Jim's Blog

The common wisdom in the manosphere is that mate guarding in hopeless: “She’s not yours, it was just your turn”

Even though a minority of men do get laid, laid by the overwhelming majority of women, none of them get what men actually want. This is the black pill and the council of despair.

It also happens to be overwhelmingly true in our society. Owning a woman, in our society, is difficult, dangerous, and illegal.

As Rollo says, addressing the same topic:

If a man is going to compromise mating opportunities with many women to parentally invest in one woman, the deal must come with one condition: the child must be his genetic stock or the compromise invalidates his existence (evolutionarily speaking). To ensure this men evolved a mental firmware that predisposes us to jealousy, mate guarding and desire to possess a woman.

But women are searching for the ancestral environment of successful reproduction. As long as a women is free to keep endlessly cruising for an upgrade, men are not going to invest in her and her children. This is the cause of our failure to reproduce. Men and women are afraid. Men are afraid of women’s freedom, and women are afraid of their own freedom.

Men are highly motivated to possess a woman. But women are also highly motivated to be possessed. The trouble is that in a society where women are emancipated, their desire for a strong man in a strong tribe gets in their way. They passionately wanted emancipation the same way they want to passionately win every shit test. They actually want a man that can dominate them by passing the shit test, they actually want a man strong enough that they lose the shit test.

She wants to secure investment from a strong man, a man strong enough to protect his investment.

And if you move to protect your investment: curfew, restricting some out of the house activities, requiring her to get your approval for all out of house activities, making her log you into her Find My Iphone on all your devices, unpredictable video calls, and unpredictable in person visits to her out of the house activities, (brief in person visits, hovering and following her around is needy) she is going to test you for that strength with a massive shit test, that may well have go all the way to giving her a beating. Or several as the shit test keeps on going.

But, if you pass, she will love it, and will love you for it, and will cooperate with your mate guarding fully and enthusiastically. She will feel truly loved by a strong man – the love of a weak man being entirely invisible to women. Women are consciously aware that they want to be dominated sexually, but because of their powerful impulse to fitness test men, are unaware that they will have peace and bliss when that dominance extends to their whole life.

And, since Game blogs seem to be dying off, a quick review of game and good sources on game:

Heartiste:

Aidan McClear, particularly page 57 “Game Advice”

You may have read about negs. To understand them, you have to understand the mating dance and what a neg does.

The mating dance is that men perform to get women’s attention. Then she hits him a fitness test – she want to see if you can command and compel her on a matter of no great importance against her fierce resistance, so she is unreasonable or foolish in order to give you opportunity and incentive to conquer in some small matter. If you succeed, she will not long thereafter give you an opportunity to command and compel her sexually against her fierce resistance.

If a woman gets a man’s attention, he is nice to her. If man gets a woman’s attention, she is apt to very quickly become difficult.

A neg is pre-emptively passing a minor shit test without waiting for one to be given, finding a shit test in something not necessarily intended as a shit test. Hence leading with a neg.

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

The three magic words are not “I love you”

The three magic words are “You are mine”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are maladapted to watching the decline from the pool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is how you reach cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core of the reactionary program is to make marriage legal again. Without marriage, the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, and reproduction is dysgenic.

Leftist marriage, modern marriage, is gay. Marriage has been gay since 1928.

Obviously reactionaries must reintroduce marriage that is suitable for heterogamous organisms, and we will have to introduce it as a matter of faith and morals before we can introduce it as a matter of law.

The left offers your wife cash and prizes for destroying the family assets, destroying you and destroying your children. The lawyer and the marriage counselor will tell her she is oppressed, and she can get a court order that gives her cash and prizes, raises her status, and will result in her marrying a six foot six billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.

Modern marriage is gay. Everyone who gets married gets gay married. If your wedding vows are symmetric and interchangeable, the same of the man as for the woman, your marriage is gay and you are being gay married.

If your wedding has a master of ceremonies or a priest who acts like he, rather than the groom, is the big important man at the wedding, that he is the alpha male, your wedding is gay, and you are being gay married. (And the master of ceremonies is usually gay, and if he is not gay, he thinks that two males pretending to marry each other with the intention of cruising for nine year old boys to transexualize is smart and fashionable.)

The wedding organizer appoints a gay master of ceremonies whose main job is to define the groom as Homer Simpson, to emasculate him in the eyes of the bride. The minister conducts a gay wedding ceremony that treats the bride and groom as equal and interchangeable, even though experience has demonstrated that wives will not tolerate househusbands, and will invariably leave a domesticated man for a wild man who beats her, rapes her, and rapes and beats her husband’s children.

The worst thing progs did ever was remove “Honor and obey”, “submit and reverence” from the marriage ceremony.

The book of common prayer purged the wife’s vow to honor and obey and purged Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33 in 1928. That, not female suffrage, was the worst thing ever, effectively abolishing marriage.

One household necessarily has one captain. If the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, so no point in the ceremony, and, surprise surprise, people stopped holding the ceremony, just as they stopped turning up to Church when the pastor started telling them their husbands were Homer Simpson and if you showed up at Church you were likely homophobic.

We have to restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before first wave feminism.

The marriage ceremony needs to include “honor and obey”, and it needs to once again include Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33

22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And once again include the first epistle of Peter 3:1-7

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

And we also need to have 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, though the book of common prayer does the same thing in a different way:

3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Because without the obligation each to sexually gratify the other, no marriage.

The need to bring marriage back implies a familist movement will look awfully like a religion.

Another important aspect of family is eating together at the same time. Everyone, kids, wife, and guests, holds off from eating until the patriarch says “Amen” then they all eat together. Grace is a ritual that ensures that everyone eats together and that presents the alpha male as backed by the ultimate alpha male, God. Women inherently like their alpha male to be backed by a bigger alpha male, and they are astonishingly comfortable with being assigned to another man by a higher alpha.

So any effective familist movement necessarily has religious rituals that are going to qualify it as a religion. But, like the Masons and progressivism, will probably have to pretend that it is not a religion.

On the other hand, to inculcate the appropriate attitude in women, to make the rituals work, have to tell them “God says do it this way”, which kind of gives the game away.

OK, if God is three and God is one, familism can be a religion and not a religion. If AA can be not a religion, familism can be not a religion.

The Anglican Church died, as the Congregational Church died as a Christian movement long before them, and the Roman Catholic Church is dying in the west. The Pope defends priests having gay sex in a great big pile by saying “consenting adults” and “Global Warming”. Well, if Global Warming is the great moral crisis of our times, why should anyone show up at Church. And they don’t. And if the Church abolishes marriage, why should anyone get married. And they don’t.

The Christian and biblical position is that Christians are kin by adoption and by marriage, that Christians are adoptively the children of God, and the Church is the bride of Christ. So when the pastor abolishes marriage and attacks the authority of the father and the husband, he saws of the branch on which he sits, and it looks to me that every Church dies after it abolishes marriage, though its death takes a bit over a century. The longer ago they abolished marriage and the family, the longer ago they died. Congregationalism was the first to abolish marriage and the family, and the first to go.

We want a synthetic tribe, because we are detribalized. God backing dad comes in mighty handy for making the family a family, particularly for making people eat meals at mealtime. And God comes in mighty handy for promoting ingroup cooperate/cooperate equilibrium by making people kin. These two functions of God seem to be connected in practice.

It is recorded that Christianity spread in the early Roman empire in large part through conversion of women. It is also recorded that marriage had collapsed in the early Roman empire. I suspect these two facts are connected, that Christian marriage may have been a familist movement in the early Roman empire. Similarly we notice that today white female Christian converts to Islam are overwhelming fertile age single women. Roman women converting from dead paganism to live Christianity in the Roman Empire may well have been similar to white Christian women converting to Islam today. They are joining a synthetic tribe where the ultimate alpha male will assign them a husband and ensure that they have a family. While the ultimate alpha male of today’s Christianity is going to give them a “season of singleness”.

If we look at the marriages depicted in the bible, they are all marriages in which the top alpha male assigns the woman. Which is what women want, even if they don’t know they want it.

In Genesis, God, the ultimate alpha male, marries Eve to Adam.

Abraham, a powerful alpha male who successfully made war with kings, marries Rebecca to Isaac. Rebecca is not consulted until afterwards, and Isaac is not consulted at all.

In the book of Ruth, Boaz is a powerful male who is the top alpha in the environment where Ruth is working. Ruth sneaks into Boaz’s bed while he is drunk and sleeping, asks Boaz to marry her, and appears to believe he has authority to perform marriage on the spot. He declines to do so, saying he has to resolve some legalities first but they spend the night together anyway. In the morning he goes off and successfully resolves those legalities, and later assembles witnesses and marries Ruth. Ruth’s mother in law (Ruth is a widow and the adoptive daughter of her mother in law) gives the bride away. Boaz, a powerful alpha male, is the one who presides over this ritual, not a judge or a priest. The elders witness, but they don’t emcee. If Ruth is present at this ritual she does not speak, but before the ritual she had plenty to say to her mother in law and to Boaz in private.

Chicks like the man who is throwing a party, because he is top alpha at the party. As “Setting the Record Straight” tells us, game boils down to three simple things.

• Pass her shit tests
• Don’t show weakness
• Dominate other men

It is obviously optimal for marital harmony if the wife always sees her husband in social contexts where he is top alpha. When you throw a party, other alpha males act at the party as if you are the top alpha, even if in other social contexts you are not. So having someone else preside over the marriage is not a good idea. Marriages should resemble the marriage of Boaz and Ruth – unless the bride actually is being assigned to someone else by a powerful human alpha, as tended to happen during the early days of Australian settlement. If we look at first millennium Christian doctrine on marriage, it appears that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband with the priest being wedding organizer, rather than presiding over the wedding. Existing Catholic doctrine is that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband (which was very recently re-interpreted as the husband and the wife), but the priest presides over the ceremony, with the husband not being the alpha male in that context. Anglican doctrine back in the days when it was actually functioning as a religion is that marriage is and is not a sacrament. The articles say it is not a sacrament, but the preamble given by the priest in the book of common prayer treats it as a sacrament, and in the ritual the husband performs that sacrament.

He takes the brides hand, and

With this ring I thee wed

And then the priest tells the congregation what just happened, describing it terms that make it sound mighty like a sacrament performed by the husband. So, marriage is a sacrament or something very similar performed by the husband. And we know from evolutionary theory, PUA theory, and PUA empirical observation that this is in fact what women want – which suggests that the husband, rather than the priest should preside over the marriage, with the priest acting as wedding organizer and second in command at the party.

To get women to collectively behave better, women have to be informed as to what behavior is good.

Depict wives and children interacting with husbands and fathers the way they were depicted on television and movies after 1933 and before 1963. That will inform them. We cannot do that till we are in power. But while out of power, can restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before 1928: Wife promises to honor and obey, husband promises to love and cherish.

And let us go back a bit further, nine hundred years further. Husband administers the sacrament of marriage. Technically he still does: Takes wife hand. “With this ring I thee wed.” Places ring on finger. But that has been heavily played down for many centuries. It was a big power struggle in the Church of England after Henry the Eighth. They keep trying to make the marriage contractual (“I do”), when it should be sacramental (“with this ring I thee wed”). Women really hate contractual marriage. Contractual marriage is failing a shit test right at the starter’s gun.

We also need to restore the tradition that is implied in the story of the wise and foolish virgins, where the husband mock abducts the wife to a big party which he emcees, and everyone at the party treats him as top alpha male. Abduction, or else someone with family authority over the bride gives this woman to this man, leading her to the man. “Who giveth this woman to this man?” Women do not really like consensual and contractual marriage, hence the need for the bride to be given away or abducted.

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

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

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

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

So:

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

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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