go to your town and be a person who grew up there. Also some young to 40 city men and women are racemixed and need to get that sorted out somehow, and there are tons of other problems with us. I wouldn’t blame you if you just nuked the cities and started over. Dominating city Whites, however, will not be a problem, we will be much happier with White overlords whose directives make sense than anarcho-tyranny.

      • John Sterne says:

        sure you can I grew up and spent half my adult life in NYc and then moved to north idaho and really only for 6 months a year or sometimes a year or two at a time until i retired now i will live there full time after i sell everything in brooklyn. and i was easily able to adapt.you can also go native in a big city the locals are blue collar the yuppies all moved there after school. idaho has been my hometown for 25 years.
        racemixed how do you sort that if youre willing and able to pass i doubt youre likely to run into an actual nazi pretty sure theyre all jews anyway.those who cant pass are leftists.

  9. Anonymous 2 says:

    Suitably enough for the topic, I was led onto the following:

    TWO “brainwashed” Hollywood actresses are among a group of women who desperately chased after accused Nxivm sex cult leader Keith Raniere as he was arrested by cops.


    • jim says:

      If you read this blog, I imagine this news surprised you as much as it did me – which is to say, did not surprise you in the least.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Quite so. It’s not mentioned in the article, but presumably it was not the cult leader but the harem who added branding to the cult practices. (Much like clitoridectomy in certain other cultures, now that I think about it.)

  10. Glenfilthie says:

    No, the answer to female lunacy and unhappiness is not simple. Getting them off the anti-depressants and back into functional families is far more problematic than simply bitch slapping them into submission. Keep in mind that anything that hurts one gender, ultimately hurts them both.

    Women went nuts back in the 50’s and 60’s when modern electrical appliances made their job in the home obsolete. By the 70’s – outside of the kids, she literally had nothing to do… and all kinds of time to think. Men go nuts in circumstances like that too. If you rugged manly alpha men ever manage to get that modern woman back in the kitchen… you had better have something for her to do.

    Secondly – for any kind of decent lifestyle in North America today, it takes two GOOD incomes, I don’t care what anyone says. With one parent living at home with the kids, most of us are looking at life very close to poverty. How many of us want to live like that?

    Finally … There’s all this induced female mental illness to deal with. A lot of these women have serious mental screws loose now. How do I tell my 30 year old militant lesbian SJW daughter that she has to grow up, that being queer is not edgy and trendy, that it is sick and perverted, that she is going to have to straighten out and fly right? How can I do that, now that she’s spent most of her life being told the exact opposite? I know how she thinks, and I know she needs some serious air time in a psychologist’s office. Trust me on this – you don’t want nutters like that in your home or your family.

    I think we’re doomed, frankly. Women are burning down the house. But they’re so far gone that they will burn with us, and die screaming that it is all our fault.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Maybe you might want to either (a) speak authoritatively about what solutions will and won’t work to the crisis of female misbehavior or (b) repeatedly mention that you screwed up as badly as possible in 50% of the major interactions with women close to you but you probably don’t want to do both.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Steve I ain’t gonna get in a pissing match about it. Guys like you have 20/20 hindsight going for you – 8 years ago I was dealing with lunatic SJW’s before wise guys like you even had a name for them, never mind an acronym. I will admit I don’t do well with progressive liberal females – and I don’t know anyone who does.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Don’t pose as an expert then.

          And lots of people who were paying attention knew about SJWs and the truth about women 8 years ago (and a thousand years ago for that matter) – even roissy’s blog has been around longer than that.

    • jim says:

      Modern labor saving devices came in long before they went crazy.

      The went crazy following second wave feminism, which started in 1964, immediately after wives suddenly ceased to be spanked in movies and television.

      Women need a masterful man who can say “no” to them. Today, no one is allowed to say “no”. That is why they are going crazy.

      As men get ever weaker, more frightened, and more emasculated, women get ever angrier and crazier.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        In the 50’s, women started having epidemic problems with alcohol and drugs. When they got into the workforce, life was no bed of roses for them and second wave feminism was the somewhat legitimate push back to that.

        And no, being a masterful man and saying ‘no’ doesn’t work. If it did, Trump wouldn’t be getting raked over the coals as a pussy grabber, Jian Ghomeshi would still have a career, and Assange would not be getting charged with rape for failing to call back to some bimbos he porked the night before. Expecting women to stop being crazy by saying ‘no’ is like crazy women thinking they can deter a rapist by saying ‘no’. The problem here is lunacy, not mastery.

        Easy answers and anecdotal evidence does not make a case. You go straighten out one of the chicks on The View. Or some high profile pussy hatter. Show me how it’s done, because if the answer is as easy as saying ‘no’ – I daresay we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “When they got into the workforce, life was no bed of roses for them and second wave feminism was the somewhat legitimate push back to that.”

          Unions exist. Second wave feminism always was a lie.

          “If it did, Trump wouldn’t be getting raked over the coals as a pussy grabber,”

          Works with women and works with leftists are two different things.

          “Easy answers and anecdotal evidence does not make a case.”

          The historical evidence supports it. Strengthen patriarchy and the birth rate goes up; we have the modern examples of Stalin and Hitler showing what happens when you transition away from insane leftism.

          • The Cominator says:

            Women were generally pretty happy in the 1950s and early 1960s compared to today, both happiness statistics and what old timers have said about women back them backs this up.

            Don’t blame drugs for female craziness, in the 19th century the opiate problem (since there wasn’t really any other solution to chronic pain) was actually far far worse then even today with an estimated 1/3 of women being addicted to laudnum.

            Second wave feminism seems to have been a CIA op to decrease the value of labor and raise taxes (getting around laffer) by doubling the labor force. Women didn’t come up with it themselves it was not “organic” as young women by and large don’t think.

        • jim says:

          > In the 50’s, women started having epidemic problems with alcohol and drugs. When they got into the workforce, life was no bed of roses for them and second wave feminism was the somewhat legitimate push back to that.

          Untrue. Women became sad, upset, and angry after second wave feminism, starting about 1970, not 1950s. Also their physical appearance improved during the gap between first and second wave feminism, they started to physically deteriorate during second wave feminism.

          > And no, being a masterful man and saying ‘no’ doesn’t work. If it did, Trump wouldn’t be getting raked over the coals as a pussy grabber

          I don’t see any of the numerous chicks whose pussies he famously grabbed complaining.

          • Hidden Author says:

            *cough*Stormy Daniels*cough*

            In the spirit of skin in the game, are you willing to go to prison yourself if some foolish young man gets imprisoned for following your advice?

            • jim says:

              Damn near went to prison for following my own advice. Escaped without a stain on my shining record by force of charisma (charges went away when rape victim decided to go home with me from the cop shop), but it was a near thing.

              That is just a risk of being a man in a society where masculinity is illegal. It just an unavoidable cost, like the risk of being robbed and murdered during the final days of the collapse of the Roman Empire.

              If you are not risking jail or confiscation, you are not doing it right. It is a simply unavoidable risk. Women call the tune, and I must dance. My sexual preference it the James Bond role, but you just have to play a darker role, and the role you have to play is illegal.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Women went nuts back in the 50’s and 60’s when modern electrical appliances made their job in the home obsolete. By the 70’s – outside of the kids, she literally had nothing to do… and all kinds of time to think. ”

      If a women marries at 18, has her first kid at 20 and has 2 more (spaced out 3 years) by the time she is 35 she will only had 5 years (out of 17) where that applies.

      “Secondly – for any kind of decent lifestyle in North America today, it takes two GOOD incomes,”

      We are reactionaries. How many times must this be repeated? We despise out of control status signaling. The solution is to crush the status signaling, not to give up and die.

      The people who used blacks as a bludgeon to destroy affordable neighborhoods are to be hung, women are to be removed from much of the workplace, the social safety net is to be ended so anyone who wastes their money on frivolities works to the grave and the colleges are to be dismantled so the cost of children is not a millstone around parents necks.

      “Finally … There’s all this induced female mental illness to deal with. A lot of these women have serious mental screws loose now.”

      Your example is mindless adherence to the party line. If the party line changes, they change with it.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Not so. Dish washers, vacuum cleaners, self cleaning ovens, self propelled lawn mowers, microwaves, blenders – even us guys can get the house work done by 9:00 am. Women have nothing to do anymore. “Women’s work” is a thing of the past.

        I am not a reactionary, I tend to be proactive and head problems off before they occur. Nor am I materialistic. There are some things my wife and I want for ourselves and only the best will do. My guns, for example, tend to be “best of their class”. I need the best equipment I can afford to compete against the men I do. I want late model trucks and motorcycles because I travel and need the reliability. I am better described as one of the Z Man’s ‘dissident right’ tribe. Reactionaries have been largely discredited and need to evolve in order to be taken seriously.

        Having said all that – yes, we need to reform welfare, race relations, crime and punishment, etc. As far as mindlessly adhering to a ‘party line’ … Nope. I live in the real world, and you should too. Jordan Peterson has some excellent commentary on race and IQ on a youtube entitled ‘the dangerous IQ debate’. He also has some spectacular commentary on batshit crazy women too. It’s worth your time – JP is often mistaken for a conservative when in actuality, he is an old world classical liberal. He’s worth listening to because he is a heretic leftist, smack dab in the heart of progressive liberal political correctness. We don’t have to roll over and die – the cathedral will blow itself up. All we need to do is sit back, keep our distance, and wait and let nature take it’s course. The trick is to avoid getting any on ya when it blows.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          [Oops, sorry, comment accidentally deleted]

          • jim says:

            > > “We don’t have to roll over and die – the cathedral will blow itself up. All we need to do is sit back, keep our distance, and wait and let nature take it’s course. The trick is to avoid getting any on ya when it blows.”

            > South Africa seems to indicate otherwise.

            Similarly Detroit. If we do nothing, will eventually be ethnically cleansed or genocided. The racially motivated murder of Kathryn Steinle by Francisco Sanchez, which resulted in Francisco Sanchez being acquitted on grounds of race, prefigures what is coming. Suddenly a whole lot fewer pretty white girls are strolling along the Embarcadero.

            Similarly, the erasure of Western Civilization from our schools prefigures intent to physically erase it. Not only will we perish, no one will remember we ever existed, and everything we built, and everything we wrote, will be destroyed. Opera has been declared sexist, and the Cathedrals are being handed to the control of people who hate them and everything they stand for.

            South Africa, Detroit, and the diminished number of pretty girls strolling the Embarcadero show where our future is headed.

        • John Sterne says:

          Youre a moron Peterson has never sounded so stupid in his life. he in two breathes uses opposite retarded arguments to justify jew rule and then blacks being wards of the state. he lies about the statistics claiming only 10% of the population has a below 85 IQ when he knows full well its half of the african americans and amerindians and 90% of the pure african immigrants and a good share of the midwesterners and south asians all of whom make up 40% and counting of the USA, what hes saying is for the moment most non whites are not capable of feeding themselves as they grow as a percentage of the population through policy i advocate we will be destroyed for certain but being an enlightenment man i would rather sacrifice every single white nation and person and the obliteration of our culture than defect from my enlightenment values.
          JP is at least a man of principle if misguided and refusing to see the situation that made the enlightenment an edge has changed. You however are worse than a cuck you see the problem but have managed to insulate yourself and so would rather the world went to shit once you are dead than you should risk upsetting you life now.

        • peppermint says:

          If you define women’s work as things that machines can take care of and ignore the hard to describe aspects, by the same logic, pajeets and women can code.

    • John Sterne says:

      saw recent poll most satisfied workers were stay at home moms. there’s truth to what you said not so sure it was lack of work so much as lack of women at the washing hole to chat with.
      It takes two incomes because we flooded the market with labor first female then niggerget rid of the niggers wages will rise women will begin to admit they dont like work.
      youre right we are far gone and deprogramming today’s kids that unlike us boomers (peppermint) they have never seen normal in fact have only seen normal deconstructed as evil. war changes this. war puts men back in the natural position and it brings out the manliness men have lost. we need total war

      • Piers says:

        >sure it was lack of work so much as lack of women at the washing hole to chat with

        This is the crux. Women are social creatures and need the interaction. The 1950s suburban housewife did not exist before the 20th century. Women had to leave the house to wash clothes, get water, get food from the market etc and all this time they spent gossiping with men.

        This goes back to the stone age when men went off to hunt or fish and women went off gathering useless plant food or hanging around the village yammering in cave speak.

        A study of aboriginal tribes living as close as possible to their stone age ways found women spent more time with other women than the man they were fucking.

        • peppermint says:

          Gossip, cosmetics, and pretty instead of functional clothes are denounced by virtue signalers because they are the natural behavior of women.

    • peppermint says:

      Funny how dirty and useless millennial women are despite all those labor saving devices. It’s almost like in school they were taught not to do anything and their shitlib mom never taught them anything either.

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      ***Women went nuts back in the 50’s and 60’s when modern electrical appliances made their job in the home obsolete. By the 70’s – outside of the kids, she literally had nothing to do…***

      This is how I know Glenfilthie isn’t married with children. My wife is run off her feet even with ‘electrical appliances’. Granted, she is a homeschooling mom of multiple kids, but still, that only takes a couple of hours per day.

  11. John says:

    Hey Jim, slightly off-topic, but do you have a suggestion of a good female role model/ set of rules to live by for women? How should women act?

    • jim says:

      A woman should obey her father, and then get a fiancee, whom the father somewhat trusts to supervise his daughter, then, if all goes well, the fiancee becomes her husband, and she should honor and obey her husband and no longer obey her father, should submit sexually to her husband, and should never submit sexually to anyone else, nor enter any situation where she is likely to be tempted to submit sexually to someone else. (I routinely see married women shit testing males other than their husband, which means that they are consciously or subconsciously looking for outside dick)

      Whenever a fertile age woman speaks in a mixed group, no matter what she is ostensibly saying, the subtext is usually “Am I hot? Are you man enough to take me?” Whatever she is ostensibly saying seldom makes much sense. This is so universal that they really should not speak in any mixed group. Women just cannot help it. Women project corresponding meanings onto anything the males say, even if the topic is pointer indirection and memory safety in C++ programs, with the result that the conversations tend to go at crossed purposes. If a woman opens her mouth in a mixed group, she is either flirting, or testing males to see if they are worthy of flirting with. Either way she should not do it except on appropriate occasions under male supervision. The men cannot help looking at her boobs, and she cannot help flirting or shit testing or both simultaneously. Worse, anything he says to her about pointer indirection she understands not as about pointer indirection, but as flirting or attempting to pass a shit test, and thus, if he fails the shit test, (or is interpreted as failing the shit test because he says something that is actually about pointer indirection and irrelevant to passing the shit test) interpreted as sexual harassment.

      Conversations over the internet are less apt to go wrong than conversations in person, where the man could potentially grab the woman and have sex with her on the nearest horizontal surface, but they still tend to go wrong, and if the man and the woman are conversing in person near a horizontal surface, they go wrong most of the time.

      Women should never interact with men, other than husbands or close kin, in circumstances where they could potentially have sex. Even if they don’t have sex, things go wrong.

      Remember that much played movie clip from “When Harry met Sally”, that men and women can never be friends, because sex gets in the way. Well men and women cannot talk about pointer indirection either because sex gets in the way. And the problem is not primarily that the man is distracted from pointer indirection by her boobs, though he is, rather the problem is primarily that though she is ostensibly talking about about pointer indirection, she is actually checking whether he is man enough to beat her and rape her.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Actually talking about pointers is mansplaining and ugh they can’t even.

      • Pooch says:

        Although I agree with most of this, I think there are certain workplace situations that are optimal for males mixed with females. For instance, the doctor-nurse relationship and the principal-teacher relationship.

        • jim says:

          Yes, but the Doctor Nurse system has the girls under dual authority – they are under a female hierarchy, the Matron, as well as under the doctors.

          Principal teacher system is bad. Boys should be taught by male teachers under a headmaster, girls should be taught by female teachers under a headmistress.

    • John Sterne says:

      I used to get my daughter to watch old movies to learn about proper use of feminine power. of course i was weaponizing my daughter cause shes my viking princess but i would for instance say see how barbara stanwyck pauses at that door even though she got there first it forces him to open the door for her a man who has been trained to open the door for you is not going to date rape you hes going to propose to you.and then youre going to say he has to talk to your father which takes him down yet another notch. your fathers going to say he needs to talk to the boys father and hes really in check now and our family is winning.
      yeah that didnt work

  12. Every time I see one of those women who went nuts, it comes across as a change that cannot be entirely cultural and legal but has to be biological somehow as they simply look different than the women who did not. Heartiste is really up to something with that manjaw thing. Another thing I notice is that these women even when they have low body fat, they don’t look fragile anymore, they tend to have stronger, thicker bones, especially noticable in the lower leg. I also notice things like deeper and louder voices, for example. I suspect testosterone playing a role somehow.


    There is also a mechanism actually supported by science that could make it happen so. Research showed that the whether a woman was lesbian or not was better predicted by her mothers T levels when she was a fetus than her own serum T levels in adulthood. So if a pregnant woman has high temporary T, say, through the elevation of her social status, this affects the female embryo through the cord and results in more male-pattern brain development.

    This is a very interesting angle as it suggests whether men treat women in a patriarchical way or not not only changes their “software” behavior, but also has an effect on the “hardware” their daughters get.

  13. John Sterne says:

    campus rape epidemic is real you just dont understand the code its the same code as the gun control meme there is indeed a problem with private gun ownership – niggers are considered human and citizens.
    same thing on campus niggers are considered human and student and are raping constantly but we cant talk about that so haven monahan.
    zippy hippy catholic, you want a red pilled christianity huh its called judaism. and that would make you a cuck or a jew. old school christianity had two varieties in one case they used the old testament because it was the antithesis of christianity but appeased the kings who needed to be appeased if christianity was to be allowed in kingdom at all. jews religion conservative authoritative legalistic and conservative of jewish interests. since there were no jews the kings got all the benefits. once new testament christianity gets advanced kings will be subjugated to higher authority then done away with. this is an ebbb and flow process almost complete for a time even this altruistic theology not too morbid altruism accrues to other euros but eventually niggers invade altruism accrues to niggers because the truth is christianity as opposed to judaism is a cuck theology. it worked for english gentleman who would rather die ( and have you die too) than defect from the british gentleman code.but when you play prisoner’s dilemma with niggers english gents lose every time. THERS NO FUCKING SUCH THING AS A RED PILL CHRISTIANITY its a put on and eventually some commie jew comes by and asks what would jesus do and the answer is always the same kill the tsar and his ministers and make all the sinners saints cause christ was a commie jew. now if the jews at the time had known what his game was they wouldn’t have killed him they would have set up NGOs to fund him but they thought the wanted to run that cuck shit on jews not goys.

  14. John Sterne says:

    Could be type of males, acting is full of jews etc,supermarkets full of niggers and spics.
    construction sites with any females at all will be legacy union still run by white men and the women are usually niggerspics on AA tickets so you got unattractive sheboons and civilized white males in charge at least.
    Male dominated workplaces are hierarchical and ordered clearly. its crystal clear bullshit will not be tolerated.
    That said any workplace with enough females will tend to drama and chaos. people will be talking to each other recreationally, surfing the internet, going for long lunches, having office parties, taking personal calls, emailing each other, none of that goes on in male dominated workplaces, work is what goes on or your fired.

    • Aidan MacLear says:

      On that note, if you have to work blue collar, do something that involves power tools or heavy machinery, and is a small enough business to dodge the quota system. You won’t have to see a single female or nonwhite- your boss will know better than to trust em with that stuff.

      • John Sterne says:

        believe it or not some of us choose to work blue collar.even today there’s quite a few lucrative fields that in my opinion are more enjoyable than office work.

        • fdsa says:

          Like what?

          • indyjones says:

            Aircraft mechanic, plumber, electrician

          • John Sterne says:

            police detective, tug boat operator, HVAC mechanic, the military can train you in things like chopper pilot, or AP mechanic, there’s publications in major cities that are basically about civil service tests and openings.yeah you’re up against all the muds that will get half the jobs but they need competent people to keep things running but most competent whites have been told to do white collar work.so there’s opportunity. many of these have legacy union wages affected by the private sector unionization.others have union protection because the muds get too much from the unions to let them be crushed. lets say Im a steamfitter in NYC i make 100k in wages for a 35 hour week and about another 100k in benefits most of which actually go to me after the union gets a cut.pensions iras various healthcare packages supplemental unemployment plans etc overtime is double time.. most big city construction about same its hard work in hard conditions many of these jobs are and many have a sort of seasonality or economic cyclical nature but most will have a situation where in slower times the least productive will work sporadically which will not be you because you are a competent white man. others are govt work that once paid less in return for no cyclicality but creeped up to paying more and bullet proof security. keep in mind our entire economy has huge faults and may go at any time so guaranteed pensions may not be worth anything when you retire. but some have very early retirements and you might be able to start over in 20-25 years a new business. anyway once you are in the blue collar world you here about all sorts of ridiculously well paying little niches. the thing is no one really goes about this methodically they usually are born into this and simply go into the niche their family has been in. but family connections are not as important since affirmative action. a smart guy could research then target the niche. I think a lot of these jobs are more fun in some ways yes you will miss highbrow conversation at work it wont be near as ow brow as the elites paint but lots of talk of football and pussy.but you will be free to be a man act like a man say what the fucj you want even fight maybe not as much as on tv but it still happens youll get in trouble though often you can come and go as you please i stayed in steamfitting because i can take six months off a year and no one asks about the gap in my resume i simply find out if my old boss wants me back which he usually does or i find another. educators often have summers off medical staff can move around and contact with hospitals my sister in law negotiates huge contacts as a nurse. cops seque ino private security,the trick is to find the nuances in the practices, some unions say you can solicit your own work meaning you can bypass a hiring hall waiting list making being really good full time employment others have really short years to fully retire nyc cops were 20 years others have other idiosyncrasies. can you do your work on the side or once trained g into business some business are capital intensive others practically no up front costs.some have lots of freedom in construction for instance i would only be a field guy meaning not working in the shop only onsite. another thing is a lot of these have been resistant to change but could do with an update in tech but dont have the crossover talent so there’s an opportunity to be that innovator and break out. i see machinists doing this I see theres really no reason to let china have our industry use tech to trump cheap labor

            • fdsa says:

              Thanks, friend.

            • fdsa says:

              One more thing. Suppose I get some capital and I want to put it to work in a smallish uncompetitive working-class niche such as you describe. I can be in the locale and be buddies with the locals, I just can’t devote much time to the actual operation because I’m in my bat cave working on my master plan. What is your suggestion? Specifically who to talk to and how to root one out.

              • John Sterne says:

                small locals have low wages unfortunately even many of the very competent are constrained by the reality of a small economy often in a large extent barter based. even full time employment is sometimes rare particularly if its a cold winter area. you can strategically partner with competent people you find morals are better so trust is easier. you might find someone to build homes for a piece of land you subdivide and work a deal maybe buy an excavator or other equipment he can use to pay off the loan he couldn’t qualify for but has connections for the work. Obviously i like real estate, but the principle is the same in finding someone to run your latte shack or whatever these places are capital poor but often have competent people needing work if you can find a place thats about to grow you can start businesses that are not there yet but will be wanted by new people.

  15. Aidan MacLear says:

    I don’t personally believe that women have any more agency in their sexual decisions at 20 than they do at 13, and arranged marriages with brides that young were uncommon but unremarkable occurrences in the West until about 200 years ago. However, the rampant fucking of girl children triggers the powerful ‘protect children’ instinct, which by virtue of its power must be a fundamental truth in the sense of natural law. When my neighbor’s seven year old daughter tells me that she’s not wearing panties, it makes me want to reach for a noose and drag her and her junkie injun boyfriend, who was probably fucking her, behind my car.

    • Roberto says:

      Blue Knightism (child-protection instinct) is as “healthy for society” as White Knightism (woman-protection instinct): not at all.

      Good thing that there a emerged an economic-civilizational argument for the legalization of pedophilia, child pornography, and child prostitution; it is now possible to convince the CIA/FVEY and the Pentagon that in order to fund the MIC, fund endless warfare everywhere, and outcompete Russia and China, they need to embrace — and perhaps take over — the pedomomy. Legalizing the pedonomy instead of suppressing it will be several orders of magnitude more expedient than the “drug trade.”

      That’s what Yarvin meant by “recruiting the youth camp” rather than bombing it.

      • jay says:

        The killing of pedophiles those who would prey on prepubescents will not be hard to do once they are caught.

        Qanon if you frequent 8ch.net indicates that many of them are already caught and arrested on masse.

        • Roberto says:

          Qanon is a LARP (the moment he said “pizzagate is real” was the moment everyone should’ve realized it), and the hunt after real pedos has resulted in the criminalization of normal male sexuality.

          The chief problems with the pedos were a) preponderance of boylovers; b) pedos not coming out in opposition to Feminism and the challenges faced by normal men. It’s like the pedos did not even try. Now it’s changing because they finally realize that “LGTBP” doesn’t work, and that they need to unite with normal anti-feminists, apolitical men who’ve been imprisoned for bogus “sex crimes,” right-wing libertarians, incel nerds, and Muslims. An odd coalition but you work with what you’ve got.

          The biggest obstacle is convincing normal men to support pedos, but if the phenomenal success of 8chan and 4chan and DailyStormer and TRS proves anything, it’s that you must be 100% unapologetic and own whatever insults are thrown at you. In my activism I had no choice but to own the epithet of “pedophile rapist” despite not being a pedophile or a rapist, in much the same way alt-righters call themselves “neo-nazi white supremacists” without actually being those things.

          The argument for normal male sexuality (attraction to females who exhibit secondary sexual characteristics, starting at age 12 or so) cannot be made while you’re afraid of being called a pedo.The whole “I am absolutely not a pedophile, I’m just a normal man” line of argument has been attempted 6 gorillion times and failed each time. Since you’re very much afraid of being called a pedo, that itself needs to change. Same thing as with being called a “racist genocidal nazi” for supporting majority-white homelands.

          At some point you just have to accept the situation, embrace the identity of “pedophile rapist,” and proceed to make the best “pedophile rapist” propaganda you can.

          • Oog en Hand says:


            An extreme right-wing group is organising a demonstration against a pro-paedophile group in Amsterdam. Nationale Alliantie (NA) expects 50 to 100 sympathisers will take part in the protest in the vicinity of Amsterdam’s Muiderpoort train station on 27 May. NA claims Martijn, an organisation that seeks social and societal acceptance of “child-adult relationships”, is based near the station in the east of the city. A spokesperson for Mayor Job Cohen said demonstrations “in principle are never banned in advance”. City officials will shortly discuss the timing and the location with NA “so that no problems in relation to public order arise”. NA is based around veteran Rotterdam right-winger Jan Teijn and has links with the European National Front. Strongly Islamophobic, NA has supported a petition calling for Islam to be forced out of Europe. A NA spokesperson said it is bad that Martijn has been allowed to exist for 20 years. Talks are ongoing with other groups, including the managers of an anti-paedophile website, over possible participation in the demonstration.

            In 2003 the action committee ‘Stop Martijn’, wanted to hold a similar rally against the paedophile group. Cohen initially gave permission for the demonstration but banned it at the last minute after anti-fascist activists clashed with the demonstrators at the city’s Central Station. The Stop Martijn committee was made up of five groups, including the Nieuw Rechts (New Right) and Nieuwe Nationale (New National) parties. Teijn used to be a member of the latter party.

            NA called on the local government in Amsterdam to take responsibility for security to prevent the chaos in 2003. The demonstrators will carry aerosol cans to mark any left-wingers who attack them and identify them to the police.

            Martijn has indicated it has no problems with the demonstration, as long as it is held on neutral ground, a spokesperson said. […] The association moved out of its office in the east of Amsterdam a few years ago because the rent was too high, the spokesperson claimed. Now they only have a postal address there.

          • peppermint says:

            The Cathedral is a Polygon consisting of academia, media, bureaucracy, NGOs, and politicians.

            Elite politicians, NGO, and media people need to be controlled against an outbreak of patriotism.

            Extremely depraved sex acts with prostitutes, faggotry, pigfucking as means of control are well known, but hard to control people with now that everything but marriage is okay.

            Why do you think pedo rape is confined to bakabhazi in sand and curry nigger lands?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              >Extremely depraved sex acts with prostitutes, faggotry, pigfucking as means of control are well known, but hard to control people with now that everything but marriage is okay.

              Perfect! Can’t wait for 21st century scandals.

          • jay says:

            Search up pedophiles busts on duckduckgo or even google.

            There has been thousands of arrests.

        • jim says:

          “Prey on prebubescents” is a myth. “Prey on prebuscent boys” is real.

          Gays prey on small boys. But girls develop an interest in adult males at a wide range of ages, the mean and median being the Disney princess age – nine. The age at which they develop an interest in men is highly variable, and not closely linked to puberty, some get interested in men at three, long before developing secondary sexual characteristics, some at twenty two, long after developing sexual characteristics.

          The net effect is that there are far more prepubescent girls interested in adult males, than there are adult males interested in prepubescent girls. People don’t notice this, or are able to deny it, for the same reason (hypergamy) that they do not notice adult female sexuality.

          As a result, predation goes primarily in the direction of prepubescent girls preying on adult males. Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap, but prepubescent girls don’t have eggs, so …

          • jay says:

            Your points have not been conclusively and indisputably proven.

          • jay says:

            Plus it has not been proven that sexual attraction would exist without the hormones of puberty as well as healthy functional reproductive systems and secondary characteristics.

            Maybe crushes of a sort may exist. But the desire to copulate cannot exist without a requisite amount of sex hormone modifying the brain.

            And for your last statement what’s the proof for that other than your personal anecdotes.

            • jim says:

              It is common for girls to beat themselves off to orgasm at very young ages, long before the development of functional reproductive systems and secondary sexual characteristics. Mean and median age at which sexual interest develops is nine-ten. Mean and median age of menarche is twelve thirteen. But there is a very wide variance in the age at which sexual interest develops, with only a small variance in the age of menarche.

              I am endlessly astonished by people’s inability to see female bad behavior that gets right in their faces.

              • peppermint says:

                Masturbation implies desire implies the possibility of consent, but damaging children is totally abhorrent.

                Either the standard for sexual propriety is not consent, or little girls masturbating is something that only they should ever know about, which is true on a personal level, since no sane adult wants to know about any particulars.

                Forgetting why allowing anyone to fuck anyone they desire is a bad idea must have taken a long time with common knowledge progressively becoming forbidden and forgotten. We must go back, but we’re in consent culture, while marriage has a natural defender, the husband, a natural punishment, divorce, and can be construed as a voluntary BDSM relationship, how can we build protection of children from themselves without using the natural revulsion against pedos?

                • jim says:

                  Restraining sexual choice in underage girls is not a separate problem from restraining sexual choice in reproductive age girls. Indeed, restraining sexual choice in reproductive age girls is more important. We will prevent eight year old girls from fucking around as a minor and scarcely noticed side effect of the measures required to prevent twenty two year old girls from fucking around.

                  Introspection and observed behavior under patriarchy tells me we already have a philo-reproductive population. The problem is defect defect equilibrium, the problem is poolside.

                  An additional piece of evidence: Human females find male gorillas sexually attractive. Human males do not find female gorillas sexually attractive. Therefore we are descended entirely from populations where females did not get to exercise sexual choice since the time that we looked rather like gorillas.

                  This implies that female emancipation is a total failure mode, that populations that allowed female choice invariably vanished. Humans just cannot reproduce successfully that way. Women simply have to be property, because of the large post birth investment required in large brained children. Survival is going require flat out enslavement of unowned females. Round them up, auction them off. Women that are plausibly presumed chaste, women that are plausibly controllable merely by social pressure, get gentler, more respectful, and more honorable treatment, but women that profile as unchaste get auctioned off naked and in chains.

                  The maladaptive sexual preferences and behavior of females tells me that we have never in our biological history managed to reconcile female choice with cooperate cooperate, that the big discovery by the first proto humans was not fire or weapons, but male cooperation to impose a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium on females, that we became human when Adam married Eve.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “the possibility of consent”

                  What everyone seems to have forgotten in this woozy and incontinent age is that these kids are no more capable of sexual consent than they are to sign a business contract, join the army or otherwise make decisions that they are not yet considered mature enough to take responsibility for.

                  But of course it’s instead been twisted into various dumb feminist conundrums.

                • jim says:

                  Women are no more capable of consent at thirty than at ten. The consent culture is necessarily the adultery, whore, pimp, and cuckold culture. The problem of stopping eight year old girls from fucking around is not a separate or different problem from the problem of stopping twenty eight year old girls from fucking around.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  You may well be right, but it’s evident that the concept as such of consent is poorly understood and not taken very seriously in the first place.

              • jay says:

                ”It is common for girls to beat themselves off to orgasm at very young ages”

                What’s the citation I couldn’t find any proof to back this statement.

                • peppermint says:

                  Who do you expect evidence from? Kinsey?

                  Everyone knows little girls have fucked up imaginations and they don’t talk about it.

                • Simon says:

                  Everyone knows???!!!

    • jim says:

      Children need to be protected by fathers, not by society, and fathers need authority to protect their children, and authority over their children.

      Because society lacks the knowledge, the incentive, or the competence to protect children, has to protect children by backing the father against the child.

      Bastard children need to be killed or enslaved. Attempting to protect them is counterproductive and socially disruptive.

      • TheProtector says:

        What the hell is wrong with you? Your depraved suggestion to kill or enslave the fatherless turns the idea of Western civilization on its head. The reason we built Western civilization is from following the social duties laid out in the Bible, and it commands us to protect the fatherless. Your vile suggestion is perfectly in line with anti-civilization Islamists who route the fatherless (and other vulnerable persons) into child rape, slavery, and suicide bombers, doing precisely as you suggested. The better suggestion would be to kill those try to enslave or kill the fatherless.

        • Koanic says:

          The Bible says to protect the fatherless, meaning orphans. As for the bastard, he may not enter the congregation, and his mother will be stoned or burned, depending. Before he’s born.

          • jim says:

            Says to protect orphans, does not say to protect bastards.

            Supporting bastards is like negotiating with terrorists. You will get more terror and more bastards.

            • TheProtector says:

              In your original comment you used the word fatherless. In your follow up comment, you switched to the word bastard. The topics of fatherless and bastard are wildly different concepts in the Bible.

              Even if one assumes you intended to use the word bastard in your original comment instead of fatherless, the idea to murder and enslave them is at odds with our history and tradition. Western civilization had wisely chosen to discourage bastard children via social pressure (until recent times), but nowhere in our history or the Bible did that ever rise to the level of murder or slavery as a legitimate way to deal with the issue.

              Some of the social policies in the old testament were harsh as a survival strategy, but the people voluntarily agreed to follow them. This is very different from today. Most in the west have thrown off our traditional moral code and refuse to voluntarily follow it. Establishing punitive punishments for violating a moral code that most people refuse to follow will not restore the moral code. This is how you end up with a nightmare Taliban or ISIS style situation where a minority use violence to force a moral code onto people who don’t want it. Maybe, if we are lucky, hard times will help people in the west to rediscover the moral code that made us so great. Maybe.

              • torpedo says:

                > Establishing punitive punishments for violating a moral code that
                > most people refuse to follow will not restore the moral code.

                The only reason the people refuse to follow the moral code is because they can vote for your and my tax money to mitigate the consequences of not following the moral code.

                If they can punish me for refusing to pay taxes to mitigate the consequences of not following the moral code, I can punish them for not following the moral code in the first place and causing all those consequences.

                The only thing that matters is having power. At the moment, democracy has given all the power to the reckless, low-iq majority. This can be changed at any time.

                > This is how you end up with a nightmare Taliban or ISIS style
                > situation where a minority use violence to force a moral code
                > onto people who don’t want it.


                At the moment, the majority has created a nightmare situation for the minority that is forced to pay taxes so the majority can avoid following the moral code.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 democracy has given all the power to the reckless, low-iq majority

                  For the last time, Hillary and Soros and Hussein and the traitor grandson of John McCain are reckless low iq but far from a majority.

                  True democracy would have sent back the migrants long ago. But true democracy has never been tried, because intellectual fashions amongst the loudmouth classes.

                  Enoch Powell described why true democracy is a bad idea: the highest aim of statecraft is to prevent problems before they become painful enough for the people to demand a solution. Even so, true democracy in England wouldn’t have given the wogs affirmative action in exchange for Labour votes.

              • jim says:

                Yes, fatherless is a euphemism. This euphemism confused the reader, so I edited to clearer language. Sorry about that.

                Western civilization was quite severe on bastards, and, more importantly, severe on behavior apt to result in bastards. Gradually got less severe, which eventually led to disaster during the nineteenth century, resulting in the welfare state.

                Looks to me that our experiment in leniency has shown the wisdom of the harshest possible measures. Death rate among bastard children in the eighteenth century was pretty close to one hundred percent. Nearly all bastard children were abandoned, and nearly all abandoned children died.

                So, murder and enslave is not far from eighteenth century practice, whereas what we are doing now is almost the opposite of what we did until the early nineteenth or late eighteenth century.

              • jim says:

                a nightmare Taliban or ISIS style situation where a minority use violence to force a moral code onto people

                When you force men to support female reproductive choices that they have no say in, when you force men to support women who are having sex with other men, are you not forcing a moral code onto people who don’t want it?

                When the vast majority of young males are involuntarily celibate, cannot form a family, do not dare start a family for fear of dire and terrible punishment, are you not forcing a moral code onto people who don’t want it?

                Now that Iran and Saudi Arabia have gone feminazi as well, the big attraction of Isis is that their fighters could score wives and children.

                The big attraction of Isis and the Taliban is precisely that they are not imposing a moral code on people who don’t want it.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                >”but nowhere in our history or the Bible did that ever rise to the level of murder or slavery as a legitimate way to deal with the issue. ”


                No way that’s an isolated example.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              Christian way wouldn’t be to abandon bastards to death. It would be to take away bastard babies from sluts and leave them at monasteries to be raised into monks. Punishment for sluttery depended on the local custom, but in Christendom was never capital punishment.

              • jim says:

                Theoretically, that would be the Christian way, and pro forma it was. But if the death rate was curiously high, no one paid much attention.

                And when we started a holiness spiral where people actually took the supposed Christian way seriously, and started seriously enforcing it, we found the costs horrifyingly high.

                Rather than killing off bastards, or allowing them to die, the more Christian solution is to adequately enforce good behavior on women so that they never through their own fault produce children that no male is obligated to care for, or likely to care for.

                But in practice such enforcement is apt to be alarmingly harsh, and considerably less effectual than one might hope.

                • jay says:

                  The adulterous got a big scarlet A that they have to wear for the rest of days.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Bastard meaning child born to unmarried parents right? I think I have a more humane solution.

                  If the woman is married and the child is born of adultery, both parents get killed and the child goes to an orphanage or monastery.

                  If the woman is unwed and only sleeping with one guy, shotgun marriage.

                  If unwed and sleeping with 2 guys, both men take a paternity test. Girl gets a few lashes for being slutty, shotgun married to the father and the other guy pays an indulgence for fornication.

                  If unwed and sleeping with 3+ men, the child gets taken from the woman and raised by her extended family. If they’re too busy then orphanage or monastery, if those are full then it’s probably your solution Jim and the bastard just gets left on the side of the road somewhere. If the girl seems redeemable then she gets put into one of those Australian home for wayward girls you frequently mention. There she gets disciplined and eventually marries a bottom 30% guy. If irredeemable then forced sterilization and she lives out the rest of her life cut off from civilized society.

                • jim says:

                  A bastard is a fatherless child, and the usual cause of fatherlessness is women ditching men, usually for someone they find more attractive, or getting pregnant to strangers, frequently impecunious strangers with no fixed abode, or a fixed abode from which they are continually likely to be removed to prison. If you encounter a bastard, chances are you encounter him either through his stepfather, or through his mother’s attempt to saddle you with him. His mother moved in with his stepfather only after his biological father went to prison for a little while, despite the total failure of the biological father to provide support, despite the fact the biological father only appeared once every few days when he was out of prison to eat, fuck, and leave and his mother was only receptive to finding someone else after a prolonged absence caused by prison.

                  Any solution has to be premised on controlling women, enabling responsible men to control irresponsible women, and saddling them with the cost of bastards. Which means that the man responsible for a woman’s conduct has to have authority and adequate means.

                • peppermint says:

                  The correct way is the fetus gets tested and if it’s a bastard or a downie it gets aborted. Finding father based of half his DNA will not be difficult in the case of married mother, since that’s a capital crime.

                  If a bastard because unmarried parents, parents are married. If married father, mother is a whore, if married mother, husband decides her fate.

                  Orphanages are for children who have names but their parents died without leaving a relative or godparent. Children without names must serve the glory of the Aryan race with a vocation other than marriage.

            • The Cominator says:

              Not palatable to even the most right wing leaning people today… and this quote will probably be used by leftists and cuck rightists…

              Certainly there must be a way to harshly discourage women from bearing bastard children without so harshly punishing the bastard children.

              • peppermint says:

                The problem is induhvidualism. A bastard is his father in a very real sense, more real in the long term than the bastard’s thoughts on the matter.

                I advocate for shunning bastards and only permitting them to marry if they earn a name through producing enough value to cover the loss and then some.

              • jim says:

                Not palatable to even the most right wing leaning people today.

                While murdering babies in the womb is candy and chocolates to every right thinking person. Even when the child has a father who very much wants more children. Here is a video of infants in the womb at six months.

                If we can do this to wanted and legitimate children at six months from conception, over the extremely violent objections of the father, why should eleven months from conception be a problem with bastards?

                If we can murder the legitimately conceived child of a man who badly wants another son, and destroy his life should he create an embarrassing fuss, murdering bastards who would otherwise be a burden on the taxpayers and who profile as future criminals will be as easy as falling off a log.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m fine with mandatory early abortion (I don’t think there are really many men who are bothered by early abortion and most of the fuss is from vocal Catholics)… but post birth institutionalized infanticide its not going to be acceptable to people today even on the far right (unironic Nazis would be okay with minorities and jews being subjected to it I suppose).

                  In the 18th century disease and other factors led to something like 1 out of 3 children dying before they were five (and after that another 1 out of 4 didn’t make it to adulthood). So unwanted children dying didn’t seem so bad when most people lost their own.

                  And talking about it is horrible optics.

                  The law that should ideally be enacted would mandate early abortions for women who’s children are likely to become a public charge because they lack a responsible father.

                • jim says:

                  Your proposal is a lot more in tune with today’s sensibilities than my own, and would accomplish almost the same benefits.

                  But I don’t take today’s purported sensibilities too seriously. Within my lifetime, I have seen purported sensibilities change astonishingly. Yesterday’s hideous and unthinkable crime becomes absolutely routine, and at worst a regrettable necessity, while yesterday’s totally acceptable, normal, and normative behavior becomes today’s hideous and unthinkable crime. Everyone supported the liquidation of the kulaks and the Khmer Rouge genocide. Everyone opposed open door to “refugees”. I recall when views on the Khmer Rouge genocide changed with an abruptness similar to hate week in “1984”, and Orwell recollects a similar change on Hitler and Nazism, with Hitler going from a monster to the New Deal on steroids, and then back again. Similarly, World War T.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Think of it this way.

                  You have often said citing Australia that the libertarian solution to the women problem is not politically palatable to really anyone.

                  The libertarian solution to unwanted children may have been acceptable in the age of high child mortality (the libertarian solution would be exposure or being left somewhere to be claimed as slaves), but it would not be acceptable to almost anyone today.

                • jim says:

                  The libertarian solution to the women problem is inherently horrific and goes against our deepest instincts. We instinctively want to save women in trouble.

                  The libertarian solution to the bastard problem does not.

                  Word War T shows us how abruptly supposed consensus on supposed moral truths can change.

                  We don’t actually care about other people’s babies all that much – they are cute, but puppies are cute too. This reflects the biological reality that fertile age women really are valuable to the tribe and the individual male. Other males are not, and other people’s children even less so.

                  The libertarian solution to the woman problem requires men to treat fertile age woman as of no value. Not going to fly. The libertarian solution to the bastard problem requires us to treat other men’s bastards as of no value – which is something that comes entirely naturally.

                  Hos can be saved – with a moderate amount of supervision and patriarchal violence – and are a whole lot easier to save if their bastard offspring are somehow not around any more. Hence our natural and spontaneous save-a-ho instinct, which under present circumstances, where the necessary discipline is illegal, fails so spectacularly and horribly.

                • jim says:

                  We need to give individual men effective means to save hos, ditching their bastards in the process. That way, the save-a-ho instinct will work for society, instead of against society. Save-a-ho has to restrain, rather than enable, bad behavior, even as it relieves the natural consequences of previous bad behavior.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I had to lookup Word War T?

                  So are you referring to public opinion on trannies?

                  I think that only shows how fast female sensibilities can change because women are insane and believe whatever they think they are supposed to believe (I’m with you 100% that letting women participate in public life was the most insane thing our civilization ever did)… I don’t think the opinion of the average male (those who are not extreme shitlibs) in regards to trannies has changed very much at all. Most men still regard them as a combination of homosexual pervert and lunatic. Even the cuck right as represented by NRO/Red State has largely held the line in regards to trannies.

                • jim says:

                  Give World War T a little time to soak in. Even Dalrock opposes “marital rape”, but I recollect when the phrase made no sense, because everyone supported what we now call “marital rape”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not too familiar with Dalrock.

                  “Marital rape” is a joke and did not exist legally anywhere (maybe Sweden) before the 1970s (yes it is that recent)…

                • jim says:

                  Today, legalizing marital rape is pretty much unthinkable – yet I remember a time when illegalizing “marital rape” was equally unthinkable.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Generally speaking, moral shifts in culture can occur. But the trick is to frame one’s own favored policies as liberating and/or promoting human brotherhood while framing the opposing policies as restrictive and/or mean-spirited. And if the Left has one talent—it’s wordplay and framing!

                • jim says:

                  All your memes are belong to us. Look what happens to leftist hashtags on twitter.

                  The left has absolutely no talent for wordplay and framing. Rather, it has the megaphone. When it finds itself in an actual debate, as for example pol, rabid puppies, gamergate, the left loses cataclysmally every time.

                  It uses intimidation to force people to use its words and accept its frame – which intimidation reflects failure and incompetence at wordplay and framing.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Well yes, hardcore lefties who wear their SJW radicalism on their sleeves generally go down like a sludge hammer in a well but when they pose as “civil rights activists” who genuinely want “peace and reconciliation for everybody”, they do better—see conservatives honoring the black socialist Martin Luther King, Jr. or white South Africans voting “yes” in a referendum to end apartheid.

                  Keep in mind the normies that inhabit the chasm between SJW and alt-right—presumably these are the fellows being referenced, right?

                • jim says:

                  That just is not what I see. What I see is violence and intimidation. Their success in South Africa was not better meming, it was the British mass murder of Boer women and children. Similarly, civil rights rests on gigantic and vicious atrocities against the South.

                  When a color revolution fails, they tend to go full genocidal. When it succeeds they congratulate themselves on the brilliance of their meming, but it was not the brilliance of the meming that made it successful, but the threat of terror and mass murder. If their meming was as good as they pretend, they would not back it up with terror and mass murder.

                  Look at what happens on Twitter. Despite Twitters heavy hand on the scales, all your memes are belong to us. We are good at meming, they are hopeless.

                  If their memes were any good, they would be doing better on Twitter. If their memes were any good, they would not have needed to mass murder Boer women and children.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Now you say support for lefties isn’t real; earlier you say “everyone” supported their repression of the kulaks and the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

                  My point is that never did “everyone” support the repression of the kulaks and the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge. Rather the lefties controlled the framing to the extent that they got to define what a “kulak” and a “Khmer Rouge” was. Thus the “support” for all that was a mile wide but merely an inch deep. Make sense now?

                • jim says:

                  > Now you say support for lefties isn’t real; earlier you say “everyone” supported their repression of the kulaks and the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

                  And everyone suddenly ceased to support the Khmer Rouge and the liquidation of the kulaks. With equal suddenness they will cease to support the entire leftwing agenda since 1790.’

                  We will declare 1760 ethics right and good, 1820 ethics evil and degenerate, and overnight everyone will agree. It will be a lot easier to do this than it was to have everyone agree that men are women and women are men, because 1760 ethics are in accord with our nature, while 1820 ethics are contrary to our nature, and with the passage of time, have become ever more contrary to our nature.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          And who is winning the clash of civilizations, right now? The Muslims are clearly and obviously outclassed economically, militarily, and technologically, and yet they’re conquering and converting us, not vice-versa. It might be their attitude toward feral children, and it might not, but obviously they are doing something right.

          • TheProtector says:

            The Islamic world is “winning” due only to the actions of the western world. The west has thrown off the morality that made us great. Our decline is by our own hands. They are not really winning as much as we are sinking down towards them. Additionally, the stunning scientific and medical advancements that we brought into the world allowed the population of the Islamic world and third world to increase far faster than they would have otherwise accomplished on their own. When we brought them modern medicine, they should have slowed down their birth rates, but they didn’t. We made this happen by our own hand. It is very ironic.

        • jim says:

          You invoke a Christianity that you fear, hate, and intend to crush, and a civilization you intend to erase from the earth, which has already been erased from the history taught to our children.

          A person who begets a fatherless child is like a terrorist who catches a hostage. You cannot worry about the hostages, or there will be more hostages taken. The Old Testament was clear on this, and nothing in the New Testament revoked that.

          The best way to ensure that all children are well taken care of is to ensure that all children are born to two parents, who look after their children and each other all their days. Anything else is war between the sexes, and in war, there are going to be casualties. Peace requires a great deal of ruthlessness against those who break the peace. The violence that imposes peace is far more humane than the irresponsibility that leads to war.

          • Alrenous says:

            Since we basically have humane sterilization now, it’s the obvious method.

            Let ’em keep the behaviour that leads to bastards, or their gonads, but not both.

  16. […] Women gone nuts […]

Leave a Reply