Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

« Older Entries

Mate guarding game

Friday, May 28th, 2021

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.

Tags:,
Posted in culture | 862 Comments »

Make women property again

Monday, April 19th, 2021

Women are different.

Very different.

This is not a game post. This post is about the application of Game and Evolutionary Game Theory to religion and political organization.

If you look at the landscapes we create everywhere, it is apparent that we long for our ancestral savannah, the lightly treed environment we entered when we came down from the trees and stood off the lions. And women long for their ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Women reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property, and their behavior makes no sense unless you understand this.

As I have so often repeated: 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 at reproducing.

Women are always shit testing you. That is why they are so disruptive and destructive in the work place. But they are not really playing to win. They are playing to be subdued by a strong man.

Female aggression against men, shit testing, is fundamentally different from male aggression, because a man is playing to win, and if it looks like he is going to lose, seeks a compromise to lose without losing too much face, while a woman immediately heads out on a thin limb hoping it will break under her. Thus a woman is most apt to dig in her heels bitterly, stubbornly, and utterly intransigently on an issue where her position is completely indefensible, stupid, self destructive, and illegitimate. If on the other hand she has some legitimate issue with you, she will get angry with you without telling you what her anger is all about. You are supposed to divine it by mental telepathy, whereas if a man has some legitimate point giving rise to a dispute with another man, he will lay it out so plainly that a dog could understand it.

The only time a woman will plainly tell you her grievance is when it is absolutely ridiculous and completely illegitimate.

A man is playing a conflict with a man to win by getting the issue resolved in his favor. A woman plays a conflict to discover who is the stronger, to discover if you are capable of frightening and intimidating her, and thus will always play a conflict more intransigently than a man ever will. This is why men and women can never be friends. When you have a buddy, you will engage in mutual domination and mutual submission, as for example friendly insults and the slap on the back. With women, it is dominate or be dominated. That is why if they have grievance with you, will not tell you what it is, but will instead command you to divine it by mental telepathy, or perhaps by confessing to a long, long list of your sins, hoping for her to tell you which one is the right one.

Women are incapable of performing sexually, of enjoying sex, or even of performing the courtship dance, unless they are at least a little bit dominated and intimidated. Not all women are into outright bondage and beatings, but all women without exception are into subtler forms of domination and submission. All women are like that. No woman will get it on with a man that she is not afraid of. No Women Are Like That. They just physically do not respond unless they feel that they could be compelled. There are no women as the blue pill imagines them to be, no women as they are depicted in very single video of courtship and mating. None. Not in our society, and not in trad conservative societies. This is the big lie from the media that everyone is immersed in from childhood.

Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines, and unquestioned authority to execute any of them or all of them for any reason or no reason at all, has had women troubles, and many an empire has fallen from women troubles.

A woman will always attempt to top from the bottom, no matter how much she is into domination and submission. A game of pretend domination and pretend submission just is not an adequate substitute for the real thing, so if you are playing a domination and submission game, she will always test and provoke you into making the game a reality by topping from the bottom.

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

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

We seem to be adapted to eating a substantial proportion of other carnivores, hence the health advantages of fish. We are not true omnivores, because we cannot survive on an all vegetable diet, and we are adapted to getting a significant portion of our meat from other carnivores. We have been top predator for a very long time. The stable isotope ratio in old bones generally shows that we ate higher in the food chain than wolves or big cats – possibly we ate fish, which ate other fish. Most of these bones long predate the invention of nets and fishing lines, so possibly we ate wolves and lions.

Only males hunt, because adult males are pre-adapted physically and psychologically for violence. So women and children relied on the mighty hunter bringing home the bacon. And if you have defect/defect equilibrium, a society of players and bitches, well, the women can eat by whoring themselves out, until they are past fertile age, whereupon they starve or get eaten by lions, but out on our beloved savannah, their bastard children are going to die. From the isotope ratios in old bones we can infer that women have been property for a very long time.

And the simplest way to end defect/defect equilibrium is that the males assign the women according to deals they make with each other, and let the women think that the top alpha assigned the women. If the women get a say in it, defection is on the table.

point deer, make horse, 指鹿为马

Senator Roark in “Sin City”:
“Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you’ve got ’em by the balls.”

They are sons of the father of lies, and their shibboleth is always a big lie.

So we need to make our big shibboleth a big truth that contradicts one of the big lies. The biggest and most shocking truth: That the sexual nature of women is maladapted to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, we need to make women property again.

Each man must be King under his own roof.

And we need a national sovereign, and a national high priest, that backs the sovereign and high priest under every roof.

That women need to be property, for the good of society, and because each of them is individually seeking a man strong enough to make her property, that men need to make them property, is the best shibboleth to organize around. All faiths that support that can work together. All conflict between males is always ultimately conflict over women, so faiths that fail to support propertization of female sexual and reproductive services will always suffer internal and external conflict, leading to holiness spirals, while faiths that support male property rights over women and support propertization of loose women, are less apt to get into internal and external conflicts.

vive la différence

The largest difference between men and women is inside. We pursue very different reproductive strategies, which shapes everything we do in life.

The evil form of this strategy is players and bitches, defect/defect equilibrium, the lek mating pattern. The virtuous form of this strategy is husband and wife, marriage 1.0, eighteenth century marriage, which is now illegal. All happy families are quietly and furtively eighteenth century. All happy families are alike. There is only one way that works, only one form of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women. Women and dogs need a master, and are never happy if they lack a master, will always behave very badly if they think they are the alpha of the pack.

Proscribing honor killing is unwise, because good men will engage in honor killing anyway (there is always a handy swamp or ocean) and because you are pressuring men to adopt the player strategy so that they will not feel the compulsion to kill adulterers.

If state, church, society, and family, do not impose strong control over women’s sexual and reproductive choices, we get defect/defect equilibrium, resulting in failure to reproduce and dysgenic reproduction, and resulting in only a small minority of men getting all the pussy, thus demotivating the vast majority of men. If you own a woman, you want a nice house and a nice garden. A third world peasant with a wife and children is apt to live in a very nice mud and bamboo hut (it is very impressive what can be done with bamboo and a machete) with a very nice garden while a first world involuntary celibate is apt to live in a tiny, but high tech, box with crap furniture, even if he has a very high salary. The third world peasant with a wife and children has a much larger, more comfortable, and more attractive living space with nicer furniture than the first world webmaster in his little box, because the involuntary celibate, despite his affluence, does not care about his space and his furniture.

Christianity and sexuality

Everything in the bible about sex is a commentary, explanation, or clarification of the final commandment’s application to sex, marriage and children:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

And nothing the bible says about sex makes sense except in this context. If people jump on a line somewhere in the bible and start holiness spiraling on it so that it swallows and destroys the commandments, they are doing what the Jews did to get themselves exiled from Israel.

In a social environment where women are unowned and are frustrated by lack of ownership, old type Christian rules are inapplicable to banging any women you are likely to meet, because old type Christian rules are intended and expected to apply to women in the possession of some man. Fornication is making use of another man’s daughter without his permission, adultery another man’s wife or betrothed. But in today’s society, if a father attempts to restrain the sexual activity of his nine year old daughter, Child Protective Services is apt to take his children and his house away, lose track of his daughter, and sell his sons to a “married” gay couple. (Demand for prepubescent children to sexually exploit is primarily demand for small boys, so Child Protective Services cannot get much of a bribe for whoring out his nine year old daughter, so they leave it to her to whore herself out.)

Furthermore, the Old Testament does not make clear, but the Lord Jesus Christ does make clear, that the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them.

Incel and female immorality is not the intended effect, is the grossest possible violation of the commandments.

Christianity leading to inceldom, is like the Jews getting so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken.

Incels are usually incel in part because they are violating the laws of Gnon, and if they invoke Christianity to justify their inceldom, it is usually because they are weak and afraid, not because they are Christian.

Christians who apply old type Christian rules, intended for a society where a woman’s sexual and reproductive services were clearly under control of some man, intended for a society where patriarchs acquired wives for their sons from other patriarchs, are in our collapsed society, violating, not, observing, the commandments.

In a society that does not respect or protect ownership of land, a farmer must still grow potatoes, and to do so, has to anarchically and illegally take possession of some land, breaking numerous erratically, unpredictably, arbitrarily, and infrequently enforced laws and regulations in the process.

And we must anarchically and illegally take possession of women.

Old type Christian law on sex prohibits acting as if in defect defect equilibrium. But we are, in fact in defect/defect defect equilibrium, and a man can only get out of it by conquest and taking possession.

The only way you can start out with a woman in cooperate/cooperate is if your patriarch is acquiring her for you from another patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, who was typically someone who was close kin, or in the the same hierarchy of authority.

And, since you are starting out in defect/defect, it is impossible to conquer and take possession, except by successfully acting within the defect/defect rules. You have to bang them, or else they are going to move on. All women are like that. Including all supposedly good Christian wife material women.

In an orderly society, you first acquire a field, and then you plough it. In a disorderly society, you first plough it, so that other people will know you have a reason to defend it, and think you have a decent chance of succeeding, and then you eventually own it when no one manages to take your crops away from you, or graze his horses on your standing corn. Which likely requires you to have a weapon handy during ploughing and harvest. Gnon does not intend you to starve, and he does not intend you to be incel. You are required to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but by the time that it is time to plough that field, you are already out of cheeks and have walked far too many miles.

Fornication is a particular application of the final commandment.

When you apply those commandments, and read people applying them to sex and family, then unless those people are moderns you need to read them in the social context that the unit of society is the household not the individual, and that men are not women and women are not men.

The prohibition of incest and divorce do not follow directly from the ten commandments, but adultery and fornication does.

And the trouble is that giving fornication a meaning that does not follow from the ten commandments leads directly and immediately to breaking them, as when the Roman Catholic Church before the French Revolution so easily ruled that a marriage was nullified because the woman had not really given consent, or when it encouraged daughters to defy fathers and wives to defy husbands.

This parallels the Jews of the time of Jesus holiness spiraling the law on blood, so that they could wrongfully spill blood, and claim they were acting in accordance with the law of Moses.

To understand what old type Christians meant by whoring, fornication, and adultery, we cannot look at their words, for the meaning of their words has been changed underneath us. We should instead look at what people of that faith who had power, who had legitimate authority, who used that language, actually did, in order to understand what those words actually meant when the faith was live and in power.

They did not suppress men from having sex with unowned women, or even suppress unowned women from having sex. They suppressed unowned women from being unowned. The biblical penalty for sex and/or abduction of a married or betrothed woman is death. The biblical penalty for abduction of a virgin is indissoluble shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for abduction of a unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin …

The story of Tamar and Jacob makes no sense at all if we suppose Tamar was going to be burned alive for prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Makes perfect sense if we suppose she was going to be burned alive for sex outside of and in defiance of the framework of male property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive services.

Similarly, consider how the authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the problem of a whole lot of casual sex going on. They applied swift shotgun marriage, and supported the authority of the husband in those marriages by disturbingly drastic means. They did not punish men or women for having sex in a beach party. They made women get married, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands.

If you give the biblical laws on sex and family, the biblical condemnation of adultery, fornication, and whoring, an interpretation that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and that families do not exist, only individuals, you are turning the Law upside down, resulting in a blue pilled Christianity that tells men that God does not want them to have wives and children.

Tags:,
Posted in Faith, politics | 1,987 Comments »

The three magic words

Friday, August 7th, 2020

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

The three magic words are not “I love you”

The three magic words are “You are mine”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are maladapted to watching the decline from the pool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is how you reach cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:,
Posted in culture | 406 Comments »

Marriage

Sunday, July 28th, 2019

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

  1. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  2. 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.
  3. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
  4. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
  5. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
  6. 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.
  7. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  8. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  9. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
  10. 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.
  11. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
  12. 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:

  1. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Tags:,
Posted in culture | 246 Comments »

Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills.

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the first mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The second mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 122 Comments »

Jobs and education make women ugly and unattractive

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

Women find jobs and education attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find jobs and education attractive in women. They find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in women.

What men like is primarily youth and fertility, but close second to this is kindness, fidelity, humility, and obedience. “Will this woman”, the man subconsciously thinks, “look after me and my children?”

A woman has all her life to do jobs and education, but limited time to get married and start a family. After thirty, she is not so hot any more, still bangable, but no fun for a long term relationship. She is also running out of eggs. After age thirty she can still have children, but there is a rapidly rising chance that she will not be able to have as large a family as she or her husband might wish. After forty, high chance she will not be able to have any children at all. And after forty, well, there are some men that will bang forty year old women, but most men would prefer whiskey, porn, and whores if a forty year old woman was the only alternative. Old men seldom marry old women. I am pretty old, and infamously indiscriminate about which women I bang (if it goes up, it goes in) but I don’t bang forty year old women, and there is a limit to how many times I will bang a woman in her thirties, unless she is exceptionally good looking for a thirty year old.

If a woman marries a man while she is still young and beautiful, and he is in love, wife goggles come into effect and she seemingly remains the same age forever. I saw my wife as about seventeen all her years until she was dying, but of course, the later a woman marries, the less she is going to benefit from wife goggles.

The worst part of jobs and education is that they suck up time that a woman should use to get married and have a family, but they also tend to mark up a woman’s face.

If a woman goes to college, and does not nail down her future husband in the first year, she is going to wind up banging a long succession of charismatic alpha males, and getting dumped by a long succession of alpha males, resulting in the infamous thousand cock stare, and the thousand cock stare is chillingly ugly.

Highly educated women get married less, get divorced more, and have fewer children than less educated women.

And then she goes to work.

Men need to be needed. Men do not want an independent woman. And being an independent woman hardens a woman’s face.

Women in high socioeconomic status jobs get married less, get divorced more, fuck around more before, during, and after marriage, and have fewer children than woman with low socioeconomic status jobs.

This problem has been made far more severe by affirmative action. I recall a lawyerette in Telstra’s legal department (78% female) boasting about how much affirmative action was in place, and arrogantly, impudently, and aggressively demanding that a whole lot more affirmative action be put in place.

These days, most women’s jobs are affirmative action jobs. Women get jobs on the backs of men because companies are forced to hire woman.

One big problem with affirmative action is that an affirmative action hire is largely fireproof, so if there is any drama between a man hired on his merits, and woman hired for being a woman, the man gets fired. And women love drama. Which makes all the women in the workplace socially superior to the men who are theoretically their equals on the organization, since the men are frightened of the women, frightened that if a woman picks a quarrel with them it will have grave consequences, and often socially superior to their immediate boss. Watch how the poor boss cannot get a word in edgewise.

Yeah, I know feminists say that when a man speaks over a woman, he is being aggressive and shouting her down, but when a woman speaks over a man, she is not interrupting, she is being friendly and helpful – but the boss would have had a much easier time without all that “help”, which resembled the help given by a backseat driver to the driver.

So the women go around with a hard and hostile face, lest any of their male social inferiors should get sexy ideas about them, and that hostile face becomes permanent, so that even when she tries to smile at an alpha male, she is smiling through a permanent hostile condescending sneer that has engraved itself on her face. And that is not what any man needs in a wife. Jobs for women are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, affirmative action jobs where the men carry the woman on their backs, affirmative action jobs make women arrogant and hostile, and arrogance and hostility makes them ugly.

There is a certain amount of truth to the feminist proposition that women never interrupt men, they are just being friendly and helpful – and a great big untruth. And the great big untruth is revealed if the man does not let her interrupt, if he keeps on speaking and raises his voice to be be heard, her face will distort into the face of a witch, a monster, and a toad, she will scream incoherently at the top of her voice and swell with furious rage, that even though her interruption is superficially pleasant and courteous, that it is an interruption is discourteous, a demonstration of arrogance, hostility, and social power, the power of state enforced affirmative action hiring, and this arrogance and discourtesy, and the state power backing it, is suddenly, brutally, and shockingly revealed the instant the interruption is resisted.

Every time a woman interrupts a man, her face gets a tiny bit uglier.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 15 Comments »

Hitting your woman with a stick

Saturday, September 17th, 2016

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 207 Comments »

A white woman’s chance of getting married

Sunday, September 4th, 2016

tl;dr If you are white woman who is thirty or over, and not already married or in a relationship resembling marriage, your chances are slim. You are washed up, you are left on the shelf, you are past your sell by date.

This is my analysis of Dalrock’s data.

If white men had their way, and women did not have their way, most women would get married between fourteen and seventeen, and men would get married as soon as they could afford to support a wife and children. We know that is what would happen, because when white men had all the power, when men got their way, that is what did happen, for women of the affluent class.

If women had their way, and men did not have their way, women would spend thirty years from age ten to age forty sexing a long succession of wealthy charismatic socially skilled alpha males with big tools, then get married and have children using IVF and their eggs that they froze in their late twenties. We know that because there is a pile of highly emancipated women with highly successful careers in front of the fertility clinic, only without the husbands.

If you are a woman approaching thirty, and you are nagging your husband, bitching at him, interrupting him, speaking disrespectfully of him, or refusing him sex: Repent now.

There is a lot of divorce porn around in which a not very attractive woman ditches her boring unexciting husband, and then lands a six foot eight inch tall highly athletic billionaire. File that with ones where she marries an immortal vampire or gets abducted by pirates, sold into the Sultan’s harem, and becomes the Sultan’s favorite. The author of “Eat Pray Love” attempted to carry out her novel in real life. Wound up marrying a man in need of a green card, much older and poorer than her ex, who dumped her shortly after his green card came through. And if you are a woman approaching thirty that is what will happen to you if you don’t let your husband get a word in sideways. He probably will not leave you, but if you don’t treat him respect, you will wind up making the extremely bad decision of leaving him. Much as so often sex “just happened” even though you were not really planning on it and it was a really bad idea, divorce also “just happens”. Women inherently lack agency, and really bad decisions just keep “just happening”.

Let us reflect on what happened to the notorious reality television shrew Kate Gosselin. She harassed, humiliated, and scolded her husband day and night on reality television, while he cared for their eight children and held down a job, then she frivolously divorced him, excluded him from his children’s lives, demonized him to his children, and obsessively brings lawsuits against him for all manner of silly things, making it impossible for him to own any property or accumulate any assets, and destroying her own assets in high and frivolous legal costs.  Now she is permasingle while he has a girlfriend ten years younger than himself and his ex wife.  The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  You can tell that Jon Gosselin no longer loves Kate Gosselin, but Kate Gosselin is still very much in love with Jon Gosselin, for Kate hates Jon to the point of madness.  If a woman divorces at age thirty or close to it, she is apt to wind up like Kate Gosselin, while Jon Gosselin winds up with stalkers.

Men in their forties, fifties, and sixties routinely marry women much younger than themselves. Women in their thirties usually don’t marry men their own age, or indeed men of any age. Men past thirty usually will not marry women near their own age. They usually marry considerably younger women, or just do not get married at all.

I am a recent widower. I loved and cared for my wife all her days, even though during our last years she was terribly ill. And various women near my wife’s age, women in their sixties and late fifies, think to themselves “He loved his wife. Why should he not love me?”

Well it does not work like that. When a man loves a woman, he loves a young cute woman, and if she does not screw up, he gets wife goggles, and loves her all her days. But a man is just not going come to love an elderly woman. That is just how we are made.  Which means that when a girl past twenty five or so switches lovers, every time she switches, she will discover her marriage market value has fallen, fallen significantly and substantially.  And at age thirty, she still has substantial sexual market value, as a booty call girl, or a friend with benefits, but her marriage market value is likely to be zero.  Hence, when a woman is pushing thirty, probably not a good idea for her to act like the kind of girl who is going to divorce her husband, even if she still has lots of booty calls from rich charismatic men with big swinging tools, since such actions are apt to take on a life of their own.

Very few men are going to marry a women in her forties, even if the alternative is porn, whiskey and whores, but thirties is negotiable. It is a market price. How young a woman can a man get, so that he can ignore all the women older than that, how old can a woman dance on the cock carousel before she is left on the shelf and beyond her sell by date?  If all women panic at age x, a sensible man will insist on a woman a little bit younger than x.  The alternative for him is not porn, whiskey, and whores.   So a man should figure out the age at which all women panic, and marry a woman younger than that, a woman should figure out the age at which all women panic, and panic just before the rest of them.

Analyzing Dalrock’s data looks to me like not so much a marriage strike by men, but the age at which women should panic, and men can afford to ignore them because they can get someone younger, has been falling.  It was probable that before 2001, a woman was past her sell-by date at thirty two or so.   Then in 2007, past her sell by date at thirty or so.  Not a huge change in the age of panic, but the panic has been driven by a huge change in the number of women permanently left on the shelf.  Before 2001 the rise in the number of unmarried people was driven by a continual rise in the age at which women got married, driven by women choosing to marry later and later, a deal becoming ever more favorable for women, as they spent more and more years cavorting on the cock carousel from ten to forty, and ever less favorable for men, as their wives brought ever less youth, beauty, and chastity to the deal.  Now the deal is turning to be slightly less unfavorable for men, which means that the continuing rise in the number of unmarried people is a rise in the number of people who are never going to get married, ever.

Since the number of never-will-be-married people continues to increase, the age at which women should panic, the last minute at which men get picky and women get desperate, will continue to decrease, probably going to go all the way down to twenty five or so.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 153 Comments »

Patriarchy and fertility

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

We observe high fertility in those nations and cultures where patriarchy is legally and socially enforced, in particular Muslim Afghanistan and Christian Timor Leste. Affordability of family formation has little effect. Clearly males in patriarchal societies are highly motivated to have children. They will do whatever it takes so that they can afford a family.

Thus, if pro social behavior in a patriarchal society is rewarded by a wife and the ability to support a family, you get highly motivated workers and soldiers.

Some people have argued that this observation is psychologically unreasonable “The guys I know don’t want children”

Henry Dampier explains why males in our society don’t want children in his 2015 article “Why no one wants to be a patriarch”

If you want men to join the legions, you make it so that the clearest path to power for a typical man will be to join up with the legions, serve his time, and then marry and be fruitful on his plot of land. If you want men to form households, you given them rights over those households and the families that issue from them. …

… Men lost the right to use legal force against their wives and children in stages. …

… the disciplining doesn’t really go away from society. The switch is just passed on from the father to the policeman and the schoolmaster. The state’s hirelings retain the right to discipline children, although wives tend to be permitted to run wild, especially nowadays, restrained only by their desires and sense of self-interest.

The disciplining also changes from spanking to drugging, often heavy drugging of untested chemicals onto children. …

The reason why no one wants to be a patriarch today is that patriarchs have no more legal authority. They have no formal power over their wives or children. They only have influence. Influence is both fickle and distinct from power. When a child misbehaves in the modern world, there are only a few paths that a parent can take. They can verbally discipline the child (more likely to work in a higher-class household than a lower-class one), they can illegally or semi-legally beat them, they can take them to a psychiatric professional of some kind, or they can feed the kid to the justice system. Schools have their own corrections systems of varying levels of effectiveness.

Further, paternal heads of household can be deprived of their assets and children at any time at the arbitrary whim of their wives. The wife can commit adultery, and the man can still lose his property in the ensuing divorce. The children and the wife alike can be wildly disrespectful to the head of household, and the man has no recourse other than whining.

I was the boss of my family and I found being a patriarch and having children hugely rewarding. But then I am a grade A asshole, and I am not afraid to commit illegal acts, though I tend to consult lawyers on ways to weasel out or buy my way out if caught, before I commit them. It is hard to be a patriarch if you are a nice guy, or if you have respect for law and social pressure, because marriages on the Pauline model are illegal, being marital rape and psychological abuse. Marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is illegal and criminal, so of course the population is collapsing. Workable families are similarly illegal. Indeed, these days any sexual interaction with women is illegal with the notable exception of hiring whores and escorts – whores, escorts, and porn stars being the only women who are likely to give you explicit verbal consent moment to moment.

Extrapolating my subjective experience, and the subjective experience depicted by Henry Dampier, fully explains observed fertility patterns, for example the very spectacular collapse of Japanese fertility.

People don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. If you think we can modify fertility with the tax system read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.

Tags:,
Posted in culture, economics | 66 Comments »

The reason that women need to be subordinated for successful reproduction

Saturday, October 25th, 2014

Examining difference in fertility, it is clear that fertility is primarily controlled by female status relative to their husbands.  The more women are subordinated, the higher the fertility.  Japan is a good test case.  Not only did fertility dramatically drop when General McArthur emancipated women, but in feudal Japan, fertility among high status families was below replacement when women were high status, indicated by upward mobility and room at the top.  Later in the feudal era, when women were low status, fertility well above replacement, leading to a massive oversupply of elite children relative to available elite positions.  It is difficult to assess Japanese feudal fertility exactly, but it seems to have been similar in patriarchal feudal Japan as it was in the immediate postwar period in patriarchal industrial Japan, the same laws leading to similar fertility in industrial and feudal Japan.

Modern contraceptive technology changes little, for we have always had infanticide, always had non reproductive sex, long had abortion.  Early feudal era upper class Japanese women, late Spartan women, women of the upper classes of the Roman empire, and late Bronze age Egyptian women also had well below replacement fertility.

Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women.  Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers.  Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed.  One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage.  But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage.  Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men.  Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.

Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a woman’s fertile years.

A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head.  If men and women equal, requires separation.  If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.

So, patriarchy.  If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children.  The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.

It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate.  They will not support or protect women on current terms.

We have always had fertility control in the form of infanticide, and have fully adapted to it.  We have had fertility control in the form of abortion for around three and half thousand years, and have substantially adapted to it.  We have had condoms for long enough that men have evolved to dislike them and women are beginning to evolve to dislike them.

Children by previous lovers get in the way, hated by their mother’s new lover, inconvenient to their mother.  Such inconveniences are, as in fairy tales, apt to be eradicated.  This is the most ancient fertility control solution.  Tomcats notoriously apply it.  Humans and cats are behaviorally adapted to optimal application of this solution.

With cryptic estrus and lengthy infancy, if males and females each freely pursue their biologically optimal strategy without regard to the interests of the people they mate with, very few will successfully reproduce, because almost all infants get infanticided.  Prisoner’s dilemma, defect defect equilibrium.  Successful reproduction requires enforcement of the cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

In a species with cryptic estrus and lengthy infancy, women have to be subjugated for the species to successfully reproduce.  Matriarchal societies did not vanish from history because conquered. They vanished from history for failure to reproduce.

In modern times, we are more civilized, and contracept children or abort them to avoid the embarrassment of mummy’s latest boyfriend grabbing the child by its feet and smashing its head against the bedpost, but modern mummies have a strange tendency to acquiesce in such “accidents”, when they discover just how much their former husband’s children cramp their style.  There is a very high rate of “accidents” among fatherless children.

If children go with the mother, Gnon demands future male lovers commit infanticide.  Civilization avoids this bloody embarrassment with the delicately civilized abortion.

Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is that the man and the women are stuck with each other.  He owns her, but does not own her in the sense that he can resell her to the highest bidder, nor punish her without cause or in ways likely to cause injury.  There is an approximately equal distribution of women between the men, socialist rationing of women, and each man respects all other men’s property rights in their women, with severe punishment for violators,  the male who sleeps with another man’s wife punished by law, the wife punished by her husband at her husband’s discretion.

Under this circumstance, men can invest in their wives and children with confidence in paternity and without fear of losing them, without fear that any attempt to support them will result in them supporting their wife’s bad boy lover instead.

In defect/defect, investment in children is inadvisable, for the woman will probably wind up a single mother, and a man a cuckold.  Any children with her are likely by previous lovers, so should be mistreated or eradicated, and any children he might have with her are likely to be similarly mistreated by future lovers.

Tags:, ,
Posted in politics | 65 Comments »

« Older Entries