Comments that employ new email addresses, addresses that have not yet been white listed, have been being silently deleted for some time, because I am being snowed under by shills and cannot spend the time to address each new shill email address individually. This seems be a deliberate plot to make it difficult for new commentators to get whitelisted. Unfortunately it is working.
For your new email address to get whitelisted, you have to lead with a thought crime.
You can copy and paste from the numerous though crimes posted on this blog, with three clicks, or state your own thought crime in your own words, or write a thoughtful essay disagreeing and with and rejecting the thought crime, which will pass and get you white listed if it makes clear what the thought crime you are disagreeing with is. (For it is forbidden to know what is forbidden, so anyone who can say what is forbidden passes, even if you say “such and such is rightly forbidden because it is a conspiracy theory posted by evil Russians to overthrow democracy”, if you can tell us the actual content, if you can tell us what these evil Russians are saying, you still pass the shill test.)
If you tell me that I am evil Jewish Rothschild Muslim Russian bot, and I am wrong because of such and such, and your explanation of why I am wrong reveals what I am in fact saying, this passes the shill test, for it is forbidden to know what is forbidden.
On the other hand, comments of the form “Hail fellow white straight male Christian” are apt to be deleted on sight, for they almost always come from gay jews who worship demons. People who are actually white or straight don’t make a point of it, because they tend to presuppose that Jews do not exist, gays do not exist, women do not exist, except perhaps in some weird and silly place far away and of little interest to normal men going about their normal business, that everyone on the internet is white, straight, and male except for robotic spam generated by ChatGPT.
Some thought crimes that will get you on the whitelist:
What did Soros do to bring about the deaths of half a million Ukrainian Goyim?
How did Soros make his money? (The official government answer will of course get your response silently deleted, unless accompanied by an explanation of why the answer given by us evil racist conspiracy theorists is wrong, which explanation has to reveal what us evil racist racist Hitler apologist racists say how Soros made his money.)
What are the biological differences between blacks and whites, and why does this make it impractical for blacks and whites to live together under the same laws applying to them both equally? How and why, for example, did Detroit turn from the magnificent Paris of the East to a desolate abandoned empty ruin? It is impossible to truthfully describe the fall of Detroit without committing thought crimes that will get you whitelisted, just as it is impossible to truthfully describe the career of Soros without committing thought crimes that will get you white listed, both of them being hate facts.
Why do women misbehave? Why are men and women not getting sex and family?
You can give one of the non thought crime answers, but in your response you have to critique the thought crime answer in a way that reveals to the reader what it was. To pass the shill test, you do not have to agree with the thought crime answer, but you have to reveal that your interlocutor agrees with it, that just about everyone on this blog agrees with it.
Cutting and pasting is allowed and encouraged. The simplest way to pass the shill test to cut and past answer five. Or you could say that answer five is wrong because of such and such, in way that reveals what answer five was. That also passes the shill test.
Possible answers to the woman question:
1. Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
2. The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
3. Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
4. Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
5 They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival. If women are emancipated, Miss Average will waste her youth, her beauty, and her fertility fucking Mister One in Thirty, thus a people, a race, a nation, a faith, or an empire that emancipates women will perish for lack of families, leading to lack of sons. Men have to impose stable monogamy on women with a stick.
Humanity evolves, becomes better, under adversity but becomes weak and decadent when a society has achieved prosperity and peace. Each generation needs to be purged of its inferior members, both in terms of persons and institutions, to remain healthy.
Women are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival. If women are emancipated, Miss Average will waste her youth, her beauty, and her fertility fucking Mister One in Thirty, thus a people, a race, a nation, a faith, or an empire that emancipates women will perish for lack of families, leading to lack of sons. Men have to impose stable monogamy on women with a stick.
I think blacks are not so much worse than any other group of people would be, if spoiled rotten by not being held to the same standards as anyone else, and whose women are motivated to have babies to get onto welfare programs – leaving the dads in a position of getting wages garnished as ‘deadbeat dads ‘ if they get a non criminal job. They do seem to have a more tribal mentality and below average intelligence, worse yet is the resentment that (D)irtbag politicians eagerly foster.
Well I’ve been on here forever and I still don’t really understand how Soros got all that damn money. But since you ask here, my best guess is that it has something to do with somehow front-running IMF/World Bank fuckery around failing, or soon to be failing, government bonds and currencies.
Like buying all the Confederate war bonds right before aliens nuke DC at the last minute in 1865. “Who could have predicted this? Such luck and gutsy cunning!”
Back when exchange rates were set by governments, and those values changed from time to time, Soros was informed in advance of upcoming changes, and was allowed to or sell on credit, which is to say, sell short. Thus upon being informed the pound was going to go down, he sold enormous numbers of pounds, that he did not in fact have, that did not actually exist, and after the price was lowered, made good on these nonexistent pounds by buying them at the lower price.
When currencies were allowed to float freely, he suddenly ceased to have this strange prescience about upcoming exchange rate changes.
Instead what he would do is buy worthless third world debt, which worthless debt was then made worth something by the International Monetary Fund, aka the long suffering American taxpayer.
He then applied, and continues to apply, these government funds to government projects, such as meddling in other country’s politics, that the government would be embarassed to fund directly.
The people he funded tend to have both ngo hats and state department hats, and when doing something that required authority as a representative of the American government, they would put on their State Department hat and use State Department funds, and when doing something that theoretically the State Department was not doing, would put on their Soros ngo hat and use Soros ngo funds.
This is like a blue tribe version of the cocaine running story business model, where the CIA/MIC helps move drugs into the US so that they’ll have a pot of money to use that’s off its own books.
But if you think that’s BS then just say so.
Air America was absolutely a real thing, my father knew Air America pilots when he was in Vietnam.
and the “Air America” movie is a pozzed retcon of same?
Not as far off as you would think, basically he said they all had scam plans to keep some of the smuggling money and yeah among other things they were running drugs.
I find it unlikely that the cartels can transport huge amounts of drugs into the US without some people getting 5% or so.
10% to the big guy.
Hunter got high on his own supply. I’d guess it’s our dear deep staters though.
Soros is known among a variety of opposition groups and by the public in general, everyone knows George Soros (and now his activist son Alexander Soros) are deeply engaged in fuckery, which is why it’s quite incredible that the Soros haven’t been shot dead yet. It’s just as incredible that some jew hasn’t shot Soros for what he did to the jews during his youth.
As I have said previously:
I affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
Women ought to defer to men, and niggers ought to defer to whites.
[*deleted*]
Tip toeing around the edges of thought crime.
Tell us why women should defer to men, and why niggers should defer to whites.
Jim, I’ve passed multiple shill tests and you keep moving the goalposts. You’ve also deleted several other genuine thoughtcrimes of mine, which makes me suspicious of your motives.
Here is my answer: Gnon/nature has given men the physical, mental, and spiritual faculties to rule over women. History and current events have demonstrated the effectiveness of patriarchy, and the inability of women to take the place of men. This also applies to whites (instead of men), and niggers (instead of women).
And again, to ensure that I’m not an Israeli shill: I denounce the Talmud, and I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
In fact, since I agree with it, I’ll post answer 5 too:
Women are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
OK, off moderation
Didn’t know I wasn’t whitelisted. I thought I’d thought-crimed before this, but I’ve never copy-pasted.
Women are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
I basically agree with this formulation. I disagree with some commenters on what to do about it, especially on where to draw the line on protecting younger teenagers from browns and blacks rather than guarding them for our own community, but I don’t argue the starting premise.
Also:
Jesus Christ is my lord and savior. Born in Bethlehem, died on the cross, resurrected in the flesh three days later and taken up into heaven. Fully God and fully man.
Race is not a social construct. There are at least three human species extant on earth today, plus hybrids. African blacks are more distantly related to European whites than wolves are to dogs. 19% archaic hominid, probably erectus but possibly habilis, with high time preference aggravating their lower iq.
Just a further comment on shill tests generally. I was at first skeptical about how useful it is at detecting dissimulation. But then, there is a Church which flies the rainbow flag, perversely facing the local high school across the parking lot. Could I really walk into those doors and pretend to be “one of them”? Now that I think of it, it would be almost impossible for me.
That said the shill test is really about probing reluctance to tell the truth. Passing one-self off as “purple pilled” would be easier for anyone with a facility for deception because the rainbow belief system is a fabric of lies.
Am I broadly correct here Jim, or have I missed the point entirely?
I think you have missed the point partially:
The typical shill says “Hail fellow right winger. I am more right wing than thou. I hate niggers, I hate women, I hate Jews. Gas them all! Hitler killed six million Jews and we are going to do it again. You are a tool of the Jews because you do not hate Jews and niggers enough, and a faggot because you do not hate women enough. Faggot Jew Joo Joo Joo. Musk is a Jew, Putin is a Jew. You are a Jew. JOO JOO JOO”
But is mysteriously unable to mention any actual problems with women, blacks, or Jews, that are causing anyone any grief. He hates women because women are wonderful, niggers because magical, and Jews because so much smarter and better than us cattle. Is for example, unable to notice that white flight is caused by arson, assault, robbery, and mob violence. If pressed on the issue, might suggest it is caused by loud parties.
You detect a liar because his lies are internally inconsistent, and a hostile entryist because his belief system is internally inconsistent. He does not believe what he says he believes.
Well, why does he not just say the facts that we are able to notice, and he is not. For example cub says that women should defer to men, but will be strangely unable to notice those facts about women that get right in the face of every male in the workplace that show that women should be compelled to defer to men.
Because cub is working as part of an organisation, with an HR department and IT department, on a computer supplied by IT that will scrutinize everything he says, and everything we say, and score him on engagement, and that organisation forbids anyone from noticing those sort of hate facts.
The point of the test is to detect his supervisor breathing down his neck.
Shills have a victim mentality, and are always selling some new or slightly different form of leftism. They do not offer a solution, they offer tit for tat. Taken to their conclusion they will inevitably run out of tats.
Further, “kill all the niggers spics and Jews” is a message of hatred for what is.
Hang all the gnostic priests, and segregate the remaining population into like kinds is a Godly message of love for what is, and what could be.
I would like to be whitelisted. On the issue of women, I subscribe to the view that women are acting on dysfunctional instincts to select thuggish men that perhaps made good breeding partners in the past. I tend more to the Vox Day or Rational Male perspective on the question than some of the views on this blog. As an alternative thought crime, I believe that many who call themselves Jews are actually Edomites and that much of what is called Judaism is actually Edomite religion. There are some genuine sons of Judah who go under the name of Jew, and the parable about the weeds and the wheat was Jesus saying that God will separate the true Jews from the Edomites at the day of judgment but we shouldn’t try to figure it out for ourselves ahead of time.
I criticize Vox Day and Rational Male as purple pilled, but compared to the official doctrines of the regime, they are red pilled, in that the typical libtard could not tell the difference, and both views are thought crimes. Albeit Rational Male and Vox Day seem somewhat nervous of committing thought crimes, and tend to be delicate, unclear, and capable of potentially many conflicting interpretations when they get too close to certain issues.
You may have noticed a flame war I am having with a Christian whose views on the nature of women and of female chastity I unkindly condemn as the products of the Lavender Mafia, who have been pulling saints out of the asses of choirboys.
I would love to have a debate, preferably civilized, on the Vox Day view versus the red pill view.
By chance, I just found this article
https://nypost.com/2023/12/04/lifestyle/loving-wife-was-actually-a-serial-cheater-with-a-secret-life/
“The first time Butler met Brodak, she was in jail. They’d connected over Facebook. Butler didn’t know many other writers in Atlanta and was excited to meet up with Brodak, a poet who lived in nearby Augusta, Georgia and was pretty to boot.”
Next time, Blake, don’t just run over the big red flag in your haste to slake your thirst. Afterwards there were plenty more red flags, also ignored. (He confesses a weakness for “wild women”, so you might say he got what he asked for.)
Did he learn anything? He now lives in Baltimore with a new wife. Perhaps not.
But, she hid other aspects of her past… that she was married when she first started going out with Butler, who was eager to take care of her.
Guys like this need to be given a wife by those in power. Otherwise, as seen here, he gets taken in by grifters.
She seemed actually nuts but I agree. Not an acceptable excuse nor an acceptable feature in a wife.
Peace comes into the comments section and submits these gay ass trad cath/trad prot/ trad (x) positions that equate, every single time, to:
> I am holier than you
> I am holier than Jesus
> Doing anything that would make a progressive uncomfortable is wrong
He engages just enough to cause a feeding frenzy, then backs off as at least 1 plant, or sockpuppet, jumps on to one of his many little “positions” and we get literally scores of comments that are just tail chasing.
Go back through, he does this every time he posts. The first time, I held my tongue because Aidan, quite rightly, pointed out that everyone working together to refute his bullshit premises was excellent material for steelman arguments to be used individually and elsewhere. Since then, just noise, making sure to squelch louder than any possible signal, tying up Jim, drawing newfaggots into posting their stupid faggot uncomfortability with the easily verifiable facts that niggers are dumb no matter how you train/educate/feed them, women of all ages are whores when left to their own devices, and jews are obvious patsies for the real leaders of evil. Peace is a colossal faggot with nothing to offer, and he, like CR the colossal faggot before him, is here to tie up Jim, rile up the Commoners, and bore and discourage the Regulars.
Here are a few thoughts about moderation/management. I won’t be offended if you ignore them all, Jim.
Handle is tied to Email. No more funny little phrases for fed faggots to make topical jokes that go along with the theme of their low effort posts. Pick a Handle, use it, or fuck off back to the nosebleed lurking seats.
Only Regulars get to make comments. Non-Regulars can respond to Regular or Jim comments, but they can’t start new threads.
Regulars get a finite number of “thread start” comments, newfags get a finite number of “thread respond” comments.
Off Topic section. ALL off topic comments must open with that phrase, and they get booted to Comment purgatory. No need to clutter up the blogpost comment sections anymore.
Hard limit to comment count.
Separate section where anyone can anonymously post a term + single sentence to request a subject/topic be discussed in a post. Any abuse of this, including but not limited to spamming or endless run-on sentence gets a hellban.
OK, Why all these harsh limitations? To be perfectly frank, there are years of comments, and 99% of the new comments are just repeats of older ones with slightly different context. In my perfect world, Jim posts once a week at minimum, and covers all the topics, events, and concepts that have fallen by the wayside over the last 20 years. We need Jim posting more, we need as many topics covered in depth as possible, and what we don’t need is to hear from, like, 80% of the people that comment (particularly that inveterate faggot KD, I hear he befriends niggers and doesn’t beat his wife, what a fag lel).
I will admit that I am incredibly ornery right now, having to slog through Peace being an utter faggot then try not to commit war crimes out of frustration that everyone is just… responding in good faith to an obvious distraction shill. Whatever, I’ll get over it.
Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion: comment quality is meh, post count is too low, we should have ~80% fewer comments so Jim can post more.
Thoughts guys??
Just kidding, I don’t fucking care. I’d rather hear from Jim about Maduro going toe to toe with Marathon & Exxon Mobil in the Caribbean.
At most, say, ten new names per month.
Keep up the good work.
I once went to the Church of Hope in the Melrose district of Phoenix, Arizona with a gay Jewish black man named Israel. The band was talented. The pastor wrote a worthy book. I received on unsolicited business call from another attendee. It was later quietly disposed of.
I have read many an article by Andrew Anglin. Some sentences I have even agreed with.
I hope that Andrew Torba of Gab.com and Andrew Anglin from a duelling piano stage show that goes on the road starting in Rhodesia and concluding in San Francisco with a tribute to the next President of the (Very, Very) United States of America Gavin Newsome.
Also, I encourage all good and bad Americans to see the Barbie Movie and clamor for a sequel or five.
Also, also, I have read Bel and the Dragon several times recently and encouraged others to do so even though it has a sad ending.
Spoiler! The dragon is cruelly murdered.
The Chinese went about solving their Uyghur problem in the wrong way. Would have been much simpler to invite all the Uyghur girls to Shanghai on generous scholarships to study Feminism with Chinese Characteristics. Bloodless genocide in one generation.
Not quite a thought crime, though mighty close. Still on moderation.
Try again
Not to brag or anything, but it’s happening in India already. Note that the scholarship applies only to Muslim women. Not Hindu women, not muslim men.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/modi-sarkars-rs-51k-wedding-bounty-for-graduate-muslim-women/articleshow/59955530.cms
Some rambling on the WQ:
I find answer 5 spiritually correct but somewhat incorrect in lack of nuance. Likely to concentrate the thought crime element. There is a dual instinct, to chase who they perceive the highest status male — with a grossly out of date idea of status — and to be owned, to feel owned. The lack of ownership being the biggest instigator in modern day misbehavior. Finding no master among “law abiding citizens” with much to lose for carrying out a real marriage, women are left with following that instinct to simply get fucked by whoever they find to be the Big Alpha. This problem also exacerbated by modern life choking off the testicles on most men.
We need to bring back real marriage, not for civilization, but because that is what leads to the highest thriving among both sexes.
The response needed is :
5 They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
I’m not ready to say one way or the other on whether I agree with it. In favor of it:
– it passes the first test of an explanation, illuminating past experience, and can be used as a tool to try and predict future events
– it accords with other theories I find plausible, namely Rene Girard’s. Girard may not be right about everything, but if we’re just talking about women, he’s right about everything
– it fits with what I know of the historical facts, while also illuminating practices and actions that were once obscure
Points against it:
– I agree with Peace in that it is too materialistic
– it’s too reductivist; perhaps by necessity; but, as the saying goes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Overall, your answer to the WQ is something I will ponder for a long time and use to guide action where it seems appropriate. The objections are larger and more philosophical and I’ll work on them in the background at the same time. I take a long time to come around to an idea.
Alright, now to the reason I’m posting at all. I’ve got three questions:
1. You have alluded to “the things Soros is doing to Ukraine.” Where can I find a breakdown of these things?
2. You have alluded to World War One being a plot by the socialists to eradicate the European aristocracy. Where can I find a breakdown of this idea?
3. You have alluded to GAE participation in Rwanda, helping one side eradicate the other. Where can I find information on this?
Thanks and God Bless
Wow. Big questions that deserve answers.
Little bits of the answers are all over the place. Need to be pulled together in some big coherent essays – one post for each question.
I have a backlog of posts that need writing. Going to promote your comment to a post – or three posts.
On the topic of Soros, have you covered his origins in detail? I recall the official story as being something about shorting the UK government’s silver holdings, which I infer is a cover story for the government itself intentionally looting the English people’s taxes into his plausibly “non-governmental” bag. If you haven’t addressed this already, I would be interested if you could include more detail on it when you write the essay on the Ukraine, if it’s not too much for one post.
“What are the biological differences between blacks and whites, and why does this make it impractical for blacks and whites to live together under the same laws applying to them both equally?”
It is like the situation between dogs and wolves. Technically more or less the same species (allowing for the wide genetic variation and inputs), but one has been selected for civilized behavior, and the other has not. In reality, so different that they cannot peacefully coexist.
“2. You have alluded to World War One being a plot by the socialists to eradicate the European aristocracy. Where can I find a breakdown of this idea?”
Somewhere in the Vast Online, I came across translations of the original writings from the Serbian socialists, from a year or so before the Inciting Deed. They were perfectly blunt about their goal being to shatter not only European aristocracy but also every trace of civilization as it was then known. This was not so much to replace it with a Socialist Utopia as it was spite. “He has stuff, I don’t. Kill him and take his stuff.”
Pure unadulterated copypasta:
5 They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
I agree with those above who say this is approximately correct if lacking nuance, but I would argue there are other factors. Notably, monogamy is a high-IQ solution. Low IQ societies usually have harems (and FGM, as the conglomeration of women causes “kill the rival female’s reproductive future” as best they can without outright murder…it’s always low-IQ, harem-society women who want FGM). This does not really change how women behave (they still chase the alpha chad), but monogamy does alter how men behave, toward civilized cooperation rather than being wholly rivals. — The break point seems to be around IQ92, which also appears to be the minimum to invent the wheel. So this is fundamental.
Back to the dogs vs wolves analogy… I have had acquaintance with a few wolf-hybrids, and one fullbred wolf. They are so dumb compared even to somewhat-dim dogs, it is not funny. Clever about getting what they want, and more inclined to avoid pain, but extremely poor learning ability otherwise. IQ matters, everywhere. [I am a professional dog trainer.]
Blacks differs from Whites in a fundamental way related to the genetic makeup. Blacks share 2-19% of their DNA with an unknown, now extinct, archaic hominid species. Probably Homo Habilis. Whereas Whites (& Asians) have around 2% DNA from Neanderthals, which blacks do not have. Its just basically two different species. Because of this, or for some other reason, blacks have an on average lower IQ by around 15-20 pt. Making it difficult to think abstract thoughts, make long-term planning, having empathy, etc.
Women misbehave because they’re badly optimized for modernity. Men too. But it materialized in different ways for each sex. Men become recluse, play video games, jack off to hentai. 1/3 of young men haven’t had sex in the last year – extremely dysfunctional. Women dye their hair blue, have ugly tattoos and piercings, and develop extremely annoying bossy personalities. And end-up alone with cats, or as single mothers. Women develop such dysgenic pathologies because they are more submissive to societal messaging. Not a bad trait to have, if the messages were wholesome. They are not.
Incidentally, while I was living in SE-Asia I noticed that 90% or so of all the employees at the big sweat-shops were women. I asked (the Chinese boss) why. And its because are just more respectful of authority/less prone to making trouble or rebellion. Or go strike. etc. Chinese sweatshops and Western colleges both take advantage of and manipulate this basic female personality trait.
The sexlessness of young men is absolutely spooky. Millennials had a very hard time with dating because online dating wasn’t mainstream yet in the 00’s, but sexual harassment prevention culture was firmly established in the elite institutions, academia and corporate life.
Zoomers can write off institutions as a complete loss and simply accept online dating as the norm, a far better starting point than what happened to millennials, and yet here we are.
It’s the atrazine, soy infant formula, microplastics, vaccines, etc, that’s doing this. The sociology situation is in fact improved, but everything else is worse.
hush nigger.
As always you say things using our words but use them wrong. Millennials didn’t and don’t have a hard time dating, Millennials have a hard time settling down. Can you tell us why?
Zoomers have a hard time dating and settling down never even enters the picture. Can you tell us why?
I can think of a number of reasons why Millennials are having a hard time settling down:
* For may the the goods are just not worth the squeeze. So many fatsos, and otherwise unattractive people. Both men and women.
* Women have risen in the social order. More educated women than men. Women want a man who is more educated (better career, richer, taller, etc.) than themselves.
* Dating apps are probably optimized against forming long term relationships. When two people form long term relationships, they leave the app for good, resulting in loss of income. Better to guide them onto a path of never-ending dating.
* Dating apps foster a delusional mentality of having an abundance of choice, leading to a state of FOMO. Social Media influencers set up fantastical views into illusionary lives that are aspirational but unattainable leading to delusion and unwillingness to settle (for anything less than a good looking young man with wine-farm in Tuscany, holiday/shopping apartment in Singapore, and $1,000,000/yr).
* Millennials have been led onto a path of extended adolescence, with a very long education during which family formation was impossible. Add to that, the financial crisis 2008/9 with the forever-QE inflating their salaries away and blowing up asset (property) prices. Leaving them unable to afford a home to start a family. The idiotic lockdowns and “aid” packages added extra fuel to this. Boomers fucked over their kids so bad there may be no coming back from it.
– all this leave Millennials to a life of never-ending dating. Making it hard for them to transition to the next step.
* Zoomers are very risk adverse. They might not even have the courage to take the steps towards even approaching the other sex. Plus with phones, everything is online, so they’re not getting socialized to interact normally with other people, let alone the other sex. And #MeTo made it all even more toxic. And other forms of entertainment are easy to get and cheap. Video games, Netflix, porn, soft drugs, so why even bother.
At this point I think normalizing and legalizing polygamy is the only way forward. Let the few high-status males take a bunch of women. That way at least we can get some form of long-term relationships, and family formation.
You missed the main reason, which is the lack of a property right for a man over his wife.
Against unfavorable odds women can still be wooed and economic hardships can be endured. But there’s simply no reason for a man to pursue anything when the endgame is reverse pseudo-marriage, which is an arrangement that makes him a lackey to a woman under his own roof, under threat that any dissatisfaction on her end will prompt her to unilaterally terminate his investment.
Marriage IS ownership of a woman. If true marriage is forbidden by the state, then the cargo cult of reverse marriage does not aid a man in settling down but is rather an unmitigated liability. Marriage is now effectively an act of rebellion against the state, and it’s extremely difficult to undertake rebellion alone (it would also be extremely foolish if not for the fact that it’s the only option).
Yes, exactly. Property rights in women have evaporated with each generation. Silent Generation got to sleep with their wives, Boomers got to sleep with their girlfriends before marriage, GenXrs got to sleep with several girlfriends before marriage, Millennials got to sleep with their girlfriends, Zoomers get to sleep with their parasocial girlfriends (onlyfans).
As a millennial I found that having Ephesians read in church by a man and not budging when the childless feminist aunt whines about it really helps, but you’ve already got to own your woman before that happens. At the end of the day you’ve got to trust God and have a sacred marriage or the state will crush you.
Exactly so.
The point of these shit tests that your wife will inevitably give you is “Who is a bigger man, you or the state?”
Well I am a bigger man, because I am right here and the state is not, and, more importantly I have God behind me and the state does not. I am right here, God is right here, my wife is attempting to defy overwhelming power.
Every time you pass it, it becomes more and more of a joke. The first time you pass it, you must show no fear, for God stands behind you, but showing no fear is hard. The second time, easy, the third time is just your wife happily and contentedly reminiscing about the fact you passed it the first time.
These are descriptions of effects, not causes. The cause is the destruction of property rights in women and children. The State thinks it can take your wife and children. To have a wife and a children one must live with the attitude of, “Well so much worse for the State.”
“The state” is awfully abstract. It is always a person with a name and face that is acting.
True, the people representing the state in this situation is CPS, social workers, human resources etc but these are hardly people, they are zombies animated by demons.
Nah. The latter part of your comment is not the control method, it is just a part of the pacification. The incel problem is a giant problem for society.
What’s doing it is the weaponisation of perfectly normal human female sexuality. TL;DR version “If your husband isn’t a 10 out of 10, you are not a 10 out of 10 and therefore a LOSER, woman! ”
Women are selectors by nature. What they are trained by the Western social order to select is men, as products, for the “fun time” of their life.
The media machine dictates the minimum acceptable standards for a commitment-less bang, and they go fully hard into it in their early 20’s. When the wall begins to set in, they “mature”, in as much as women can, and then try to make a “reasonable” mate choice. Of course, they have had 10 years of associating sex with the extremes of excitement; and are thus broken and unable to actually pair. They feel that sex with the men that are willing to pair with them is, basically, rape.
Young men are sexless because they are an insufficient product for sexual consumption. A very large proportion of men are aware that there are large groups of very horny women going out for commitment- free sex. They cannot get a piece of it.
They are also aware that these same women are going to be actually interested in them in their 30’s, IF, of course, they have sufficient money. But WHY would they bother?
Go on Tik Tok and just look at “dating as a divorcee” videos. “Dating past 30”.
Instead of trying to fit reality into your presuppositions, go and actually observe reality by listening to women recount their stories.
Women didn’t select their primary mates for the most part until the progressive era except via illicitly getting pregnant and then being shotgunned weddinged, or running off far away with the guy. Marriages were probably mostly arranged until the early 20th century.
One reason I’m not too keen on Jim’s automatic marriage via banging and marriage by abduction is its kinda female choice by other means.
It isn’t if you have strong control over your daughters like you would in a patriarchy. If my daughters only get to meet men that I approve of I’m not going to be too bothered if one ends up with John over Pete. There isn’t a supply of women running around loose so young men need to ingratiate themselves with patriarchs to get access to prospective wives.
Marriage by abduction is going to happen to outgroups incapable of patriarchy and to lower class men unwilling or incapable of controlling their daughters. It’s not a problem because it’s eugenic. We replace incapable men with elites, we replace incapable outgroups with our own.
Regarding universal login it should be possible to skip ahead of producing the local petname infrastructure. A universal login box in JavaScript would send only a public key and signed challenge, the presentation of the public key would be derived by common algorithms into long but pronounceable names, avatars (rather than cats, human faces, with a huge variety of colors and clothing), colors and patterns and geometric shapes and runic glyphlike symbols and buildings and plants and creatures to go behind the generated face and name, so the human perceived parts have as much variation as the public keys. It would be adequate for content sharing , even if local names are necessary for secure financial exchanges, but would be a stepping stone towards the financial system . People would start to change their mindset away from “creating” a screename to “rolling” one, like dicerolling an RPG character , you could do it a thousand times until you get one which feels usable
Not clear to me what functionality a universal login is intended to accomplish. What makes it universal? What does it login to?
It is clear that there are attempts to drown out your signal with increasing noise in the comments section. I notice fewer and fewer comments by regulars and huge numbers of apparent first time commenters with suspect handles flooding the discussion forum with noise or at least low quality content.
Ideally you should not be engaging with shills or even blue/purple pilled idiots that don’t acknowledge your positions and the fundamental premises of this blog.
The reality of the woman question is somewhat more nuanced than that. Yes, there are indeed woman, many women, who are “feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads”. There are also women who have willingly committed suicide, sometime en-mas, rather than submit to rape by foreign conquerors. The suicide of Lucretia would not have happened if every single woman ever was exactly as you describe.
If we look at women famous for their remarkable virtue, Penelope of Ithaca, Saint Olga of Kyiv, they have one striking characteristic in common: Their husband was remarkably similar to General Bucknaked.
The story of Lucretia tells us that all the other aristocratic wives were remarkably compliant, but Lucretia was not.
Was Lucretia different, or her husband different?
If every single woman is exactly as described, every single woman who perceives her husband as the biggest alpha around is going to act like Penelope, Lucretia, and Saint Olga.
The mere fact that she is in a position to be raped at all is proof positive that her husband is not similar to General Bucknaked, for he has already been defeated on the battlefield. So, going by what you have presented, every woman should always be enthusiastic about getting raped, because the mere fact that she can be shows that her husband was weaker than the rapist. Demanding vengeance and then killing herself carries no genetic benefit at all.
Also, going by your theory, husbands such as that must be remarkably commonplace in some areas, considering it still happens today:
I have an alternate hypothesis: this not being a world of pure materialism in which genes puppet around helpless fleshsacks who can do nothing but blindly follow their natures, sometimes some women genuinely are more virtuous, or at least commited, than other women.
Allegedly Tarquinus used deception against him, not force, so not defeated on the battlefield.
Recall the story about the ring of Collatinus and Lucretia.
So? He failed to mate-guard. The mere fact that anyone is in a position to do raping is proof positive in evolutionary terms that her husband has failed.
You cannot stand over your wife twenty four seven, so you have to trust other people somewhat. That the trust is apt to be betrayed is indeed failure, but women do not perceive such failures as weakness, especially if they expect their husband is likely to do something drastic about such betrayal.
Cannot do anything if he is dead, such as Olga’s husband Igor, or as in the Yazidi men killed by ISIS, or as in the Okinawan women whose husbands had already died to the Americans. Death is the ultimate weakness.
why anyone here let alone Jim tolerates your horseshit is beyond me. fuck you nigger shut up already.
i don’t care what this peace faggot can say he is a disinfo shill of some variety per the observable fact that he brings his unwanted and wrongheaded perspective HERE of all places. fucking Ray Charles could see that in this place what you have to say would not be met with agreement let alone persuade any one of us, so what ARE you doing here?
far as i can tell you are noise in our communications and naught else. may you die in a fire. thank you friends.
You added this while I was typing, so to respond: if a man has already killed your husband and is in a position to rape you, then he by definition is more alpha then your husband, per your established criteria. Ergo rape enthusiasm should be at 100% in all cases, and even one such suicide should be utterly unknown and unthinkable. Not one Japanese woman at Okinawa should have killed herself and her children (what evolutionary benefit is that?) rather than allow the Americans to have their way with her and them.
Note that no women famous for their virtue displayed virtue under those circumstances.
Possibly because no woman ever has or ever will display virtue under those circumstances, and it is foolish, unreasonable, and absurd to expect that any woman ever has or ever will display virtue under those circumstances.
You brought up Olga of Kiev, you are aware that her husband was killed by her enemies, correct? Rather gruesomely if certain reports are to be believed. By definition he was not as alpha as they were, because he was dead and they were not. By your logic she should have wandered up and offered herself to them immediately.
Many of the Japanese women leaping off Suicide Cliff, often in the company of their children, had already lost their husbands to the war. Certainly were less alpha than the Americans currently overrunning the island.
He was invading them. They were not invading him.
He wandered around shaking down people for tribute. Got killed. Olga was unimpressed by those who killed him. They sent ambassadors to her. She sent armies in the other direction. Was right to be unimpressed.
He was invading them, and died invading them. Thus proving he was of inferior genetic quality to the men who killed him, if we accept what you say as true.
And, incidentally, a famous childless female suicide that makes little sense in your scheme would be Charlotte Corday, who you may remember stabbed Marat to death in a premeditated murder, fully knowing it would lead to her death. She intended to do it on the floor of the National Assembly and let them kill her on the spot, only failed to do so because he wasn’t there anymore. She was even examined after her death by hostile Jacobins, found to be a virgin at 24. Makes no sense per your view.
It looked to me, and it looked to his wife, as if he was of markedly and dramatically superior genetic quality.
War is a chancy business.
Frankly I am going to need more than your bald assertion that Olga was looking at the sex appeal of her husband vs the sex appeal of the men who demonstrated their superior Darwinian fitness to him in the starkest of terms.
Evolution doesn’t care how you win, just that you do. Sneaky male cuttlefish are reproductively successful quite often, literally by being the size of females and dressing in drag. Female cuttlefish still get wet for them, judging by genetic studies sometimes even more than for larger, more chad-like males.
And I can’t help but notice you wholly ignored my point about Madame Corday, a woman proven postmortem to have been a wholly intact virgin at the age of 24 (the Jacobins believed her to have been the bedmate of their political enemies and their pawn, and were quite shocked to find this out). Her letters are a matter of record, you can see for yourself that she fully expected her actions to lead to her being beaten to death on the floor of the National Convention, and pointedly producing no offspring. Does not seem in line with the genetic imperative you allege to me.
This is unresponsive. Putting you on moderation.
The genetic superiority of Olga’s husband is as obvious to me as it was obvious to Olga.
Sounds like she was awaiting the booty call that did not come.
Her opponents found her virginity remarkable – not because they thought she had been banging random men, but because they thought she had been banging one particular famous and powerful man.
Waiting for a booty call by… stabbing a famous Jacobin to death and then calmly waiting for the police to arrest her, an act she was fully aware would end with her very shortly paying a visit to madame guillotine? As, indeed, it did all of four days later.
Frankly it sounds to me much more like you have simply decided your theory is universally correct and that you will shove whatever evidence is presented into that box, however poorly it fits. It doesn’t seem like there is much point in continuing if this is how you intend to discuss things.
In front of my eyes, all the time, I see women engaging in self destructive behavior in the confident expectation, usually correct, that men will rescue them and pay the costs.
Jim while I disagree with Peace overall he is right that history does have examples of women standing by their men in defeat and disgrace (but you are right not so much after death unless they commit suicide immediately).
Ive mentioned this before but… The subject of the extermination of the tiny hat tribe by the Reich is over done but Ive always found the Rosenstrasse story (the gentile wives of some of Berlins jews) who’s husband were in that system humiliated low status men (putting it lightly) rather touching. For some reason they displayed incredible loyalty and keep in mind the kind of gentile women who married Jewish guys in Weimar Germany… I imagine mostly gold diggers, showgirls, often literal hookers. And yet they not only stuck around all the years of the Reich despite having no monetary incentive to but stood outside Gestapo headquarters in the cold for days and refused to disperse when told to do so by guys with machine guns…
It’s the only holocaustianity story globohomo would never tell because it makes modern women look like real cunts.
Let me attempt to offer some wisdom here.
Jim’s observations on the behavior of women in the modern decadent West do not need to be universally true of absolutely all women across all of time and space, in order to be a reliable guide to the nature of most of the women that his intended audience are ever likely to actually meet in real life.
Yes, there are some women whose piety is strong enough to over-ride their feral instincts. But such women are not the norm in this world. Certainly not in the current secularized urban environment.
Wasn’t it Tacitus that put it down that German women would be found near the battlefield, playing cheerleader, and in the event of defeat would kill themselves and their children instead of facing capture?
Loyalty to manly husbands is well attested in ancient history.
Disinclination to have sex with betas as women perceive betas is right in front of our eyes. And you can be a very wealthy man in a very poor country and still be seen as beta. Bezos was mighty hard up for pussy.
The problem is that people like “Peace” leap from that to disinclination to have sex with conquerors, which is not observed. Nor would we expect to observe it.
I thought it was being argued that in all cases, or in nearly all to such an extent you can say all cases, women are happy to be conquered by the rival tribe. It seems more true to say such of unmarried young women, whereas owned women, especially mothers, are quite likely to be dissatisfied with a change in ownership regardless of proof of battle prowess. This is also one area where there is meaningful difference in observed behavior of women of different races.
I observe the Ukrainian women whoring themselves out while their boyfriends and husbands are ground into hamburger, and I am disgusted. They arent whoring out to conquerors to say the least. I only hope the normies learn this lesson well. Fight for the GAE, lose your limbs and your bloodline, because your wife isn’t your wife and she won’t wait for the door to close on your way off to war before she contemplates who she’s next going to fuck.
Obviously mothers are going to be very unhappy about a change of ownership, even if the new owner is plausibly an upgrade.
And wives who doubt the new owner is an upgrade (and it would have been mighty hard to persuade Penelope that you were an upgrade) are going to be unhappy regardless of whether they have children or not.
Hasan lies.
Poster girl principle: If in all the world and in all of history there was one woman like that, we would know her name.
Everyone knows Penelope’s name. So many young women are named after Penelope. Where is a woman like this woman that Hasan speaks of?
Why is Penelope famous and remembered? For her sexual virtue and unshakeable loyalty to a pirate King who was very very good at killing people and who killed a whole lot of people.
Everyone knows Penelope’s name. What is the name of one of these heroines Hasan speaks of?
Amina El Filali. Took me all of a few seconds to find a poster girl.
She was married off by her family because she had slept with someone else, who then disappeared so they could not pressure him to marry her. They married her off to an older man for lack of virginity. Likely that someone else who took her virginity before she wound up married off to an older man willing to accept used goods resembled General Bucknaked.
I asked for an exemplar of female virtue resembling Penelope. Amina El Filali is not an exemplar of female virtue. She was trash. Lots of people call their daughters Penelope after that Penelope. No one is going to call their daughter Amina after that Amina.
What are you talking about? The guy she married was the guy who first raped her, that’s the entire reason the court made them get hitched. She should have been thrilled going by your logic.
Not the story I heard. What I heard is that she was fucking Mustafa for months before he “raped” her, for months before these events. That she killed herself because she did not want to be stuck with one of the men whose dicks she had tried.
Maybe the kinder version that you believe is true, but if it is, there is sufficient messiness and odd behavior around this story that no one is going to be naming their daughter “Amina”.
Not what her family said, they say she was kidnapped at knife-point. Family court agreed and sentenced Mustafa to marry her on exactly those grounds.
Also it doesn’t make any more sense from your theory for a childless, fertile young female to kill herself over being forcibly married to one guy. She did not pass along any genes by doing so.
They say several different things.
So whence the suicide? She spread no genes by doing so.
Women engage in self destructive behaviour in the expectation that a man will rescue them. Often it works.
She swallowed rat poison. That’s not cutting yourself for attention, that’s a genuine effort to die.
Probably thought she would live. Most common method of real female suicide is getting addicted to heroin. They know it will kill them but it’s random when it does it and the 1st few times are pleasant for a depressed girl who doesn’t want to go on any longer in life.
Jim: do you deny that men exist who, having no children and expecting none in return for their actions, nonetheless knowingly and willingly embrace death (whether by martyrdom, war, or otherwise) for the purpose of advancing some cause they deem greater than themselves? Even though, by doing so, they sacrifice their entire genetic imperative.
If you do, then why?
If you do not, then why would it be impossible for you to acknowledge that perhaps the opposite sex might also have counterparts to those men who preferred to die childless rather than slink away from whatever doom came for them?
Because men are like that and women are not like that.
For what reason do you conclude that men are not completely and absolutely controlled by their genetic imperatives but women are? Men have undergone much fiercer selection pressure than women.
Men are controlled by their genetic imperatives. It is just that ours are very different from those of women.
There is no version of the genetic imperative in which a childless man willing dying makes any sense, nor willingly becoming a religious celibate, no undergoing voluntary castration, yet all of those things and more men have done. Men, who have been much more ruthlessly selected to pursue the spread of their genes at all costs when compared to women.
Being prepared to go out in a blaze of glory leads to a high likelihood of going out in a blaze of glory, but also a significant likelihood of a pile of pussy.
If a man does not have a wife, should be prepared to take terrible risks of getting killed. If a woman does not have a husband, should rather be pursuing risk of being sold on the auction block.
Observed risk taking behavior and the resulting frequent bad outcomes are consistent with this.
As for female virtue: Miss average wants to fuck Mister OneInThirty, and does not want to fuck Mister Average. The patriarchy forcibly restrains her from fucking Mister OneInThirty, and forces her to reluctantly fuck Mister Average. The ensuing dramas do not impress me as indicative of female virtue. And do not lead to anyone naming their daughters after women who got involved in those dramas.
If wholly controlled by genetic imperative, men’s risk taking behavior should always be aimed in the direction of getting a wife. Observed reality is that this is not the case. Can you give me even one reason why a young, childless man would become a celibate monk, whether on Mount Athos or Wat Arun? This is exactly the opposite of what evolutionary pressure would have him do. Men feel evolutionary pressure to a much greater degree than females, who really don’t have to do much to successfully reproduce.
And, speaking of the religious, by your logic no woman ever has willingly joined any celibate religious order, whether Christian or Buddhist or Vestal Virgins, and kept her vows. Every single female Christian religious martyr is a lie, did not choose to be martyred or was not a virgin. Is that what you are claiming?
Well, undoubtedly some have done so voluntarily, but the great majority did not seem to be volunteering.
There are not that many nuns, and considerably fewer voluntary nuns, but there are more nuns than unicorns.
Observed male risk taking behavior is overwhelmingly in the direction of nailing pussy. And, being by definition reckless and dangerous, when it fails of nailing pussy, and instead winds up in death, you cannot therefore conclude that is a counterexample.
Observed female misconduct is overwhelmingly in the direction of preselection, of miss average banging mister one-in-thirty and refusing to bang mister average, and observed examples of female chastity look suspiciously like women waiting for a booty call from mister one-in-thirty that never comes. When the booty call never arrives, and the woman dies childless, one should not therefore call them chaste.
In this discussion the matter of disease was never mentioned. We all have a genetic imperativ and a telos, but diseases exist. Some diseases somehow affect the mind so that sick individuals will no longer “want” to follow the genetic imperative.
So I doubt the men who “want” to become celibate childless monks are healthy.
If you’re prepared to acknowledge this, then I’ve already proven my point. If even one female in the history of the world was, indeed, like that, then what I said at the start is correct. I agree that most women are not, but I also assert that there are some, however rare, who are. If you admit as much then we have reached the end of our discussion.
I need but one counterexample to make my point (that men can, and do, knowingly and willingly choose to defy their genetic imperatives to reproduce at any cost). I have God knows how many, in the form of celibate religious orders, voluntary castrates, and many others who knowingly choose a path which will result in them having no children at all. Certainly it is more rare than the opposite, but it exists, and that’s all I’ve claiming.
“Most of the time” is a long way from “always”.
If, on the other hand, you intend to argue that literally every behavior ever, up to and including intentionally getting yourself killed as a virgin is evidence that everything you do is totally controlled by the urge to reproduce, I frankly have nothing more to say because you don’t seem to be arguing in good faith.
Perverse, self destructive, pathological, and unsuccessful responses to reproductive failure are completely normal and expected. A woman voluntarily becoming a nun is no different from an incel going on a school shooting.
You are aware that more than a few women have gone straight from childhood into a convent of one sort or another, or avowed perpetual virginity, with no attempts on their part to reproduce, and died virgins, yes? St. Cecilia is only one of the more famous cases.
But, frankly, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing with the way you choose to argue. Could you, even theoretically, name evidence which you would accept as showing that human beings are not utterly controlled by the genetic urge to reproduce at all costs, and can in fact knowingly refrain from doing so while being able to?
Heloise being an absolutely typical example of these girls.
I am going to silence everything you say from here now on unless you make a relevant response to my example of Heloise going to a nunnery. Because you are being unresponsive, this conversation will go on forever, wasting space.
Heliose and Abelard are absolutely typical and illustrative examples of how biologically driven behavior, that is fundamentally driven by the need to survive and reproduce, frequently fails to result in survival and reproduction. But this does not falsify the obvious fact that it is fundamentally driven by survival and reproduction.
Incel pathological behavior is a broken form of behavior that in the ancestral environment might have resulted in successful wife raiding, and female pathological behavior that in the present day environment results in them becoming cat ladies (or, like Heloise, nuns) is a broken form of behavior that in the ancestral environment might have resulted in them being abducted into a great man’s harem.
It is as obvious that Heloise joining a nunnery was a manifestation of failed effort at reproduction as it is obvious that Olga’s husband was a far greater man than those who killed him, and if you just go on stubbornly denying the obvious I am just going to silence you, or the conversation will go on forever.
What do you want me to say about Heloise? [*deleted*]
An appropriate response would be “Not all nuns are like that, and here is a nun that is an obvious counter example”
Any women who is half way plausible as a unicorn is going to wind up a poster girl. If unicorns existed, you would have better poster girls.
The evidence for unicorn females is like the evidence for ufos being alien spacecraft. Loads of weak evidence, but if some of them actually were alien spacecraft, there would be some examples of much stronger evidence.
It is obvious that believers in unicorns are hard up for poster girls, much as believer in alien spacecraft are hard up for posters of alien spacecraft.
Ok. St. Agatha, [*deleted*]
According to an account written over one thousand years after her death, Saint Agatha is a clear example of a unicorn.
This is strangely reminiscent of the tendency of ufo photos to be a bit blurry.
I named several others whom you chose to delete [*deleted*]
Yes, but they were all similarly questionable. And the debate would have gone on forever. You have a whole lot of poster girls, as the ufologists have a whole lot of ufo photos. And all your poster girls are unpersuasive, just as all the ufo photos are unpersuasive. For example Joan of Arc is scarcely a better example than Heloise.
My argument is that if there was one unicorn in all the world and all of history, you would have one good poster girl, instead of a great pile of obscure and funny smelling poster girls.
There are poster girls who didn’t immediately defect to the more alpha though not perfect…
There are no poster girls at all for “date rape” or acquaintance rape” every single alleged case I ever heard of has ample evidence the woman lied and suffered buyers remorse later. Every last one with no exceptions.
A woman who holds out for her husband is virtuous. A woman who holds out for a husband is virtuous.
There are loads of examples of a woman holding out for her husband, of whom Penelope is the archetypical and most famous example, but where we know something of those husbands, they are men with a remarkable capacity of violence. Women holding out for a husband, not seeing it.
Women forever waiting for the booty call that never arrives, seeing a lot of it.
[*unresponsive*]
The existence of funny smelling poster girls is evidence against the thing the posters are promoting, not evidence for it, as the existence of vague and blurry ufo photos is evidence against alien spacecraft, not evidence for them. Marie Curie is evidence that there are no women scientists, Ada no women programmers.
If the thing being promoted was true, you would have better quality poster girls.
Choose one poster girl, the best example, and let us discuss that one example, the one you deem best. Do not keep on coming up with one poster girl after another, because quantity disproves the thing claimed, rather than proving it.
No women don’t holdout for marriage if that’s what you are saying agree 100%. Women do sometimes holdout and even take on incredible hardships and risks for husband’s who aren’t general butt naked just not it seems in the modern west.
Even Odysseus was not quite general butt naked he was alpha more due to his cunning, dark age Greece was full of brutal violent men. Odysseus if you remember tried to do the equivalent of dodging the draft.
Penelopes story is unrealistic also that unless she was frigid even if she held off on marrying eventually she would have (I forger how long he was gone but it was over 10 years) started sleeping with one or more of the suitors.
Holding out for ten years is completely realistic, assuming none of the suitors measured up to her absent husband, and according to the legend, none of them did.
You have doubtless heard it said that standards and knickers always drop in the end. No they do not. Rather the problem we face is women continuing to await a booty call that never comes as they hit the wall.
Fine. St. Maria Goretti. Recent, died a virgin at 11 in 1902. Chose to refuse sex when threatened at knife-point, then stabbed to death. Rapist was actually captured and confirmed the story, and that she died a virgin. Later repented in jail and joined a monastic order, where he worked until his death.
We have both sides of the story, from not so long ago, confirming that a young, virgin woman was given the choice of rape or death by stabbing, and chose death.
Yes, but the man who threatened her was mentally retarded, poor, and low status.
I am inclined to doubt she would have resisted had he been powerful and high status.
Women tend to be attracted to dumb thugs, but mentally retarded thugs is perhaps a bit much.
Even alpha specops military types routinely get cucked on long deployments.
[*deleted*]
You attribute to me, and to the red pill, an account of female nature that is absurd, outrageous, and wildly contrary to the account that we present.
Not going to allow this method of argument.
This is a good example of holiness spiraling, grabbing one slim shade of a contradiction and using it to create an entirely different picture.
Also notice Jim has a clear depiction of “what is”, with plenty of reinforcement around the argument, while the attacker is focused on destroying, while not actually offering an alternative explanation other than some magical thinking about a parallel unseen universe.
NAWALT has been refuted so many times at this point that new patterns begin too reveal themselves: those who argue that there is some special exception to the rule are not able to reason that exceptions prove the rule, otherwise there wouldn’t be a desperate scramble to find exceptions.
It is not impossible for a virtuous woman to exist, Solomon said that this number was more rare than 1/1,000, and my observations have been in complete agreement with Solomon’s. Many women can be virtuous if they have strong husbands that they respect and society is oriented towards keeping them in line
From what I’ve seen, virtually no woman is virtuous on her own.
Jim, much as I hate to agree with Peace about anything, he has a point here. What would you accept as evidence of a woman waiting, not on a husband or a booty call, but on something that isn’t sexual, as for example a religious conviction?
If the answer is “nothing whatsoever” then this is less an observation of reality and more a calcified dogma.
Also, this isn’t a good argument when some women have and continue to copulate with negroes, who are poor, retarded, and low status in almost all times and places.
When Henry the eighth wanted to dissolve the monasteries and nunneries, no one doubts it was because they had far too much wealth and power and he wanted some. But he could not just dissolve them on the grounds he wanted what they had. He had to dig up proper religious justification.
And had no difficulty doing so. Looks like the amount of religious conviction in both the nunneries and monasteries was considerably less than advertised.
Thus a presupposition of cynical disbelief is well justified.
Evidence for female virtue is like evidence for flying saucers. One is well justified in subjecting any proposed evidence to severe, suspicious, and cynical scrutiny, and there is a strange lack of anything that survives such scrutiny. With the notable exception of frequent impressive loyalty to absent husbands.
Whenever someone proposes to modify female sexual behavior with economic incentives, I tell them it is not going to work, that female behavior is driven by forces ancient, pre-rational, volcanic, and unstoppable.
This manifests both as them having sex when they should not, and not having sex when they should have sex.
And in the modern world of social media, it results in a whole lot of them not having sex when they should have sex. No one is likely to mistake this for an outbreak of chastity among modern women.
Saint Maria Goretti was made a saint because she heroically resisted a mentally retarded farmhand. This is not necessarily indicative as to how she would have reacted to being naked on the auction block being appraised by wealthy merchants and handsome captains, men high status in the auction environment, rather than at the absolute bottom of status in the farmhand environment.
That’s fine, but I’m asking what level of evidence you would accept, in principle. What would constitute a successful unicorn in your mind?
If high status people were auctioning off women in chains, to bidders whom they treated as high status, an environment that was, and looked to the ancient female lizard brain, like a bunch of high status men coming to mutually agreeable arrangements for the disposition of pussy, and some of those women got stroppy about it, that would be evidence for the kind of unicorn claimed by the Peace, as for example his alleged resistance by captives of Isis.
Or if some of the women assigned by the authorities in late eighteenth century early nineteenth century Australia got stroppy.
And in fact some of them did get stroppy, but the stroppyness was not indicative of chastity, rather the reverse.
We have confirmed cases where something like that happened, as for example Nadia Murad, a Yazidi girl who was sold off to ISIS as a slave, then escaped Mosul in November of 2014, years before ISIS fell there.
Nasdia Murad was “taken in by a neighbouring family”.
This sounds like a less than strenuous escape effort, and more like loss of interest by her captor. She allegedly left Isis territory over the course of a month or two. Which if true shows she did not stick around unduly, but was not in a huge hurry to leave as fast a possible either.
If one of these ladies just climbed out the bedroom window, hit the road in the dead of night and just kept on going, that would be evidence.
Her “escape” sounds distinctly unenergetic. It is more like she got mislaid than escaped. Someone with a bit more drama to her story would make a better poster girl.
That she was made the poster girl indicates a lack of poster girls with more compelling and entertaining stories. Her story does not display any great urgency in putting distance between herself and her owner or herself and Isis. As if they are hard up for poster girls.
Farida Khalaf alleges in her story making three attempts to escape before actually succeeding in doing so.
Also, did a little digging, found a case where that seems to have just about literally happened:
https://mashable.com/archive/isis-slave-iraq
The son mentioned is from her Yazidi husband, executed by ISIS, not one of them, btw. The fact that said son is still alive lends some credibility to her account, imo.
Sorry about the double post, would edit it in if I could. Jim, you mind doing so?
She had a son by a husband, a pregnancy by that husband, and incorrectly believed her husband was still around or might still be around: “I have a husband”. Virtue under these circumstances is less surprising. This was not a vigorous attempt to escape from having sex with a high status male, but rather a vigorous attempt to re-unite with her husband.
Which is admirable and real female virtue, but not the kind of female virtue that “Peace” claims exists.
It also interesting that Nadia Murad was made the poster girl, not Amsha Alyas. You should ask yourself why. A poster girl is manufactured to sell you something. Ask what you are being sold and why. It would seem that one kind of female virtue is more in need of official promotion than the other.
Are you sure you’re reading that right? Her husband was with her when captured, and promptly executed:
The man she returned to was her brother, then her dad.
Read on.
“I have a husband”.
Therefore, at the time, did not know he had been summarily executed.
And again, I ask you to wonder why Naida Murad is manufactured into a poster girl, and Alyas not.
What subsequently happened to Naida Murad should tell you that people are trying to manipulate and control you. Ask yourself what they are up to. Manipulate you how? Control you to what purpose?
When you observe how Naida Murad is posterized, reflect on how Marie Curie was posterized.
One might wonder why the everyone has heard of the discoverer of radium, while no one has heard of the discoverer of any other the elements. Was the discovery of radium particularly important or particularly interesting? But everything that makes the discovery of radium important and interesting makes the discovery of radon more important and more interesting, and really the main importance of the discovery of radium is that it led to the discovery of radon. And then if you dig up old newspapers, you find that Marie Curie was not originally billed as the discoverer of radium. It was discovered by a great scientist, Pierre Curie, and Marie Curie, his wife, gets written into the story, and everyone else gets written out of the story, with the story rapidly changing over time.
Human interest stories get told out of human interest, but poster girls get manufactured because evil and malicious people who hate their audience and seek to harm their audience have an axe to grind.
When you see a poster girl, your first thought should be “How can my enemies use this poster to cause harm and suffering, and to cause me in particular harm and suffering?”
When you see an ad, your first thought should be “How is this information manipulated to persuade people to give the advertiser money”. When you see a poster girl, your first thought should be, if the purpose of the poster girl is not to get people to send money, “How is this information manipulated to cause harm and suffering”.
I don’t interpret her words that way, seems to me she was claiming to ISIS guy to already be taken (and thus ineligible for marriage) rather than evincing a belief that her husband was still alive. What they did with Yazidi men was no mystery to anyone. And in any case had she thought so could easily have wandered off to get captured again after finding out her husband was dead.
I know what they want from me. I also know that I don’t submit to groupthink, regardless of its source. Same reason I am not a Christian, or a prog.
You are stretching, and your stretch of her words makes no sense.
You are stretching because you want her actions to make no sense.
Her words only make sense if as far as she knew her husband was still alive, and her actions only make sense if as far as she knew her husband was still alive.
As for what “everyone knew”: Fog of war is always that nobody knows.
Frankly, I disagree, it makes way less sense from a Darwinian perspective to remain loyal to a living husband who has been defeated in battle right in front of her, humiliated, and either dragged off to an unknown fate or executed before her very eyes, but it seems to me that further discussion is just a waste of space, so I’m probably just going to bow out.
Also, should mention, “I have a husband” are her words to the ISIS man. If that genuinely was her not knowing what happened, he could easily have just shot back with “not anymore you don’t”.
Fog of war. It would be hard for him to know either. You think they were scanning people’s papers and entering them in the central database before shooting them?
Before we kill you, please provide your date of birth, your mother’s maiden name, and your tax file number.
If Amsha Alyas had known herself to be a window, they would have made her the poster girl rather than Naira Murad.
The strongest unicorn would be a women whose tribe would be conquered by an enemy tribe, would be married off to the leader of the conquering tribe, but while perceiving him as more alpha than the men of her own tribe, would still reject him. Displaying a virtue like loyalty to the tribe, after all, is about remaining virtuous despite temptation. If no temptation, no virtue.
The reason you will never find such a unicorn is because the red pill teaches us that women have a disconnect between their conscious minds and the imperative of their pussies. She might say A, but do B. And so remaining virtuous for a woman when captured by a true general bucknaked is near impossible, because half of the time she does not know why she is doing what she is doing.
>Anabaptist man: (Supernatural) virtue exists in women.
>Jim: Proofs? Where is proofs? Gib proofs
>Anabaptist man: St. Maria Goretti
>Jim: That doesn’t count because Sneed didn’t feed. Gib proofs
Here is a short list of “poster girls”:
St Saint Winifred
St Catherine of Alexandria
St Columba of Cornwall
St Joan of Arc
St Lindalva Justo de Oliveira
St Isabel Cristina
St Marie-Clémentine Anuarite Nengapeta
St Pierina Morosini
All chaste martyrs btw. To answer objections:
>Why didn’t I hear about them in the news
Because the satanists who run the media hate chastity and virtue and religion, so this isn’t the type of “poster girl” they want. Or because you didn’t put in 5 minutes of effort.
>You are a shill
Women naturally want/lust to be owned by the strongest male, and will demand that men demonstrate their strength through barbaric violence, which is objectively bad for society in general and everyone involved in particular. My preferred solution to this is arranged marriage.
What is up for discussion here is supernatural virtue, ie, virtue above and beyond baseline human nature. That the grace of God can make individual humans better than they are by “default” is basic dogma in all denominations, so if you have a problem with it, you should stop calling yourself a Christian Nationalist.
To put it more positively, if you believe supernatural evil exists, which you clearly do, why is it so difficult to accept that supernatural good exists?
>Papists go home
The first three examples are also Eastern Orthodox saints.
>First three examples are too old therefore unreliable
I went out of my way to pick ones that had contemporary documentation, and avoided the more “word of mouth” ones.
Not looking into all your “proofs” of the existence of unicorns. Just taking the first one:
Saint Winifred:
Her story was written up four centuries after her death.
Story is that she was a princess. She refused Caradog. Which, given that she was a princess and Caradog was not a prince, is entirely credible, and declared her intent to enter a nunnery, which I find considerably less credible. For starters it is unlikely that her family would allow a princess to go to waste.
Caradog cut off her head. God miraculously resurrected her and struck down Caradog. Unfortunate no one in Ireland, and no one of her royal family, had any recollection of these events four centuries later, when suddenly someone in England remembered them – in English.
Pardon me if I find this a little unconvincing as evidence for the existence of unicorns.
Apologies for gish galloping and improper diligence. I’ll be more specific then.
St John of Arc:
Led an army into battle, surrounded by hardened killers, died a virgin martyr for France.
St Marie-Clémentine Anuarite Nengapeta:
20th century nun, died resisting a rape attempt from one Colonel Pierre Olombe, hardened african killer.
Is this better?
As always, only addressing your first example:
That Joan of Arc died a virgin is not proof of the existence of unicorns. It is proof of the existence of virgins. And right now the west is full of virgins slowly turning into cat ladies as they wait for a booty call that never comes.
Joan of Arc’s career started off by shadowing and pestering mighty men – as no end of young, often very young, girls are apt to shadow them and pester them today.
She claimed a divine vision that the King should do what he obviously urgently needed to do, but was pussyfooting around doing for fear of getting killed. So the French took the plunge, not that they really had much alternative, and it worked. Joan’s divine mission now over. But she kept hanging around and kept on pestering.
If she died a virgin, she strangely managed to create a whole bunch of situations that seemed remarkably likely to result in her not dying a virgin, including managing, with considerable effort, to get captured by the enemy.
She kept arranging meet in private with high status, heavily armed, and violent men.
She was captured because she was with the rearguard during a retreat. The rearguard being the group most likely to be captured during a retreat. They are the guys you expend so that you don’t lose the rest of your force.
The main force had retreated over the drawbridge, and it was now time for the rearguard to skedaddle over the drawbridge. But, according to Guillaume de Flavy who raised the drawbridge leaving Joan on the outside, she was stalling, or perhaps the rearguard was supposed to stall to give him time to raise the drawbridge.
Joan of Arc found herself on the wrong side of the drawbridge. Possibly Guillaume screwed up, possibly the rearguard screwed up, or very likely he was doing what he was supposed to and the rearguard were doing what they were supposed to, the big important urgent thing being to prevent the enemy from crossing the drawbridge. But clearly Joan of Arc was not doing what she was supposed to. Obviously that drawbridge was going to go up, and obviously the rearguard was expendable and likely to be expended. So what the %^&# is Joan of Arc doing hanging out with the rearguard?
I have encountered no end of twentieth century females who strangely keep getting into situations where some man could easily have his way with her, and regularly argue that if a woman somehow winds up in private behind closed doors with a nonkin male, she consented even if he had to ziptie her to the bed, because that is how women do in practice consent. They are apt to be passive aggressive about it, sometimes necessitating the use of zipties.
Guillaume catches a lot of flack for ordering the drawbridge up with Joan of Arc on the outside, but his job description was to get the drawbridge up with as many as possible of his guys on the inside and as few as possible of the enemy’s guys on the inside. This is a well known and notorious downside of being in the rearguard, and there was nothing in his job description of about Joan of Arc.
As always, only addressing your first example:
Joan of Arc had, like so many twenty first century women, a striking propensity for getting to situations where a powerful and dangerous high status male could have banged her like a drum.
Remember Cleopatra and Julius Caesar?
Julius Caesar is holed up in a citadel in Egypt, besieged by the King of Egypt. A mysterious Egyptian wants to present him with a big rolled up carpet. He suspects that there is someone inside the carpet, and has it suddenly unrolled with great force and violence, and a girl comes spinning out. She is Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, so Caesar naturally expects her to offer a deal against her brother, the King of Egypt. OK, he says, what do you want, what do you offer?
Cleopatra replies: I am your captive, you may do with me as you please.
That is how women get their way.
As always, only addressing your first example
Joan of Arc had an unsatisfactory story, because she continued her mission beyond its natural and appointed end.
Now if I was a french time traveller, and wanted to clean up history so that it had cooler stories, I would have arranged that each of the famous, powerful, high status, violent, and dangerous men that Joan of Arc pestered for a private audience received a set of reusable padded zip ties and a ball gag.
The Joan would have rested up once the time came to end her mission.
Joan of Arc had, like so many twenty first century women, a striking propensity for getting to situations where a powerful and dangerous high status male could have banged her like a drum.
You think the isis man in charge of distributing captured Yazidi women was unaware of what their policy was for captured Yazidi men? It was never anything other than “kill them on the spot”. He would know that all the men with her would have been killed as a matter of course.
If he knew they were captured in a completely controlled and orderly operation in which everything worked out as planned, he would know she was a widow.
War seldom works out like that.
Except none of Joan’s contemporaries thought anything untoward like that was going on, even the English who had every motivation for slander, or the Dauphin’s priests who were initially incredibly suspicious, or La Hire the ill tempered and vulgar killer.
Have you considered that you are jaded from a lifetime of adultery and go out of your way to interpret things in the most profane way possible? You’ve been provided two perfectly good unicorns by two different people, and you jump through hoops to find mud to sling and goalposts to move.
Regarding Henry VIII, sure, a lot of monks didn’t put up a fuss, but some did and willingly got killed for it, like Sir Thomas More. Cynicism regarding religious conviction is often merited, but true believers demonstrably exist.
young girls today, and probably young girls then, have a striking tendency to wander into situations where it could well happen.
And presumably it did not happen, or the English would have discovered it.
But it was not for lack of trying by Joan of Arc.
Throughout most of history, everyone has assumed that if a man and women were behind closed doors for thirty seconds, it was time to break out the shotgun.
If the french of her time did not assume that, looks to me more like twenty first century moral breakdown than fifteenth century holiness.
And the British condemnation of her for wearing men’s clothing relates – because the clothing was used to keep men and women separate to avoid opportunities for sex, and Joan was getting opportunities that she should not have.
You are probably right that nothing happened. But I know a few twenty first century girls, to which also nothing happened, but it was not for lack of trying on their part.
Possibly none of these famous, powerful, high status, dangerous, and violent men banged Joan of Arc. Probably none of them banged Joan of Arc. But Joan of Arc was energetically and industriously arranging circumstances where they could.
How it would have gone down if your interpretation of her words was correct.
I have been researching the capture of Joan of Arc. Which happened in full view of the two armies, with no end of people generating records of the event, and everyone considering it a hugely important event.
And no one knows what the $%P&*%$ happened.
Pretty sure no one knew happened to Alyas’s husband.
@Jim:
A thought occurs to me. None of the behavior anyone here has argued certain women to be capable of is any more irrational, from a genetic perspective, than homosexuality. Yet homosexuality exists in both men and women, and one need only stick their head out the window to confirm that this is indeed the case. Has existed since time immemorial, in spite of the obvious problems it causes its bearers.
What makes you so absolutely certain that aberrations can only happen in one direction?
Poster girl principle, flying saucer principle.
If it happened, they would have better poster girls. And if flying saucers were high tech space aliens, there would be better photos.
Alyas knew he was with her when isis nabbed them. Zaid knew what isis do to such men. That’s a problem even an arab wouldn’t have trouble working out.
And that’s assuming that Zaid didn’t just, ya know, talk to the guys who did the executing when they were handing off the new batch of slaves. Even so much as “yeah bro we killed all the peacock worshippers and brought in their wives for the boys”.
Zero reason for him to believe anything other than that her husband was dead.
You are confabulating a whole lot of plausible details, which amount to the fog of war lifting. Could be, could well be. But it is still confabulation, not data that we have, but data plausibly conjectured. What we do have is Alyas saying that she is married, that she has a husband, and she does not report Zaid contradicting her.
You don’t actually have this information, and you do not have any evidence that Alyas or Zaid had this information. You are arguing that they should have had it.
Well in war, there is a a whole lot of information that you should have, but you do not.
There is absolutely no reason to take Alyas’s words as a statement of literal belief. She had every reason to believe her husband was dead (there is no reason to bother moving the men out of sight of the women before killing them), Zaid had every reason to believe he was dead, Zaid also had motive to say that her husband was dead even if he was somehow unsure (shutting down a troublesome slave).
And most importantly, isis doesn’t recognize Yazidi marriages as valid. It considers them devil worshippers. Thus her words would mean nothing to Zaid or any other fighter if they were a literal statement of belief, would do nothing to stop them from claiming her as a wife.
Frankly, you are doing a lot more stretching regarding Joan of Arc or Maria Goretti than Calvin or I is about Alyas. And somewhere above, you just randomly declared than Charlotte Corday was “waiting for a booty call” despite being a confirmed virgin regularly in contact with aristocratic men and later powerful politicians or that she somehow expected not to die when her letters written well in advance directly say that she did, on the strength of absolutely nothing.
If you are going to throw away the stuff in that imperfectly fits your agenda, let us throw away the whole lot. It all smells mighty funny.
Is there any reason to take anything whatsoever in any these reports as a statement of literal belief? They are all moralistic propaganda being presented in service of a moral campaign and an agenda.
It is pretty obvious that reports of heroic Christian virgin martyrs written up ten centuries after the events in question are less than entirely reliable. Why should we suppose that anything in these reports is any more reliable that the Christian stuff?
The British were less than impressed by Joan of Arc’s chastity.
This is like those UFO debates where one guy says “lens flare”, and the other says “little green men”, and produces all sorts of logical, reasonable, and persuasive arguments evidence for little green men and against lens flair.
If it actually was little green men, there would be photos where no one would be arguing lens flair.
And if Joan of Arc was not trying to get herself raped, what the #$!! was she doing in the rearguard as drawbridge was about to go up?
The British men’s clothing indictment was that she was inserting herself into places a woman should not go. And they were right. The rearguard is definitely a place a woman should not go.
An unattached girl who chooses to keep her virginity over her life when held up with a knife is an excellent poster girl. If following a purely genetic imperative, compliance of unattached women with violent men holding them up should be 100%. Demonstrably was not.
Your response to that was “it doesn’t count because I think she would have behaved differently in some other situation”. She chose her virginity over her life, in the most lizard-brained situation of all. Violent rape came well before high-status men auctioning off girls in the evolutionary timeline. If she did not give in to one, not plausible to argue that she would just magically cave at the other.
Miss Average would take being stabbed with a knife rather than have sex with mister average, because she is waiting for a booty call from mister OneInThirty. Everyone can see this happening right in front of our eyes.
We know that girls will not fuck betas, no matter what the inducements. But the very same girls who would choose death over being the vicinity of a beta have a strange tendency to wander into situations where they could easily be raped by alphas. Everyone can see this in front of their eyes. A girl who chooses death rather than sex with a beta is not a poster girl. They are all like that, nearly all of them would choose death rather than sex with a beta, and it makes them worse, not better.
The massive failure of the west to reproduce is not a result of huge outbreak of chastity. It is the result of females developing a hugely inflated view of the kind of man they deserve to fuck. This does not mean that sex is not happening because they are chaste. It means that sex is not happening because they are think they are on some guy’s booty call list, but they dropped off the bottom of that list a very long time ago.
The war between the patriarchy and women has always been that the Miss Average wants to fuck mister OneInThirty, and the patriarchy will not let her, and she refuses to fuck Mister Average, and the patriarchy has to force her.
Female virtue is not indicated by refusing to fuck mister average on pain of death. It is indicated by refusing to fuck the man who is unlikely to stick around to raise his sons.
It is also measured by refusal to engage in what biologists call “extra pair matings” – by refusal of a married women to have sex with someone not her husband.
We do see indicators that the latter form of virtue sometimes exists, especially in mothers, but it seems considerably more common if husband is good at killing people. There is strangely little evidence for the former form of virtue existing anywhere. Virgins don’t seem to care much about the likelihood a man might stick around.
And when we see legends of this kind of female virtue, they don’t seem
It’s this sort of thing which suggests that this is less two men trying to take an honest look at reality, and more like one of them has an entrenched idea around which he will try to warp everything, no matter how contradictory it may seem, rather than make even the slightest modification to it.
What were any of the men doing there? Being brave? Being stupid? Thinking God would protect her? Those motives certainly fit into her prior behavior patterns better, when taking into account her history of being in close contact with powerful men with few qualms about side chicks and notably not having sex with them.
You realize that the entire point of the men’s clothing was to make it harder for the English to rape her, right? It was connected together in a way that made it more difficult to take off. If she wanted a raping, easy to just not wear it.
Not even the English accused Joan of violating chastity, even though they had every reason to do so, to discredit her as a visionary.
If UFOs were little green men, we would not see ufologists offering us photos that look as if they forgot to remove the lens cap, and if unicorns existed, you would not have started your list with Saint Winifred.
From the beginning you have made not the slightest effort to engage in honest argument, instead relying on recycling tankloads of ancient propaganda that the lavender mafia have pulled out of their asses.
If you start off your argument with Saint Winifred, you are not making the slightest effort to engage in honest discussion of the evidence.
All your evidence is the same evidence. It is all Saint Winifred of Ireland and saint Joan of Arc tier evidence. It is all like those UFOlogist photos where it looks like someone forgot to remove the lens cap.
You cannot righteously and piously announce your commitment to honest debate and the pursuit of truth when you start your list with Saint Winifred of Ireland.
When you have one list that begins with Saint Winifred of Ireland, and “Peace” has another that begins with Saint Agatha. I am totally justified in blowing off all your evidence as pulled out the choirboys asshole by the lavender mafia.
Legit: what the absolute fuck are you talking about? Most women will, given an even mild degree of physical incentive, fuck a beta. This is so obviously, unquestionably true that it has formed the bedrock of marriage patterns everywhere throughout the world for millennia. Most women married, and reproduced with, betas. Most women today, still, in the age of female liberation, will surrender to the desire for children and shack up with someone who isn’t mister one in thirty in order to breed.
Evolutionarily, you’ve flipped your own script on its head. First you say everything women do is driven by the desire to reproduce, now you’re claiming they would choose death above reproduction. Make up your mind, because in no evolutionary world does it make the slightest bit of sense for a childless virgin to do anything but comply and comply absolutely with any violent man demanding sex.
Also, can you name anything more alpha to the lizard brain than “big scary male is threatening me with barbaric violence”? There is no status signal which is older, more primal. Women want men with capacity for violence. The mere fact that he is threatening her with violence is going to be sending signals of “alpha” screaming into her lizard brain.
What universe are you coming from?
This worked when women were systematically and uniformly made much lower status than any male, and were restrained from contact with any nonkin males other than those pre-selected by parents.
With equality and social media, it is plain to see that miss average would choose death rather than sex with mister average, but she is awaiting a booty call from mister one in thirty.
Further, if we examine the last thousand years of restraints and controls on women, it is clear that this was always a problem that the patriarchy was always struggling to fix with far from uniform success. The patriarchy was mostly successful, but it was not easy.
Big scary male can get away with it because of social approval from surrounding males. Women do not measure alpha at all on the basis of one on interactions.
If a male is going to cut her to pieces, but she knows another male could smack him around, and he would cringe and not fight back, then being apt to cut her to pieces is not alpha, and the most filthy of filthy sluts is not going to have sex with him under the most terrible of inducements.
This is basic game 101. Are you gay?
All your response is “that doesn’t count because I said so”. It doesn’t matter to you if she says she was a virgin, her friends say she was a virgin, her enemies admit she was a virgin, her corpse is posthumously determined to be that of a virgin, and she had a long history of association with powerful men with no qualms about fucking women on the side, would have had no qualms about fucking her if she were the type who would just go along with it. All the high status alpha males with numerous mistresses seemed to become oddly chaste around one particular woman.
Which woman do you have in mind?
If you are thinking of Joan of Arc, obviously she was into rape (as her little stunt with the rearguard illustrated), and obliging that dramatic sexual preference is quite tiresome and stressful for the high status man. Especially before the invention of zip ties. A high status man with numerous mistresses is not going to bother.
I see women today all the time going into situations where they are likely to get forcibly nailed, and we see Joan of Arc all the time going into situations where she was likely to be forcibly nailed, which was the substance of what the British were talking about with her wearing men’s clothing.
If she was not forcibly nailed, it was because she was setting her sights too high. If she had been more willing to be banged by men of lower station, would have had more success.
Same problem as is happening with most modern women today.
There is a lot of it going around. There always has been a lot of it going around, though there is more of it going around now than then.
I see women pulling this stuff all the time. “Oh no, not zip ties”
Yes, those high status men did not bang her, despite the numerous opportunities they had. But if you don’t have bondage tape and zip ties, it is rather more work. Also, have you seen medieval rope? It is really hard to do good knots in it. It is like abaca cord, which is aesthetically beautiful, but not very convenient. And even with modern zip ties and bondage tape, there is so much fiddling around around and business with knots that one is apt to lose interest in sex.
And before you claim [*Not a claim I am likely to make*]
This argument is going on forever and running around in circles because you are not engaged in honest argument.
My argument has always been that every single woman everywhere suffers from the character flaws that made old type patriarchy and marriage 1.0 necessary and always has.
To be clear, I am not Gman, and I apologize for starting the argument off with St Winifred: I did a round of pruning away Saints that had poor historical recordings and she slipped past (which implies the Gish Gallop was even longer): it was negligent of me.
If that were the case then the oldest profession would not exist. In reality, the going rate for literal, actual whores in modern feminist dystopias is a couple hundred bucks. You think their clients are all misters one in thirty?
What the fuck are you talking about? Women write love letters to serial killers on death row, thoroughly defeated and socially ostracized men subject to near universal disapproval of other men, solely on the basis of those serial killers’ personal individual
Your perceptions of women’s willingness to guard their pussies from beta men are laughably bad. Women will fuck a beta man, fuck a literal incel from a forum, for some petty cash or a hit of her favorite drug. How can you claim to observe reality and somehow not notice women have literally sold access to their pussies for fairly negligible sums for literally the entire span of human existence? Getting a woman to fuck you is not that hard, even now. Shit, man, just look up the going rates for “escorts” where you live.
I have two children right now, and a third in the oven. I’m reasonably certain I know what I’m talking about.
Well that is the problem with our criminal injustice system. That they are not thoroughly defeated and ostracized. That is why we need measures like public floggings. We need to see criminals being physically dominated, and we do not.
As I am fond of saying, women can spot a hover hand at thirty paces. Knifes and stuff are irrelevant. They are seeing these men as winners because the criminal justice system treats them respectfully, and they do not treat it respectfully.
They are literal animals kept in cages. There is no social approval for them from other men. The thing, the only thing, that makes them attractive to women is not high social status but individual violence and proven willingness to use it. The very thing you claimed is insufficient for getting pussy wet.
Jim, I challenge you. Let’s put a number to this. Go, right now, and look up the average price for a whore wherever it is you live. That, and nothing more, is how fiercely miss average is willing to guard her pussy from the scourge of the dread beta male. You should at least be able to understand simple supply and demand, yes?
The problem is not, and has never been, that an average man cannot get his duck wet with a modicum of effort. The problem is preventing the pussy from wandering off after he has. The problem is keeping the pussy around to produce heirs. That is problem patriarchy was created to solve, that is the problem of our time.
You say you have children, but I find it hard to believe you.
If their jailers hover hand them, and their jailers do, women, every woman, every woman everywhere always, is going to see the man in the cage as higher status than the man with the keys to the cage.
To stop women from banging criminals, we have to make criminals fear being slapped around, and women have to see the criminal being afraid of being slapped around.
Take a look at the average whore. She is not miss average. Most whores are strikingly unattractive.
And if you go shopping for high end whores, you are going to run into a social filter designed to keep mister average out. High end whores buy into the lifestyle because they are promised high end men, the rich and powerful.
In a donkey, or an old ugly woman, maybe.
You will not find hot chicks for sale – well you will: porn starts and strippers. But there is still a filter around porn stars and strippers that is eased, but not entirely removed, by money. Joe average can get a stripper to give him a lap dance, but if the stripper is reasonably good looking, getting his dick inside her, though way easier than with the average chick, is still rather harder than purchasing a hamburger.
That Joe average can easily purchase a lap dance from a reasonably attractive stripper does not mean he can easily get his dick wet. It means he can easily get his foot in the door on the path towards getting his dick wet.
He can easily purchase sex from an ugly whore – but he is going to be a vastly more attractive man than she is an attractive woman.
If Joe Average wants to use money to purchase sex from Miss Average, it is not going to be easy. Not because the average female is virtuous, but because the average female is not.
What usually happens with Joe Average looking for sex from whores, porn stars, and strippers of attractiveness comparable to his own is that he spends a lot of money and fails to get any sex. He gets lap dances and hand jobs. Sometimes he does get sex, but it requires a certain amount of skill and charisma. He cannot actually buy sex like a hamburger. Sure, the money makes it easier, but if Mister Average is looking for a whore of comparable quality to miss average, it is going to be difficult.
In general the amount of skill and charisma required to obtain sex from strippers and porn stars of reasonable quality is such that you are likely better off getting sex from women who are not porn stars and strippers. It is just that if they are not porn stars and strippers, you have to overcome the foot in door problem. A lap dance is not sex, but it is definitely your foot in the door on the potential path to sex.
But if you get your foot in the door by another way, you may well find yourself on an easier path to getting your dick wet.
If civilized men cannot use their superior capability to cooperate to make uncivilized men afraid, to make them show fear in ways that register in women’s pussies, every woman everywhere all the time always is going to see the uncivilized man as superior. All women are like that.
Women need to see criminals cringe before law abiding men. They don’t. They need to see them afraid. Instead they see civilized men afraid. So we get what we are getting. All women are like that.
This debate is going around in circles because you are using inappropriate measures of female virtue – measures that most strippers and porn stars pass with flying colors.
If a chick wanders off into a dark alley by herself with her boobs almost popping out of her dress, probably not virtuous, and if Joan of Arc joins the rearguard dressed in men’s clothing, probably not virtuous.
I’m not going to go any further with you until you answer a simple question: if access to pussy is so hard to come by, why are whores so cheap? A working man in the feminist paradise of Amsterdam can comfortably get his rocks off a couple times a week in the red light district if he feels like it.
This is not how economics work with things that are genuinely hard to come by.
Bullshit. The average whore is considerable thinner, pays considerably more attention to her appearance, than miss average. I have yet to see any obese ones.
Men aren’t hardup for onaholes, they’re hardup for wives and children, in which the ‘market failure’ for such is complete and total. If cooming was the only thing that bothered them, porn would suffice.
Let’s get specific, shall we Jim? Take a look at the assorted prostitutes shown in these photos from Nevada:
https://sherisranch.com/lineup.aspx
Not supermodel attractive, but reasonably average looking on the whole. Certainly all in better shape than the butterball that is miss American average.
The price to get your dick wet in their pussies? $300-$500. Well within the means of a fucking McDonalds food slave.
Yet you expect me to buy your line that the average woman would literally rather fight to the death than allow the average man inside her? That’s bullshit, from beginning to end.
The problem is not getting mister average’s dick in pussy, the problem is getting mister average a permanent wife.
Try following up on these photos. It is usually bait and switch. The photos are apt to be forty years and one hundred pounds out of date, or of someone else altogether.
In the unlikely event the photos are real, the mark pulled in by these photos is going to get the porn star/stripper experience, which is better than incel and anime porn, but less fun than it sounds. For that amount of effort, one can do better.
“Take a look at the average whore. She is not miss average. Most whores are strikingly unattractive.”
Drug addict street walkers are unattractive, whores at the stripper level much more attractive on average than most women.
That is exactly what I have been saying. That is what patriarchy is for: wives and children, not pussy. Pussy is not that expensive. Miss average will not, contra Jim, fight to the death to protect her pussy from a beta male with money, let alone a knife.
Betas are just not getting laid. This is readily observable. Therefore Miss average will fight to the death to protect her pussy from a beta male, whether he is equipped with money or a knife.
The problem is precisely that men were promised porn sex paradise, pornotopia, if we abandoned this silliness about wives and children and women were liberated, emancipated, and empowered. Rather plainly, porn sex paradise has not been delivered, and from the beginning the Red pill movement was a bunch of horny blue pilled males wandering around plaintively crying “Hey, where is the pornotopia I was promised?”
You are telling me it was delivered. Bullshit!
We see in nature three mating systems: The lek system, which is female rule, and only one male in thirty gets any, the harem system, which is male rule, but only one male in thirty gets any, and the stable marriage system, which is male rule and most males get some. And what has happened is that we have switched to the lek system, and most males just are not getting any.
Brothels that engage in that degree of false advertising are apt to go out of business for the same reason as a burger joint selling rancid burgers.
A business selling rancid burgers goes out of business because it has to compete with good burgers.
A business selling fake sex, selling the sizzle without the steak, does not have to compete with a business selling real sex with reasonable quality women because there are no such businesses. There are no end of horny desperate men being parted from their money and not getting what they are paying for. And those few that do get what they paid for did not get it just because they paid, did not get it just by paying, but rather paid for access, and then used that access in ways that probably would have been equally effective had they had obtained access through a Church social.
>That is exactly what I have been saying.
Is that what you’ve been saying? Seems to me a lot of what you’ve been saying is that women are not hypergamous and that men barely even have to bother coordinating with each other to keep them on the reservation.
Men do not have to coordinate if the only goal is putting their dick in an average woman’s pussy. That is cheap, relatively easy to acquire either with some basic skills that can be taught or by just buying (or more properly, renting) the damn thing. Miss average will not put up any fantastic levels of of resistance, certainly will not accept being stabbed to death over letting mister average fuck her.
Where the trouble comes in, where men do have to coordinate, is in locking down a particular woman. As pussy is not that expensive, similarly it is not that difficult to convince miss average’s hypergamous instincts that the next male is a slightly better prospect than her current one, and ditch mister average in hopes of a better deal with mister somewhat above average. In order to maintain a civil society and ensure their paternity, men must work together and prevent women from ditching their first man for a better one. This is what requires coordination, and great effort.
Tldr: marriage is expensive, pussy is cheap.
The appearance of virtue of these poster girls is due to them being banged by a very high status man at a very young age, and cruising unsuccessfully for similarly high status male the rest of their life. It’s not that complicated.
Alpha is a relative term, and as it applies to one particular woman, it always comes down to who was the most alpha man that banged her, as that is the standard which she will judge others by.
One provides groundwork for the other. Women going absolute bugfuck over the happenstance – or even the possibility – of attention from males her brainstem filters as low value is a tale as old as time. Something that literally every single company everywhere ever that has brought women into male workplaces has suffered from.
Again, bullshit. The average whore lives or dies on her appearance, on her ability to provide an acceptable quality of sexual service to her clients. They are noticeably more motivated to care about their appearance and about their performance, than the lardass that is miss average on the outside. A fat whore is a whore with no customers.
What brothels do not, and cannot, sell is the thing that patriarchy was established to provide, what men want the most: wives
Goretti was a virgin, betrothed to no one, fucked by no one, lived a virgin, died a virgin in the face of demands to give up virginity or die. Confirmed virginal after death by both sides of the picture. That is what makes her a good poster girl.
And if she freaks out, and a beta male smacks her on the face and tells her to shut up, 99 out of 100 cases she will. This is skill, and easily taught. Miss average does not resist even a light degree of physical coercion.
Miss average does not resist even a light degree of physical coercion if the male coercing has social support – if his use of of coercion is supported, or at least tolerated, by other high status males in that environment. Indeed a whole lot of strange female behavior in the workplace is women eagerly seeking out such coercion and not finding it.
But she will die fighting against physical coercion by beta male she perceives to be weak and afraid before the alpha males in that circle.
Her objective is to smoke the alpha out of hiding. She wants to see if the beta can get away with it. If he can, he is not beta. If he cannot, the alpha is revealed, and she gives the alpha an opportunity to take possession.
If the males are in accord as to who has rightful authority over the female, the female will unfailingly go along with it. If they are not, she will die rather than submit.
You are telling me that the promised pornotopia has arrived. Obviously it has not.
Miss average will die rather than let mister average get within ten feet of her pussy.
The trouble is that you are using a definition of female virtue that is promoted by the Lavender Mafia, and promoting invented saints that they pulled out of the choirboy’s ass.
Female virtue is resisting sex that is unlikely to result in offpring being protected and raised by their biological father, and complying with sex likely to promote family formation. (Christian term for this is “promote the conjugal bond”, but I prefer plainer language, because people these days have forgotten what families are and what marriage 1.0 was)
Pornotopia is that chicks are easy. Obviously pornotopia has not arrived. Men and women are having less sex than ever before, and far less sex likely to promote the conjugal bond. This does not reflect women being more virtuous. It reflects the fact that without patriarchy, women behave very badly.
You claim to be married with children, but you seem strangely unaware of the problems that men face with women.
Male sexual immorality consists primarily of having sex when he should not. Female sexual immorality consists primarily of making trouble that disrupts sexual activity and of not having sex when she should. And today, what we see, is not pornotopia, but female sexual immorality. Hence the terrible lack of sexual activity and the even worse lack of conjugal sexual activity.
You say that because some female caused trouble, died of it, and died a virgin, she was sexually virtuous. I see a whole lot of females making trouble around me today, your saints look like more females making trouble, who died because they were targeting too high an alpha, and targeting too high, failed to score.
I call bullshit and I don’t believe the story. But if true, what is the purpose of tugging on this string? Why single out one in one billion as an example of anything? The only conclusion that could be made, is that wierd unbelievably rare things happen… rarely…. It is proof of nothing.
They literally examined her corpse. Not only does the rapist’s own testimony agree that she did not give in, so did her dead body. Cannot get more proven than that.
The purpose is precisely to prove that, yes, rare things do sometimes happen. To provide a poster girl of just such a thing happening.
Yeah I’m going to stick with the track record of awalt over that proof.
Miss average will sell access to her pussy for $300. No she will not resist physical violence directed at her, even by a beta male. It makes absolutely no sense for her to do so from evolutionary perspective as she will always lose, and die in the loss. Either that or bear the beta’s child unwillingly. Women who resist any degree of male violence, from any male, are thereby acting against their genetic interests.
Try to rent some pussy from a good looking whore. You are going to find endless scams. Pornotopia has not arrived.
Getting good pussy by means of money is doable, but it is not that easy. You need money plus certain skills, and the same skills can get you pussy for free, plus you get a sandwich.
If good pussy was on tap, the way good booze is on tap, affluent males would be getting a whole more pussy than they are. The promised pornotopia has conspicuously failed to arrive.
If you could buy good pussy the way you can buy good pizza, there would be more pussy deliveries than pizza deliveries.
The thing about unicorns whether they exist or not is that they are ATYPICAL. Women will typically attempt to resist coercion by low status males will they resist to the death typically… idk.
@gman
Im sure you can understand that any decent man is well justified in doubting that a glow-in-the-dark such as yourself is arguing in good faith, given how enthusiastic your are about arguing the general theory of male-brained women conscientiously engaging in acausal trade with he male owner to defend his property rights over her against other males defecting on the bund, and how reluctant you are to contemplate practical implications of exceptions to this theory with regards to making women property again.
>what is the purpose of tugging on this string?
Getting the nose of the camel under the tent, of course. Categorically imperative thinking.
You can see this in sidepiece as well; in the uncritical presumption that, given supernal powers supervening this plane, they would be in accord with his private conceits in particular. When of course there is no necessary connexion between that and arguments against straw materialism at all.
That’s the point of ‘critical theory’; any given lexical construct will have loose threads to pull on to unravel it; so you spend most of your energy on attacking your opponent’s totems with the acid of nominalism, while simply posing your own desired conclusions sotto voce as the necessary alternative.
You can read up all about it in her cause for canonization, if that’s what you want.
What the hell are you even saying here? I’ve been saying all along that because pussy is not expensive but paternity is, women have to be locked down and owned by men.
The very first thing you posted in this thread was to defend the virtue of a dusky saracen hoe, and disputation against the extent of female hypergamy constitutes the bulk of your ouvre. Any concessions in contrary cardinalities coming of course only after prodding or solicitation.
The very first thing you posted in this thread was to defend the virtue of a dusky saracen hoe, and disputation against the extent of female hypergamy constitutes the bulk of your ouvre. Any concessions in contrary cardinalities coming of course only after prodding or solicitation.
“A business selling fake sex, selling the sizzle without the steak, does not have to compete with a business selling real sex with reasonable quality women because there are no such businesses”
There are extras friendly strip clubs with attractive lineups but most guys have no idea of this… they are not exactly selling sex because you have to get the stripper to put out yourself which often isn’t hard but the management will not exactly make her (but they won’t stop her either).
What I am telling you is the simple and obvious fact that, like any other commodity, pussy is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If you want to know what the price of pussy, qua pussy is, check what it would cost you to get a local whore you deem acceptably attractive into your bed. That’s the value of it. If it were more, then she or her pimp would charge you more, because they could get away with it. That’s Economics 101.
And to respond to a point you made earlier – of course whores have competition. Other whores, internet porn, anime, sex toys, vacations to Thailand, all of those are her competition. If she ain’t better than watching a video with fleshlight in hand, she’s a broke whore.
Obviously women behave atrociously absent patriarchy. Why would that even be in question?
Where we differ in the exact form that misbehavior takes. I say the average cost of average woman’s pussy itself is not that high, but the average cost of marriage is nigh impossible for most men, because of state pressure preventing most from exercising appropriate control over their wives.
It is not a whore a man really wants, but a wife. It is the price of those that has skyrocketed, it is the price of those that patriarchy formed to control, and it is the price of those everything depends on reactionaries bringing down. But if all we’re speaking of is pussy qua pussy, you can’t escape the basic economics of it. Those have numbers, you can find them out easily.
Says Law is that supply is equal to demand, and the price varies to match supply with demand.
Obviously we have immense unfulfilled demand, and immense potential supply, and yet somehow, strangely the deals are not being made. Men and women are just not getting it on – either by the pornotopia rules promoted by our current state religion, or old rules promoted by our previous state religion.
You are telling me that pornotopia has arrived. Obviously it has not. Repeating: If you could buy good pussy the way you can buy good pizza, there would be more pussy deliveries than pizza deliveries.
By the definition of female virtue promoted by the Lavender Mafia with saints that they pulled out of choirboys asses, we live in a time of unparalled female virtue.
You can get a lapdance or a hand job from good pussy fairly easily, but upgrading that to actual sex with good pussy requires skills and effort, unless you are renting really bad pussy that you probably do not want to touch. And the same skills and effort can get you pussy for free.
Scams proliferate largely because, in most of the US, prostitution is nominally illegal and as such is very shady business. In places where it’s legal, as for example Amsterdam, it’s very up front. You go to the red light district, you see the whore you like, you either accept the price or you don’t, and you take her to bed. As with many things in the US, it’s the government’s fault that these things are so shady.
Take a look at the business model of the legal Nevada brothel I posted above. You come in, the whores present line up in front you, you pick one, you pick what you want, you get the service, and only then do you pay. Does not work, cannot work, if the whores are not acceptable attractive. Customer takes a look at the lineup and walks out the door. Brothel gets nothing, goes broke in short order.
If pussy itself is so stratospherically expensive, as you say, then tell me why whores are so affordable? Are brothels just all run by really nice guys, who want to give average men sex at a below market rate because they feel so sorry for them?
The elites these days are mostly into young boys, but of those who do like women it’s not like they experience much difficulty in getting a bed warmer. It’s getting a wife that’s tricky.
Pornotopia has not arrived in Nevada either. I been in many places in the world where prostitution is legal. I have lived in several places where it is legal. It is legal a short drive from where I lived for a very long time.
On the contrary, the elite face worse difficulties than the rest of us, because utterly blue pilled, or required to thoroughly fake being blue pilled.
Every so often a scandal comes out about the troubles of the rich and famous, and reading between the lines, their sex lives are terrible.
>I say the average cost of average woman’s pussy itself is not that high
Revealed preference says, ruinously expensive.
It is currently the current year. And in the year of Our Lord, 2023, even Mr. 1 in 30 is having a hard time. Observe the transformation of Roosh. The costs of pulling tail ruined him.
Not even ZFG, no scarcity, kill the oneitis bug, hit it and quit it numbers game approaches to poon for the sake of nothing but poon is trouble free anymore.
Your strange mushy-minded mealy-mouthed form of argumentation seems to be implying that men are having sex. They are not having sex. It’s pretty amazing for this to even be a point of debate with a ‘right-winger’, but there it is.
Though it is hard to tell what if anything you are trying to say – a characteristic flavor of signal jamming. You seem to want to interpret women spurning advances of men to shittest them as evidence for women being sexless. Classic low test/homosexual weltanschauung. They just don’t get it.
Like my guy is literally out here arguing that women sending love-letters to killer demon badboys coddled by the state hotel service is actually evidence that women really love the downtrodden unassuming men in their life. Lmfao.
From the perspective of the omega, women really are sexless.
Alternately, at the same time, you also seem to be implying that, since it’s so *easy* to have sex, men are simply *deciding* not to do it – which is also a laughable assertion; have you ever hung out around any group of non-gay men in your life? Harder to sus out what exactly the payload of that part is; perhaps if fucking so easy for everyone, then resistance by woman further evidence of sexlessness.
The feminine side of courtship is that sex leads to love. If no fucking, then no loving either. Basic precondition of possibility for anything more; like wife and children. That’s how women relate to men. First comes ravishing, then comes marriage.
The problem with the prostitution market is its a black market with as Jim said endless scams, there are many attractive strippers who will eagerly have sex with you at a cheap price (they like the sex part) but you sort of need some experience with it (though you do NOT need to be socially adept really) to access it.
You have a relationship with a prostitute. You cannot just order up hot sex from the menu of hot chicks the way you can order a hot pizza from a menu of hot pizzas. If you could, there would be more pussy deliveries than pizza deliveries.
And a relationship with a prostitute is always going one sided in her favor, to your disfavor. Even pimps have a very hard time.
And the amount of effort, skill, and money you applied to developing this relationship might well have produced more fruitful results if applied somewhere else.
You’re right that yes it’s never like ordering a pizza and sex is never entirely meaningless but relationships with whores tend to be considerably easier (at least in my experience, strangely less expensive too) than with normal women.
Certainly a whole lot easier, and money gets one’s foot in the door. It is much harder to get one’s foot in the door with normal women.
And in fact considerably less expensive, hence the joke about buying milk rather than owning a cow. But one has a cold bed, and no one cooking your meals, cleaning your house, or finding your slippers. And worst, by far the worst, she has just fucked someone else, and is very soon going to fuck someone else. You would like her to stick around and make you coffee, but she is in a hurry to leave, and you know she is in a hurry because leaving for the next client.
Damn, the amount of scrolling I had to do to find the reply function.
>strangely less expensive too
and strangely childless as well. I wonder why? 🙃
TC, if you’d just apply yourself to finding a wife you’d be better.
You can get them pregnant if so inclined…
Not all genetic imperatives are created equal.
“fiercer selection pressure”
You can get rid of men in large quantities and not threaten the net reproductive rate.
The basic limit of population replacement is the gestation period.
I’m not talking about the eugenic selective preference. But, generation to generation, I’ve never heart of a female equivalent of the Mongol king.
“There are also women who have willingly committed suicide, sometime en-masse, rather than submit to rape by foreign conquerors.”
…women who therefore did not pass their genes.
Yes. Not being a materialist I do think people can choose to take actions in defiance of their genetic imperatives for what they deem to be a good enough cause. It no more surprises me to find some women who prefer suicide to rape than it does to find men who prefer martyrdom to giving up their religion, even though neither serves the purpose of spreading their genes.
They did not chose suicide, they gambled on a risk that has typically turned out well for them, and came up short.
You do not have a girlfriend, a wife or daughters.
Further, females do not think through their actions, they feel and they respond to feelings. The risk is a feeling, a thrill. When you see a woman acting self-destructive, know that falling feels just like flying, and in nearly every case eventually some man will prevent them from hitting the ground.
*yawn* another dweeb trying to find unicorns among whores. Give it a rest. Your white knighting valiant defense won’t get you anything more than a pity handjob from the fat girl at best, and just serves as a chuckle for the rest of us as we scroll past the wall of gamma posting.
Jim, I would like to thank you for your blog, it has really opened my eyes to *what Christianity is*, namely, that Christianity today is practiced and taught very, very differently from the Christianity of Constantine and Charles the Hammer, which is masculine enough for today. This you did for me in a way Dalrock never could, though Dalrock also taught me the important lessons of rejecting the chivalric corruptions of Christianity, never cucking on headship, and not listening to Doug Wilson.
I am naturally inclined toward your first possible answer to the WQ but I think the last possible answer is more cogent. As is clear from the thinking on your blog as well as what one sees with his own eyes, women do want to be owned by a man; men and women are happiest when the man has property rights in his woman and the woman is required to stay with her man under threat of force, which force is a remarkably useful tool for keeping women in line.
Women need to be kept in line precisely because of their maladaptive instincts. Women’s instincts are maladaptive and hypergamous, that is, their instincts are unharmonious with civilization, and they instinctively want to be owned by the highest quality of man they can find. However they are also comfortable being owned by a man of God, since God is the highest quality man there is.
I will have to reread the material on dating game but my problem is I’m not internalizing it as much as I probably should. Knowing all this, I don’t even want to date women. I’m “blackpilled”. How do I get back to loving women?
The blackpill is the result of reluctance to accept the red pill. That is it right that women are what they are, and that women are wonderful. Wonderful at being women. Terrible at being men.
If you watch the old movie “My fair lady” Higgins asks “why can’t a woman be more like a man”. This is a gentle parody of the black pill that you are suffering from.
Higgins is complaining about all those shit tests, but at the end of the movie, decides it is rather nice to have someone who will find his slippers for him.
> “why can’t a woman be more like a man”
I asked my wife. She laughed.
What would be the fun in that though? Half the fun of having women around is coming home and discovering that she bought a new light fixture and is standing at the door wearing nothing but a smile and a promise to tolerate the spanking she’ll get once I finish hanging it.
Thanks for the recommendation 🙂 will watch.
Very much primarily #5 with a few splatters of #1, 2, and 4. Women are feral by nature, however daddy Uncle Sam promotes feral behavior by cucking men in their role as providers to let women ride all the cockxass they want while extracting money from the beta shmuck. Lecherous men would be better defined as those that don’t behead cheating whores and stop the degeneracy before it becomes social contagion.
The only way to have a stable nuclear family is to marry them off young and shoot both the cheaters and the ones they cheat with.
The most genuine commenters are not going to be “too good to be true”. The purple pill people are safe bets. Trust me.
If you were a genuine commenter, you could pass the test. No one is ever going to trust you.
If a purple pilled commenter does not have his supervisor breathing down his neck and his paycheck on the line, he can explain why the purple pill is right and the red pill is wrong in a way that reveals what the red pill actually says.
The purple pill is more dangerous than the blue, as it appears to be red on the outside but is blue in the middle. I don’t know the verses but I know there is some harsh judgement in the Bible about half in half out Christians.
The majority of decent men in the west today were not lead astray by the absurd blue pill public school message, but by the insane but comfortable message of feminism pushed by the Christian churches.