Fertility and corporal punishment

To 1933, wives in movies are never spanked by their husbands.

From 1933 to 1945, wives in movies are sometimes spanked, but it is shocking, unexpected and unusual.

From 1945 to 1963, wives in movies and on television are sometimes spanked and it is routine, respectable, and usual. For example in “I love Lucy” we are never shown a spanking on screen, but Lucy is regularly very afraid of receiving a well deserved spanking for her many amusing misdeeds.

In the Western “McLintock” the authority figure, representing virtue, middle class respectability, and normality, unambiguously endorses the husband beating the wife severely for gross misbehavior, with a small coal shovel.

From 1945 to 1963, appropriate and proportionate corporal punishment of wives is depicted as normal, proper, appropriate, expected, and respectable. As in McLintock, it is what respectable middle class husbands do ensure that their wives and families behave in a respectably middle class manner – since women, unless restrained, have a not at all middle class preference for drama.

This had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went up.

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

We see a significant rise in fertility when spanking starts being depicted, and massive rise in fertility when it starts being depicted as normal. When spanking stops being depicted as normal, stops being depicted at all, soon followed by a massive demonization of men who rule their families and a hate fest against them, which is to say, against marriage and husbands, as marriage was traditionally understood, fertility drops like a stone, as spectacularly as when women were emancipated in Japan.

The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected, though not necessarily wrong. It is often justified in the context of the movie, but it is also depicted as the act of an outlaw – illegal but romantic.

We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal, legal, proper, and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

As the MRAs argue, feminism has artificially raised female status above male status. When a man and a woman walk in opposite directions down the corridor, the man gives way and the woman walks right down the middle of the corridor. Women continually interrupt men with impunity. (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)

But the MRA demand, actual equality, feminism done right, is obviously absurd and unworkable, because of the obvious inferiority of women in the male sphere. (Obviously women are superior in the female sphere, such as babies, home, housework, and finding my car keys.)

Thus, for example, no one really expects women to bear the costs of their own decisions, because women really should not be making those kind of decisions unsupervised. Thus “equality” in practice means women make decisions and men pay the costs of those decisions.

So what we have to sell is the principle of patriarchy – that women should be ruled by fathers or husbands, that men really are superior, that women should give way and should not interrupt. All women should be deferential to all men, but should obey those men and only those men who are committed to care for them.

And we have to reject and dismiss consent culture. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Moment to moment consent is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for women. Women lack agency in sexual matters, making “rape” ill defined. The concept maps poorly to real life situations. “Rape” used to mean dating a woman without the consent of parent or guardian, irrespective of how she felt about it, or whether you physically had sex with her. We did not really have a word or concept for what we are now calling rape until the late eighteenth century or so.

The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible, because the word is difficult to fit to real life events.

I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

Thus, for example, Scott Alexander’s girlfriend consented to sex with lots of people, not including Scott Alexander, felt bad about it, felt that a gay man could do what she did without feeling bad about it or making Scott feel bad about it, so proceeded to surgically disfigure herself and declare herself to be a gay man. Clearly she would be much better off had she received a few severe spankings followed by some nonconsensual sex from Scott Alexander.

The population collapse is nothing to do with automation etc, since emancipated women in poverty stricken third world countries reproduce even less.

It simply a matter of whether or not men and women can enforceably contract with each other to durably form patriarchal families. If they can, total fertility per woman is around six or seven. If they cannot, total fertility per woman substantially less than replacement. If something in between (as for example the fifties when marriage as traditionally understood was illegal, but was nonetheless depicted on television as normal, normative, and respectable) then the fertility rate is something in between. The economy makes scarcely any difference, short of outright famine and hard Malthusian limits.

Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

Back in the fifties, when spanking was respectable, employers tended to advertise for married men, because they expected married men to be more highly motivated.

So we set up society so that prosocial behavior, reasonable competence, upholding order, and a bit of hard work pretty much guarantees a man will become a patriarch, and lo and behold, we will get prosocial behavior, order, hard work, and lots of well brought up children.

If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

If patriarchy is the law of the land and I have a legal path to be a patriarch but no job, I can find a job, or create one, or scrape up a living somehow. If patriarchy is outlawed and I am legally prohibited from being a patriarch, I will be receptive to the life of the outlaw, the life of the bum, the vagrant, or hanging out in my mother’s basement. Jobs are not the problem. The lack of a reason to get a job is the problem.

If you look at high fertility and low fertility times and places, the factor that massively outweighs absolutely everything else by far, is whether or not a man and a woman can make a deal to form one household and have babies and expect their partner to be forced to stick to it. Patriarchy is necessary for this, since one household must have one captain, but patriarchy is in itself insufficient – the woman also needs protection that her children will neither be torn away from her, nor will she and they be abandoned by their father. The deal has to guarantee both the authority of the husband over his wife and children and the economic and emotional security of the wife and children, has to guarantee the father and husband obedience and respect, and the wife and children that they will be protected and looked after.

Reality is that wherever and whenever men have the option to be a patriarch, the overwhelming majority of men gladly make whatever sacrifice necessary to attain that role, even if extremely poor.

Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

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

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

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

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

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

The criminalization of patriarchy was the criminalization of the deepest and most powerful need of white men.


227 Responses to “Fertility and corporal punishment”

  1. […] husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries. (McLintock), and back that discipline with conspicuously public state violence. We also need to make it legal […]

  2. […] and used guns had more power than a lot of men, and therefore found it more difficult to find an appropriately dominant husband. Women who “painted” themselves with makeup and wore sexual clothing and hairstyles attracted […]

  3. […] and used guns had more power than a lot of men, and therefore found it more difficult to find an appropriately dominant husband. Women who “painted” themselves with makeup and wore sexual clothing and hairstyles […]

  4. k says:

    Peckinpah’s The Getaway. Compare original (1972) to remake (1994)!!!


  5. Stephanie American says:

    Wait, so your article is based on fantasy?

    Realistically, men have needs and women have needs. They can find their needs met in one another. They must cater to the other in order to fulfill their own needs. Just because the man is in charge does not make him less obligated to give his wife what she needs, but rather makes him the most responsible for seeing that his job is fulfilled, thereby showing her how to be.

    The husband, being solely responsible for the entire outcome of the relationship, must always be the better person because women are weak in many ways, naturally. Men are not the Alpha in the relationship just because they are physically stronger. They were created specifically to be in charge and the women were created specifically to support their man’s place, to help him, and never to be in charge of him. Her weaknesses are only what they are when set in comparison to his.

    Taking advantage of each others natural make up is not the way to go. Understanding, accepting, and supporting these qualities is what needs to be done.

    Both are adults but have different ranks, they are still equivalent in their needs of respect & love from each other, though at different levels; man needs respect more than love, woman needs love more than respect. One cannot be deprived of either. Even if a spouse is meeting to full capacity their mate’s need for the primary, without the secondary need being met to its adequate level there will be a process of voiding the primary out as cause and effect in due time. It’s natural. The marital struggle is finding that balance for your spouse no matter your position. There can be much heartache and headache along they way if either one or both are more self centered than he or she is selfless. That, too needs to be balanced within oneself.

    Physically manipulating your wife is liken to your wife emotionally manipulating you. It’s wrong. She should willingly cater to your needs and you should willingly cater to her needs. Being that you are man of the castle, responsible for the direction of your family, and head to all you must lead by example. If she is manipulative, don’t double the familial manipulation in response. Be the “bigger” person.

    Just because the assistant principal slacks on her paperwork this does not mean, though their paperwork quantity and importance differ, the principal can. In fact, the principal must always be the most responsible an upstanding of the two as the leader. Right?

    • peppermint says:

      Oh hey, another deluded 20c christcuck. I hope you respect your wife so much you end up having to forgive her for cheating on you and raise my baby.

      — Be the “bigger” person

      Dumbest christcuck slogan of the 20c.

    • jim says:

      Well, I would rather not give real life accounts involving potentially identifiable people.

      Women will shit test a man. Some shit tests are intended to be resolved physically. Observe cats courting each other. Male cat howls to get the female to come to him. She comes – and frequently the female cat forces the tomcat to beat her up and rape her, by coming to him and then giving the poor tomcat a really hard time. I am sure the tomcat does not like being shit tested by female cats any more than male humans like being shit tested by female humans. Really, what the poor innocent tomcat probably wants is submission, not violence, and instead of submission, frequently gets violence. The female cat, however, wants to submit to a male cat but does not want to submit to any male cat that is unable to beat the crap out of her.

      I conjecture that the female cat thinks she should not be beaten up and raped, thinks she does not want to be beaten up and raped, but somehow strangely she heads off to visit a male cat and then spends a lot of time alone with the male cat giving him a really hard time. Which is the plot of the movie “McLintock”.

      Even if a husband never spanks his wife, a wife is reluctant to have sex with a man who could not or would not spank her. She needs to feel she would be spanked for sufficient naughtiness. Absent that feeling, she is likely to experiment with sufficient naughtiness.

  6. Stephanie American says:

    If a man needs to resort to physical control in order to control his wife, it is not she who is doing wrong. There is no equality of position in marriage, they each must work different areas in order for the union to succeed. She must do her duties and he must do his. They must love and respect each other; the man must give more consideration to his wife in regards to acts of love and the woman must give her husband more considerations in regards to the acts of respect. The husband needs the wife as his partner and helper. The wife needs her husband as her protector and friend. If she rails against him it causes him to see her as his enemy, not partner, which causes him to treat her as such naturally; short, curt, unfriendly, unloving, disregarding her needs completely. This is punishment alone. She will suffer greatly, thence correcting her of her wrongs. This takes time, but it will naturally occur. If he intentionally brings harm to her; starving her, not providing for her basic needs, physically hurting her,(not speaking of feelings) she will naturally see him as her enemy and will begin to treat him as such. It’s all innate. A man needs to know his woman, and a woman her man. Their foundations of their unity should not be “I beat you unless you obey” but rather a mutual understanding of each others’ place and responsibilities. If your desire is to “right” the world against feminism you need to begin in your own home with love and respect. Manipulating or brainwashing men into believing they need to physically discipline their wives for bad behavior is like promoting to your boss at work that he needs to punch you in the face if you come in late. There are ways in which we work as humans that need attention at all times. NO ADULT respects ANY ADULT who causes them physical pain. Though there are numerous inequalities in men and women we can not set aside the equalities for the sake of argument of how unequal we are. As a man you may not show up late to work a fourth time for fear of receiving another blow, but you don’t need to have sex with your boss, now do you. Most normally created women feel vulnerable intimately, therefore need to feel secure with the man they are sexual with in order to climax, which gives way to a higher chance of her becoming pregnant.

    Your theory that men must physically bring about submission in women in order to raise fertility rates says nothing of the joy and unity in a family. But a man lovingly respecting his woman in molding her into a good wife brings forth higher fertility AND a joyful environment for their children to grow in.

    • jim says:

      “McLintock” is a romance targeted at female audiences. Two romances, actually, one targeted at the adult women in the audiences, one targeted at the teen girls in the audience.

      The basic plot in both romances is that girl is pursued by two extremely alpha males, she shit tests one of them brutally, he passes the shit test by giving her a well deserved beating, and then it is happily ever afterwards..

      Which strikes me as totally realistic, and clearly got the juices flowing in the ladies watching the movie.

      I only ever once struck my wife, and it was a quite light spanking. She, however, was a good woman. Many women, however, need a beating, and some women need a lot of beating.

      The key element of the plot of “McLintock” that made this work emotionally is that the two women of the two romances deserved the beating, it was proportionate and appropriate.

  7. A.B. Prosper says:

    Looks like Russia is reading your blog Jim

    lawmakers and religious leaders call for battery within families to be decriminalized.

    This isn’t the same as perfectly legal but it makes it closer to a violation or misdemeanor in our law


  8. peppermint says:

    Knowing that I have a thing for Taylor Swift and Nazis, my gf showed me this picture of Taylor Swift shooped up like a Nazi with the quote

    “this so called feminism has not been able to offer a personality for women other than by imitating the male personality.”

    She thinks of herself as a feminist, of course, and I don’t discuss politics with her except to tell jokes, so I couldn’t openly agree with it. I think she and every other millennial woman understands this in the silent manner peculiar to women.

    Feminism has never really lived among women. They just go by what men tell them and by he incentives they feel. Feminism is dying amongst men as men stop believing in souls, but it’s the most tricky and insightful soul theorists like libertarians who will maintain feminism until the bitter end.

    Daily reminder that everyone but nationalists believe in trade deals, immigration, wars, and feminism, because all souls are essentially the same, so cuckoldry doesn’t matter.

  9. […] gotta admit, this one is original.  Jim argues that spanking wives leads to higher birth rates.  I’m pretty open minded but some of the comments over there have my jaw on the […]

  10. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >more white people than black people

    In the god blessed united states of america that is.

  11. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Know who is also not jewish? Donald trump.

    Stereotypes are the truth Jim. Pointing out an example of a white leftist is basically an isomorphic variation of ‘not all X are like that!’, that time honored shitlib crimestop thoughtkill device (Hillary and Merkel are women anyways, so they don’t really count).

    Its like someone who says ‘did you know more white people are on welfare than black people?’.

    We know skipper, we know. Did you know that there are also a lot more white people than black people?

    Proportionality Jim; averages, statistics, probabilities, all that good hwhite shitlordy stuff, which gives you insight into a peoples essential character, which is more invariant to context, which leads to certain phenomena or states of being with greater or lesser degrees of ontological inevitability.

    Arabs have problems because they are arabs; bantus have problems because they are bantus; and ashkenazim have problems because they are ashkenazim.

    • jim says:

      Well not all X are like that. Sometimes it matters that not all X are like that, and sometimes it is sufficient at a lot of X are like that. If you are proposing to give people helicopter rides for a swim in the Pacific, which is what in fact we have in mind, it really does matter that not all X are like that.

      If you are considering where to live, does not matter that not all blacks are like that. If you are considering who to let into the country, does not matter that not all Muslims are like that. If you are considering giving someone a helicopter ride to the Pacific …

      • pdimov says:

        “which is what in fact we have in mind”

        These are probably the same “we” who murder their wives by the thousands each year.

      • pdimov says:

        You’re motte-baileying. Your motte is “Jews must not be mass murdered” and your bailey is “equal treatment for Jews”.

  12. […] A. Donald: Fertility and corporal punishment. Causation implies correlation. Jim links the ebbs and flows of Western fertility to the public […]

  13. Jim: Lucy’s spankings did make it to air… at least here in the States:

    I see that I cannot submit html, but search the you tube “Ricky Lucy Spankings”. There’s a 9 min video that has 6 or 8 of them IIRC.

  14. Oliver Cromwell says:

    I think she was much more likely to make up a fake complaint out of annoyance that she didn’t get what she wanted than to make a real complaint after getting it.

    • Learner says:

      I agree. That’s my experience, too.

    • peppermint says:

      — being this desperate to signal your sexual prowess through political correctness even with a pseudonym

      this is why tripfags are rejected out of hand on /pol/.

      You say you did stuff with her but thought she was getting too freaky and refused to continue. I’ve been there too. I knew that by doing those things I would be claiming ownership of her instead of merely letting her have some sperm in an affirmative consent way, and didn’t want to claim ownership.

      In a sane society, if I hadn’t been willing to claim ownership, her father and mother and herself would never have let me get that close, and her father would have threatened me into marrying her after or just broke my kneecaps.

      Which means that being that close would have meant that I would be serious about her, BUT STILL AFRAID OF both domestic violence law and the shameful proposition that I would be oppressing her.

      But yeah, let’s ignore these three separate factors, it’s more important to measure our dicks in this sausage fest.


      • peppermint says:

        PS she wasn’t my first choice at the time and still isn’t, but I wish we lived in a society where the father of the first girl I touched had forced me to marry her. I would prefer a slightly suboptimal outcome for myself that other outcomes would be better, because I am a racist instead of an induhvidual. And it would be less suboptimal for me than the way things are, because I would be married and reproducing earlier.

        But the sexual behavior of Whites is not simply the aggregation of carefully indoctrinated induhvidual jewtilitarians, and not simply affected by the mysterious forces of the free market, but demanded by government force.

        The refusal to recognize that government force and attribution to White men is pure political correctness.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        No sex before marriage changes things entirely, realistically would never have bothered with her in that case.

        But it does matter if low fertility is caused by broken ideas about what women want rather than laws. Easier to fix mindset.

        Civilised people are more likely to have broken mindset.

  15. Oliver Cromwell says:

    The first girl I had a relationship with I lost because she wanted me to strangle and “rape” her as brutally as i coyld and I fell asleep because although I was totally up for it I just had too much else to do that day and she wasn’t *that* hot.

    So tell me why laws are important in determining how dominant men can be of their women.

    • peppermint says:

      because in the absence of those laws you would have done as she wanted and then some, but you balanced your fear of those laws against your desire for her.

      In addition, in the absence of those laws, if not her father than her brother or mother would not have given you that kind of access until you married her, but failing that, she wouldn’t have given you that kind of access until you had promised to marry her.

      There is a reason that the sluts in movies up through the ’90s are mud people.

  16. Mister Grumpus says:

    I bet pornography emotionally registers somewhere on the hookers/polyamory/cuckholdry spectrum also.

    Your comments of course welcome.

    • peppermint says:

      It took a lot of effort for christcucks to indoctrinate men into the affirmative consent and femdom fetishes. Women are by nature less susceptible to indoctrination, so we need to pay attention to female sexual behavior to figure out what’s degenerate or not.

      Porn is vastly overblown as a problem by signal-spiraling moralizing christcucks, who invariably say that affirmative consent and femdom porn are less degenerate than bondage and porn.

      I am sick of talking about porn, but the christcucks just will not shut up about wasted sperm and fetuses. It’s great to signal moral purity, but only if the morality being signaled is in line with the facts of human and animal nature.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I’m not trying to signal moral purity. I’m only guessing at how pornography use might affect men emotionally in a similar way as polyamory and prostitition do. I’d never thought about this consciously, embarrassingly enough, and since this fish can’t smell its own water very well, I’m reaching out to other people’s perspectives on this, because dangit man this is fascinating and important.

      • Jack says:

        It’s not primarily an issue of Christcucks, Peppe. The moral outrage directed at porn often originates with hoary/bald childless hedonists like Brian Uecker, who is in his 50s, “bald as a pumpkin”, and an avowed atheist.

        Abortion is murder because the zygote contains 100% of the potential person’s dna; if I cut off your finger you’re still the same good ol’ Peppe minus a finger, but if I erase 100% of your dna then you’re gone completely, thus it’s murder. This is Bryce’s argument and it’s purely logical.

        Masturbation/menstruation is not murder because sperm/eggs do not contain 100% of a potential person’s dna. After they amalgamate into one unit, it’s murder. Of course it’s wrong also because the emotions which I feel regarding the matter tell me it’s wrong, but you may consider it a feminine-type argument so for discussion’s sake it can be dispensed with; note however that I don’t feel the same emotions toward sperm/eggs as I feel toward a zygote/fetus and I suspect it’s not a mere idiosyncrasy on my part.

        You believe that promoting abortion in the third world is good because it reduces niggers, but in my opinion that’s throwing the baby with the bathwater ;;;)) because niggers reproduce by the billions regardless of Planned Parenthood’s “philanthropy” but contraception and abortion must be off-limits to Whites due to 1488, even if all niggers disappeared tomorrow. If you want to reduce niggers, quarantine Africa, send them all there, problem solved. You can also drop atom bombs on Africa if you feel “mischievous” but there could be repercussions and the environment should not, generally, be so dramatically infringed upon. No need to exterminate the zygotes and fetuses of Whites.

        Behold Japan and weep. The nips fail to reproduce, and it’s not due to porn because sandniggers in the ME watch tons of porn yet reproduce just fine, therefore the underlying issue can’t be porn. Israelikikes watch lotsa porn yet reproduction above replacement level, thus porn not the underlying issue. Abortion is actually much less of a problem than contraception, the latter ought to be banned completely because 1488 and pregnant women are naturally reluctant about butchering the fetus in their womb due to millions of years of evolution which the sterile dykes attempt to refute by advocating careerism.

        But ultimately you do need “family values” if you wanna have families. You can’t 14 if sex doesn’t lead to pregnancy, and if pregnancy leads to shredded fetal bodyparts and your girlfriend bleeding “plenteously” from her pussy for months. You boost reproduction by stigmatizing the vile act that is the slicing-to-pieces of your girlfriend’s womb-fruit like it were a salad as “murder” even if you don’t fully accept Bryce’s sound premises and reasoning. I mean, if you wanna let some White Genociding kike in a scrub turn your potential son/daughter into a purplish granola-like substance that’s your business but it’s not a healthy societal value you’re advocating here.

        Allowing abortion because “niggers exist” is about as counter-productive as the guy in prison who’s constantly gang raped and one day devises the ingenious plan to rub Tabasco/Peri Peri sauce all over his anus so it will burn his rapists’ penises thus deter them from raping him, even though the rapists wear condoms when raping him. Now that’s called “feeling the burn” right here! Instead of allowing abortions, ban abortions and kill niggers like Moonman does every night. Infinitely more effective.

        You need not be Christian to accept these arguments.

        • peppermint says:

          infanticide is a legitimate tool of the patriarchy to control women’s reproduction

          please explain the difference between eating veal and flushing niglets

          • Jack says:

            Since I don’t care about limiting niglets who exited the womb, I also have no problem with limiting niglets who not yet exited the womb. I do have a problem with limiting humans or living creatures which contain 100% of a human’s dna without said humans/living creatures which contain 100% of a human’s dna having done something offensive. Doesn’t matter if inside or outside the womb, it’s the same thing, it’s a human. Unless you want murder of post-birth humans to be legitimized as well as abortion, in which case you’re insane.

            Patriarchy allows infanticide? Which specific patriarchy are you referring to? Hopefully not the decadent and pederastic and proto-Feminist “patriarchy” (matriarchy) of late Greco-Roman civilization. If that’s your idealized society, you deserve all the ((())) in the world and then some. And no, not all appeals to morality are signalling – for instance, my moral argument is “14” and you can’t dismiss it with “but the pagans believed that infanticide is a sacred human right” because sacred human rights don’t exist, whereas humanity exists and ought not to kill itself, teleologically speaking.

            Of course if you wanna go all “teleology shmeleology, I want consequence-free sex with gf” then by all means go at it, but that’s how civilizations die rather than live, and you’re no different than a progressive kike, actually you’re worse than a progressive kike because a progressive kike slices his own tiny kikelets while you commit White Genocide.

            Note that when we speak of “reproduction” we speak of humans giving birth to humans, not when niggers rape your gf, because a nigger fetus ain’t human in the first place and you can kill it as you please and indeed eat it like veal.

            You see I care about you Peppe, you have high iq and in a white relationship so I enjoin you to impregnate your gf, if you don’t do that then the Jews win. Although they’ve already won the moment they convinced large numbers of Whites that infanticide is a sacred human right.

            Now some would ask “but what if a white man rapes my wife” but then there are exceptions to every rule and what bothers me is whites and japs killing their own progeny rather than rape-babies. I don’t give no fuck about rape-babies and you may kill them, although your wife may not be able to give birth ever again after the abortion so be careful. But your own kids? Should not be legitimate, in general. Yes retards are an exception but if your wife conceived a healthy child who’s 50% your dna, don’t kill it. (yes, I know whites don’t rape, I answer a theoretical objection)

            It’s not that I’m your Baptist family who oppose abortion because muh divine spirit dwelt in all flesh or some such, but if you get your gf pregnant with a normal baby then ideally it’s congratulations, you’re a father. Because 14 and also because high quality children are awesome.

            • peppermint says:

              I agree with shotgun marriages. But, we need to prevent cuckoldry and ensure that there is no reproductive advantage to trying to have sex with women you’re not married to. To that end, abortion will always be a legitimate if rarely used tool, just as zebras infanticide babies of women who give birth too soon after joining their harems.

    • jim says:

      I don’t think pornography, whores, and sluts damage men.

      I think that having only pornography, whores, and sluts damages men.

  17. peppermint says:

    bondage is not degenerate, affirmative consent and femdom are.

    guess what christcucks like, and what christcucks are shocked by?

  18. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man!

  19. Glen Filthie says:

    An utter stinker of a post, Jim! And I say that as one that agrees with you far more than not! Good grief, even your chart shows there is no correlation between wife-spanking and fertility – never mind common sense. This is a troll or a joke, right?

    For my two cents – if you have to spank your wife like some misbehaving child – ya shouldnae married her. I would further speculate that if you’re going to treat your women like children – they are going to act that way. I personally would have no time for such tire biters myself and would leave them for the greasy pakies and PUA cads like Ghomeshi and Roosh The Doosh.

    The women in my family are adults for the most part – and you can set your watch and warrant by them even in times of war and economic depression. My mother in law is a childish twat but the only beating that would smarten that cunned stunt up would involve a tire iron. It is no coincidence her husband isn’t worth a hill of beans either.

    Fertility is closely tied to economics for white folk – or at least it used to be. The blacks breed like lice and now we are seeing the beginnings of it in white people too. From where I sit this decline in population is a GOOD thing and an outright cull would be even better.

    • peppermint says:

      Boomers will not stop seeing themselves as the youth of the nation until we cut you off from transfer payments for having White privilege and euthanize the lot of you.

      With no respect for the stages of human life is sadly how your parents raised you into silly “soul” doctrines and it is no use to un-indoctrinate you now.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “For my two cents – if you have to spank your wife like some misbehaving child – ya shouldnae married her.”

      You think like a woman – applying every general statement as a personal one.

      Ok, don’t marry that particular woman – now widen your thought to society. Should no one marry that woman? If no one marries women who need discipline from her man then does she reproduce? What happens to fertility? Are you sure that you want to breed feisty-ness out of the population?

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        You want to breed intelligence and fertility and health in .

        Its much easier said than done,

        That said being a hoyden often enough that a man wants to use corporal punishment on his spouse is an undesirable trait.

        Such a woman is often not marriageable and is not necessarily better able to handle adversity than any other anyway.

        And I agree with Glen, there are way too many people, mostly non Whites but White too.

        We do not need more people at all, we need less of them instead of a breeding arms race that is only going to end up with mass starvation anyway

        • jim says:

          A world controlled by high IQ people can easily feed and house five hundred million in a middle class suburban American lifestyle. Africa cannot feed the Africans, but Japan can feed the Japanese.

          The problem is that we have dysgenic reproduction, in that not only are women not producing children, it is the smartest women that most commonly failing to reproduce.

          • JRM says:

            “The problem is that we have dysgenic reproduction, in that not only are women not producing children, it is the smartest women that most commonly failing to reproduce.”

            But isn’t the situation even worse than that, in that we have a government that actively promotes dysgenic reproduction through financial support, and a population that (largely) applauds “single mothers” (I think this started about thirty years ago and may partially be a result of the anti-abortion Christians, who felt it was more noble to raise a bastard child than to abort it).

            I remember being in a waiting room somewhere in the 1980’s and the television was tuned to a “Donahue/Maury/Oprah” type program and a young woman was introducing herself, and when she said “I’m a single mom…” the audience interrupted her with thunderous applause. Seemed truly odd to me, to applaud poor planning skills (or worse).

            Between financial incentives for the worst and blackest to reproduce, and the social incentives for intelligent White women to post-pone having children, you could not *design* a more dysgenic society than ours.

            You would think this might be easy to see, but the only people who have a problem with it seem to be relegated to a few corners of the internet. Obviously the Democrats enjoy having low quality people available as a permanent voting base, but the Republicans don’t raise a peep about the dysfunction of the situation either.

            • peppermint says:

              If Roe v. Wade had gone the other way, open cuckoldry would be pushed on us as hard as single motherhood is now. Single motherhood is usually the result of couples deciding to break up after reproducing and the government gives the children to the mother not despite but because in the wild in species with fatherhood behavior a new husband will kill any preexisting children, to the applause of christcucks who must always believe the exact opposite of a discriminatory truth with limited exceptions for ((Biblically)) authorized discrimination such as dividing the world into Jews and gentiles.

              — you could not *design* a more dysgenic society than ours.

              Exactly so. Can it only collapse when the Boomer cuckolds die in nursing homes under the care of niggers, or can we make it collapse sooner?

        • peppermint says:

          » Such a woman is often not marriageable

          yes, this is how it starts, snobby men telling lesser men what they’re allowed to do and that their women don’t even deserve husbands, then their wives create battered women’s shelters, and divorce becomes fashionable, and then the snobs divorce their wives and marry the 40 years younger daughters of the men whose families their wives have broken.

          Go to hell, christcuck.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Aside from the fact that I’m not a Christuck at all have you read any history books?

            men often do not want such a woman , common fucking sense. Its not knew, back during real patriarchy , the 16th century The taming of the Shrew is about breaking in such a woman and note too the word hoyden I used hwile out of favor is not a compliment

            This doesn’t mean suddenly the state will stop people from marrying her, only that certain traits, a pleasing feminine nature and so on are more desirable than others for most men in patriachy.

            Do you want an easy wife or one you have to fix?

            The same applies for a woman being tough, not a virgin or over 25. It reduces her mating pool. As string and somewhat dangerous woman like an MMA star even if a regular guy can beat her in a fight is a less desirable and the real very occasional woman who is actually dangerous, almost no one wants

            Some of the best advice anyone can offer a daughter is “the tougher you are, the harder it is to get married”

            For a woman to be easily married optimally she is a virgin or has had at most one prior sexual partner , is 25 and under . be feminine and pleasing and attractive.

            Such a woman will have plenty of suitors , whereas a woman like those played by say Maureen O’Hara back in the day however hot are much less desirable for ,most men except as fantasy figures

            And note to the topic at hand, O’Hara;s character got spanked several times, By John Wayne in the Quiet man, and in McClintock and by Henry Fonda in Spencer’s Mountain though the later was friendly not disciplinary

            That said there are reasons shrew, hoyden and yes ginger are insults about a woman being desirable. Its all about temperament .

            • peppermint says:

              Nice vocabulary. Very https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOG3eus4ZSo .

              Ginger means red hair which is a mark of divine favor.

              Very few millennial or post-millennial men will have the option of an easy woman, if women are indeed ruined by “having sex with” men they are not married to, which is likely. Temperament, the unrelated factor you mentioned at the end of your post, is, of course, difficult to tell at the specified age.

              Since you have no interest in such women, you will surely not object to other men, who have less options, marrying them, and not interfere in their marriages, except to prohibit severe beatings and sodomy.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                I love redheads myself, nearly married a strawberry blond of low character . Young dumb and full of , you know the rest

                You are of course correct about modern women, no argument here.

                I have absolutely no objection to men marrying whatever woman (singular, female) they like and if you are happy with and can manage a woman of uncertain temperament, more power tot them.

                I can’t imagine any man of any worth having any objections save for a specific women in some cases.

      • Glen Filthie says:


        There’s a time and a place when women are right, and fellas like you are out to lunch. You think like a child – women, like men, need self-discipline. As it goes for unmarriageable women, so it goes for unmarriageable men. Stock up on Cheetos, video games and soft drinks, kid – momma’s basement beckons.

        • peppermint says:

          blaming ordinary men for problems caused by feminism is how you were raised and you aren’t going to stop just because it’s been explained to you how it happened. Never mind that these problems didn’t exist in the millennia before you were born, no, in bizzarro-christcuck world, goyim must always make fun of men below them on the socioeconomic ladder, but only when the problems aren’t their fault.

          • Learner says:

            I am sorry, but if a wife is getting more money than her husband, either through wages or through government, then that husband doesn’t deserve to have lots of children. If all someone offers a woman is being White (no brains, no real job, and, thus, no manly character), then I can see why that women does not want to willingly breed with them. In fact, it’s a sign of brains in that woman.

            There was a time when a woman’s work was worth next to nothing compared to a man’s work. That was when physical force was needed. That time is long past, but males should still be getting significant more money than females: if they are manly, they should be putting more hours, being better leaders, etc. If a female is getting more money, then that male doesn’t deserve to breed, that would be dysgenic.

            So, of course, these problems didn’t exist millenia ago because, you know, industrialization and the information age. Don’t blame feminism for lazy, stupid men getting less money than their marginally less lazy, less stupid women in their lifes.

            If some husbands received corporal punishment, fertility would plummet, but the quality of the next generation would be far better. Eugenics at its best.

            • peppermint says:

              » There was a time when a woman’s work was worth next to nothing compared to a man’s work.

              and it still is, numbnuts. DAE affirmative action and the persistent feminist fears about glass ceilings and wage gaps?

              » if a wife is getting more money than her husband, either through wages or through government, then that husband doesn’t deserve to have lots of children

              it used to never happen, it’s completely artificial, and the mechanism for it to happen is the man feeling emasculated and then not acting dominant.

              » If some husbands received corporal punishment, fertility would plummet, but the quality of the next generation would be far better.

              Right. And “high quality” men like you would be impregnating all those women, like in the rest of the world.

              Whites sexual behavior is the reason for White supremacy.

              • Learner says:

                In a developed (industrialized, information-age) economy, women’s work, even with no affirmative action, is no longer worth next to nothing. Please understand that “significantly less than man’s work” and “next to nothing” are different concepts.

                A female computer programmer, a female teacher, a female truck driver, a female farmer, a waitress, a female post employee, etc. perform at a similar level to men. And this ex-ante similar performance justifies their right to vote in democracies, by which the differences (through feminism) are even more reduced.

                Since females have similar economic value to men in an industrial/information-age society, a warring nation cannot ignore that and keep them in the kitchen. That’s why Kinder-Küche-Kirche Nazi Germany and Japan lost against feminist USA and Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany had to enslave millions of people to do the work it didn’t let their women do, but that was not nearly enough. The US was smarter and won the war. So nothing artificial here, if you let women work, you win wars, hence their right to work and vote.

                There is no need for “high quality” men like me (?) to impregnate all those women. I mean, a couple of them is OK, but I guess many will turn lesbian and get pregnant anyway. That’s what they do in advanced societies these days. If they want rape, their lesbian lover can give it to them. Of course, the ideal scenario would be manly men getting them pregnant and helping them raise the kids, but, unfortunately, those manly men exist in your head only. There are lots of stupid, lazy White men that don’t deserve to breed and I won’t support their breeding.

                • peppermint says:

                  — That’s why Kinder-Küche-Kirche Nazi Germany and Japan lost against feminist USA and Soviet Russia.


                  — I guess many will turn lesbian and get pregnant anyway

                  Gibbering insanity

                  — There are lots of stupid, lazy White men that don’t deserve to breed and I won’t support their breeding.

                  You don’t have to. You just need to stop being politically correct, and the government needs to stop imposing political correctness, and they will get jobs and marry on their own. Freedom works.

                  PC is a death cult that fears and hates life and wants to create the nonsensical cuckstain heaven scenario.

                • Learner says:

                  “Freedom works”. Of course it does. That’s why I am against women not being able to marry each other and get pregnant. That’s also why I am against women being disciplined and raped (and killed by the thousands each year) by their husbands (unless, of course, discipline is what they want).

                  Freedom works, but somehow you don’t want over half the population in your country to be free. Keep admiring Hitler, that freedom-loving loser.

                • jim says:

                  why I am against women being disciplined and raped (and killed by the thousands each year) by their husbands

                  The proposition that thousands of women, or even one woman, is severely mistreated by their husbands every year is absurd. Unless of course we are talking about women who have left their husband, taken their husbands children away from him, and are allowing his children to be tortured by their bad boy boyfriends in order to extract money from their former husbands.

                  Poster girl principle applies. You lot went looking for poster girls for victimized wife, came up empty. Same as you went looking for sexual assault victims on Virginia university campus. There were thirty nine complaints of sexual assault, all of them were dismissed, and the best you could come up with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, 39 of 39 complaints of sexual assault were as fake or more fake than Jackie Coakley’s complaint.

                  Well, when you went looking for wives brutally mistreated by husbands that they were in fact living with and having sex with, you did not even get your Jackie Coakley.

                  Yes, if a wife is not sleeping with her husband, and then has sex on the master bed with her bad boy lover while her husband is sleeping on the couch, then there is apt to be some severe mistreatment. As there damn well should be.

                  But in the entire developed world there are simply zero cases of a woman living and sleeping with her husband and only her husband, and getting severely mistreated, because if there were, you lot would be over her like a dingo on a baby. Complaints of severe mistreatment by husband never show up with the bruises still fresh and the wife has nowhere to go – only after months into the divorce case after her fourth bad boy lover has dumped her and taken all her child support money. If the bruises are still fresh, she was in separate accommodations – often the accommodations of her bad boy lover.

                  Men simply never, ever beat wives in ways that leave marks except that their wives are doing something extraordinarily bad. No white men anywhere ever.

                  You know all those shelters for battered women? They are non stop solicitations by fat blue haired feminists for a poster girl battered wife, and in all these years they have not hit gold yet. (Gold being a married woman living with and sleeping with her husband who shows up at the shelter with a black eye or similar.) Shelters for battered women work like the Virginia University rape line. Thirty nine sexual assault complaints on the Virginia University rape line, thirty nine dismissed, and not one that Rolling Stone found usable.

                • pdimov says:

                  “In a developed (industrialized, information-age) economy, women’s work, even with no affirmative action, is no longer worth next to nothing.”

                  Women’s work was never worth next to nothing.

                  “A female computer programmer, a female teacher, a female truck driver, a female farmer, a waitress, a female post employee, etc. perform at a similar level to men.”

                  The median woman worker has negative economic value when opportunity costs are taken into account.

                • pdimov says:

                  “That’s also why I am against women being… killed by the thousands each year… by their husbands”

                  Mask slipping intensifies.

                • peppermint says:

                  — That’s why I am against women not being able to marry each other and get pregnant.

                  This is your and ((the media’s)) politically correct fantasy, faggot

                  — That’s also why I am against women being disciplined


                  — and raped


                  — (and killed by the thousands each year) by their husbands

                  bullshit, faggot

                  — Freedom works, but somehow you don’t want over half the population in your country to be free.

                  That’s because women are incapable of making good decisions for themselves, as everyone knows, as evidenced by all the effort put into shielding them from the consequences of their decisions, you stupid faggot.

                • peppermint says:

                  Some death worshippers don’t want to work and fight. Others are good enough at working and fighting that they want to signal that they don’t have to. That’s the alliance of high and low against middle.

                  Others from the middle somehow really like the idea that somehow they will be able to live without working and fighting if only they do more now. Saving is a natural thing to Whites, so the true believers can’t be faulted for wanting to. What we must do is convince these people that communism is not a cooperative savings plan but cuckoldry.

                  I believe that this can only happen when all cuckoldry, from feminism to Christianity, is categorically rejected and publicly mocked as loudly as possible.

                • JRM says:


                  “Since females have similar economic value to men in an industrial/information-age society, a warring nation cannot ignore that and keep them in the kitchen. That’s why Kinder-Küche-Kirche Nazi Germany and Japan lost against feminist USA and Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany had to enslave millions of people to do the work it didn’t let their women do, but that was not nearly enough. The US was smarter and won the war. So nothing artificial here, if you let women work, you win wars, hence their right to work and vote.”

                  At the risk of appearing to “pile on”, I have to say that I’ve encountered few paragraphs so rife with baseless assumption, misunderstanding, and erroneous conclusions. It is so bald and so general as to make a refutation unnecessary and unprofitable.

                  Your grasp of the military dynamics of WWII is in need of so much remediation I can only urge you to do some reading. I won’t even suggest something esoteric or revisionist, any competent text on the War will be of immediate benefit to you.

                  Not intending to be cruel here, but sincerely hope you aren’t seriously putting your best foot forward in that post.

                  Jim (and “peppermint”) have an ability to use poetic license, aka exaggeration, and blanket value assessments in a thought-provoking way. It’s a talent. They are interesting to read even when I don’t agree with them. Your sweeping statements look more like the result of signaling combined with inadequate information.

                  If your posts are going to be prosaic, like most of mine no doubt are, you need to respect the facts, or you end up just wasting space. I guess I would say “bring ideas, or bring facts, but bring one or the other, please”. Just my opinion, I don’t presume to speak for anyone else here, and I suspect you are capable of better work.

                • jim says:

                  A female computer programmer, a female teacher, a female truck driver, a female farmer, a waitress, a female post employee, etc. perform at a similar level to men. And this ex-ante similar performance justifies their right to vote in democracies, by which the differences (through feminism) are even more reduced.

                  I am a computer programmer. I have worked with, supervised, and hired computer programmers. A female computer programmer always has massive negative value, because she is seldom competent, and, if competent (and a competent female computer programmer is always an east Asian, never a white, there are precisely zero good white female programmers) she is profoundly socially disruptive. In the entire world there is not one good white female computer programmer. (Poster girl principle. Every white female programmer is a poster girl, and has either been sent to the art harem, or is manifestly incompetent.) There is a small supply of competent east Asian female computer programmers, but the social disruption is not worth it.

                  Female Truck drivers have intolerable accident rates. All of them. Usually minor accidents like wandering off the road. There are no competent white or asian female truck drivers. Every single one of them has profoundly negative value. Poster girl principle. Similarly, every famous white female pilot killed herself and destroyed her plane. I don’t know about black truck drivers.

                  Females have always farmed, and been pretty good at it. Women are better than men at persuading domestic animals to be domestic. Women should farm land owned by their father or husband under the supervision of their father or husband. Similarly waitresses. Waitresses are better than waiters. I don’t know about postal employees.

                  Female teachers are good for teaching girls, but inherently have negative value for teaching boys. Poor role model. Female teachers are never as logical and rational as their male students. You want the teacher to always be smarter and more rational than the student. Any teacher that teachers males above puberty needs to himself be male. Female teachers just are not good enough. Not one of them, not a single one.

                • Learner says:

                  @peppermint’s argument is “faggot”. That’s something 12-year-olders could do, even in Namibia, and probably even better in Namibia. I insist Africa suits your mindset much better than the White, developed world.

                  @JMR says I know nothing about WW2, but doesn’t put forward any justified case against the main matter: that Nazi Germany lost the world because of its inferior industrial production (even in early stages), and that its inferior industrial production was partly due to not putting women to work in factories, unlike Soviet Russia and the US, despite industrialists’ (including Speer’s) insistence on doing so. An early female mobilization could have changed the course of war.

                  @jim, your answer is more polite. I thank you for your effort. I disagree that there are no poster girls for the thousands wives/girlfriends killed each year by their husbands/boyfriends in the West. The state of the debate around domestic violence and domestic femicides has a very long delay in the USA in comparison with some European countries. There are not even good stats on the matter in the US (it’s like having no unemployment data and trying to talk about the economy). But if the (White) European experience is something to go by, there are lots of tragic stories each year in the US and you will soon (in 5 years’ time, maybe) start hearing about them.

                  Of course, a woman must not kill her husband just because he visited a whore for sex. The same goes for the man.

                • pdimov says:

                  “But if the (White) European experience is something to go by, there are lots of tragic stories each year in the US and you will soon (in 5 years’ time, maybe) start hearing about them.”

                  Don’t hold back. Do cite your European poster girls murdered by their white husbands. Shall we pick, say, Sweden? Last 10 years? No sneaking of Serbs and Albanians into the stats, just native Swedes?

                • Learner says:

                  @pdimov In fact, Sweden has some of the highest rates in domestic violence in the world.

                  But I won’t go that far. Just look at (White) Iowa:


                  Multiply it by some hundred, or just take it as a daily occurrence, and that’s the US.

                • jim says:

                  “Domestic violence”, like rape, is a stat that can be, and is, conjured out of thin air. Forty seven percent of college students report being raped, yet Rolling Stone goes looking for one rape, cannot find one rape that is likely to withstand scrutiny.

                  The overwhelming majority of incidents of “domestic violence” that involve actual violence are not domestic. Some stranger comes over to beat her and fuck her, and she finds the beating was more than she wanted. Or she visits her ex husband, or stuff like that. Nearly all the rest are between men and women who are living together but are not having sex with each other.

                  You had to go 2012 to find a man who allegedly murdered his well behaved wife – and it was a black man, and the evidence sounds rather thin.

                  If the government wants very very much to find cases of X, it is going to find and prosecute cases of X, even though the evidence is weak. If all the cases of X that they prosecute are weak, that shows they are confabulating the cases.

                  So, given that the government has a burning desire to find cases of husbands murdering well behaved wives, you really need to go looking for a case where the evidence is clearer.

                  Also, try to find a white man who murdered his well behaved wife.

                • pdimov says:

                  “In fact, Sweden has some of the highest rates in domestic violence in the world.”

                  Oh yes. With the originators of all that violence being, of course, completely native Swedes, pale as snow.

                  Your problem though is that murders are an objective stat that cannot be concocted by a “93% of women report being murdered by their husbands” study. Need to provide the body.

                  Are you a woman?

                  >> Just look at (White) Iowa

                  Murderers obviously exist (or at least existed in 2012) (except in Sweden), but if you order the causes of death for the white woman in Iowa, her white husband will be somewhere in the middle of page two, if not three.

                • JRM says:


                  “@JMR says I know nothing about WW2, but doesn’t put forward any justified case against the main matter: that Nazi Germany lost the world because of its inferior industrial production (even in early stages), and that its inferior industrial production was partly due to not putting women to work in factories, unlike Soviet Russia and the US, despite industrialists’ (including Speer’s) insistence on doing so. An early female mobilization could have changed the course of war.”

                  Better. See, I knew you could do better. You cleaned up your argument and dropped the conclusion that women “deserve” to vote (never mind whether they have a demonstrable track record for disastrous voting selection) because they helped win a war. Dogs and horses were helpful in War efforts but no one ever said they deserved a vote for it. I jest, but only slightly…

                  As for not engaging your idea (I’ve heard no one else champion women as decisive in WWII, so you may own that particular intellectual property), I cited the poor development and embarrassing overstatement of your post as preliminary reasons not to bother with refutation.

                  Frankly there are many theories about why Germany lost WWII. A two-front war is a challenge, and I’ve always felt that was a principle factor.

                  Other “causes”: Hitler ignored the advice of his Generals; the push towards the Soviet oil fields was aborted and the mission changed; the massive losses on the Eastern Front; resource scarcity (which would have been solved if the oil fields had been taken); the constant Allied bombing didn’t help matters, while Hitler made a crucial error in ordering vengeance bombing of England in lieu of military targeting.

                  Of course, the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were feverishly at it in order to drop it on Germany; Japan ended up on the receiving end of it instead, but it’s hard to get around what would have happened if Germany had been hit. So, it’s conceivable that no matter what Hitler had done, the US was going to get the atomic advantage and win.

                  Women were probably somewhat helpful in the factories in the US, but to say that they won the War is ludicrous. Taking the atomic factor out, it was principally the Soviet Union that defeated Germany, at a huge cost in lives.

                  Saying that women “deserve” to vote because they “won the War” is a distortion and a weak use of reasoning combined. But your second restatement was an improvement. Nevertheless, your entire point may be in danger. From Wikipedia:

                  “On the eve of war 14.6 million German women were working, with 51% of women of working age (16–60 years old) in the workforce. Nearly six million were doing farm work, as Germany’s agricultural economy was dominated by small family farms. 2.7 million worked in industry. When the German economy was mobilized for war it paradoxically led to a drop in female work participation, reaching a low of 41% before gradually climbing back to over 50% again. This still compares favorably with the UK and the USA, both playing catchup, with Britain achieving a participation rate of 41% of women of working age in 1944. However, in terms of women employed in war work, British and German female participation rates were nearly equal by 1944, with the United States still lagging. The difficulties the Third Reich faced in increasing the size of the work force was mitigated by reallocating labor to work that supported the war effort. High wages in war industries attracted hundreds of thousands, freeing up men for military duties. Prisoners of war were also employed as farmhands, freeing up women for other work.”

                • Learner says:


                  If you just want to count how many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends, with no context attached, then the stat is around 1,500 women yearly, or 4 women per day. As we all know, the killing rate among Blacks is much higher than for Whites; in fact, being killed by your boyfriend/husband is the leading cause of death among young Black women. (But these killings don’t get to first pages). This is also the leading cause of death among women at work (including White women).

                  But I think it’s better to put some context into these stats, and that’s why I said that good stats are lacking. How many killings were done in the heat of passion when a husband saw his wife with another man in bed? Stats say nothing about that. If experience in other countries is any guide, then a reasonable estimate would be some 600 White women are killed yearly by White husbands/boyfriends with no “fucking-other-men” scenes involved. Even if you guesstimate a lower number, it will be at least 1 White woman a day. That’s large-scale terrorism, but it’s not reported as such.

                • jim says:

                  We know that the number of well behaved wives that suffer domestic violence is indistinguishable from zero from the lack of poster girls.

                  “Domestic violence shelters” are run by blue haired fat feminists looking for poster girls. If they found a poster girl, we would know. Same as the Virginia University rape line. Thirty seven sexual assaults reported, all false, in that the university declined to punish anyone, and Rolling Stone found none of the cases usable.

                  Similarly, the government is urgently and desperately seeking cases of well behaved wives murdered by their white husbands. Comes up with few and curiously thin cases. If they found a good strong case involving a white man, every schoolchild would hear about it the way every schoolchild hears about Marie Curie (two Noble prizes for minor work done largely by her husband and his assistant) and Emmet Till (murdered, not lynched, for groping someone else’s wife).

                • Learner says:

                  @JRM, the USA wouldn’t have used an atomic bomb against Germany if Germany had already conquered Russia. There was no point in that, since the USA and the UK combined didn’t have enough manpower to reconquer/liberate Europe. By the way, that’s the reason they didn’t bomb the Soviet Union in the late 40s.

                  Germany didn’t win the war for several reasons, but not employing their women *IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR* (where more people were needed to increase production) was a leading factor. The comparison between military nurses and telephone assistants in the UK and German armies isn’t telling at all, and the same goes for farming jobs (reported in the high-quality German stats, but missing in the US stats, since they were family-farm jobs you didn’t need to report). The important point here is that women were working in US factories, women were working in Soviet factories, and when women were needed in Nazi German factories, Hitler said: “Nein”, increasing the odds of failure.

                  So women help to win wars. They are not the only ones, but you can expect a lower industrial production if you don’t employ women, even if you enslave minorities, and this can be a very important factor in losing a war. Since the winning side of the last big war was feminist, the world is feminist today, so, even if they didn’t deserve it, women can vote today because the pro-women side won the last big war, thanks partly to its pro-women policies.

                • jim says:

                  So women help to win wars.

                  Recall how Obama could not get a key part of Obamacare, the website, up. It was because he had a politically correct team with a substantial proportion of women and blacks. And no matter how much money he threw at it, website would come up. Eventually, with extreme reluctance he hired a team that was all male, and no blacks and no browns. They got it up immediately. It was completely trivial for them.

                  Same for wars. The presence of women profoundly disrupts endeavors requiring large scale male/male cooperation. War, even more than website building, is the kind of project where you don’t want women around, except of course as whores in the civilian logistic train, and assisting their fathers and husbands in the civilian logistic train (what used to be called the camp followers).

                  You do want to include women in their proper roles in war – cooking, fucking, making beds, and so on and so forth, as part of the civilian logistic train, the camp followers, but you need to keep them out of the male/male environment of extended cooperation, because of their disruptive effect. Similarly in website building, you have women in the art harem, but you keep them several doors away from the programmers.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Even if you guesstimate a lower number, it will be at least 1 White woman a day.”

                  Were it so, you would easily be able to give an example that wasn’t from 2012, but from, say, last week.

                  These hundreds of women killed by their white husbands exist only in your imagination.

                  It’s truly remarkable how people nowadays can’t fathom just how _rare_ murders in properly white countries are. One a day? Try one a year, if that.

                • peppermint says:

                  » hundreds and hundreds of politically incorrect murders occur every year

                  » that’s why crime shows show these kinds of murders all the time

                • JRM says:

                  @ Learner-
                  Well, there you go again, as Reagan used to say…

                  “the USA wouldn’t have used an atomic bomb against Germany if Germany had already conquered Russia. There was no point in that, since the USA and the UK combined didn’t have enough manpower to reconquer/liberate Europe. By the way, that’s the reason they didn’t bomb the Soviet Union in the late 40s.”

                  Or was it because of all the Reds in FDR’s cabinet? This line: “that’s the reason they didn’t bomb the Soviet Union” is a gross oversimplification. The US was involved in complex power jockeying in post-War Europe, and the Soviets had the bomb themselves by 1949. Again, you are reducing a multi-faceted situation to Cartoon Network sensibilities.

                  “Germany didn’t win the war for several reasons, but not employing their women *IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR* (where more people were needed to increase production) was a leading factor.”

                  2.7 million women worked in industry in Germany. The women working in other fields were also putatively aiding the War effort. So Germany *did* mobilize their women for War. You seem determined to believe that every Frau and Fraulein was doing her nails and chatting on white telephones while clad in silk negligees through the entire affair.

                  “the winning side of the last big war was feminist, the world is feminist today, so, even if they didn’t deserve it, women can vote today because the pro-women side won the last big war, thanks partly to its pro-women policies.”

                  Again with the big DeMille style sweeping pan. Women already had the vote in the USA, ca. 1920. (WWII: 1939-1945). Women also voted in Germany in the 1932 elections.

                  If the USA was a “feminist” country, where was the women’s movement in the 1950’s? Why were we seeing a baby boom post-War, THE Baby Boom, the one everyone means when they use the term?

                  Instead, you saw women going back to previous ideals of domestic happiness en masse. The ‘Fifties were notorious as a decade of conservatism and suburban child-rearing. If the War was won on feminist values, and the victory signaled a triumph of the feminist weltanschauung, why is your social upheaval delayed to 1960?

                  Wouldn’t the “lesson” of the War have been that women belonged in the workplace, maybe also in the Government; and that the country should go forward on an (at least) equal status arrangement between the sexes? Seeing as how the War had proved their inestimable value and all?

                  The rise of second-wave feminism is well-documented, and can be easily researched. The progress and eventual dominance of Leftist thinking in American institutions can also be studied.

                  If WWII had ended with Betty Friedan dedicating the United Nations Building in 1952, and women were joining “consciousness raising” meetings in 1955, I might be more inclined to see your argument in a favorable light.

                • Learner says:

                  @JRM There was a thing called “Operation Unthinkable” where the British forces simulated what would happen if the Soviet Union wanted to overrun Western Europe. The result was that they could, even if atomic-bombed. Thus, it would have been even more difficult to reconquer Europe if Hitler had conquered it to the Urals beforehand, even if atomic-bombed. It’s not my opinion, it’s not my simulation, it’s the conclusion from British simulations.

                  Of course, if the Soviet Union could have the bomb by 1949, Hitler would have had it too by then.

                  Nazi German war industry needed more people, and Nazis forbade women from working there. Making clothes, etc. is industry, too, but it’s not the kind of war industry where more people were needed. As we saw earlier, the baby boom years saw a huge increase in working women, and women could get educated and have a career (unlike what Nazis wanted). Divorce and abortion were freely available in the Soviet Union, which was one of the Allies, and this heavily influenced the West in the following decades. It’s fair to say that the Allies were feminists (and closer to Marxism and anti-racism) than the Nazis, and that’s why we evolved culturally towards feminism, Marxism and anti-racism in the decaded that followed WW2.

                • jim says:

                  You wildly exaggerate the Nazi policy on women, which was not in practice substantially different from the allied policy on women. The allies and the Nazis were both fairly typical of 1930s leftism in their policy on women, and the necessities of war caused them both to back away from emancipation of women towards traditional attitudes.

                  Further, there is plenty of work suitable for women in war. The traditional arrangement is that the supply train, known as the camp followers, is predominantly female, and predominantly civilian. The policy of giving logistics jobs to soldiers, or to be people nominally classified as soldiers, is in substantial part a policy of giving men, traditional women’s work.

                  Having soldiers do logistics, or classifying people who do logistics and never fight as soldiers, is part of what I call “Making the marines wear high heeled shoes.”

                  It is profoundly detrimental to the manliness, masculinity, and honor of the army, and thus profoundly detrimental to it ability to fight. Logistics jobs should as far as possible be done by civilians, or rather by camp followers, who are not exactly civilians, but are quite definitely not soldiers either, and logistic jobs that are traditionally women’s work should be done by camp follower women.

                  Soldiers should hurt people and break things, and if someone’s job is not hurting people and breaking things, he should not be categorized as a soldier. And if someone’s job is traditionally women’s work, he most definitely should not be classified as a soldier. Giving women’s work to soldiers, and calling those who do women’s work soldiers, profoundly undermines the military.

                • Learner says:

                  @jim Regarding female programmers, I had a tech company some years ago and we outsourced some programming work to a female freelancer. The quality of her job was good. I don’t know about social disruptions, since she was a freelancer. She had no kids, that may be an important datapoint.

                  I think childrearing is considered as something inferior by some of you; however, I think it’s one of the most important jobs you can do in your life. The day the average man understands this and decides to stay home for a while (as women do now), it’s the day employers won’t find much difference between men and women at work. It will also be the day when many social ills magically disappear just from (currently missing) good fatherly education.

                  This may be unthinkable for some of you, since you seem to belong to another generation (50-70 years old?), but in my generation (I am in my thirties) there is nothing shameful about it.

                • jim says:

                  I think childrearing is considered as something inferior by some of you;

                  You are projecting. It is feminists and anti natalists that think this. Near as I can tell one hundred percent of advocates of patriarchy believe that the female work in child bearing and caring for children is the most important job in the world, and that male society should be entirely organized around caring for and protecting women, and that the murder of a virtuous fertile age women should receive a substantially more severe penalty than the murder of a male.

                • Learner says:


                  The following news links are from today, yesterday and last week. Some of them are related to events happening some years ago (hence more context), some other are related to recent events. All of them are White men killing their wives.








                  This looks like a White man killing his wife. Notice that in predominantly White Wichita (Kansas), this is the third domestic killing *in this month* !!!!!



                  (These are from the UK, this problem is not US-specific):





                  I am a bit tired of looking for links, but you get the idea. It’s easy to find a hundred pieces of news related to recent White-husband-killing-his-White-wife ocurrences. The only problem with breaking news is that they don’t consistently give the name and race of the suspect, but, after a couple of years, you can get all details. That’s why many of the recent links talked about judiciary news for killings done a couple of years ago.

                  600 White wifes killed by their White husbands yearly. If you don’t agree, where’s your stat denying this fact?

                • jim says:

                  The request was for examples of well behaved wives being murdered by their white husbands.

                  Your first hit is clearly not a well behaved wife – she had left him before, and cleaned out all the bank accounts preparatory to leaving him again.

                  If a wife is leaving, probably sleeping with someone else. I endorse the old testament position. Death penalty for wife sleeping around, death penalty for sleeping with someone else’s wife, and might kill people in such circumstances myself – indeed I said might well do so in this very post, though I would probably cover my tracks better, because I would feel myself entirely right and fully justified to do so, whereas the poor guy you link to is feeling guilty and so fails to cover his tracks.

                  Since your first example fails to meet requirements, I have not bothered checking out your other examples. I assume if first example fails, all examples fail. Analogous to poster girl principle. That the number of well behaved wives murdered by white men is zero for all practical purposes.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I think childrearing is considered as something inferior by some of you;”

                  You claimed that under patriarchy women’s work is worth next to nothing, not us.

                  “The day the average man understands this and decides to stay home for a while (as women do now), it’s the day employers won’t find much difference between men and women at work. It will also be the day when many social ills magically disappear just from (currently missing) good fatherly education.”

                  You’re pretty thoroughly deluded. Didn’t know this were still possible in 2016.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I am a bit tired of looking for links, but you get the idea.”

                  Yes, I do. A few of those even refer to murders from last week. You probably should have filtered out the one from 1962 though.

                  “600 White wifes killed by their White husbands yearly. If you don’t agree, where’s your stat denying this fact?”

                  Would you please give me a source for this number?

                  When I looked at Iowa specifically, there were 60 murders in total in 2014 (17 in 1960 BTW), but I couldn’t find a breakdown of those. Intuitively, and in accordance with the usual ratio, I would expect single digits of white wives killed by white husbands, but I have no proof.

                  Let’s suppose 600 is correct. Is your point that under patriarchy, 600 wives would be killed by their husbands, but without patriarchy, these women would not be murdered?

                  In other words, do you claim that an obedient wife is more likely to be murdered than a strong, independent woman?

                • pdimov says:

                  “zero for all practical purposes.”

                  Not exactly zero, as murder+suicides obviously do exist, for example

                  “Thomas Patrick Comer fatally shot his wife, Carole Comer, 71; a son, John Michael Comer, 50; and a daughter, Rebecca Comer Kelleher, 45, before killing himself, according to authorities.”

                  Carole Comer had cancer though, so this could be a collective suicide.

                  And even very small numbers multiplied by 100 million do register.

                • pdimov says:

                  “600 White wifes killed by their White husbands yearly. If you don’t agree, where’s your stat denying this fact?”

                  Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

                  Murder Circumstances
                  by Relationship, 2014

                  Wife: 539


                  That’s total for all races. Couldn’t find a number just for whites. My guess would be at most half of that.

                • Learner says:


                  If a woman is subject to heavy violence and death threats for no cause whatsoever (e.g. Orlando killer’s wife), then she is perfectly justified to void the shared accounts and flee for her life.

                  If you want to believe that she was a cheater because there is no White violence whatsoever against women never ever because you believe so, then it’s all based on pure belief and tantamount to sharia which, by the way, you implicitly endorse.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If a woman is subject to heavy violence and death threats for no cause whatsoever (e.g. Orlando killer’s wife), then she is perfectly justified to void the shared accounts and flee for her life.”

                  The (empirically established BTW) problem with this line of thinking is that when any time a woman voids the shared accounts and flees she always retroactively turns out to have been abused, and people like you always support her.

                  Which basically means that in practice, the woman is “perfectly justified” to steal the money and run for no reason.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You say 500 wives were killed, but forgot to mention both the 414 killed girlfriends”

                  539. The FBI table says it, not I. No, I did not forget to mention the 414 killed girlfriends. Killed girlfriends do not support your point.

                  “Asking if an obedient wife is more or less likely to be killed by a male-chauvinist murderer is like asking if a sharia-compliant country is more or less likely to be attacked by the ISIS. What you should want is to stop terrorism.”

                  Nonsense. What you want is for women not to die. And if single women die and wives do not, you want women to be wives and not single. Unless of course you don’t actually care about women dying, and prefer to “stop terrorism” at the cost of more dead women.

                • peppermint says:

                  …which is why, historically, women could leave, but they couldn’t take anything with them, and were still officially married. Neither the woman nor the man were permitted to have sex with anyone else, and the woman could accuse the man of rape if he had sex with her outside his house.

                  This system was fair to everyone, which is why it was scrapped.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Regarding female programmers, I had a tech company some years ago and we outsourced some programming work to a female freelancer. The quality of her job was good.”

                  Get her drunk and ask her whether women can code.

                  We’re not likely to convince you of anything, but statements against interest do stand a penetration chance.

                • Learner says:

                  What I want is for people to be free and alive. But I won’t trade my loss of freedom for my life. You know, there is a difference between spanking, male seduction, traditional roles, etc. and enslaving a woman under the threat to kill her: the difference between freedom and terror.

                  I don’t like the sharia. I don’t like sharia when it kills a priest in France. I don’t like sharia when a man explodes himself in Germany. I didn’t like sharia when they killed 200 people in Madrid or 3,000 in 9/11. And I don’t like sharia when some Whites find reasonable that 600 US White wifes and girlfriends are killed yearly for sharia (or whatever you call it, but it’s sharia). I don’t like terror. I like when terrorists are killed.

                • jim says:

                  Patriarchy requires enforcement. Enforcement means some people will be punished for bad behavior. But if not patriarchy, then single mums. If single mums, a great deal of violence. It is clear that women and children are safer under patriarchy.

                  You are contrasting actually existent patriarchy, where misbehaving women get punished, and sometimes killed for misbehavior, with a hypothetical utopian system of polyamory where everyone casually cuddles lots of people and no one gets hurt or upset about who is fucking whom. The actually existent system is single mums, bastard children, and a correspondingly terribly high rate of violence as the latest alpha male wanders briefly through the household, to beat up his girlfriend, swipe the child support money, fuck his stepdaughters and kill his stepsons.

                • Learner says:

                  By the way, I will get her drunk and ask her the question. That will be fun!!!

                • pdimov says:

                  “And I don’t like sharia when some Whites find reasonable that 600 US White wifes and girlfriends are killed yearly for sharia (or whatever you call it, but it’s sharia).”

                  Make up your mind. Under patriarchy, much fewer women get killed. You could argue that this is at the expense of freedom; fine, argue that. Can’t argue both sides and blame the patriarchy for the two sides of the coin simultaneously though. If you value freedom from patriarchy more than life, it is you who has no problem with the women getting killed, not us.

                • peppermint says:

                  I know several women who are good at coding. I tell them exactly what to do and they do it. They also personify their tools and see it as sort of like feeding the cats and nieces.

                  I would dutifully consider them good at coding, and they fully believed that coding is what they were doing.

                  Women in all STEM fields are the same, they and everyone else truly believe that they are good at it, and what they are good at is getting men to do their work in exchange for being in their good people in their good graces.

                  Women do have a way of understanding things while saying the opposite. They appreciate that the men are more creative and will self-segregate into artistic or janitorial tasks, permanently taking what would be entry level positions.

                • Learner says:


                  You said: “If you value freedom from patriarchy more than life, it is you who has no problem with the women getting killed, not us.”

                  Let’s change it slightly: “If you value freedom from radical Islam more than life, it is you who has no problem with Muslim terrorists killing people, not us.”

                • jim says:

                  Well yes, I rather think that you, learner, do have no problem with Muslim terrorists killing people. Because nonwhites, like women, are never at fault for anything they do.

                • pdimov says:

                  Radical Islam and Muslim terrorists killing people has nothing to do with it.

                  I’ll spell it out for you in simpler terms.

                  – Some husbands kill their wives
                  – You blame patriarchy
                  – You change society to dismantle some real or perceived remnant of said patriarchy
                  – More husbands kill their wives
                  – GOTO 20

                  You want to have your cake and eat it too. It’s never your fault and always patriarchy’s fault.

                • Learner says:


                  Let’s change it again, just a little bit.

                  “– Some Muslims kill infidels
                  – You blame radical Islam
                  – You change global society to dismantle some real or perceived remnant of radical Islam
                  – More Muslims kill infidels
                  – GOTO 20

                  You want to have your cake and eat it too. It’s never your fault and always radical Islam’s fault.”

                • jim says:

                  Check the last thirteen hundred years of history. There is no such thing as radical Islam. There is just Islam. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children he is a bad Muslim.

                  And it really is never our fault and really always is Islam’s fault.

                • JRM says:

                  @ Learner

                  “Of course, if the Soviet Union could have the bomb by 1949, Hitler would have had it too by then.”

                  No. The bomb was developed for use against Hitler. It was ready too late, and then used (against Oppenheimer’s wishes) against Japan. There were pro-Soviet actors working in the USA that delivered the tech to the Soviets. There was a group of pro-Soviets in the USA that made this transfer inevitable. That infrastructure didn’t exist for Germany. Your sentence quoted above is nonsense.

                  “It’s fair to say that the Allies were feminists…”

                  Conflation and sloppy labeling.

                  “… (and closer to Marxism and anti-racism) than the Nazis, and that’s why we evolved culturally towards feminism, Marxism and anti-racism in the decaded that followed WW2.”

                  I will agree with you on one point, and end this over-long debate before we simply end up repeating ourselves in a loop for eternity.

                  And that point is, once the USA made the huge production of being anti-Nazi based on racial equality, it painted itself into a corner on the topic. For ever after, liberals and leftists could hold the USA’s own holier-than-thou diatribes about evil racism in its figurative face, and get concession after concession on multiple policies.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Let’s change it again, just a little bit.”

                  I think I figured it out. In your opinion,

                  (1) Husbands killing their wives do so as a tactic in order to bring about patriarchy;

                  (2) Supporters of patriarchy are glad that husbands kill their wives because doing so will bring about patriarchy.

                  A look into a leftist’s mind is always fascinating. If one lacks a disgust reflex.

                • Jack says:

                  Of note is that Slavs used to consider the life of a woman as equal in important to half the life of a man, to wit:

                  “In an attempt to abolish blood feud (that was quite common at that time), “RP” [Russkaya Pravda. – Jack] narrowed its “usage” and limited the number of avengers to the closest relatives of the dead. If there were no avengers on the victim’s side, the killer had to pay a fine (called “vira”) in favour of the knyaz’ and partial compensation to the relatives of the victim (the killer’s community had to help him pay his fine). If a woman were killed, one would have to pay half of the regular fine (called “poluvir’ye”, half of “vira”).”


                  Eggs or not, reality is that men have a higher objective value than women. Women are good for raising children, men are good at everything else – and “everything else” is a lot.

                  Also, a man can raise children, not as good as women can do so, but it’s not inconceivable whatsoever and happens occasionally; women can’t build civilization, that’s indeed an inconceivable prospect of something which never happens.

                  Romantic sentiments, and sexual arousal too, work to obfuscate this obvious fact of life, but there’s a reason people have always preferred having sons rather than daughters. Objectively, it’s womanhood rather than manhood that is expendable.

                  The argument that “one man can fertilize plenty of women but not vice versa, ergo women more important for genetic continuity as men aren’t really needed” doesn’t hold water because a group of men who cooperate in war can defeat foreign/neighbor tribes and take all their women; women definitely can’t defeat any tribes on their own. So men are needed, are needed moreso than women, to acquire new and protect old eggs, that is, to preserve the tribe.

                  A tribe that is 80% female 20% male may have plenty of eggs, but other tribes (of approximately the same size), be they 50% male or 100% male, can easily defeat it and take possession of all its many eggs. So it’s better for a tribe to begin as 100% male and fight to acquire eggs, than to begin as majority/only women and subsequently not be able to protect the eggs from males belonging to other tribes. Thus men more objectively valuable than women.

                  (A tribe of 100 people that is 100% male can hastily vanquish a tribe of 100 people that is 50% male, thus males more valuable absolutely)

                  In times of peace and prosperity — in a civilization built, of course, entirely by men — one could pretend that women are as valuable as men, or even more valuable, but that’s a great recipe for losing the peace and the prosperity of one’s civilization at a rapid pace. Men’s honor and status *above* women must therefore always be preserved.

                • JRM says:


                  “In times of peace and prosperity — in a civilization built, of course, entirely by men — one could pretend that women are as valuable as men, or even more valuable…”

                  Like the great game of make-believe the West is playing right now.

                  Ignoring natural conditions is a benefit accorded by technology. Like the people who live in the desert in mansions cooled by air-conditioning; or a deep-sea diver in his suit.

                  The danger is beginning to believe the new environment is as reliably predictable as the default natural one. We seem to be in an era in which the press releases are indeed believed by the actors, and one wonders how deep the illusion goes, and how sincere it is.

                  I do suspect the feminists realize (the female ones, I mean) deep down, that their currency is counterfeit, which is why their defense is always so shrill.

                • peppermint says:

                  » (the female ones, I mean) deep down, that their currency is counterfeit,

                  yes, women have a way of understanding things without saying them, which they need because they need to understand what the men around them think and how to position themselves within the group

                  » which is why their defense is always so shrill.

                  no, their words are shrill because that is how they are directed by the men they look up to. If they’re allowed to speak for themselves, they come off very conciliatory and personal, which men make fun of them for, and demand that they be more shrill. Meanwhile, of course, the personal things they say are, in the usual female way, that everything they do is right, you know the drill.

                  Seriously, though, men are not necessarily more valuable than women. There is a reason White men used to put women and children first – they were assured by other White men that their women and children would be taken care of without them. And now that everyone tries to take advantage of everyone else all the time, men do not put women and children first.

                  Peace makes women valuable, war makes them less so.

                • Learner says:


                  Whan a Muslim beheads an infidel, you can argue he had a mental disorder (that’s a frequent excuse these days) or that he misunderstood his own religion or whatever. But the fact is that the Muslim beheads an infidel because he has a radical Islamic mindset and he thinks infidels deserve it. (Jim would call it a “good Islamic mindset”. OK. I don’t defend Islam, I am against it. It just happens that I am also against Western sharia).

                  When a husband kills his wife, you argue the same excuses (he was crazy, etc.). But the fact is that the husband kills his wife because he has a patriarchal-terrorist mindset and he thinks wives deserve it unless they behave like slaves.

                  And you have people here defending exactly that. So point 1) is not exactly right, but point 2) tends to be correct.

                • pdimov says:

                  “When a husband kills his wife, you argue the same excuses (he was crazy, etc.).”

                  No, I do not. I don’t argue “the same excuses” and I don’t argue _any_ excuses.

                  Most white husbands, after killing their wives, don’t excuse themselves either, which is why they commit suicide.

                  “But the fact is that the husband kills his wife because he has a patriarchal-terrorist mindset and he thinks wives deserve it unless they behave like slaves.”

                  Saying “the fact is” does not magically make something into a fact. There are many obvious differences between a Muslim terrorist and a white husband murdering his wife that you pretend to ignore – because you _want_ the above to be a fact.

                  Thoughtcrimes are conveniently impossible to disprove, of course. I wonder whether you would ascribe gays and lesbians killing each other to the patriarchal-terrorist mindset as well. Systemic patriarchal mindset, probably.

              • Learner says:


                I told you there were no good stats on this, and that FBI webpage backs it. You say 500 wives were killed, but forgot to mention both the 414 killed girlfriends and the 5,400 “unknowns” at the time of registering the data. So, esentially, those stats are useless.

                This paper (with due references) states that 2,600 US women are murdered yearly, and 40%-42% of those are murdered by an intimate partner (and 90% are murdered by a nonstranger). If those data are correct, you get at 0,40 x 2600 = 1040 killings yearly. If you assume half of those are killed by Whites (as you did in the last comment), that means 520 wifes (and girlfriends!) killed by their husbands/boyfriends. Even if you assume a lower number, it will be hundreds and at least one a day.

                We may debate about whether it’s 400 or 600, but that doesn’t change things a lot. It’s large-scale terrorism unreported on first pages.

                Asking if an obedient wife is more or less likely to be killed by a male-chauvinist murderer is like asking if a sharia-compliant country is more or less likely to be attacked by the ISIS. What you should want is to stop terrorism.

                • Learner says:


                  You say the woman “retrospectively” claims to have been abused. That’s not the case in my first link.


                  “James Love, spokesman for Colerain Police Department, said police had been called to the couple’s Appletree Court home Saturday when Jeffrey Hawkins allegedly slashed the tires of his wife’s car. Love said the couple had been married about 10 years and lived in the home for many years but that police had not been called to the residence.”

                  “It’s not the first time Hawkins has been on the other side of the law since giving up police work.”

                  “In 2003, Hawkins was charged in DuPage County with molesting a female relative who was under the age of 18, according to court documents. A charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in that case was later dropped when he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery, court records show, and sentenced to two months of probation.”

                  Applying jim’s Old Testament laws, the wife should have killed her husband as soon as he molested that minor. I agree with jim in this exceptional case.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You say the woman “retrospectively” claims to have been abused. That’s not the case in my first link.”

                  I was speaking in general. It’s also not the case in your link that the woman has fled, so I assumed that you were speaking in general, too.

                  And in general, when you grant abused women a license to do X, you effectively grant all women a license to do X. It’s just how it is.

          • glenfilthie says:

            I am an ordinary man. One day my daughter came home and told me she was a queer, militant SJW and that our family was going to redefine itself and start living under the rainbow – or else. She was in her mid 20’s at the time.

            I gave her the boot. Problem solved. I am not a joo or some upscale alpha male, I am a regular slob just like you. Only difference is I take charge and ownership of my problems and deal with them like an adult. feminists, queers and progtards are what they are and you deserve what you tolerate. If they intrude in your life, kick them out before they can cause bigger problems. Simple.

            Everything in life is a choice, p-mint. If you choose to live as a lesser, diminished man because some woman demands it – that’s on you.

  20. JRM says:

    Other aspects of this issue that changed in the approx. 200 years, 100 and 50 year intervals:

    Economic aspect: In rural areas, children were raised as helpers and workers. More children meant more hands for more tasks. The drawback was inheritance was favorable to the eldest male, leaving smaller or no shares for the youngest.

    Additionally, many families would “keep trying” to have a male child, therefore ending up with more female children than they desired. (Even in my own lifetime, I’ve known a man who had five daughters because all he really wanted was a son.)

    Economic aspect: In the responsible, Church-going middle class, marriage was often postponed until the male could earn sufficient wages to support a family. This was something of a brake on urban population growth. Obviously this was 19th century, early 20th century, and decreasingly a factor as we move towards the mid-20th cent.

    Economic/scientific aspect: Birth control pill, ca. 1960. Huge effect. At a time when the economic justification for children was changing them into luxury articles among the acquisitive middle and upper classes.

    Economics is not the key element in fertility rates, as I think Jim has demonstrated. But just because it isn’t THE reason, doesn’t keep it from being A reason.

    I think economic aspects certainly go into a mix that also contains education levels and aspirations, societal “ideals”, peer values, and even personal histories and attitudes. It may be true that we can’t show clearly on a graph an undeniable influence of one kind, but that doesn’t mean that influences can’t be multifarious, even some of the weaker determinates will be present in the mix for some couples, at some time.

    Nevertheless, social attitudes, e.g., corporal punishment, legal implications, (again, corporal punishment would fit here), and the status of marriage (and males and females) in society are strong factors, perhaps outweighing economics as Jim suggests.

    In my own reproductive history (I have three children by one wife), I can attest to the importance of economic and personal considerations, whereas social and legal aspects were very close to nil. But that’s just my experience.

    • jim says:

      Economic/scientific aspect: Birth control pill, ca. 1960. Huge effect.

      The pill was until recently illegal in Japan. Made no difference whether legal or illegal. We have had birth control since the late bronze age.

      All the things that supposedly matter are rationalizations, ad hoc explanations to explain away one particular case, which ad hoc explanation is contradicted by numerous counter examples. It is easy to find counter examples. It is also obvious that they are rationalizations – example, falling birth rates in the 1920s supposedly caused by poverty, falling birth rates in the seventies supposedly caused by wealth.

      Nothing has significant effect on fertility other than the ability to contract to binding and durable Pauline marriage. Everything else, short of actual famine, is statistically insignificant.

  21. Learner says:

    If your analysis is correct, that patriarchal period should show up in other patriarchy measures. I looked into the historic data for female labour force participation. In the period 1900-1930, around 20% women worked, with only small changes. Then that number increased to 25.4% in 1940, 33.9% in 1950, 37.7% in 1960 and 43.3% in 1970.

    That means the baby boom years saw an increase in working women from approx. 20% to approx. 40%. Not exactly a patriarchal involution.

    Since then, the number has increased very slowly til peaking at 60% in 2000. Now it’s around 57%. You can see all data in the middle column here:

    In terms of female labour, the patriarchal involution just doesn’t show up. Does it show up anywhere in other kinds of data?

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Women always worked unless they were wealthy.

      They either farmed or worked at a business. On top of that they had considerably more onerous family chores to attend to.

      Child rearing investment was lower but the work week was much higher.

      It was only modernity, maybe since the 50’s for some that allowed women in general to be a stay at home Mom and have time on her hands

      This is a bit of a complication since our technology reduces the value of labor , male and female.

      Speaking only of housekeeping, a women has a much lower value these days, requiring far fewer hours a week to do her “job” dishwashers, refrigeration, running water thing rural Timorese often don’t have BtW distort the value.

      Keeping house is maybe 20 hours a week if meals are cooked at home . I’d guess it was twice or three times this in the past

      This means the services the man is paying for are more costly an a per hour basis

      And as for exclusive sexual access , well yes but its a declining option. How valuable that will be is heavily dependent on his sex drive, her desirability over time index and the availability of lose women.

      Prostitutes interestingly don’t really effect the numbers, many more men used such services in the 1950’s than now or so I’ve read.

      Also re: children. Yes a patriarchal make headed family is far more desirable to an average man , I agree with Jim on that. Whether medium to high IQ males want to trade Internet and X-Box for that is another issue or if they will be able too without steady employment

      I’m not convinced they will in a developed society

      If sex bots come about especially ones that can assist in cleaning the house,, all bets are off, 5k for a Cherry 2000 is a better option fo many men.

      This will give women basically zero value as help meet , hell even the comforting aspect women can have for some men can be supplanted by a learning algorithm .

      We’ve been able to emulate Rogerian Psychotherapists with computers since before i was born

      This will leave women with an even .lower value, only for child rearing . The Cathedral being like it is will double down on current policy but in that case shifting to harder patriarchy is really the only option out there.

      That;s a big if though , the tech is advancing at a decent rate but its not there yet and most people still don’t have Roombas much less robots

      There is also no guarantee society will last long enough for it to be a problem, If it doesn’t we’ll move to hard patriarchy after the die off anyway.

      • jim says:

        Women always worked unless they were wealthy.

        They either farmed or worked at a business.

        Women normally worked for their fathers and husband, as Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump does, or they worked for the same employer as their father or husband, under their husband’s supervision.

        In the early twentieth century, respectable women were forbidden from employment that involved meeting men while not under the supervision of husband or father. If a woman had her own apartment, and or a job that potentially allowed her to fuck her boss, coworkers, and customers, it was pretty much assumed she was fucking her boss, coworkers, and customers, with the result that she had in practice substantially lesser rights before the law.

        If we could impose that rule back then, if the Trumps can do that now, we can do it now.

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          How would you get women to go along or get the system to disenfranchise women and push sissified men to wanting traditional arrangements ?

          • jim says:

            How would you get women to go along?

            We will use the usual methods on women that have worked so well in the past. In particular, we have a lot of literature from eighteenth century Britain showing how it is done.

            You forcibly restrain women from getting sex without the approval of parent or guardian, using dungeons, whips, and chains if necessary. In order to get nailed, they have to marry a parentally approved suitor, and past experience is that women will enthusiastically agree to any conditions whatsoever, no matter how harsh, if that is the condition for getting nailed. You can set marriage terms to be completely ridiculously harsh and totally one sided against women, and you still get near 100% genuinely and enthusiastically voluntary buy in by women, with marriage vows said with enthusiasm, sincerity, and burning desire, if you can restrain them from screwing their demon lover.

            We empower patriarchs to restrain women from fucking their demon lover. Apply social pressure on patriarchs to restrain their daughters and wards. Legalize any means necessary. Provide social support for that enforcement. Penalize parents and guardians of sexually immoral daughters and wards. And if all else fails, penalties for unchastity may include shotgun marriage.

            If they break out of the dungeon, gnawing their way through stone walls and crawling nine miles over broken glass to fuck their demon lover, then you have a problem, which may require the threat, and sometimes the actuality, of shotgun marriage. But even in the late eighteenth century Australian colony, though the threat was common, the actuality was less common.

            And men will quickly unsissify once manly men can reliably get pussy.

            • Corvinus says:

              Your solution is nothing more than a pipe dream. Why on earth would tens of millions of white men and women be compelled to follow your plan in light of liberties and technological advancements?

              • pdimov says:

                Fertility collapse?

                • Eli says:

                  No one cares about fertility collapse, and old people don’t matter in the West. Only large-scale societal collapse (a la Katrina and worse) will make going back to patriarchy possible. By which point it will be too late for the majority. Either way, unless it’s helped along by a natural/unplanned externally imposed catastrophe, the process is a multigenerational one. No good news. Idiocracy will not happen, but it will get (slowly) worse before it gets better, in 3 to 5 generations (after the actual collapse), in the areas inhabited by Homo sapiens.

                  Right now the process is irreversible. There might be a *slight* chance of it subsiding (but not fundamentally reversing!) if a strong set of competitors to the US/Cathedral arises. According to George Friedman’s prognosis in “The Next 100 Years,” this might become possible in a few decades, via a Japan/Turkey/Poland alliance . In the meantime, you can freeze your sperm, to save it for better times, if nothing else works…

                • peppermint says:

                  » current trends are unsustainable
                  » let’s make our projections for the future based on current trends

                  » rome made several attempts at stopping the decline, but all of them failed; germany also attempted it but failed
                  » the only thing we learn from history is no one ever learns from history lol

                • pdimov says:

                  Those who don’t care will die off, and those who care (if any) will replace them.

                • pdimov says:

                  Or, stated differently, it doesn’t matter that the majority will not adopt patriarchy, because they will not stay majority for long.

              • jim says:

                It is what white men want. And we won’t consult women, because women don’t know what they want.

                Pretty sure technological advancements do not result in men wanting to support women who don’t live with them, don’t obey them, and who make irresponsible choices, pretty sure technological advancements do not result in men wanting to give women the liberty to make choices and have men pay for those choices.

                As society gets richer, intangible needs become more important relative to material needs, so it becomes more important to provide children with their biological fathers, and less important to provide them with child support. Thus technological advancement means that enforcing patriarchal families, forbidding divorce except for grave fault, and remedying illegitimacy with shotgun marriage makes more sense, not less sense.

          • peppermint says:

            Perhaps the GenXers will need to die as they are, but Milennials are receptive to the truth and these post-Milennial children are actually not very indoctrinated because they’ve had the chans to subvert the programming in school.

  22. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Patriarchy is about patrilineal descent. Another thing that I maintain is that beta males can only ever punish a woman in an angry outburst. Maybe you think that some males of the alpha-and-omega type could design some television shows, but as for me I’m ready to stop television production all together and have people only watch shows from the early to mid 20th Century until all of this either blows up and works itself out, or works itself out without all of the blowing up.


    • jim says:

      Close. Patriarchy is about ensuring patrilineal descent by controlling female sexuality.

      We have to restrain females so that they have children by only one man, and continue to serve and obey that man and be sexually available to that man and only that man, at least until the children are grown. And ensure that that man always supports, protects, cares for, guides, and supervises, his women and his children by his women.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        In fact, it’s about the fathers of a nation being able to look out for their ethnicity in a paternalistic manner, “Jim”. The word is synergistic with the other word “patriot”, which does share the same route. There are no real patriots without a particular patriarchy for these would-be patriots to look to.

        Best regards,


  23. A.B. Prosper says:

    Timor Leste is extremely rural. Its not a surprise to me that its highly fertile as the more rural a population typically is the more fertile it is .

    In some ways Timor Leste is behaving like a clowder of stressed feral cats, attempts to exterminate them resulted in a fertility bloom.

    It seems to be doing alright at least for the city dwellers though the highly fertile rural population is basically illiterate and 4th world without much electricity. If/when they develop, I suspect the fertility rate will decline pretty rapidly

    Look at the US, same thing. More living in cities, less fertility

    And if you want to bring up the baby boom, it was an anomaly and in any case the new suburbs where much of the population growth took place or at least started were essentially pseudo rural , subbing in for villages.

    You had was essentially unprecedented economic growth , plentiful jobs near to housing , some patriarchy and ersatz rural living which combined with a massive decline in infant mortality and high fertility

    You won’t see those situations again, ever.

    Now in a few generations if poverty becomes the norm for everybody as I suspect it will, fertility rates will go up though you’ll see sicker and weaker children from the chronic famine conditions,. That population will die off and be replaced with a gradually smaller, more rural one or just a stupider 3rd world one. The Cathedral’s days are numbered in any case.

    That said it would be in theory be possible to replace the current system with a more Patriarchal one. It won’t be easy, the remains of Christianity have been thoroughly pozzed by the Cathedral and most of the West is basically post Christian.

    I also would not rely on the orthosphere either. Orthodox nations aren’t doing better than secular ones , worse in many ways and its a foreign memeplex to Western people

    Unless there is a religious revival of muscular, patriarchal Christianity or some similar form of Heathenry which is very unlikely, future planning will have to figure a way to make it work without religious social capital

    Nationalism maybe but there might be other methods I’m missing.

    In any case, the key challenge is keeping White areas White. That is job #1 and everything else including population growth takes second place.

    • jim says:

      It seems to be doing alright at least for the city dwellers though the highly fertile rural population is basically illiterate and 4th world without much electricity. If/when they develop, I suspect the fertility rate will decline pretty rapidly

      Make up your mind. Does poverty cause infertility or prosperity cause infertility. You argue both, depending on which fertility difference you need to explain away.

      In fact, poverty protects you from the Cathedral – Cathedral cannot control your television set if you do not have television, cannot control your schools if you cannot afford Cathedral accredited teachers.

      Shit poor countries with emancipated women have the same terrible fertility, or worse, than rich countries with emancipated women.

      And within shit poor countries with unequal access to Cathedral controlled television, shit poor people who watch Cathedral television have terrible fertility.

      We see poor countries with both high and low fertility, and subpopulations within poor countries with both high and low fertility. And the difference is always attendance at Cathedral schools and watching Cathedral television. If you have genuinely non Cathedral Muslim or Catholic education system, you get high fertility in those attending that one, terrible fertility in those that attend to the government (Cathedral) system to the age of puberty.

      That is the big gripe of Boko Haram. They don’t want their girls attending the state system, because of the terrible effect on fertility.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        I had to stew in this for a while, Jim.

        I am pretty sure its both. Rural people breed more and stupid people also they always have

        However as a population grows smarter and more urban its birth rates declines.

        Poverty impacts smarter people more and declines their birth rates faster The smarter, generally the faster decline .

        Average-ish people (call it 95-114 in the West) in a given society tend to be pushed more by trends, social pressure, faith etc improving the birth rate or decreasing it. If you get rid of the anti natal aspect of the Cathedral , replace it with natalism and your primary goal is “more people” populations should go up. However as these people are not terribly complex, a new system will have to compete with material prosperity

        Catholicism is not going to do it. Basically you have to move past cheap social capital from religion to something else . No idea what that is though.

        The thing is, dumb people are a liability anyway. The minimum IQ for breeding would be ideally 115 or more with good long time time preference if one is looking at eugenic improvement rather than raw numbers . Number wise, below average people should have few if any children

        That way a number sufficient for knowledge base increase while not being so High IQ you have opportunity costs for high IQ render patriarchal structures untenable

        Now when the system collapses into lower complexity, IQ won’t matter . For subsistence agriculture in small numbers , 80-90 is plenty

        You an’t have both though and when a die off occurs, smarts won’t matter in the big picture for some years.

        Also I think the biggest point of disagreement is in general, a need for high fertility and population growth

        The West, much less the human race has no need of it. I’d like a larger European population as much as you do but we can’t support it and we don’t need lower IQ people just because they are white. Its dysgenic almost as much as race mixing .

        • jim says:

          Poverty impacts smarter people more and declines their birth rates faster The smarter, generally the faster decline .

          In that case, poor societies should have severe dysgenesis – except that they don’t.

          In our society high IQ men have more children than low IQ men, probably because high IQ men can get toys that impress women – there is a wonderful youtube video of young man in very expensive car wordlessly picking up girls by beckoning them to get into his car. Of course he needed total confidence and unshakeable frame, as well as a nice car, but the nice car made a difference. And I have done similar things with considerable success, though not the hilariously spectacular success we see on the infamous youtube video.

          And that is true in all societies – indeed the poorer the society, the better it works. As a result high IQ males reproduce very successfully in poor societies. If a society is really poor, you can get a horde of pretty girls to show up for pizza and booze and take your pick. Hence poverty is eugenic. The poorer the society, the more rich men get more than their fair share of chicks. In a poor society taking a girl to dinner and drinks is a significant cost for a poor man, and a significant benefit for the girl, which gives the relatively affluent male a ridiculously high total fertility rate, hence highly eugenic fertility.

          However, our society suffers severe dysgenesis because high IQ women generally become cat ladies. This is a direct result of education cutting into a woman’s fertile and attractive years. Obviously high IQ women can easily afford more children, but they simply don’t have them because they just run out of time. They don’t seem to realize that they can work and educate all their lives, but can only get married and bear children while young, so marriage and children just has to take absolute priority over education and work.

          There is no economic theory that can explain the failure of high IQ women to reproduce in our society, but the actual reason is perfectly obvious to anyone who understands human motivation.

          The smarter you are the more time you spend in education while young. Where a woman is told that getting degrees is high status, and being a wife and mother is low status. So she goes on getting degrees and elevated employment status until she notices that, strangely, men are no longer looking at her tits any more. Oh what a big surprise. She is genuinely surprised and quite stubbornly refuses to believe it.

          So it is not that intelligent people are making the intelligent choice to not have children that they cannot afford. It is that vain women are suckered, manipulated, and conned, into delaying marriage and children until it is too late. It is that the smartest woman is still foolish, irrational, and emotional.

          I say this with confidence based on my conversations with my very high IQ sister and her very high IQ, high socioeconomic status daughter, both of whom stubbornly made outstandingly stupid and horribly self destructive decisions for typically foolish, childish, emotional, and irrational female reasons.

          Any attempt to explain fertility as a result of economic choices fails miserably.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Jim, education and materialism is an economic choice .

            I want a “better job” I will attend school, its an economic choice . Not a smart one since propaganda tells them they can have a family , independence and a career all at once which is a lie

            Education and family is possible at a trade off Grandma Prosper had a masters degree and three children but its not easy.

            We don’t live in a poor country but a well developed one. I suspect we’ll end up in poverty anyway but I’d rather not get there any faster than i have too. I’ve been poor and its sucks

            . A rich society is a trade off since it requires more resources to attract women but so be it. Maybe I can’t get a woman with a cheap sports car or some pizza but frankly, the rest of the things we have, electricity that works, running water, the Internet , public safety are well worth it.

            If it wasn’t the foreigners wouldn’t be coming here, and at least in the case of the Mexicans happily selecting smaller family sizes and materialism over tradition.

            Its also possible patriarchy got dumped because men weren’t entirely sold on it and had other things they’d rather do . Patriarchy is work and people are lazy.

            Heck Christianity as once practiced died in a few decades in Europe and it wasn’t just the “Cathedral” but people having other alternatives

            Breeding for the sake of breeding is the creed of the cancer cell in any case,

            We do need smarter women to have more children but we have to sort them somehow anyway and build a milleau in which they are expected to marry and have kids, Its not impossible but its also doesn’t require reordering society to something almost no one wants , not that that could be done anyway

            Also its not like all the distractions are going away any time soon , baring economic collapse, T.V which is a big fertility suppressor, the internet with its limitless free porn etc etc

            We aren’t that far out from sex bots for that matter ,. They might become socially acceptable

            If and its a big if we continue to increase network connectivity and low grade AI and automation, we are not going to have a jobs economy anyway.

            Cars can self drive right now and trucking is the major competent of the working man’s economy.

            This suggests to me we are going to end up with part time work, scrounger basic income socialism if the Cathedral survives . We might need a plan for that.

            we need ideas that don’t count on the past returning, don’t count on the free social capital from a religious ideology most White people no longer follow and take into account reasonable trends,

            This rules out deliberately impoverishing people, making women less educated and or expecting the US to become more like Timor Leste

            It won’t baring economic collapse which will end up with a mass die off of our educated class anyway

            • jim says:

              Jim, education and materialism is an economic choice.

              The choice of patriarchy is denied to men, unless your are willing to be a criminal. Denied that choice, some of them look to materialism, but a whole lot of them do not. They hide in mum’s basement, watch cartoon porn and play video games. They buy a motorcyle and tour the world with a bike and backpack to find themselves. That kind of stuff. Materialism is only able to compete with marriage and children because men are denied marriage and children.

              When men have the choice of patriarchy, they get serious about earning a living, what you are calling materialism. During the baby boom, a lot of employers specifically asked for married men, because they expected married men to be serious about earning money. Single men who expect or intend to remain single are not serious about earning money. So it is not materialism. “Materialism”, as we saw in the 1950s, is response to the opportunity to become a patriarch, not competition to becoming a patriarch.

              Men are watching cartoon porn in mum’s basement because they cannot own a real live woman. Given a real opportunity to have a young, virtuous, obedient wife, most men watching porn in mum’s basement would do anything it takes.

              So, we have to set up society so that if a young man is able, industrious, plays by the rules, and is willing and able to support order and the security of property with deadly violence, he will get a virtuous chaste obedient and respectful wife. And if he is instead a bad boy, he will find the supply of sluts in bars is quite limited.

              And you will then find that all young men are highly “materialistic”, as married men in the 1950s famously were, that pretty much every male is able, industrious, plays by the rules, and is willing and able to support order and the security of property with deadly violence. Hence the complaint that the fifties were so horribly conformist.

          • When I was 20 and really not good at picking up girls, I had exactly this idea to find girls who are far poorer than me and impress them. It didn’t work. But maybe it didn’t work because it wasn’t a particularly poor country and thus the only way to find poor girls who are still attractive to me to go somewhere between proles and white thrash. Turned out their status ladders are entirely different. For example if you don’t drink away your weekly wage in two days and save up for the future then you are a beta coward pussy. You don’t drive drunk? Beeeta! And so on. We weren’t compatible, what was not being an idiot for me was cowardice for them. Perhaps it does work in a very poor country, don’t know. But there is a lot to say for basic compatibility – men and women will be always different but it helps if things like their basic social background, social class of their parents, is similar. It makes intuitive sense that a mans class should be higher, but that should depend on a generic male female social rank difference and not family background, because the higher class man will find all those things he finds high status his fiancee doesn’t. And if you want to look at things from that angle: her father won’t either. When the classy golf player tries to date the daughter of the blue collar ex boxer, his opinion will be likely that both the woman and the guy will need to see other men.

      • Learner says:

        There is at least one model that explains why prosperity causes long-term infertility and poverty causes short-term infertiity: Easterlin’s relative income model. From Wikipedia:

        “Economist and demographer Richard Easterlin in his “Twentieth Century American Population Growth” (2000), explains the growth pattern of American population in the 20th century by examining the fertility rate fluctuations and the decreasing mortality rate. Easterlin attempts to prove the cause of the baby boom and baby bust by the “relative income” theory, despite the various other theories that these events have been attributed to. The “relative income” theory suggests that couples choose to have children based on a couple’s ratio of potential earning power and the desire to obtain material objects. This ratio depends on the economic stability of the country and how people are raised to value material objects. The “relative income” theory explains the baby boom by suggesting that the late 1940s and the 1950s brought low desires to have material objects, because of the Great Depression and World War II, as well as plentiful job opportunities (being a post-war period). These two factors gave rise to a high relative income, which encouraged high fertility. Following this period, the next generation had a greater desire for material objects, however an economic slowdown in the United States made jobs harder to acquire. This resulted in lower fertility rates causing the Baby Bust.”

        • jim says:

          You will notice that Easterlin’s theory introduces ad hoc two invisible and unobservable variables to explain away two data points.

          Whereas the theory that fertility is overwhelming a reflection of the ability of men and women to make enforceable contracts to bear and raise children in the manner prescribed by Saint Paul explains all available data points.

          Thus, for example, Mormons have, or recently used to have, effectual social enforcement of patriarchal marriage. What is Easterlin’s theory for Mormon fertility? Does he introduce yet another unobservable variable?

        • peppermint says:

          Oh look, someone finally found an official answer on Wikipedo. Turns out, OF COURSE that Whites are deliberately irresponsible, it’s just a deliberate choice of freedom opportunity.


          It’s simple, overeducation followed by years of entry level jobs if they can even find them keeps White men and women from marrying until they get through it all at 25-40, while the media tells women (unsuccessfully, from listening to Taylor Swift) that love and marriage is passé, while telling men to pump and dump women as many at a time as possible, and both to delay marriage further if not avoid it entirely. Meanwhile divorce is made easy and in many young couples I know the woman brings home more money in government transfer payments if not wages then the man, which the couple tries to live with.

          Now go fuck yourself.

          • Learner says:

            There is no official answer. We are having a rational (you know, White-style) debate here, so I provided another model to think about this. If you don’t like White-style debates, you can immigrate to Africa, I am sure your dogmatism will favour that atmosphere.

            In the 70s you had more expectations than ever. People thought we would be making space travel in a generation or two. Economic growth was taken for granted. In fact, what we had was esentially stagnant salaries since then, once you correct for inflation. So there was a combination of very high economic expectations (as in: my children must have a much better standard of living than me) combined with a very poor economic performance. This may or may not have to do with the decrease in fertility, but it’s solid enough to be said.

  24. Jehu says:

    One wonders if there’s any way to get Cathedralites to respect a marriage as much as they’d respect a BDSM contract. Perhaps marriage 1.0 needs to be reskinned as a bilateral BDSM contract? But I wager it wouldn’t matter, its all who whom, all the way down.

  25. Grotesque Body says:

    (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)



    It’s like you don’t even know how the Pepe/Wojak duality works.

  26. JRM says:

    re: the re-introduction of the domestic Patriarch: very close to impossible with the current Cathedral USA policy of punishing men and favoring women in divorce court.

    Power flows through authority, and when the “guardian structure” of the courts began to reward women for the break-up of homes, the domestic Patriarch became an endangered species.

    While the Government is aligned against him, only a few males, through sheer dint of charisma or wealth or the females high perception of him as desirable enough to submit to, will be able to maintain kingship in their private castle.

    Dagwood won’t be a Patriarch over Blondie again until he has some Cathedral machinery backing him up.

  27. JRM says:

    re: pre-Great Depression fertility drop. Let me throw this out:

    The First World War was unpopular here in the USA. In spite of all the gung-ho propaganda we’ve absorbed from the re-boot of the War in 1939-1945, the American entry of 1917 was not a popular success. Therefore, the ‘twenties got off to a bit of a rocky start in terms of the national mind-set. I believe there was widespread uncertainty about the national “direction”.

    In addition, we have a feminist triumph in the form of Prohibition and Women’s Suffrage (both 1919 IIRC). There was a rather strong Recession/Depression in 1920-1921. Another Recession in 1923-1924.

    Culturally, women were enjoying increased independence and quickly becoming addicted to a powerful form of entertainment (near life-instruction) in the form of the movies.

    The automobile was changing courting/dating structure in the USA. Popular alcohol use among the young was increased with the allure of transgression by way of Prohibition.

    Women’s styles were changing, with “bobbed” hair and short skirts and the flattening of the bosom to achieve the “boyish” look.

    I would suggest that these changes, and this atmosphere, may be part of the explanation for the 1920’s fertility drop.

    • jim says:

      Well, if we are attributing the fertility drop to “atmosphere” and female emancipation, which is indeed the truth, surely the largest effect is that part of the “atmosphere” that intrudes upon a man’s ability to be a patriarch.

      Economics just does not affect fertility significantly. The failure of the Great Depression to have any noticeable effect on fertility, and comparison between rich and poor countries shows this. Unless actually starving, people don’t choose to have children because they can afford them. They choose to have children, and then do whatever it takes to afford them.

      What does indeed affect fertility is what you are calling “the atmosphere” – the ability of a man and a woman to contract to form a Pauline marriage and expect the other party to stick to it.

      Men don’t want children these days because they have no power over them, no power to protect them from mum’s bad boy lover, and because they expect children to be used as hostages against them. That is your “atmosphere”

      Depression lowered the marriage rate by ten percent for ten years. War raised the marriage rate by twenty five percent for five years. These are insignificant. You cannot tell them from noise. It is the capacity to contract to a Pauline marriage, and the expectation that the marriage will be durable that primarily affects fertility.

      The war affected fertility because the censors suddenly reversed course on masculinity, and decided to glorify rather than demonize men.

      • JRM says:

        My use of the word “atmosphere” may seen suspiciously amorphous, but I will justify it as reflecting a series of social changes that create, in toto, a cultural mood, or outlook. And outlooks have consequences.

        So let’s agree that the prevalent atmosphere for traditional marriage became toxic. I suppose the relevant questions then would be:

        1. Who engineered the changes? Was it a cabal at work, or non-affiliated actors?

        2. How did they do it? Gradual attrition, clever maneuvering, or some cultural opening that was a “tide taken at the flood”?

        3. When did they do it? (This one might be easiest to answer).

        4. Was the change the goal of the “engineers”, or was it a byproduct?

        5. How do we reverse the changes we see as destructive?

  28. Jefferson says:

    This is my favorite argument of yours. You’ve laid enough groundwork with stats and anecdata from other cultures that it’s thoroughly robust and completely compelling to an open mind.

    I am curious if you have any ideas as to how patriarchy can be restored in the West while injecting adequate feminism into Africa and the middle east / central Asia, though.

    • Alf says:

      The 6 minutes of spankings is great.

      “Daddy you spanked mommy!”
      – “You’re darn tootin I did.”
      “That means you love her!”
      – “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell her.”

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      Change starts with you.

      Best regards,


  29. Greg says:

    To sum up what I learned at Jim’s, media plays Whitey like a fiddle, easily controls him down to the most basic of biological imperatives. But if a Jew were to own any of this all powerful Media, you can not touch it. Envy! Covetousness! Don’t touch a Jew’s stuff!

    So you have reached an impasse.

    Can’t take away Jew’s stuff because envy and covetousness, at the same time Jew’s stuff is so powerful it allows him to play Whitey like a fiddle.

    What’s your game plan?

    • jim says:

      From 1945 to 1963, media, in particular Hollywood, which is totally controlled by Jews, was running contrary to the Cathedral. Harvard, and the judges it controlled, held that spanking one’s wife is illegal, Hollywood, controlled by Jews, held that spanking one’s wife is normal and respectable. So the problem is not the Jew media, rather it is the Jew media reluctantly and belatedly submitting to the Cathedral.

      The Cathedral is not prog because of Jewish cultural Marxists. Rather, Jewish businessmen are prog because regulators and judges are prog.

      • viking says:

        Do you know many new york jews jim, you know the ones that rule the world? what really happened was the had other things going on and as soon as they were able they got going on progressivism.

      • Jack says:

        >So the problem is not the Jew media, rather it is the Jew media reluctantly and belatedly submitting to the Cathedral.

        Interesting sentence. Was Harvard not sufficiently Jew-dominated between 1945 to 1963 that when media Jews “reluctantly and belatedly” submitted to it, they basically submitted to their +20 IQ-points brethren?

      • Greg says:

        Back in the days of more healthy TV programming, US networks employed gentile censors with veto powers over Jew written content. A brilliant move.

        But looking back it clearly shows intent.

        If pressed into progressive programming against their inner nature, the Jew as author or producer could have leaned back and blamed network censors for lack of progressive content.

        But today it is easy to find Jewish authors and producers of the time on record gloating about how they sneaked this or that bit of subversion past their censors, proving that that’s what they wanted. They invested work into thwarting the censors, not leaning back, showing intent.

        But that’s almost beside the point. Culpability is almost beside the point here. When asking about your game plan, I was not asking about culpability, but pragmatics.

        Pragmatically, Jew criticism is a Schelling point. If you asked around non-progressives who’s to blame most for progressive degeneracy, you won’t get any non-coordinated response even close to the Jew.

        Now, you call yourself an asshole, a man of little scruples, yet can’t let a Jew get hurt. Hell, we’re not even talking “Jew lives matter,” you wouldn’t even want a Jew get separated from his stuff.

        Strange priorities from a man of little scruples who admits that the Jew’s stuff under Jew control are major tools for spreading and maintaining the progressive regime.

        So what’s your game plan for a reset without taking the Jew’s stuff?

        And whence that strange priority of not letting a single Jew’s property get separated from its controlling Jew in the process?

        • Erik says:

          The stuff of some jews will almost certainly be taken in the reset. There’s no rule about protecting them here. Targeting the jews *as jews* is what’s retarded. Give a hundred progressives helicopter rides and you’ll find plenty of jews in the ocean – no need to limit Pinochet’s generosity to the jews though.

          • jim says:

            Exactly so.

            Well said.

          • pdimov says:

            No, it’s not retarded. Not at all.

            You are assuming the conclusion. Yes, once you are so secure in your power that you can award helicopter rides to progressives of your choosing, you no longer need to target Jews as Jews.

            Except you aren’t.

            In this universe, Jews hold more power than you do, and they use it against you. Targeting them as Jews each time they offend – if you could do that – would make them reluctant to do so.

            This is significantly easier to accomplish because it doesn’t require sovereignty.

            • jim says:

              Why did Hitler fail?

              Socialism and no nukes.

              Why no nukes?

              Because no Jews.

              Suppose Hitler had been victorious. He wants to settle a depopulated France and Russia. He raised the fertility rate, but not nearly enough. He failed to substantially raise the fertility rate because Nazism failed to target progressives. Plus, because he failed to target progressives, he is socialist, and as we saw in the immediate postwar period, socialism does not work. Socialism is good for seizing existing wealth and turning it to state purposes, good for turning butter into guns. But pretty soon you run out of other people’s butter.

              The Greeks were Nazis too. Hitler alienated them by stealing their butter, so that they starved to death in large numbers. That is socialism. Hitler made enemies of his allies, because progressive economics is crap, and when you add progressive economics to nationalism you wind up starving your allies.

              When Hitler took aim at Jews, he missed the target.

              • pdimov says:

                “Why did Hitler fail?”

                Everyone has his own answer to that. Mine is “no oil.”

                Not that Deutschephysik wasn’t monumentally stupid. But nukes wouldn’t have helped. Not enough uranium either.

                Nazism can’t target progressives as progressives because Nazism is progressive. Targeting communists is not that bad a substitute though.

                All that is still missing the point. Hitler did succeed in coming into power. His failure came later.

            • jim says:

              If you can target Jews as Jews when they offend without requiring sovereignty, why not target progressives as progressives when they offend without requiring sovereignty?

              Korean Gamergaters got Jayeon Kim fired and prevented her from being rehired by anyone else. What have antisemites accomplished?

              • pdimov says:

                It’s easier in practice to accuse someone of being anti-white based on his ethnicity than based on his convictions. It shouldn’t be in an ideal world, but it is. Yes, it’s not fair. Also, keys under the street light, I know.

                • jim says:

                  I would say it is easier to accuse someone of being anti white when she puts the mothers of black men who attacked white policemen on stage with her. Fact is, antisemites just are not getting traction. Gamergate and the like have gotten people fired. Who have you gotten fired?

                • pdimov says:

                  I have not gotten anyone fired. Nor have I tried.

                • peppermint says:

                  Getting the bad guys fired is a big job that needs to be done. The law of war is that a tactic becomes acceptable when the enemy uses it. So far, many of them have been fired for being pedophiles, pedophile enablers, terrorist supporters, but not one Jew has been fired for all that and being a Jew. By the time we can get Jews fired simply for being Jews, we will already have won, because civil rights will have been repealed, followed by mass employment of Whites, disemployment of muds, and the collapse of college enrollment.

                • jim says:

                  Getting the bad guys fired is a big job that needs to be done. The law of war is that a tactic becomes acceptable when the enemy uses it. So far, many of them have been fired for being pedophiles, pedophile enablers, terrorist supporters, but not one Jew has been fired for all that and being a Jew.

                  Well, we should not fire Jews for being Jews. We should fire progs for being progs, and if we do so, a whole lot of Jews will be fired.

                • pdimov says:

                  Firing them is not the only option. It’s also possible, in principle, to turn them pro-white instead of anti-white, by using the right incentives; or failing that, to discredit their ideas and rhetoric by associating them with anti-whiteness.

        • jim says:

          Pragmatically, Jew criticism is a Schelling point. If you asked around non-progressives who’s to blame most for progressive degeneracy, you won’t get any non-coordinated response even close to the Jew.

          It seems glaringly obvious that progressives are to blame for progressive degeneracy.

          When you go on and on about Jews you are implicitly saying some progressives, and some progressivism are OK.

          They are not OK. Aim at the matador, not the cape.

          • pdimov says:

            “When you go on and on about Jews you are implicitly saying some progressives, and some progressivism are OK.”

            No, you don’t. Doesn’t follow at all.

          • peppermint says:

            — unassimilable minority uses total control of state and media to suppress mention of them while controlling mainstream opposition through religion

            That’s a pretty big red pill, even if it’s a conspiracy theory that these Jew schemes

            hey filthy goyim do you despise physical laborers and paying them and having them hit on your daughter? Buy these monkey men from the jungle!

            hey filthy goyim, are you afraid that daddy’s money isn’t enough to keep you from needing to work? That’s because the capitalists are schlonging everyone, you can have a UBI and a government job if you help us take over!

            hey filthy goyim, you really liked that girl who married that other guy? Life is short, have an affair, slut-shaming is the reason you aren’t pulling a different slut every week!

            were financed by Jew schemers. There will always be a hierarchy within the alt-right as long as it is out of power between anti-progressivism and anti-progressivism with an awareness of what happened during the ((20th Century))

            • jim says:

              Because you focus on Jews, you fail to notice that Hillary Clinton is calling upon blacks to murder whites and promising to prevent police from defending whites and themselves by litigating police departments into the ground, and planning to import very large numbers of black male military age men, quite possibly hundreds of millions, and that Angela Merkel is …

              The number one most evil and powerful Jew in all the world is Soros, and nothing he does is comparable to Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel. Hell, he is not even comparable to Angelo Mozillo among evil rootless cosmopolitan international financiers.

              If you look for an evil rootless cosmopolitan international financiers who are fucking over hard working Americans, try Angelo Mozillo and Jon Corzine.

              • pdimov says:

                Soros moved two million “refugees” to Germany. All Merkel did was agree to accept them, and it’s highly questionable whether she had a choice in the matter.

                I don’t however think that Soros did that because he’s a Jew. In fact I’m not sure that he considers himself a Jew.

                • peppermint says:

                  he is, however, painfully aware that he is not a Hungarian or an American except in the civic nationalist i.e. nonsense sense, and is thus required to truly believe in multiculturalism and try to export it by any means possible

                  Jews aren’t evil because they are ratfaced hand-rubbing rats, they are evil because they have to believe in lies like multiculturalism and White privilege. When they all make aliyah then they can screw each other like in that joke –

                  A Journalist has to write a story on the lack of meat in Poland. So he goes off to Poland and asks the people:

                  “Excuse me, what do you think of the lack of meat in Poland?”

                  All the poles reply: “Meat? What is meat?”

                  Seeing he cannot get an answer in Poland he goes to the USSR
                  and asks the Soviets:

                  “Excuse me, what do you think of the lack of meat in Poland?”

                  All the Soviets reply: “Think? What is think?”

                  Seeing he cannot get an answer in the USSR he goes to the USA and asks the Americans:

                  “Excuse me, what do you think of the lack of meat in Poland?”

                  All the Americans reply: “Lack? What is lack?”

                  Seeing he cannot get an answer in the USA he decides to go to
                  Israel, and asks the Israelis:

                  “Excuse me, what do you think of the lack of meat in Poland?”

                  To which all the Israelis reply: “Excuse me? What is excuse

                • pdimov says:

                  “and is thus required to truly believe in multiculturalism and try to export it by any means possible”

                  I don’t think so.

                  First, I don’t think that anybody has the power to require anything from Soros.

                  Second, there is no scenario in which quickly moving two million “refugees” into Germany promotes multiculturalism.

                  One could almost suspect Soros in being a Nazi supporter, because if there is a way to bring Nazism back, this would be it.

                • peppermint says:

                  He is required to be a true believer in multiculturalism because he is neither a Hungarian nor an American and is trying to act like he belongs in America instead of Israel.

                  As a true believer in multiculturalism, he believes that importing muslims into Germany will eventually lead to multiculturalism.

                • And this is precisely why this discussion about Jews is retarded. A whole lot of people have various amounts of Jewish ancestry in them without having a Jewish identity or upbringing. Putting it differently, being a Jew is an identity and the whole point of being a rootless cosmopolitan is not having an (ethnic) identity. The whole discussion would be significantly more sensible if people at least talked about ex-Jews, not Jews. And one thing ex-Jews to to reinforce their ex-ness is to marry out. And that is happening for how long now? Easily 3-4 generations. How do you call a person who has, out of 8 great grand-parents, 3 or 5 ex-Jew progressives and 5 or 3 ex-Christian white progressives, and their upbringing and identity was largely about an education in progressivism? Because that how the average Joe Schwartz liberal journalist looks like to me. Even Soros outmarried 2 out of 3 times.

                  Admittedly, this mixture process seems more prevalent here in Mitteleuropa than in the US. I was actually surprised when I learned from Adam Sandler comedies, of all places (Jack and Jill) that in the US Jews still function as a firm identity group and less mixed.

                  But in the US Adam Sandler is just an excellent example of the outmarrying ex-Jew I have in mind. How exactly can one tell them from any other regular white guy? In what sort of sense is he not just a random regular white dude? I find it seriously confusing.

                  My opinion is that it is a natural tendency for people with strong ethnic loyalties to assume their enemies have strong ethnic loyalties too. But they are not necessarily right. It is even more sensible to say that the globalist types have sort of lost their own ethnic tribe and now want to make everybody lose it.

                  Peppermint seems to get it right – with Soros it is not what he is but what he isn’t, not American, not Hungarian, and not even properly Jew, I mean, what would a rabbi say to him marrying gentile women? It is precisely not being anything, identity-wise, that makes a Soros.

                  The actually intelligent question is: why do Jews seem to be disproportionally likely to lose their identity and thus be generally opposed to identities and push globalism? Why couldn’t Soros be more like a Dennis Prager?

                • peppermint says:

                  » why do Jews seem to be disproportionally likely to lose their identity and thus be generally opposed to identities and push globalism?

                  the fact that this question always comes up about Jews is the reason discussion of Jews as Jews is not retarded.

                  » In what sort of sense is ((Adam Sandler)) not just a random regular white dude?

                  Talentless idiots getting famous for being Jews is just another aspect of Jewish power.

                  Jews will favor Jews over Whites. If Whites will not favor Whites over Jews, Jews will take control of all the systems and destroy us.

                  You say not all Jews are like that. It may be true, but pretty much all Jews are going to go along with favoring Jews over Whites.

      • Stephen W says:

        The Jews are not the source of all progs but a self respecting nation would not allow alien tribes to live on their territory anyway.

        • jim says:

          Alien tribes living on your territory are not a problem. Alien tribes in your organs of government and in quasi governmental institutions are problem. Alien priests are a problem.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            If more than 10% of the population in your territory consists of alien tribes, you have problems.

            Empirically speaking, as little as 2% of a particular tribe of stepp dwellers reliably and enthusiastically leads to inflating the proportions of alien tribes, hence jews uniquely as jews are problematic.

            >Well, we should not fire Jews for being Jews, we should fire progs for being progs.

            This kind of deracinated colourblindness is a hallmark of proggie thought dysfunction; is a fragile equilibrium that easily breaks down into something more banal and dysfunctional; and represents ‘open ports’ in your ideological firewall that can be exploited by precisely the sort of people you would wish it to target, along with the more general mutation causing ‘background radiation’ of useful idiots that inhabit every discourse.

            The pedestalization of ideology over, before, or in ignorance of ethnity has always been a fatal conceit of assorted gnostics and solipsists of modernity. Quite appropriately, this too is a largely ethnically centered phenomena, being a largely europoid conceit. An almost instinctual aversion to making any criticism too ‘personal’, presumably borne out of their instinct for avoiding or mediating conflict in the community sphere.

            (Which is of course the major vector for their subversion by leftism; quite maladaptive when taken outside of isolated mountain valley hamlets and into broader civilization spheres and exposed to the zombies, demons, and barbarians that populate the radioactive wastes Outside.)

            Politics, culture, ideologies, all are emergent properties of a peoples character; if you want the right ideology, you need the right entities (and the right ideologies are ones that, at the very least, preserve the right entities; the hierarchy in this relationship should be clear). If one were to examine the heredity of ‘red tribe’ and ‘blue tribe’ whites in america, I guarantee you you’d find identifiable cladistic clusters.

            >Alien tribes in your organs of government and in quasi governmental institutions are a problem. Alien priests are a problem.

            But what if you can’t have one without the other here?

            People are going to do what they are going to do; so often changing the context simply means a change in rationalizations, not a change in outcomes. Niggers are gonna nig, and Jews are gonna Jew. Wherever jews go, they inveterately and compulsively seek out institutions of the word to make their place. It’s in their DNA.

            I can even throw in a slightly more white-washed bone here which may be more palatable to europoid conceits; we don’t have to wave away *only* jews with a ‘thanks but no thanks’, but alien tribes in general of course! If that just so happens to also include lots of subversive handrubbers, just a coincidence of course.

            I mean really, 2015 was so 2015, its 2016 people, its just common sense.

            • jim says:

              As I said, not seeing it. Hillary is not Jewish. Merkel is not Jewish, Angelo Mozillo is not Jewish, Jon Corzine is not Jewish. Jews just are not a major cause of our problems.

    • Dick Wagner says:

      The conspiracy theories are stacking up against Jim and Neoreaction. Jim never responds to the problem directly. He is complicit with the Jews. Moldbug’s pill wasn’t a redpill, it wasn’t a bluepill, it was a Jewpill.

      • peppermint says:

        however, there’s a huge difference between the analysis of Revilo Oliver and William Luther Pierce and even Harold Covington, who’s currently recording the same message in podcasts, the analysis of the /pol/ network and Andrew Anglin.

        The central thesis of neoreaction is that our enemies aren’t so much a cabal of cackling merchants or a cathedral of priests or even the Fabian society and the Frankfurt school, but the decline is partly the result of White men signaling their comfort and reliability by calling for the genocide of Whites. Neoreaction is the application of game theory to politics.

        To which it must be added that minorities have biological programming and incentives to behave in certain ways, the application of evolution to politics, and that the delusion that there are souls causes many Whites to go along with getting cucked, in some cases literally, which is atheism applied to politics.

        These 20th century trends could only be applied to politics by 21st century youth after the 19th century ideas promoted by their 20th century parents had played out and been found retarded.

      • jim says:

        The word “Cuck” cuts reality at the joints. Hillary plans to import a hundred million male military age Muslims to replace the missing grandchildren, who will supposedly pay taxes to support social security and pay off affirmative action mortgages in green leafy suburbs, but who will in fact kick us out of the nest.

        The problem is not the Jew, the outsider, seeking the destruction of an alien people. The problem is the self destructive status signaling insider, the cuckold, complicit in his own annihilation, seeking the destruction of his own people. The problem is Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel.

        • Dick Wagner says:

          Those women are representatives of the general population. The general population has been engineered by the tribe with the capital and the high verbal intelligence.

  30. Learner says:

    Your article is very interesting. However, I am not sure the stats support your conclusion very well. I guess you are using Total Fertility Rates for the US; this metric has an important disadvantage, the so-called “Tempo Effect”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Tempo_effect
    Tempo effect means that in the 1920s and 1930s you could have women having the same number of children, just later. This produces a temporary fall in Total Fertility Rates, but fertility has just been postponed, not reduced. This effect can be expected after a change in customs (fewer teenage marriages), economic depressions (the Great Depression is called that way for something) and wars (WW2 was not the best moment to have children). That would also explain the boom in fertility once depression and war conditions have expired: it’s the same women, just having the same number of children later.
    While you may be right about patriarchy in the long term, I don’t think these data lend you some great support. Moreover, it seems widespread access to contraceptives is a big part of the fertility reduction story in the last third of the 20th century, while that element is missing in your analysis.

    • jim says:

      Well, if you don’t like total fertility, try another stat. If you don’t like my data, offer me some other data

      Total fertility tells us that women were having children at time X. If every fertile age woman decided to get pregnant in 2018, and then decided to have no more children, total fertility would be sky high in 2018 and zero thereafter.

      So I think total fertility is exactly the number I want, and measures exactly what I want to measure. At a time when women perceive that their husbands could potentially spank them, they choose to get pregnant. Or their husbands tell them to get pregnant, but, knowing women, more likely they choose to get pregnant, in part because they perceive their husbands as manly, in part because, perceiving their husbands as manly, they and their husbands act in ways that give them confidence in the solidity and durability of their marriage.

      • Learner says:

        If I were a female, I would have no confidence in the solidity and durability of my marriage if my husband was a long-term unemployed man in a depressed region in 1929, or if my husband was called to war after Pearl Harbour. And if I were a husband, I wouldn’t want to burden my family with another son/daughter I wouldn’t be able to feed, either because of unemployment or because I can be killed soon in an uncertain war. I would rather wait until I come back. That’s the story of some relatives of mine, by the way; women waited for the men to come back from war before they married. There’s no point in marrying and having children (at least for a honourable man) if you face either an imminent, temporary death threat or long-term unemployment in a country like the US in the early 1930s.
        While your ideas about patriarchy are intriguing, those data can be more easily justified by depression and war, which tend to cause marriage and birth postponement.

        • pdimov says:

          Except that on the chart fertility starts dropping before the depression and rebounds during the depression and WW2.

          • Learner says:

            As I suggested in my first comment, the fall in the 20s could be due to a change of customs (fewer teenage marriages), not meaning fewer babies during a woman’s lifetime. During the Great Depression and WW2, TFR was around 2.3-2.5 (no real rebound). The Baby Boom, as we all know, came in the years after the war; that’s when TFR skyrocketed to 3.0-3.5.
            In other words: had there been no Great Depression and no war, you would have seen a rebound in the late 20s (end of the Tempo effect) and then a flat line til the contraceptives came into play.
            There’s tons of info about the post-war baby boom. Nothing new here.

          • Learner says:

            Look at this chart: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/
            It is coherent with the idea that people stopped marrying so young in the 1920s, then there was marriage postponement during the Depression, after the Depression people started marrying again (that’s your small rebound during WW2) and then there’s a huge peak in marriages when WW2 is over and veterans can fulfill their engagements.
            There’s no point in denying that depression and war were the main causes for these stats.

            • jim says:

              The war marriage peak just is not big enough to explain the postwar baby boom, and it completely fails to explain the seventies baby slump. Marriage boom about 25% above the going rate for five years. Baby boom about 75% above going rate for a decade.

              Wartime marriage boom explains only about one third of the postwar baby boom, and fails to explain the seventies baby slump

              The great Depression fails to explain the prewar baby slump, since fertility collapsed before the great depression, and stopped collapsing when the depression started.

              • Learner says:

                70s slump due to contraceptives, sexual revolution, etc. 25% increase in marriage and 75% increase in births may have a common cause, i.e. men were not at war and they had jobs, a.k.a. normal conditions. Sorry, cannot see how data support your argument. Try with the 70s, that’s more plausible.

                • jim says:

                  We have had contraception since the late bronze age, and the sexual revolution is exactly wives not being spanked.

              • viking says:

                Jim I think you are correct the victorian liberalism put a damper on spankings but from Chaucer to the Decameron and Taming of the shrew which McClintock is a based on we have spankings.
                McClintock is very multi culti and leftist for 63

        • jim says:

          Birth rate was collapsing before the depression. Remained steady during the depression. Started to rise with the start of war and continued to rise steadily with the end of the war showing no effect.

          The great Depression had no effect on fertility, except perhaps to halt the collapse in fertility. End of war had no effect on fertility.

          It was the start of war that began the baby boom – that being the start of the culture once again celebrating, instead of demonizing, manliness.

          The failure of the depression or the end of war to have any effect on fertility is consistent with international comparisons between rich and poor, which show that economics has almost no effect on fertility, except when there is actual famine and cannibalism.

          The decision to reproduce is controlled by psychological forces vastly more powerful. People don’t decide to have babies because they can afford them. They decide to have babies, and then do whatever it takes so that they can afford them.

          • Learner says:

            OK, then what’s your take in the 1920s baby slump? Why did it happen?

            • jim says:

              Amelia Earhart (who got a ticker tape parade for being carried across the Atlantic like a sack of potatoes) Marie Curie, who got not one but two Nobel prizes for work that no one would have remembered if a man did it. (Name the man who discovered radon, a far more important discovery made at about the same time) work that she did not do herself, being the least important member of a three person team that did it, though the key idea, using the radioactivity detector designed and built by her husband to look for radioactive materials, appears to have been her own. Ada Lovelace, who became amazingly famous for not being complete incompetent about science and maths.

              That beating one’s wife had long been illegal. That ones wife could leave the marriage at any time unencumbered, while the husband could not. And that until 1933 the media did not depict spanking wives as normal.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            The Population Reference Bureau shows a much higher TFR in the 1920’s than in the 1930’s


            The chart is around 3.5 in 1921 with a small drop along the way.

            Allowing for much higher infant mortality rates , 3.5 was enough for some growth.

            In 1930 it hit around 2.0 which given the high infant mortality rates is staggering. Its “dying Russia” level low . Normally TfR seems to go up with infant mortality , the stressed population argument seems to hold some water.

            I cannot say if this is so in the West though, research only includes 3rd world nations

            What happened during the baby boom is we got the high end of historical fertility levels and an unprecedented decline in infant mortality . That was pretty unusual and I can’t see it being repeated.

            My take away from all this is the hard patriarchy Jim feels would reverse fertility tends a point I suspect is quite true seems only to bed able to propagated in a

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              Sorry, it posted accidentally.

              To complete

              My take away from all this is the hard patriarchy Jim feels would reverse fertility tends a point I suspect is quite true seems only to be able to propagated in a less developed environment. C.F Timor Leste

              If you are willing to basically reverse development, forbid women from education and join the 3rd world you can get the birth rate much higher.

              In theory a hard right dictatorship that forbade birth control and tightly controlled every single form of media and communications could do the same. Good luck with that though. You’d have to utterly destroy the Cathedral in every nation and somehow prevent your populace from destroying you for a few decades until your social development fit the society you are trying to build

              The 3rd theoretical option would be to somehow convince young White men that hard patriarchy is what they want and would benefit them the most. That is plausible but its a long game. My guess is it will take around 20 years or more if the system collapses , 50 otherwise

              The easy and achievable solution is expulsion of foreigners and the multi-cult and soft natalism . This will only work with a good economy. The 50% under employment common to Europe renders this a null option for anyone with a 3 digit IQ

              • jim says:

                My take away from all this is the hard patriarchy Jim feels would reverse fertility tends a point I suspect is quite true seems only to be able to propagated in a less developed environment. C.F Timor Leste

                Some less developed countries have a large part of the population that has escaped the propaganda arm of the Cathedral. Japan was a developed, highly patriarchal country (due to armed resistance to the Cathedral) with very high fertility (4.5). Fifties America was a developed, culturally moderately patriarchal country with well above replacement fertility (3.5)

                That is near to doubling in every generation, and with corporal punishment illegal but presented as socially acceptable. If the same media, but in addition we actually legalized corporal punishment and made it illegal for the wife to run away without good cause, we would certainly exceed four, more than doubling in each generation probably hit six, tripling in each generation.

                Timore Leste has strong dose of what we gave ourselves in the fifties. If the dose we gave ourselves in the fifties resulted in a near doubling each generation, the Timor Leste dose (corporal punishment, wives not allowed to run away without cause acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church, women not allowed to own property, women not allowed to do most jobs) would certainly give us Timor Leste levels of fertility.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Tech has changed tremendously and its much harder to use faith and/or tradition as controls in a modern developed nation.

                  The US in 1950 also has a much lower TFR than Timor anyway,

                  That said people who want Timor Leste level of fertility or even 1950 US ones (3.5) seem not to exist in large numbers and no one seems to want muscular Christianity much either.

                  This is partially Cathedral doing of course but there are other issues in place and its going to be nigh impossible to control a large nation with 300x the population of that little island

                  speaking for myself I’m an outlier of a sort, I’d like 3 kids but that isn’t probably t going to happen for many reasons and to be honest I’m getting long in the tooth and set in my ways to be a father,

                • pdimov says:

                  “That said people who want Timor Leste level of fertility or even 1950 US ones (3.5) seem not to exist in large numbers…”

                  Thanks to the power of the exponential function, they do not need large numbers. They’ll replace everyone else given not that much time (by historical standards) if not suppressed.

                • peppermint says:

                  » its much harder to use faith and/or tradition as controls in a modern developed nation

                  don’t forget, the tradition of faith is how the culture was subverted in the ’20s and ’30s by Judaeo-Christcuck ministers and in the ’50s and ’60s by Christcuck sociali{st,te}s

                  don’t forget, faith and tradition is what subverted the White nationalism of the Founders into the Christcuck civic nationalism of the late 20th century

  31. GameOn says:

    Sounds like in Russia both the rape of sluts and domestic violence is defacto legal:


  32. Stirner says:

    If you google “domestic discipline” you will find and entire subculture focused on the patriarch bringing his wife to heel using physical discipline. Some are Christian. Some are irreligious. They are not part of the BDSM community, because they do not think their arrangements are a form of erotic “play”.

    • jim says:

      The BDSM community role plays domination, because they find the thought of men actually dominating women inconceivable.

      • peppermint says:

        The BDSM community is women who, in that way peculiar to women, manage to reject a thing in the strongest terms while wholeheartedly embracing it. There are likely to be men who go along with the BDSM pretense in order to have a normal relationship with a woman, who wouldn’t be engaged in the community, but also beta males who are engaged with the community trying to get the sexually aggressive women that they have been assured are there.

  33. Liv says:

    While I get that you advocate for the MRM, I don’t think corporal punishment is in anyway a good thing. I joke about it with my husband because I find myself reacting like a bitch sometimes and after I calm down, I say, hit me next time… so I get where you’re coming from. But, being a an ex-SJW turned Alt-Right and a woman, I think it’s important for the woman to realize her own humiliation. I realized mine when I self-raped myself by accepting sex from an underclass loser I thought I loved. It humbled me and helped me return to (yes, I was turned into an SJW by my university) conservatism. I think, however, that a woman cannot control her emotions that well, but it doesn’t mean that men should fix that with physical violence. It’s unfair, and it doesn’t show much superiority. I feel that if whites are to be the ruling race, we can’t show other races that we hit our women. Let blacks beat the shit out of each other, kill each other mindlessly like they do every day. Men need to understand that women they are married have hormonal fits, but I say they should dominate them with their emotional control and ask them quietly: Is it honourable, the way in which you’re acting? Do you have pride in yourself when you become emotional like this? Would you act like this if your mother was here next to you? Women have privilege in society, and they grow up showered with affirmative shit like ‘you’re pretty’ and ‘you’re so good at this talent’ so it’s clear that the women of today are selfish cunts, but for those who are in the Alt-Right, who are not living in the underclass and you want nothing with it, we should all keep a level of dignity that should be highly regarded instead of result to animalistic and barbaric practices such as throwing punches or screaming like banshees.

    Great article nonetheless!
    xox Liv

    • jim says:

      While I get that you advocate for the MRM, I don’t think corporal punishment is in anyway a good thing.

      I forcefully condemn the men’s rights movement. I advocate patriarchal marriage and they don’t. They advocate egalitarian association between men and women, but such associations are necessarily transitory and thus unsuited for having children. While women are fertile, this form of connection greatly advantages women, but as soon as they hit the wall, they are alone.

      I think, however, that a woman cannot control her emotions that well, but it doesn’t mean that men should fix that with physical violence. It’s unfair, and it doesn’t show much superiority.

      Pauline marriage is unambiguously unfair. See Saint Paul on how a wife should behave when her husband behaves badly.

      barbaric practices such as throwing punches

      If a man punches a woman, this shows he is physically weak. The disparity in upper body strength between a man and a woman is so great that it is almost always possible for any normal man to throw any normal woman over his lap, pin her there with one hand, and beat her backside with the other. Punches are used between equals, and a woman should never be with any man that is her equal, only a man that is greatly her superior.

      To punish a woman, a man puts a woman in a half nelson with his left hand holding her right hand behind her back, and his left elbow pinning her left upper arm behind her back, tosses her over his lap with his right hand, and then spanks her with his right hand, with his left elbow pushing her body down and her left upper arm up.

      I think you should watch these movies where men are depicted as spanking their wives, for example McLintock, magnet:?xt=urn:btih:L3QDWBFHUDV5F7OH2SGTTNYOALTJHT37&dn=McLintock!%20(1963)%201080p%20BrRip%20×264%20-%20VPPV&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969which features two really brutal spankings. When a spanking comes out of patriarchy, out of the man’s duty and need to care for his wife, rather than being the dumb thug depicted in modern television, I expect you will feel about it differently.

      I only ever beat my wife once, and that time not very hard, but she was a very good woman – and I not a very good man. Most women need more discipline.

      If you were with a man whom you looked up to, and he physically punished you for bad behavior, you would not feel it to be unfair. And if you watch these movies, the ones from 1945 to 1963, you will change your mind about how you expect you will feel.

      • JudyU says:

        > his left hand holding her right hand behind her back, and his left elbow pinning her left upper arm behind her back, tosses her over his lap with his right hand, … with his left elbow pushing her body down and her left upper arm up.

        Actually that is a very erotic position, whereas being punched in the face is not erotic at all

        The man is so powerful he can render a woman helpless and at his mercy with one hand, while with his other hand he can … do anything at all.

        I can easily see how this would ….

        increase total fertility

    • theshadowedknight says:

      You seem to have missed the entire point of the article. Corporal discipline of females is intentionally unfair. It is a forceful reminder of male superiority. It reinforces the sexual roles of dominant men and submissive women. Inequitable treatment is the whole point of the exercise.

      If my women gets out of line, then spanking puts her back in her place, and threat of further spanking keeps her there. It forces her to come face to face with my dominance over her, and her need to submit to my will. Her submission is sexually arousing, because she desires a man who is her superior. That sexual arousal and compliance leads to children.

      Without children, it is all vanity.

      The Shadowed Knight

    • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

      A properly administered conjugal spanking is *symbolically* animalistic and barbaric, which is true of most healthy civilized male behavior and all healthy male sexual behavior (which happens to be the kind that women actually enjoy).

      Try, if you’re able, to pay attention to what Jim wrote, instead of changing the subject to your own feelings about tangentially related stuff his post happened to remind you of. He’s not saying you should knock a girl out or break her arm if she spoils breakfast. That’s disproportionate in any remotely normal situation.

      • Liv says:

        I’m still recovering from being a feminist, so this is clearly shocking to me. I still think that a correlation between spankings and fertility might not be the absolute solution. I mean, it isn’t normalized and normalizing it would be a task. I still think that spanking is base. Men have pretty dominating voices, if my husband gets mad at me and raises his voice, I’m automatically scared, there’s no need to slap. I mean, if it happens, and the woman’s all right with it, so shall I be.

        • viking says:

          Liv as a guy who has spanked plenty of women I think whats missing here is context, there is definitely an erotic context without which it is simply a beating, If you have to beat your wife or children something has gone wrong, thats not to say, that something, is your fault or that a beating is not occasionally if rarely, the best solution, particularly for children but that there is a difference between spankings and beatings.
          I was careful not to spank my girl child over my knee or at all after ten years and would rarely give her a single knuckle to the head always warning her she was approaching the limit. Women will naturally respond erotically to spankings i did not want to set up a fetish that would pervert her.With a women you are simply reminding them that this is not a democracy [as i would joke, the good lord has put my yoke upon upon you and commanded you be cheerful about it] In other words this is not my oppression of you, it is simply as the world is,I fuck you and you submit that cant be changed. A family must have a clear leader or it can not function. Women have always found ways to influence this is good men are not infallible a wise man will listen before deciding a wise woman will be careful how she speaks lest she is not heard. Humans have a distributions of talents and though the courtship process which resembles a mock battle usually results in the man being the clear superior it sometimes may produce couples where the man is say less intelligent than the woman or even less assertive these can work particularly in modern civilizations if they are careful to not distort the natural order farther than need be. If it makes sense the woman balance the checkbook it should be explicit she is doing this work for her husband report to him and seek his approval on decisions If for some reason he must be asked to help with womens work it should be acknowledged that he is being gracious. When the natural hierarchy is perverted sex and relationships are destroyed. Spankings are a way to nip this and other offences like attempting to humiliate your man in public by being flirtatious or upstaging him in the bud.

          • FemaleVisitor says:

            Accidentally found this web site and probably won’t be back because I’m sure you guys wouldn’t want me here (so I’m saying out of respect). Anyway, I’m basically the liberal type that you all hate. But none of what I have read on this topic of male/female relations offends me. I think we are all hard-wired this way.

            I’m not married and doubt that I will marry because most men are offended by this idea of relations (“patriarchy”) as women are. Or maybe “offended” isn’t the correct word…. hell, *I’m* offended. That is the point. The man needs to ignore female protests and be willing to take over and *especially* do so when it is unfair the female is actually “right” and/or offended.

            One statement that you make about Hollywood’s portrayal of spanking from ’33 to 45 as being unusual but not unacceptable was interesting. I love old films and did notice the tone of the spankings portrayed in that era to be serious compared to the way that the spankings in the late forties and fifties are always presented in a comical context. And I assumed that the comically portrayed spankings were a form of censorship insofar as wife-spanking could only be joked about, but no longer presented as normal. But I never examined the idea like you have done. Interesting take.

            • jim says:

              Watch McLintock. Not joking about spanking misbehaving women.

            • Turtle says:

              “I’m basically the liberal type that you all hate. But none of what I have read on this topic of male/female relations offends me. I think we are all hard-wired this way. ”

              Best contradiction ever. What’s next, “please spank me harder?” You don’t seem like the 1/3rd or whatever fraction Jim estimates it is of women who allegedly need corporal punishment. You have feminist emotions, but you can think through them, so you’d actually fit in here. If you haven’t read the comments here, there’s plenty of repetitive bickering, but nobody would be rude to you, I think.

              Finally, wise sexism is not against women, rather against equality and feminism. This means rejecting female selfishness, which is what a good friend does.

        • peppermint says:

          he doesn’t need to slap you, just hold you down so you know who you belong to. I’m guessing he already does that and you love him for it, while you are concerned about the prospect of actual damage to a woman, which you rightly see as abuse. This is because discipline that White men impose on their wives is deliberately conflated by the academia/media elite with the ways that niggers actually abuse women, since niggers do not by nature take ownership of women and care for them, and the ways in which dykes injure each other when fighting, and the cases when Whites actually beat their women for trying to cuck them.

    • anonymous says:

      Too many words.

  34. Dave says:

    My kids wanted to see an animation of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, so I searched online and found an old MGM cartoon from 1939 (I didn’t even know MGM made cartoons before Tom & Jerry)

    Anyway, Father Bear was portrayed as a complete doofus throughout, always stumbling around and breaking stuff and being henpecked and humiliated by the sensible Mother Bear. This was fifty years before the first Simpsons episode!

    I think the misandry got toned down really quick in 1942 because men were needed to win the war. If they’d kept up the men-are-idiots propaganda, young men would say “Oops, I done shot a hole in my foot, guess you gals will have to go fight Hitler without me!”

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      If you look closely you may find all sorts of abrupt, unusual societal “shifts” at about time of mobilization (1940ish to esp. 1942) and then again when the veterans of WWII entered middle age (1960ish).

    • Barbara says:

      It’s interesting that it was men who wrote and made those cartoon animations and who wrote the sitcoms that portray both men and women in various stereotypes.
      Women had little to do with it.

Leave a Reply