Why we need the double standard.

Chastity should be imposed on women, not men. A key that opens many locks is an awesome key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a crappy lock.

The problem is that women are hypergamous, while men are polygynous. A man wants to possess many women, while a woman wants to be possessed by the best possible man. Which means that if we let nature take its course, a few men will have most of the women. Notice surveys in which many women report having boyfriends, and considerably fewer men report having girlfriends, even though we would expect the lying to go in the opposite direction.

Of course each of the top male’s many girlfriends will be causing much drama, as each seeks to get a higher position in his booty call list, with the result that they keep shifting from one alpha male to the next. So though they are only sleeping with one male at a time, they have numerous male orbiters, and are continually shifting from one male to the next to get a better deal. The male defects by being a jerk, by never being available, by never providing resources, the female defects by dumping him. So though in this system women do not particularly want to be serially monogamous, defect/defect equilibrium means that in practice they are serially monogamous.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Therefore we should guard eggs, not sperm. What this means is that it only needs a small number of badboys to render a very large number of women unmarriageable. Thus curtailing male badboy behavior is not going to succeed. And if we restrain prosocial well behaved upper class men from being badboys, the girls are going to get their kicks with Jeremy Meeks and Muslim rapeugees. Restraining male behavior results in upper class women fucking men low IQ men who live on towel folding jobs, petty burglary, drug dealing, and sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriend, men whose careers are not going to be adversely affected by a few rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraint orders. The lawyerette does not fuck her fellow lawyers, she does not fuck judges, she fucks Jeremy Meeks. If we let upper class men be badboys, if we stopped afflicting judges with rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders, at least she would be fucking judges.

The problem is that law and society strengthens shit tests against well behaved, respectable, affluent men, but has limited success in strengthening shit tests against Jeremy Meeks. She fucks men against whom rape charges, underage sex charges, child support orders, and domestic violence restraining orders have limited effect, because they can pass her shit tests, and you, even if you have a nicer car and a nicer hotel room than Jeremy Meeks, cannot. Plus the police and the courts just don’t seem to be pursuing rape charges against rapeugees, perhaps because of disparate impact.

All these laws have the effect of holding men responsible for female bad behavior. It is a lot more effective to hold women responsible for male bad behavior, because women, not men are the gate keepers to sex, romance, and reproduction. If you stop some men from behaving badly, women will just find men you cannot or dare not deter.

The problem is that we need to guard what is precious, guard eggs, not sperm. We need to restrain female sexual behavior, not male sexual behavior.

First, we need to change the social order so that the lawyerette fucks the judge instead of Jeremy Meeks. Then we can address the much harder problem of preventing her from fucking either one.

199 Responses to “Why we need the double standard.”

  1. free sex says:

    This is really fascinating, You are an excessively professional blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking extra of your great post. Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!

  2. Víctor Piña says:

    too late, our civilization is on a blink to fall, and the savage ones will roam freely.

  3. […] Rather than trying to forcibly modify potential members against the grain of their natural dispositions, thereby creating an artificial group from whole cloth, it would be more efficient to form larger groups based on the sorting of already existing qualities. If I brand my cattle, I have formed a group based on modification, whereas maintaining an all-female herd is sorting, unchanged, what is already there. It takes less effort to isolate a bull than to brand a herd, pace Jim. […]

  4. […] Rather than trying to forcibly modify potential members against the grain of their natural dispositions, thereby creating an artificial group from whole cloth, it would be more efficient to form larger groups based on the sorting of already existing qualities. If I brand my cattle, I have formed a group based on modification, whereas maintaining an all-female herd is sorting, unchanged, what is already there. It takes less effort to isolate a bull than to brand a herd, pace Jim. […]

  5. peppermint says:

    The Daily Shoah Death Panel thinks porn, weed, and rock music are morally degenerative. Meanwhile, Anglin and Spencer think that a UBI isn’t, and is instead inevitable.

    UBI means paying Andrew to go sit at Bob’s bar and hit on Charlene, instead of paying Andrew to train with a rifle and/or dig ditches. Anglin and Spencer think a UBI means nazi shitposters get to do street activism and be unfireable, but before a UBI means that we need to control the government, and if we control the government to the degree we can use it to pay nazis we certainly control the government to the degree that we can use it to pay for useful things.

    Besides, UBI is morally degenerative in a way that porn, weed, and rock music aren’t. The nazis that sign up really will be the people the left thinks all nazis are, because the last people to shut up were the ones on government assistance, because they were more resistant to soft power.

    • Cockasian says:

      The cotton harvester deprecated the African. Now he lives on a UBI in practice if not in theory.

      The computer has, is, and will continue to deprecate the white cubiclecuck.

  6. peppermint says:

    If someone brings a dog into a building and the dog pees on the carpet, do you blame the dog, the owner, or the building?

    Old adultery laws blamed the building on the theory that if the building hadn’t been there the dog wouldn’t have been a problem. They also ostensibly blamed the dog, but no one ever takes blaming the dog seriously, and avoided shaming the owner.

    Future adultery laws will blame the owner for having a nuisance dog.

  7. Cavalier says:

    >Which is what happened to heiresses in the eighteenth century. Most had puberty at sixteen, marriage at nineteen or twenty, equivalent to marriage at fifteen or sixteen today. Fatherless heiresses, on the other hand, married at extremely young ages, usually right when they started puberty, sometimes, often, long before puberty.

    >That is how the better class of people did it in the eighteenth century, and that is how we should do it.

    Is it? Let’s have a case study. [Temporal insertion here: I had absolutely no idea how this was going to turn out when I started.] Let’s begin.

    The Darwin—Wedgwood family.

    >The Darwin–Wedgwood family is composed of two interrelated English families, descending from the prominent 18th-century doctor, Erasmus Darwin, and Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the pottery firm, Josiah Wedgwood and Sons, the most notable member of which was Charles Darwin. The family contained at least ten Fellows of the Royal Society and several artists and poets (including the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams). Presented below are brief biographical sketches and genealogical information with links to articles on the members. The individuals are listed by year of birth and grouped into generations. The relationship to Francis Galton and his immediate ancestors is also given. Note the tree below does not include all descendants or even all prominent descendants.

    Yeah, I think these people are worthy of closer inspection.

    I’ll follow the path of Wikipedia first, and then maybe tally up some more cadet-y branches later. [didn’t happen; way too much time]

    1st generation:

    In 1764, Josiah Wedgwood (1730 — 1795) married Sarah Wedgwood (b. 1734), his third cousin (maiden name, yes, Wedgwood). Josiah Wedgwood was… an English potter and entrepreneur… founded the Wedgwood company… credited with the industrialisation of the manufacture of pottery… is credited with the invention of modern marketing (Meeting the demands of the consumer revolution and growth in wealth of the middle classes that helped drive the Industrial Revolution in Britain…), pioneering direct mail, money back guarantees, travelling salesmen, carrying pattern boxes for display, self-service, free delivery, buy one get one free, and illustrated catalogues… etc. Oh, and, oh dear, was: born in Burslem, Staffordshire, the eleventh and last child of Thomas Wedgwood (d. 1739) and Mary Wedgwood (née Stringer; d. 1766), Josiah was raised within a family of English Dissenters, he was the grandson of a Unitarian minister and was an active Unitarian. He himself had 6 children.

    >The Unitarians, esp. the Unitarian upper class, went extinct for lack of reproduction.

    Anyway, M: 34, F: 30

    In 1757, Erasmus Darwin (1731 — 1802) married Mary Howard (1740–1770). Erasmus Darwin was… an English physician… one of the key thinkers of the Midlands Enlightenment… natural philosopher, physiologist, slave-trade abolitionist,[1] inventor and poet… a founding member of the Lunar Society of Birmingham(!). “Darwin married twice and had 14 children, including two illegitimate daughters by an employee, and, possibly, at least one further illegitimate daughter.”

    In 1781, he married Elizabeth Pole (b. 1747), illegitimate daughter of Charles Colyear, 2nd Earl of Portmore, and widowed wife of Colonel Edward Pole.

    Marriage 1 — M: 26, F: 17
    Marriage 2 — M: 50, F: 34

    Samuel “John” Galton, Jr. FRS (1753–1832) was an arms manufacturer from Birmingham. He married Lucy Barclay (1757–1817), daughter of Robert Barclay Allardice, MP, 5th of Urie. Despite being a Quaker he was an arms manufacturer. He was a member of the Lunar Society and lived at Great Barr Hall. He married Lucy Barclay (1757–1817), daughter of Robert Barclay Allardice, MP, 5th of Urie. They had eight children… etc. and so forth.
    M: 24, F: 20

    2nd generation:

    I can’t find the exact year, but Robert Darwin (1766 — 1848) married Susannah Wedgwood (1765 — 1817), and their first child, Marianne, was born in 1798, quickly followed by one in 1800, one in 1803, one in 1804, Charles Darwin in 1809, and one in 1810 — seven total. I will therefore assume that Susannah was married in 1796 or 1797, making her 31 or 32. She had Charles when she was 44.
    M: 30, F: 31

    Here I’ll stop including bios; read the Wik if you want to.

    I also can’t find the exact year for the marriage of Josiah Wedgwood (1769 – 1843) and Elizabeth Allen (1764–1846), but their children started in 1793 so I’ll consider it 1791.
    M: 24, F: 29

    In 1807, Samuel Tertius Galton (1783 — 1844) married Frances Anne Violetta Darwin (1783–1874). 7 children.
    M: 24, F: 24

    In 1815, Sir Francis Sacheverel Darwin (1786 – 1859) married Jane Harriet Ryle (1794 – 1866). 10 children.
    M: 29, F: 21

    In 1839,the Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) married his first cousin, Emma Darwin (1808 — 1896). 10 children, 3 of whom died in childhood.
    M: 30, F: 31

    In 1834, William Darwin Fox (23 April 1805 – 8 April 1880) married Harriet Fletcher (b. 1799 (?)).
    In 1846, he married Ellen Sophia Woodd (1820 — 1887).
    First marriage — M: 29, F: 35
    Second marriage — M: 41, F: 26

    In 1884, Sir George Howard Darwin KCB FRS FRSE (1845 – 1912) married Lady Martha Haskins “Maud” Darwin (née du Puy; 1861- 1947), American socialite. 5 children.
    M: 39, F: 23

    Sir Francis “Frank” Darwin, FLS FRS, FRSE LLD (1848 – 1925) married three times: first to Amy Ruck (1850 — 1876) in 1874; second to Ellen Crofts (1856 — 1903) in 1883; third to Florence Fisher (1864 — 1920) in 1913.
    First marriage — M: 26, F: 24
    Second marriage — M: 35, F: 27
    Third marriage — M: 65, F: 49
    I can’t positively determine whether he had children or whether he didn’t.

    In 1906, Bernard Richard Meirion Darwin CBE JP (7 September 1876 – 18 October 1961) married Elinor Monsell (1879 — 1954). 3 children.
    M: 30, F: 27

    In 1909, Francis Macdonald Cornford, FBA (1874 — 1943) married Frances Crofts Cornford (née Darwin; 1886 — 1960). 5 children.
    M: 35, F: 23

    Major Leonard Darwin (15 January 1850 – 26 March 1943) married twice: first to Elizabeth Frances Fraser (1846 — 1898) in 1882; second to Mildred Mossingberd (1868 — 1940) in 1900.
    First marriage — M: 32, F: 36
    Second marriage — M: 50, F: 32

    In 1880, Sir Horace Darwin, KBE, FRS (1851 – 1928) married Emma Cecilia “Ida” Farrer (1854–1946). 3 children.
    M: 29, F: 26

    The averages of all these, the most prominent members and worthy of Wiki mention? M: 34.1, F: 28.25

    • viking says:

      Dont know if you saw my comment but I said when you only live to 30 you got to start babymaking earlier. They didnt always start early or die young but generally along that line. Kind of disingenuous to say how young they sometimes marry and leave out how soon they died

      There’s a limit to how long a man can keep from killing a woman lol

      • jim says:

        Men now have more time to have children. Women have no more time than they used to a thousand years ago. So later marriage by men is OK. Later marriage by women is not.

    • jim says:

      Good and impressive data.

      On the other hand, Jane Austen in her novels of the landed gentry has Emma matchmaking for her seventeen year old friend with the intention that she marry at seventeen, and is alarmed at her friends failure to get swiftly married, and when her first matchmaking attempt fall through, is in a hurry to find a replacement. Emma herself is upbraided for not getting married, and responds that not getting married is OK if you are independently wealthy, as if she was pushing thirty eight rather than twenty, as if she was approaching her use by date.

      Of course this could be a plot device – that the characters need to be under pressure to get married in order to get the story going. But is must have been a plausible plot device.

      • viking says:

        even in todays mariage at 40 environment women talk a lot about their use by date they must remain mindful of it

        • peppermint says:

          The big problem is high school, college, and post-college disruptions to men and women’s lives and the consequent inability of men to get in family forming mode until 35 or 40 by which point their women are too old and used up.

          • viking says:

            Its probably a two edged sword, I was only half kidding when i asked how long can a man keep from killing his wife. If were going to live to 85 or longer thats a really long marriage. I joke about stepford wives but we might actually be able soon to design a wife say youre 25 and you exercise your right to adopt a test tube baby like the faggots dikes do and you order up a stepford model 666 by the time its 20 youre 45 and ready to settle down.Then they can all argue we didnt invent everything but they will become faint after a generation or two.

            • peppermint says:

              Trump said that his father had a good marriage. Jim had a good marriage. Men and women are biologically programmed to be able to do that.

              • viking says:

                could be, I wouldnt know as my ex wife told one of my girlfriends, He’s broken. So I can only really imagine how people can do it. But is it really true is long term monogamy universal or are we white experimenting with it. Mongolians do it africans dont sand niggers not so much, I can see why its appealing to those who want a stable society which is why i was defending it against those who want multiple child brides ahem, but as Ive said before it means a lot of betas breeding, maybe stepford wives and stepford sons altered in vitro for alpha traits but not so much we all kill each other.

    • Anonymous says:

      >The averages of all these, the most prominent members and worthy of Wiki mention?

      Um… I think you’ve calculated the average using second and third marriages. That doesn’t tell us much. Let me check… oh sheeeit, Cavalier! This is a nigger-tier mistake here that you’ve made. Lol, the only relevant marriage is the first. Obviously if you’re going to count second, third, and nth marriages, you’ll get a higher age. Our whole discussion is about age of FIRST marriage, which ideally should be the only marriage – whether or not there are divorce/widowhood and re-marriage is not relevant to the discussion of “when did people marry?”, which question means “when did people had their first marriage?”

      According to your data, if only counting the *first* marriages of the males who genealogies you’ve tracked (for it’s the males whose full marital history you’ve presented, not the females), which are their only relevant marriages for our discussion –

      M: 29.4
      F: …

      Actually, for the females, need to check whether the marriage was their first or not. Your data focuses on the marriage and re-marriage of the *males*, not just the Darwins but those who married *into* the Darwins. Which means that it leaves out, or may leave out, the first marriages of the female Darwins and of the females in general. Considering some of the females here married in their 30s and even 40s, that means, in all probability, that again you have counted marriages that aren’t the first. If some of those marriages were not first marriages for the women, calculating the average in this way is entirely pointless.

      What a mess, Cavalier.

      • viking says:

        well one persons second marriage might be another first marriage nigger

        • Anonymous says:

          Right, nigger. But he has counted the males’ second and third marriages to calculate the males’ “average age of marriage”. Of course it may (and may not) be the first marriage for the female side. Which is why, nigger, I have explicitly pointed out, in 3 comments, that on the female side, also, it is not necessarily the first marriage – likely not the first marriage for those married in their 30s and 40s.

          You are now confirmed for low IQ for not understanding this point.

          • viking says:

            no i just didnt bother putting so much effort at what I took as a example not meant to be by anyway exhaustive At least i dont think its in doubt we married younger on average years ago nor that we married later than other cultures

        • Anonymous says:

          I mean… come on, nigger. Take Florence Henrietta Fisher:


          “Wife of Frederick William Maitland and Sir Francis Darwin. FRS”

          So already, we see here that it was her *second* marriage. Do you get the point, dumbass? Do I need to go over the entire list so that Cavalier’s fallacy is made obvious to your dysfunctional 5-remaining brain cells, nigger?

          • Anonymous says:

            (that is, in case your nigger brain still doesn’t get it – it was a third marriage for him, and a second marriage for her)

          • Anonymous says:

            Oh look nigger…

            “Maitland married Florence Henrietta Fisher, daughter of the historian Herbert William Fisher, in 1886[7]”

            Since she was born in 1864, that means that she married at the age of 22. That’s the only “age of marriage” that is actually *relevant*. Later, second/third/nth marriages are not relevant to the question of “when did people marry back in the day?”

            Does Cavalier take that into account? No – because he only considers her second marriage, not her first, since he only inspects the profiles of males, not females. Whereas, to answer the question at stake, he shouldn’t consider her second marriage at all!

            Do you understand why I have described it as a “nigger-tier” mess?

          • Anonymous says:

            What was he even thinking? “Oh, I see Francis Darwin married 3 times, so let’s just add ALL of those marriages to the score… and not even check to see whether or not those wives had previous marriages, because lol who cares”? Well apparently, that was his actual thought process, which has lead him to his absurd, false results.

            • Cavalier says:

              I should have excluded second and third marriages on the male part, but didn’t. Interestingly, if you do, it drops the male age at first marriage, converging at least partially onto that of the female.

              The vast majority of those women did not have previous marriages. You may have noticed a pattern of inbreeding. First cousins, third cousins, and suchlike.

              • Anonymous says:

                Phew… at last some understanding.

                Another flaw is that you only consider the women you can attach to a famous male profile. That gives you selection bias. But that’s less of a logical problem and more of a methodological problem.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Phew… at last some understanding.

                  I knew what I did when I did it. It didn’t skew the numbers very much (with regards to females), so I didn’t bother. I’ve responded to, as viking says, your chimpout because you’ve acted as though it invalidates any point. Spoiler: it doesn’t.

                  >Another flaw is that you only consider the women you can attach to a famous male profile. That gives you selection bias.

                  Deliberately. I chose the wives of the most eminent (male, obviously) members of a most eminent family. See the implication?

                  I have an assignment for you: go through the complete family trees of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood I and tally up the average age of first marriage. I suspect it will be around 25, as already calculated, but no lower than 23, for the women, but if it is, I’ll give you an Internet cookie.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I’ve responded to, as viking says, your chimpout because you’ve acted as though it invalidates any point. Spoiler: it doesn’t.

                  Then you’ve got the wrong impression – my purpose was not to invalidate your larger point, but rather to show that the method by which you’ve arrived at your conclusions is flawed. There’s a subtle difference here.

                  >See the implication?

                  If the implication is that other families married *even later*, that’s just wrong on the face of it – it is the higher class that often delays marriage, while the working class usually doesn’t, so if the Darwins married in their mid twenties, others must have married even younger. I could be wrong here, though.

                  >I have an assignment for you: go through the complete family trees of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood I and tally up the average age of first marriage. I suspect it will be around 25, as already calculated, but no lower than 23, for the women, but if it is, I’ll give you an Internet cookie.

                  I’ll do it within the next 24 hours if I have the time. Should be interesting.

              • Anonymous says:

                >Interestingly, if you do, it drops the male age at first marriage, converging at least partially onto that of the female.

                Yeah, which should make you suspicious, because usually, though by no means was it a universal pattern, the average age of marriage for men was higher than that of women. If there is only a small disparity, you have probably done something wrong.

                I’d argue that women whose first marriage was to a considerably older man, a man 15-20 years older than themselves, were — albeit common enough — less common than your list suggests. Which means that while your list contains women in their late 20s and early 30s getting married to considerably older men, that in itself is apt to significantly raise the average first age of marriage for women; the women who married men only a few years older than themselves, married younger, which must have been more common: M50-F35 vs. M22-F17, to put it numerically.

                Another reason your results are nonsense.

                • Anonymous says:

                  (that is, even if the second/third marriage for the male is a first marriage for the female, that still biases your first average age of marriage for females to look older, because overall such an arrangement should be less common than what is indicated by following up on men’s second/third marriages, which are the less common type of first marriages on the female side)

              • Anonymous says:

                Another example:

                “Elizabeth Colyear was born illegitimately in 1747.1 She was the daughter of Charles Colyear, 2nd Earl of Portmore and Elizabeth Collier.1,2 She married, firstly, Colonel Edward Sacheverell Chandos-Pole.1 She married, secondly, Erasmus Darwin, son of Robert Darwin and Elizabeth Hill, in 1781.1 She died in 1832.1”

                You did not take her first marriage into account.

                • Garr says:

                  You might find Snorlaxwp’s comment at Lionoftheblogosphere’s latest post interesting, if you’re not identical with him.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Not taking her first marriage into account, only her second marriage — which is irrelevant for our purposes — you put her “age of marriage” at 34, rather than what it should have been (can’t find it, but probably half of that).

                  Hence, absurd results.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I’m not trying to be mean to Cavalier — by far he’s one of the best commenters here — but when I see something totally absurd, that apparently no one seems to notice, and that when I point it out the responses I get indicate lack of basic understanding, well that annoys me a lot.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I’ll grant you the specific subject of first marriage, even though you quite accurately note that that wasn’t the subject of my original post.

                  Elizabeth Colyear (abt. 1747 – 1832), “Wife of Edward Sacheverell Pole — married 10 Apr 1769 (to 1780) in Radbourne, Derbyshire, England”

                  22 at first marriage.

                  I’ll keep her in the picture, because she was later married by Erasmus Darwin

                  So one 34 becomes 22 and one 49 becomes 22. That leaves us with a revised female age of marriage (first marriage, now, I guess) of 25.3, down 2.95 from 28.25. Have you any further objections?

                • Cavalier says:

                  first female marriage

          • Cavalier says:

            It looks like she married for the first time at age 22. Remove her from the average and recalculate the average, if you want.

            • Anonymous says:

              OMG… you still don’t get it… wow just wow I can’t even literally

              Dude. Think this through. C’mon.

              What are we trying to figure out? The “average age of marriage” within a certain family, right?

              What does it mean “average age of marriage”? It means the average between individuals. But each individual has only one proper “age of marriage”. That is his/her first age of marriage. That’s the age s/he stopped being single, and became a married person. For the first time.

              Which means… that second, third, fourth, fifth, and nth marriages are not relevant to what we’re trying to figure out. Isn’t that clear? “Age of marriage” means age of first marriage.

              So, it’s not one mistake. Your ENTIRE calculation is a steaming pile of horse crap. All of it – WRONG. I’m sure that you, unlike viking the retard, can understand that now… right??

              • viking says:

                Uh I think Im the one that pointed out to you it might be one sides forst marriage, of course that might have been in one of your dozen chimp out comments where you insult him over and over of course i didnt bother reading further than your first lording it over.

                • Anonymous says:

                  No, viking, I can assure you that you have contributed nothing to the discussion, and that your reading comprehension is zero. GTFO and let the high IQ men talk, niggerboy.

      • Cavalier says:

        >males’ second and third marriages to calculate the males’ “average age of marriage”

        Valid point, in a sense, in that second and third marriage aren’t first marriages. I wasn’t making an argument, just an observation, but I should have made that clear.

        Reevaluate using this:


        I think they are probably incomplete, but going by them it would appear that few, or none(?), of the women remarried, probably because their husbands either survived them or because they were ancient by the time they were widowed.

        With this website it’s easy to see that, for example, Caroline Wedgwood (née Darwin) was “born 14 Sep 1800 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England” and married Josiah Wedgwood III for the first and only time on “1 Aug 1837 in St. Chad, Shrewsbury, England”, aged 36 and 11.5 months, obviously, and proceeded to have four children:

        “Mother of Sophia Marianne Wedgwood, Catherine Elizabeth Sophy Wedgwood, Margaret Susan (Wedgwood) Vaughan Williams and Lucy Caroline Wedgwood”, the last of whom born when Caroline was 46.

        She isn’t exactly an outlier. Just scroll through. There’s the initial wife of Josiah Wedgwood I, who was 17, and then the age of the rest of the females at marriage is in the 20s and early 30s.

        And once again, I’m not making an argument. I encourage you to examine the evidence, such as it is, for yourself. Find a similarly eminent family, if you wish, and let’s see how it turns out.

        • Anonymous says:

          But I’m not contesting your overall point, which is that the average age of first marriage west of the Hajnal line was considerably higher than in the rest of the world. It’s the way you had calculated it that I’ve taken issue with.

          If one takes what is known today about de-novo mutations’ rate and paternal age, one must, in my view, conclude that early fatherhood is dramatically healthier than late fatherhood. By early I mean around 16, and by late I mean around 32. I’ve read enough about the subject to be convinced that, even from a strictly genetic perspective, any sort of delay on reproduction, be it a short or a long delay, is detrimental – of course, longer delays are exponentially worse.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is good data but false statistic… how come I’m the only one here to notice the irrelevancy of counting nth marriages?

      Since the data focuses on *some* (not necessarily all) of the males who have married into the Darwins, it tells you exactly nothing about the first age of marriage of the female Darwins. It tells you nothing about the first age of marriage of any female, in fact. The ones who married in their 30s and especially the one who married in her 40s are likely divorcees/widows.

      I’ve calculated the first age of marriage of the males, because the wiki entries that Cavalier has browsed give their full, not partial, marital histories. And it turns out that they’re 5 years earlier than Cavalier’s stupid calculation. Does the same hold true in the case of the females? If so, their first age of marriage is 23.

      ACTUALLY, because Cavalier counted the women who married in their 30s and 40s in his calculation (likely not first marriage), it is almost definitely at least as low as 23, and possibly much, much lower.


      • Cavalier says:

        >Since the data focuses on *some* (not necessarily all) of the males who have married into the Darwins

        You mean, the Wedgwoods?

        >Charles’s son George said to his daughter, “You’ve none of you ever seen a Darwin who wasn’t mostly Wedgwood”

    • Anonymous says:

      In short, anyone who has accepted these “averages” at face value has not thought it through whatsoever, or else is too dumb to realize how misleading they are. These “averages” –

      a) take into account second and third marriages of the males, which are irrelevant;

      b) don’t take into account that some of the marriages of the various females were, almost surely, not their first marriages, which makes them irrelevant too.

      Which is how Cavalier has reached such incredibly old ages of marriage for people living in the 18th-early 20th centuries.

      Come on, I’m not *that* intelligent, and the fallacy here is stupendously obvious… someone else should have point it out, not me.

  8. Turtle says:



    Milo says he wishes he were straight, to be a normal father. He is ambivalent, but far more normal in his ideals than I thought. Maybe this will change your attitude towards him, meaning that I hope you will agree he needs help, not just the threat of punishment for acting out his gayness. Hope does not mean fixing him while he does nothing, but rather, supporting his change.

    • jim says:

      This is my attitude towards him. I have always known, or suspected, that.

    • peppermint says:

      What does it mean to support his change?

      • Anonymous says:

        He is seeking to find some cure for homosexuality. I have suggested genetic engineering before, but genetic engineering requires breaking down the PC tyranny over the scientific community. It requires the recognition that males should not be biologically feminized and females should not be biologically masculinized, which recognition the mutant dykes (and the subversive kikes) oppose.

        • Turtle says:

          Good news, from your perspective:

          This is topkek: scientifically valid ways to help teenagers make healthy decisions that avoid unwanted pregnancies

          The elimination of two years of funding for the five-year projects shocked the professors and community health officials around the country who run them.

          Will they move to Canada already? 😉

          “We are just reeling. We’re not sure how we’ll adapt,” said Jennifer Hettema…”


          >> EngenderHealth in New York and Youth Catalytics in Vermont


          >> …the decision to eliminate funding came from the office of the assistant secretary for health. Last month, President Donald Trump appointed a new chief of staff there, Valerie Huber, who favors abstinence as the solution to teen pregnancy.

          Our gal!

          >> Some grant holders were unaware that their final two years of funding was eliminated until they were contacted by Reveal this week. They had thought the letters were a routine authorization of 2017-18 funds and hadn’t noticed the line saying it was the final year of funding.

          Retards can’t read? oh well.

          Here’s where I found the story:

          • Cavalier says:

            >”We are just reeling. We’re not sure how we’ll adapt,” said Jennifer Hettema…”

            …an associate research professor at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, which was finding ways to help doctors talk to Native American and Latino teens about avoiding pregnancy

            REEEEE indeed.

          • jim says:

            “The researchers will not have the funds to analyze data they have spent the past two years collecting or incorporate their findings into assistance for teens and their families.”

            By “assistance” they mean promoting the cock carousel.

            The data produced by this “research” is not data. As with Global Warming, they have a predetermined agenda and are looking for ammunition.

            • Cavalier says:

              >By “assistance” they mean promoting the cock carousel.

              Some women should be on the carousel, namely Amerindianesses and Latinas.

              • jim says:

                All fertile age women are precious, and you will never persuade men otherwise.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Persuasion is unnecessary. Wield the sword.

                • peppermint says:

                  Force can be used to force communism too. But women who aren’t white enough are useless to White men.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >But women who aren’t white enough are useless to White men.

                  The brown can be bred out of them, or they can have in vitro fertilization with donor eggs.

                • Dave says:

                  Jim, how would a Filipina feel about carrying your 100% white baby to term and helping you raise it? She would be literally cucked by the egg donor, but as cucking a woman was impossible prior to IVF, they likely haven’t evolved any defenses against it.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure women are OK with being cucked, not sure I am OK with cucking a woman.

      • Turtle says:

        It means something like this:

        They’re surprisingly normal-sounding writers. And then, there’s the success stories Milo refers to:

        So, it’s just a disease with some choice involved, like gambling or food addiction.

      • Alrenous says:

        Curing male homosexuality is in most cases about as likely as curing male heterosexuality. The only realistic response, assuming the sodomite wants to avoid Christian sin, is celibacy. And that’s again no more realistic than heterosexual celibacy.

        Occasionally a dude might fixate on early homosexual experiences, since orgasms feel good. Habituation and all that. This is obviously curable with a little exposure therapy. There’s also prison homosexuality for really ugly / submissive dudes, which is technically curable but again, not realistically curable.

        • Anonymous says:

          If prenatal androgenization is involved in lesbianism, a cure has to be found. Lesbianism is a worse threat to healthy sex-roles than gay homosexuality or trannyism, since most faggots are content with healthy male sex-roles, except they like fucking other men’s assholes instead of women’s pussies, while the dykes are bent on cultural subversion because they are fiercely discontented with female sex-roles. First Wave feminists were dykes, while faggots have traditionally stayed out of it; and it is dykes who constitute the “determined core” of feminism even today, with all the other freak minorities hovering around them.

          The most important link I can share with you regarding this matter is this:


          If you go to the entries on the early misandrists, you’ll clearly see that, had they been alive today, they would have been all lesbians: Marie Irrgang, Josephine Gondon, Martha McWhirter, Harriet Evans, Sarah Hunt, Mme. Kaissavow, Louise Deverly-Dupont, Marie Petti, Sophie Irene Loeb, and Louisa Strittmater. Read about their ideologies or convictions in your spare time. It’s female pathology such as theirs that is genuinely subversive. The account of Sarah Hunt is very illustrative:

          “Secluded for twenty years from every male creature, Sarah Hunt, of Lapeer county, Michigan, at 65 years of age, leads a life such as no woman ever led before.

          And it is from choice, for this practical man hater has living a husband and two grown sons, who love her and would gladly abide with her. She, however, leads the life of a recluse and relentlessly proclaims and pursues her determination to deal out death and destruction to every male thing, man, beast, or fowl, that dares trespass upon her female domain of 40 acres of pine stump land in Deerfield township, Lapeer county, Michigan.

          There is not a male creature on this tract of farmland, unless it be of the bug or reptilian family, or the birds that fly over the place. All of the domestic fowls and animals are female. There is not a rooster, a drake, or a gander in Mrs. Hunt’s barnyard, although she keeps a large flock of all kinds of fowls. As for man, not one has dared enter her premises In many years.

          Six years ago the woman’s dilapidated old cabin caught fire from an overheated stovepipe. It was a bitterly cold February night and the blazing of the clapboard roof attracted the attention of the neighbors, who turned out eagerly, not only desiring to do Mrs. Hunt a neighborly turn, but also finding in the occasion an opportunity of testing the antipathy she had so long shown toward men. Rushing to the house with buckets and ladders, they set to work without heralding their coming. The recluse, who invariably retires for the night at sunset, was all unconscious that the roof over her head was a mass of flames.

          “What devil in the form of a man is there?” was the first sound that came from within the cabin and the ladders crashed against the eaves.

          “Your house is on fire, Mrs. Hunt, shouted back Frank Dockham, a neighbor. “You’ll be burning in hell if you don’t get put of this,” retorted me frenzied woman. “I’d rather roast in my bed than have any human devil of a man desecrate my place.”

          But the men were on the roof, chopping away at the burning rafters. Others were passing palls of water. They heard the occupant unfasten hurriedly the heavy bars on the door, and in another instant it creaked on its hinges. Bang!” A rifle cracked and a leaden ball whizzed close to the head of Uncle George Cole, Mrs. Hunt’s nearest neighbor, who was wielding the ax. Hurriedly the volunteer firemen scrambled away as the enraged woman rammed another charge home in her old muzzle loader. They disappeared into the night and the recluse turned her attention to the fire, by that time nearly extinguished. The next morning passers-by read with avidity the following, scrawled, on a piece of paper flour sack and tacked on the front gate post of the Hunt dooryard:

          This Here House is Old Sarah Hunts Ef It Burns Down Its Nobodys Bizness But Hern. So All You He Men Jest Keep Awa.

          They have, since then.

          The recluse attends to all her farm work herself. She plows and harrows and harvests her crops, as a rule, with her own hands, but occasionally will hire a woman to assist her with such “work as she cannot well handle alone. When female help is hired, the mistress of the place prefers a young single woman, her aversion to everything male extending in some degree to married women.

          How she manages to keep the 40 acre farm devoid of every male thing, even to farm stock, was for years the marvel of all who knew the strange woman, but she has practiced the plan so assiduously that her method is reduced to a science. Cats she has galore, but Sir Thomas is conspicuous by his absence, and many an interesting feline of the male sex has given up his nine lives on the Hunt place, falling a victim to the mistress’ rifle. Mrs. Hunt buys eggs for hatching. When chickens hatch she is able to tell the male from the female at an age so early as to be the envy of “chicken cranks.” Better than this, the neighbors say, Mrs. Hunt can in the majority of cases distinguish the eggs that will hatch pullets from those that will hatch roosters. This skill extends to the products of other fowls. Ganders are especially hard to distinguish from geese, but the male goose is barely out of the gosling class before the man hater has it spotted for sale or slaughter.

          In her dealings with the outside world Mrs. Hunt never speaks to a man nor does she look at one. When she goes to the country store two miles away she has her business all reduced to writing, so that, in case the wife of the storekeeper is not there to wait on her, there need be no occasion to talk with the grocer or his clerk. She seldom, however, leaves her domicile. Most of her business is transacted through the wife or daughter of a neighbor. She has not visited the county seat in fifteen years, and has never been on a railroad train. Ten years ago, when she was stricken with typhoid fever, neighbor women tried to induce her to call a physician.

          “If you find a woman doctor, it’s all right,” she said. “If not, I’ll die rather than have one here.”

          No woman doctor could be secured, and Mrs. Hunt was nursed through her long illness without a physician.

          The woman’s strange attitude toward men and things male was first manifested twenty years ago. She has said that it came to her in a dream as a command from heaven. At that time she was still on good terms with her husband, two sons and a daughter. At the breakfast table one morning she told of the “command” from the Lord. She was laughed at by the family, but as the days passed she talked more and more of the “spirit injunction,” finally demanding that her husband and sons leave the place. After every means to disillusionize the woman had been tried in vain and life on the little farm became unbearable for the husband and the boys, they departed, obeying the command never to return. Soon afterward the daughter died, and is buried near the house.

          Mrs. Hunt has confided to women of her acquaintance that she has never regretted the strange turn in her life. Her desire is, she has told them, when she dies, to be buried beside her daughter on the little farm she has so long guarded jealously against masculine intrusion. She has begged that no men or boys attend her funeral, that her grave be dug by women, and that all the offices to the dead be performed by feminine hands.

          By the people of Deer-field township, Mrs. Hunt, despite her strange conduct, is not regarded with fear or aversion. They say that she is a good woman, kind of heart, and ever willing to do what she can to help others, provided she can do go without violating what she calls “the pledge to myself.” Though lacking education, she is a woman of no ordinary intelligence, reads the newspapers, and keeps well posted on the affairs of the world.”

          • Turtle says:

            Now that’s an epic shit test! Her husband should have passed it. Instead, many male animals were killed. Sad.

          • jim says:

            If prenatal androgenization is involved in lesbianism, a cure has to be found.

            The cure is in fact simple: diagnose sex of fetus at twelve weeks, and if female take spironolactone till birth. Or till menarche. But we don’t know what the side effects would be. Most likely cuter girls with no body hair except on their heads. But it might be something bad.

          • Cavalier says:

            The only outrageous thing here is the husband leaving rather than her.

        • jim says:

          Transitions are pretty common.

          Used to be no one thought there was such a thing as homosexuality. Everyone thought that men fucked men the way they fucked donkeys.

          • Dave says:

            Do you think there’s such a thing as homosexuality? I used to think a squirrel lying on the road with its eyeballs popped out was revolting; now I take roadkills home and eat them. Could I unlearn my disgust at the thought of fucking another man? Possibly, but I see no benefit, there being many easier and safer ways to get an orgasm.

            • jim says:

              Yes, but I think it quite rare for adult males to have an innate preference for adult males. Pretty sure it is most commonly a learned and conditioned preference. Some men, if you lock them in a prison, they come out gay. If you then locked them in a nunnery, they would come out normal again.

            • Cavalier says:

              >now I take roadkills home and eat them

              Bloody hell.

              God damn it, that’s a wrap.


              • Dave says:

                It’s my survival strategy for when the EBT cards stop working and Obama-voters loot and burn all the grocery stores — knowing what’s edible and what isn’t. On a school field trip, my daughter saw a patch of wood sorrel and ate some. Other kids tried it and liked it too. An hour later, the teachers saw kids eating weeds and freaked out, but never figured out who started it.

        • Turtle says:

          Cures are always miraculous, not “realistic.” Realism is despairing pessimism, so I’m not a realist. I prefer miracles to tempered expectations.

  9. peppermint says:

    The solution, for us sad millennials, is to take millennial women as wives, and throw burkas over them because the tenth guy is less likely to get her to be true than the first. And to execute the Boomers en masse for damaging our women. And to give all the half-White women plastic surgery and use fertility treatments with some true-breeding relative’s eggs. And to initiate the Great Forgetting, wherein it is considered impolite to mention people’s sexual activities in the before time that carry a death or outlawry punishment, and certainly is a crime to speak of to someone else’s wife or children.

    • viking says:

      NO the solution is to become worthy as a husband, pick a woman who corresponds to you true sexual market value, treat her right if only because you are modeling for your children. learn to fuck. dont get into porn and cheating because you will stop fucking her and then its game over, have a divorce plan and make sure she knows you are likely prepared for a divorce and she will not win at that game. Or you can larp that america will become the neo islam and you can marry a 10 year old

      • jim says:


        You know nothing about women.

        Treat them mean to keep them keen.

        Actually the correct treatment is not exactly mean, but the difference between the correct treatment and being mean is subtle, not obvious from the outside, and not easy to explain in words.

        Sure, a washed up old bag who has fallen off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks’ midnight booty call list will likely stick with you, but any woman under thirty has options. And you should never start a relationship with a women over thirty regardless of your own age.

      • peppermint says:

        Numbnuts, your advice would be good for someone who lived in the environment you grew up in, which we all wish we had. The 50s aren’t coming back.

        The biggest crisis is men being tied up in college, grad school and continuing education, endless career beginnings and un and underemployment, and never being ready to find a woman to marry. And you advise us to become worthy first.

      • Turtle says:

        Aren’t you divorced, with children who, politely speaking, struggle in life?

        Are you sure you followed your own advice, if you’re so experienced, but were married?

        (You don’t have to answer, but I’m curious).

        • viking says:

          I married late and i started sex and drugs very young i carry the alcoholic gene as do my children they are in recovery as I am. my life particularly before i got clean and sober is not a model for anyone but it has afforded my the perspective of one whose lived at least two lives. i am divorced and i have illegitimate children as well. I think we learn from success and failure. In some ways I have been a great success with women I have had a lot of them and loved many of them and was loved by most of the ones i gave a chance, but im not really capable of long term relationships which saddens me but i know this about myself now and wont try again. treat them mean to keep them keen is stupid advice from a teenage boy who has never been laid or a loser middle aged child molester using blog philosophy to justify his depravity. you can be playful with a girlf for a little while its called flirting you cant mistreat them indefinitely unless they ar really damaged goods. Sure I have come across the type often in my drinking days and i admit i sometimes let my dark side out but even in the depths of my depravity i didnt really like torturing small animals children and broken women. I mean its sad theyve been raped by fathers and brothers abandoned abused etc and what thats supposed to be an edge I needed to exploit? I never was that desperate, i get it I was luckier than a lot of guys but its no excuse. Im not saying i havnt done fucked up shit enough for several lifetimes but Im not going to defend it and claim its a philosophy to restore western civilizaton

  10. Anonymous says:

    Esoteric Tard (not a typo) has just written a shit-talking blog post about this blog and its recent discussion. Here’s the comment I left there:

    The age of consent was 10. It is well documented. And women who menstruate, grow hair on their pussies, and grow boobs, are biologically ready for sex – whatever their “age”.

    Psychologically, you can say that women are never truly “ready”, because they inherently lack agency of the kind men have, but this is beside the point – obviously they have enough agency to fuck when nature commands them, and so they do indeed fuck when nature commands them. Which often enough occurs at 14 years of age, and sometimes at 12 years of age, as the life experiences of a great multitude of people, myself included, reveal.

    And, female brains in adolescence are about 4 years ahead of male adolescent brains in terms of maturity and development, so a 12 y/o female is similar to a 16 y/o male in this regard.

    Calling me all the names in the book won’t change these facts.


    It is unfortunate that Esoteric’s view is the prevalent one on the alt-right, as I have asserted is the case. He says that your disgust reflex is too mild. No; being a puritan, it’s his disgust reflex that is overreactive. An overreactive disgust reflex is a fixture of any puritan’s or catlady’s psyche. I have contemplated the connection between disgust and the “puritan personality disorder” at length, and have concluded that everything disgusts these killjoys.

    The young hotties on Larson’s website are objectively sexually attractive. Like the Jews, puritans seem to abhor genuine beauty in favor of artificial “beauty”. Truly, these two groups are a match made in Hell.

    • jim says:

      Perverse to react with disgust to the hotties on Larson’s website.

      • Cavalier says:

        Well if there were hotties on dude-man’s website, why did you just link me to that one ugly one?

        • jim says:

          Anyone who doubts the hotness of the images on that website is a sexual deviant or is in denial.

          • viking says:

            says the guy that put up the child porn.

            • viking says:

              go talk to your priest jim – second thought thats probably not a good idea. You need to take a break go talk to some normal people buld a cabin hike the rockies something youre losing it

            • jim says:

              Not children, therefore not child porn.

              • viking says:


                -so youre saying these are not pics you posted of naked children in the service of arguing for lowering the age of consent to 10?

                and you didnt write this?

                jim says:
                July 17, 2017 at 12:51 am
                We agree that most 12 y/os aren’t into sex.
                We agree that a small minority are into sex.

                Personal experience: A very large minority of ten year olds with no boobs who have not yet experienced menarche are into sex.

                -and this

                jim says:
                July 17, 2017 at 12:32 am
                Reality also is that they are often disturbingly keen on sex even at age ten, even before sexual maturity. Girls that are keen on sex before menarche and boob development are a minority, but they are a very large minority.

                followed by this

                A very large minority, likely a majority, of twelve year olds have boobs, have experienced menarche and are therefore potentially capable of bearing children, though substantially less fertile than sixteen year olds, and are into sex. If not all of them have done it yet, they are intensely interested, and keep aggressively inserting themselves into situations where sex is likely to ensue.

                If you think only a very small minority are into sex, that tells me that only a very small minority are into sex with you.

                heres the one with the child porn link

                jim says:
                July 17, 2017 at 8:52 am
                Yeah, I’m not going to fucking any 12 year olds.

                Not these?

                So ahh no Jim not these. Not in a boat, not with a goat. I do not like green eggs and ham
                As you yourself admit they are 12 and like it or not Humbert 12 counts as a child even in all but one country in africa and a few in central america ( where no doubt you plan on retiring)

                I could make this a really long comment of your quotes going back months when you went on this tangent about your right to rape women and children, but these will do. I doubt they will do for you since they are the last of months worth of people trying to get through to you about certain topics that you are obviously completely blind to and keep upping the ante. You should not take the encouragment by some of your commenters as a reality check -seriously!

                Already your disturbing comments are being discussed on other reactionary blogs. I beseech you because you have written good stuff and we need talent to just stop writing about women anymore entirely. you’re broken in that dept.

                • jim says:

                  You are in denial about the nature of women. That is how we got into this sinking boat in the first place.

                  If women are naturally pure and chaste, then no controls are needed on women, only on evil men who make them do bad things. Whereupon you get marriage laws that enforce the marital contract only upon men, not upon women.

                  In order to fix this key fundamental problem, have to acknowledge the sinful, lustful, and dangerous nature of women.

                  Which sinful, lustful, and dangerous nature usually starts at puberty, and in a disturbingly large minority of females starts two years before puberty.

                  Women should marry as virgins (or equivalently, marry the first man they have sex with): Which, given the difficulty of restraining them, should generally result in them getting married a few years after puberty, nineteen or so. In few cases, particularly if they do not have strong fathers to restrain them, should result in them getting married a few years before puberty.

                  Which is what happened to heiresses in the eighteenth century. Most had puberty at sixteen, marriage at nineteen or twenty, equivalent to marriage at fifteen or sixteen today. Fatherless heiresses, on the other hand, married at extremely young ages, usually right when they started puberty, sometimes, often, long before puberty.

                  That is how the better class of people did it in the eighteenth century, and that is how we should do it.

                  We need to disestablish and dissolve the universities so that young men can start earning a living at sixteen or so, and be well on their career paths and able to get married at nineteen or twenty or so, and they should then marry a substantially younger virgin bride, normally fifteen or sixteen or so, but in a significant minority of cases, a lot younger. That is how the better class of people did it, back in the day.

                  If you cannot marry off girls that are not under control, the shit is going to hit the fan. Yes, the great majority of girls should not marry until substantially after menarche – because the great majority should be under effective patriarchal control. But the great majority will only be under effective patriarchal control if society is willing to do something about those that are not.

          • Cavalier says:

            Weird hips, torpedo tits, and a butt-ugly face.

            Real hotties: http://imgur.com/a/j2atG

            • Turtle says:

              The second one looks like a MILF I know. Most of the rest are weird, some even plump. Oh well, better than most by far.

        • Anonymous says:

          I don’t know which images you have found so distasteful, but this chick:


          Is boner inducing. You don’t know if she is 12 or 15, and it doesn’t matter either way – her secondary sexual characteristics make her look attractive and feminine, and you have to be gay, or a pedophile who’s only into prepubescent boys, to state otherwise with a straight face.

          • viking says:

            ok (with a straight face) you need help dude. dont believe me? I DARE YOU to send those pics to your meatspace friends put them up on your face book page and then get back to us.

            • jim says:

              You are telling us that your position is backed by state power.

              Which none of us were ever in any doubt about.

              But my observed and lived experience is that in real life, that in real life, in person, people seem very comfortable encountering relationships that look like they might well be theoretically illegal, that the regular guy in the street does not react the way the Cathedral says he should. Gays encounter spontaneous disgust. But May and December, at worst, attract jealousy and envy from old women.

          • viking says:

            So this is from the guys website you and Jim posted the childporn from

            “Daughters will spend more quality time with their fathers, as he becomes her new bedmate in her pink-colored room, ”

            Wow so my apologies here i thought you guys were just being ridiculously stubborn for arguments sake but no youre actually pedo chomos. well enjoy prison girls

            • jim says:

              I don’t approve of every item on every website where I link to one page of that website.

            • Turtle says:

              That does sound awful. You picked quite the quote. You also are straw-manning Jim, by saying he is as pro-pedo as Anonymous is.

              As I have already stated, Anonymous annoys me with his SJW-style activism, whether about Hitler or, sarcastically speaking, how Hitler would have been even awesomer if he had had many child brides, like Mohammad.

              It’s unpleasant to witness, but Anonymous is committed to his beliefs. Why complain? Did he listen to me? Does he listen to anyone he doesn’t approve of?

              I don’t find it difficult to deal with horny tweens. I mostly ignore them, and otherwise remember that God will guide me in every way, including sex. Then they ignore me too, or move on somehow. I do the same thing with ugly women. It’s easy enough that I am surprised anyone doesn’t do it.

              I don’t think we can teach men to not be pedos. If they have a real problem, they need real therapy, not criticism in comments here.

              • viking says:

                I ddnt cherry pick jim quaotes hes been on this for long enough and past few days has negged every op to clarify sadly hes confirmed hes as much a chomo as anon and no i didnt really hope to change them i hoped to get them to clarify they are not so that reaction isnt permanently branded as this since jims supposed to be a big reaction founder.

              • Anonymous says:

                The website is hilarious; of course some of his stuff is weird, such as his views on incest and bestiality. As regards the program he will implement if he is given the power to do so, he’s worthy of support.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >As regards the program he will implement if he is given the power to do so, he’s worthy of support.

                  Is democracy a farce, or isn’t it? Make up your mind.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It’s a farce and he won’t be given any power, and USG has to be dismantled together with Russia and China, the other two monopolies on sovereignty beside it.

                  But you know – in an alternate reality where electing people makes a difference…

                • Cavalier says:

                  A sovereign, be it man or bureaucracy, doesn’t need your support to rule, nor your consent. He, or it, rules because he rules because he rules. Your alternate reality is a dream or a fantasy, either an indication that you entertain delusional notions with regards to the nature of power.

                  “Monopoly on sovereignty” is even more nonsensical.

          • Turtle says:


            > > My first wife was adopted when she was three months old, and spent years trying to contact her biological mother and have a relationship with her. … She made numerous suicide attempts and finally died by hanging in a Budget Inn.

            This is sad, but this guy sounds too unnaturally tough to have actually dealt with his grief. I don’t trust him, because he needs to mind his own business, not set out to save Virginia from oppression. He can save himself from pain, by, for example, forgiving his absent mother-in-law seemingly killing her daughter. Now that’s leadership, whether it seems to you brave or not. Then, he will seem authentic, not wannabe/ try-hard. using a wiki for a campaign site is amazingly unusual, too.

      • viking says:

        “When you fuck a virgin, she is apt to fixate on you. Women are like sticky tape. Every time you peel sticky tape off one thing and reuse it to stick to another thing, it becomes less sticky. Every man a woman has sex with, she becomes less capable of bonding to the next man.

        It takes about a week or two of sex several times a day to get a virgin stuck on you. Hence the tradition of the honeymoon. If you give her a one night stand, she likely will never stick to anyone (ever).” lolololololol lmaorotf wow Jim you really are inexperienced. I promise you its quite possible to have even an old whore fixated on you after one roll.
        You know the more i think about this reaction shit we got a fucking jew telling us to lay back and relax a fucking transhumanist brit saying fuck humans and this chomo club

        • jim says:

          I don’t believe you.

          Even Roosh, who is ridiculously buff, and ridiculously expert at PUA, and ridiculously experienced, still finds it mighty hard to get women stuck on him, so your claim that it is easy for you is not believable.

          The problem to be solved is getting a woman to hang on to you even if you are not her best option every moment of every day. Which Roosh solves by trying to be her best option every moment of every day, but that is a severe burden of performance.

          • viking says:

            roosh is a nigger so at least have the decency to use roissy as your champion. Second I promise you I wouldnt lie about this and that i have as much or more experience with women as these PUA. If they can not get women stuck on them perhaps it is because women pick up on the fact that they hate women and are fake and phoney offering the women only a virtual alpha experience. I love women always have I wouldnt ever sleep with a woman i wasnt genuinely interested in no matter how fleeting. women want to be loved and satisfied you really cant satisfy a woman without them thinking they are loved even when its clear you are fucking them if you do it well they become convinced you must know them better than themselves to have fucked them so well.If roosh is trying to be a girls best option then he really needs to read roissy because roissy correctly points out the best way to keep a woman is to have her pursue you.you must give her the impression that you do desire her but that you are a hopeless weakling constantly distracted by other women and she will try to educate you of her superior worth.
            treat a whore like a lady and a lady like a whore might be good advice.Anyway this idea of yours about virgins is childish and insecure and sure to turn off a woman, you want a woman to cleave to you dont signal to her you are afraid shes not going to cleave to you it makes them run.signal toher that she can earn a place in your heart if she is a good girl and works hard

            • Alf says:

              Roosh is Armenian/Iranian. He is also a pretty accurate observer of women. He knows Roissy. Hell, ‘back in the day’ Roosh was known as one of the 3 R’s: Roissy, Roosh & Rollo Tomassi.

            • jim says:

              i have as much or more experience with women as these PUA

              No you do not, because I have sufficient experience with women to know that they speak the truth about female nature, and you are entirely deluded.

              • viking says:

                whatever jim from your comments you claim to have a lot of experience with ten and twelve year olds. I wouldnt read a a nigger talking about fishing for mudsharks. Its pretty sad to see you blow yourself up like this. Im not going to argue my conquests I only mentioned them to head off the white night cuck reply I would have gotten otherwise. So you cand your nigger pals and pia can rebuild the world with 10 year old brides sounds wonderful I have to admit its consistent with your women cant be raped lectures. No my idea of reaction or civilization but hey when your mentor is a red diaper jew and his anti human marxist sidekick what can one expect.

                • jim says:

                  Nothing in my comments suggested that I intentionally had sex with girls below puberty, or ever sought to have sex with girls below puberty, or ever intended to have sex with girl below puberty, and if you read them that way, you are projecting your own deviance onto me, or perhaps you read any accusation of improper desires in young girls, as an admission of my own improper desires, since it is obviously unthinkable to you that girls would ever have improper desires.

                  Your reading of my comments is wildly contrary to their clear and plain meaning.

                • Turtle says:


                  How can sex be unintentional? How can one be seduced by girls without wanting to be seduced?

                  In other words, if women cannot be raped, how can adult men be raped by preteens?

                • jim says:

                  The concepts of rape, intent, and consent are seldom usefully applicable to sex. Preteens can climb aboard your erection in your sleep. Not exactly rape, but not intentional either.

                • Turtle says:

                  > > The concepts of rape, intent, and consent are seldom usefully applicable to sex. Preteens can climb aboard your erection in your sleep. Not exactly rape, but not intentional either.

                  This sounds like excuse-making, just like what sluts say about their ‘accidents.’ Sure Jim, preteens can drug you, tie you down, and then climb aboard your erection. But if you don’t want to have sex with them, you won’t get into trouble with them, and the erection would go away anyway. And sex with someone sleeping is considered rape, at least non-consensual.

                  My point was that you can’t have accidental sex, anymore than an unintentional business deal. We want money similarly to how we want sex, so I think sex is always done on purpose.

                • jim says:

                  If you don’t want to have sex with them, you won’t get into trouble with them,

                  This is only the case with girls past puberty, who have lots of options and therefore need to be wooed, need to be pursued and caught. Girls before puberty have considerably fewer acceptable options, and as a result have been known to take a more direct approach. Same problem with fatties, though the fatties always have a drink and claim to be drunk.

          • viking says:

            annd huhh the roosh i find on googl images is not buff hes a wiry little faggot

          • Honourismyloyalty says:

            Roosh is “ridiculously buff” you have got to be fucking kidding me.

            Now we all know you’re full of shit.

        • peppermint says:

          Yeah, no, if you so much at touch a virgin in any way she hasn’t been touched before, she will fixate on you and try to keep you as hers forever. Which is why after guy #3 pops her cherry, guy #4 demands her butthole and she demands he take it. This literally happens and everyone but you knows it. I’ve been guy #4. Buttsex is gross. A woman who wants to give you what she’s never given anyone else is just cute enough to maybe be worth it, once.

          A whore will never stick to you the way a virgin would. Everyone knows this. The fact that a whore could, possibly, and certainly of our generation, must, become a wife and mother, doesn’t erase the fact, that everone, except cuckservatives like you, understands, that a woman never looks at anyone the same way she looks at her first man.

          I’ve always not so much forbidden my women to have social contact with their exes but rather they’ve assumed that I would be angry if they talked about it. Which I would be.

          • peppermint says:

            “They all demand my butt”, said one empowered womyn I know who’s currently consumed with despair at how the men she’s been fucking don’t want to marry her and the men who at various times wanted to be serious have lost interest.

          • peppermint says:

            Men of my generation will have to content ourselves with being the first man to give their wives a baby they keep.

            After all the grrl power cuckservatives are dead, the first generation after the poz gets negged can return to having virgin wives.

            • peppermint says:

              (I’ve also been the first to be inside a girl without a condom. Women have a deep psychologial need to give their man some sense of being first, which indicates something to everyone but cuckservatives)

          • viking says:

            well Im not recommending one goes out and tries to make a go of it with a whore simply pointing out virginity is hardly a precondition for female loyalty whores fuck a dozen guys a day and still are insanely imprinted on the pimp (you listening jim)

  11. shluby bubby says:

    Continuing your key analogy, a key that opens many doors is a good thing. However, the person doesn’t want to go through all doors. Some are quite wasteful, useless and even detrimental.

    For example a key that opens up pedophilia is bad.

    In this sense there should be a sense of self-chaste for men. For women, they could be analogized as having a key as well. What if they’re terribly ugly but have the personality/ability to get where they want in life? That’s rather a reverse of the analogy.

    Everyone should practice chaste and only have sex with the most fruitful of beings. Telling yourself no is a pretty powerful ability. It makes you more exclusive and gives you a more proper path

    • jim says:

      Continuing your key analogy, a key that opens many doors is a good thing. However, the person doesn’t want to go through all doors. Some are quite wasteful, useless and even detrimental.

      Anything that we do to discourage male misbehavior is going to primarily work on long time preference, high IQ, prosocial, high socioeconomic status males, causing those males to fail shit tests, making long time preference, high IQ, high socioeconomic status males less attractive, and thus making Jeremy Meeks more attractive.

      If we ban forty year old men having sex with ten year old girls, ten year old girls will find the kind of man untroubled by such a ban, for example the overweight forty year old ice dealer and motorcycle gang leader, thrillingly attractive. What we need to do instead is ban ten year old girls from having sex with forty year old men.

      If she gets a whipping, but the banker and the judge and the CEO that she fucked are just fine, then the banker and the judge and the CEO will behave in ways she finds attractive. And if you whip her hard enough and publicly enough, she might even wait until she is old enough for marriage, and marry the banker, the judge, or the CEO, instead of fucking three different motorcycle gang members at age ten in an effort to work her way up to the bottom of the gang leader’s booty call list.

      But if you punish the CEO, and do not punish her, she is going to find the overweight forty year old ice dealer and motorcycle gang leader, thrillingly attractive, and be ruined for marriage.

      What we do now, forbidding forty year old men from fucking ten year old girls, but not forbidding ten year old girls from fucking forty year old men, is the wrong way around and spectacularly fails to work. It stops bankers from fucking ten year old girls, but fails to stop ice dealers from fucking ten year old girls. Rather, we should assume that the high status older wealthy male is behaving just fine, and the ten year old girl is a seductive slut and needs to be punished.

      • Turtle says:

        Then how about forbidding cucks from expressing themselves, as in “no marrying ruined sluts unless you literally make them virgins again by a fucking miracle?”

        As long as sick men actively seek out ruined women, out of a perverse belief that they are Big Bad Men with Ugly Dicks, such women will be generated. The freaks who want sluts as wives are a big problem. You don’t need to limit healthy male sexuality to limit sin. To limit sin is to promote virtue.

        So, to help men have good sex lives, shouldn’t we prevent them from having bad ones? Shouldn’t we pay more attention to the few psychologists (I don’t even know any!!!) who help men recover from sex addiction (as in being beta for twisted fun)?

        I am sure I can prove my point to readers, especially our visceral host Jim- search for “chastity” on reddit, and look at all the evil cuck-beasts self-hatingly submitting to torture.

        I figured out that this sin is what people think of whenever I mention chastity. No, I don’t mean male genital mutilation glorifies God; that’s such a straw man, I really think other commenters, at least the reasonable ones, should recognize that in Orthodoxy, not entirely in my life yet though, sex and food are both enjoyed in fasting and feasting, sometimes limiting it in asceticism, but always celebrating it as a gift from God. So, I’m sorry I didn’t clarify this earlier, but I shouldn’t have to explain so much either.

        Again, why would grown adult men want sex with little girls, even tween ones? The main liberal/ not manosphere argument against such sex is that it seems evil, disgusting, cruel, etc.

        And if this is normal, then why doesn’t it happen far more often, as much as adult-adult sex?

        • viking says:

          Again, why would grown adult men want sex with little girls, even tween ones?

          Because of how big your dick looks in her hands.

          • Dave says:

            “Again, why would grown adult men want sex with little girls”

            Because any society that allows you to marry a six-year-old virgin also allows you to effectively mate-guard during her fertile years. Women and children not being your property to do with as you please is a liberal idea.

            • viking says:

              I never suggested women should not be under the authority of fathers husbands, Im objecting to JIM arguing for giving nigger rapists the right to rape my daughter by saying she has the right of consent. If you are arguing for consent you are arguing for womens autonomy. Only niggers sell their daughters cheap white invest more time and money in their higher quality children and expect a better quality sire of their grandchildren. Not once did one of younon parent beta fags chomos dying to get into the pants of a 10 year old mention the point of raising children grandchildren.

              As a father I am the only person that can grant consent. If a man has sex with my daughter I decide whether to execute him as a rapist or offer him the terms to marry her.

              Jim wants the rapist to decide his own fate.

              If my horse or my slave or my daughter runs away and I find a man has used them i will execute him, it matters not that the man found them without the owner, he knew they were not his,he knew they could not own themselves, so he knew he was a thief to use them.so if I find my daughter in a commune or crack den and a nigger has fucked her I will execute him.(all rapists are niggers)

              I alone am the legal consentor to sex with my women

              Since rapists make poor sons in laws i will probably decide to execute.

              since rapists like thieves are a menace to the society I am building I will probably decide to execute.

              since sexual assault of my householders is as egregious a personal affront as possible I will probably choose to torture before executing.

              since raising a slut is a shame on a man I will probably choose to execute the man who has caused me to be seen as such a failure.

              since I have invested much time and treasure in the raising of my child in the expectation of a high return and this man has destroyed that I will probably choose to execute.

              since raising a daughter to maturity is one of the greatest pleasures a man has in life and i love my daughter i will probably decide to torture and execute the rapist.

              Since not executing rapists will only encourage men who want other mens women to simply take them i will probably choose to execute.

              allowing a man who would rape another mans woman to have legal authority over my daughter and grandchildren is unwise i would probably decide to execute.

              to allow a man to live that has fucked a daughter without her fathers permission will encourage daughters to lay with men they think they love more readily, i will probably decide to execute after torture.

              There’s really not to many scenarios where i allow the rapist to live. If you dont get this is the difference between a white civilization and nigger anarchy you should stop calling yourself a reactionary. Its like youre saying well property rights expire upon theft and since w cant control the thieves fuck civilization we will be pirates. Theres a lot of reasons whites decided to delay fertility and all of them are more valid today than then.

              At what age I can authorize marriage is another question. I think a sensible discussion begins with forgetting about these pre marriage betrothals we are no longer an agrarian society. Lets stipulate that we also understand capital must be subordinated to culture and state so property rights are not absolute, therefor its not a given that there might be limits put on your property rights but that children are an especial property where the already judicious use of state/cultural force on property right ought be even more restrained. On the other hand we are discussing future citizens of the state / culture, while in the case of women such citizenship might have different rights than men they are no less important citizens, they are not second class citizens they are not property in the sense of chattel or slavery the rights over women are more of a trust and guardianship of our most precious resource by those assumed to most have their interests aligned with those women. -AND SO IT SEEMS I MUST ANSWER FOR YOU IDIOTS THE QUESTION I HAVE POSED REPEATEDLY “HOW DOES REACTIONARY PATRIARCHY DIFFER FROM SAY MUSLIM OR OTHER HISTORICAL PATRIARCHY’S”?

              • viking says:

                Hers some things off the top of head that ought go into consideration of fathers earliest age of consent.

                The value women play in a civilized white nation.

                The wish to not leave an opening to be exploited by wreckers.

                The natural love fathers have for the well being of their children and the desire to not set off an arms race like the ones the led to the marriage of infants and todlers in years past,

                the physical and mental development of men and women

                the target population growth rate you will likely need given demographic and technological projections

                the advantages of later vs younger marriages, what husbands want is but one thing to consider what is best for society is another, what is possible another what will be the unintended consequences of each

                The target competency requirement for the raising of children if your nation just lets the little niglets run wild zero competency is required, if you expect parents to raise future citizens into highly civilized technologically competent human beings you might want a a more matured mother better seasoned and trained able to cope with stress and multitasking and not having to simultaneously cope with adolescent hormone stress.

                Political as i hinted at you have the issue of not giving wreckers an opening by an unduly unjust or overly burdensome role for women

                whats possible biologically, you have issues like dying eggs, sexual desire,etc
                But lets not assume we cant apply technology and culture to some of these issues we were not able to in the past. Even progressives might have an idea worth examining before they ratchet it to absurdity.

                Is sex with virgins really so important? granted no one wants the town pump and dump but it actually is pretty insecure to need to be sure you cant ever be compared to another man I rather enjoy that comparison KEKEK and no I dont have a huge one just good at what i do. But heres the thing there really are a lot sensible things about a sort of modified virginity, now dont jump all over me i havnt put any real thought into this but off the top of my head it seems… well before the hook up tinder age and after the sex and love 60s and 70s we settled into a sort of equilibrium despite the wrecking attempts of feminists it took technology I think to really upset it again and Imnot convinced hook ups will last. In other words and Im aware of the studies about living together etc. but it still seems like maybe having some sexual experience before marriage might not be a bad idea it also seems having some experience with the person you intend to marry might be good. depite all the cock carouselle talk thefacts are women have significantly lower numbers than men. for a while there we seemed to be developing a cultural solution to our desire for later marriages.

                Now that said we probably wont need really late marriages because we would be discouraging women working, that doesn’t mean necessarily discouraging them being educated. Or something. There was indeed a problem with them being isolated at home for 70 years we might want to simply shorten married life for both sexes self actualization, or train them in ways to make married life more interesting. lets not assume we are the same people living in a wattle and daub hut dying at 35- AND BTW ALL YOU IDIOTS WHO POSTED THE !# YEAR OLD MARRIAGE DATA NEXT TIME POST THE LIFE EXPECTANCY WITH IT

                And lets not forget we could simply start designing wives, real live stepford wives designed to be wives.

                • jim says:

                  Is sex with virgins really so important?

                  When you fuck a virgin, she is apt to fixate on you. Women are like sticky tape. Every time you peel sticky tape off one thing and reuse it to stick to another thing, it becomes less sticky. Every man a woman has sex with, she becomes less capable of bonding to the next man.

                  It takes about a week or two of sex several times a day to get a virgin stuck on you. Hence the tradition of the honeymoon. If you give her a one night stand, she likely will never stick to anyone (ever).

              • peppermint says:

                Boomers shame their own children by openly having sex with others and sharing family resources with them.

                If Boomer women want to have sex so much, the first option is female circumcision, and the second option maybe is a daughter’s husband.

                The idea of a reasonably young widow marrying a reasonably young single father to have another kid is cute, the idea of an old mother whoring or spending resources on a monogamous relationship with an outsider is disgusting.

              • jim says:

                The concept of rape is seldom easy to apply to interactions between men and women.

                Therefore, as in the old testament, need to minimize the extent to which the courts have to apply this concept to men and women.

          • Turtle says:

            Not for me, then. I know organ sizes are objective, not relative to female hands. I did LOL though, thanks for this very serious reply.

  12. ron says:

    the problem is that men do not respect the property rights of other men. Much less do they have any concern for the well being of other men.

    A company will happily dump toxic waste into a river desperately needed by farmers, provided they can get away with it.

    Similarly the alpha has (rarely if ever) existed that gave the slightest bit of a shit over what his lesser brothers would have to contend with after spraying his semen all over the inside of his last throwaway. That he is dumping toxic waste into the river is of absolutely no concern to him.

    This is not because “alphas” are by nature bad, those same betas who suffer his waste themselves cockblock, sabotage, whine, bitch, give foolish advice, and in general hold back every other beta in range. That is, they would be far worse alphas then the alphas they whine about, but for lack of opportunity.

    • jim says:

      A company will happily dump toxic waste into a river desperately needed by farmers, provided they can get away with it.

      And where did we see high level radioactive waste dumped in surface drains and similar activities?

      Not under capitalism, but under Soviet Communism.

      Under capitalism, companies cannot get away with it because some wealthy private individual own the river, or part of it, and benefits from the river being drinkable and having fish. He owns what he owns so that he can go fishing and boating. Then the state piously announces that to protect the river, it is taking over ownership and its catchment areas, and the river is now protected by people in Washington, who unlike the private owner whose property they lawlessly seized, never go boating or fishing in that river.

      • ron says:

        That was actually making the point I was trying to make.

        Communism which disempowers all but a select few of men in the name of equality (really jealousy), was a perfect example of the worst of that behavior.

        Whereas the Free Market empowers and respects the rights of men, does not show anywhere near the same level of abuse.

        When men empower other men, both by encouragement, respecting their rights, etc, things go very well for all men. When they disempower other men, we end up with a total disaster.

      • ron says:

        I should have said “men are losing their respect for the rights of other men”

        • Turtle says:

          I agree,excepting saints. I have trouble connecting with men, while women are far more agreeable in my life. This does not feel fair, especially because I have no sisters, so I don’t have many women to be with these days. I could change that, and plan to, but then I’ll try to establish a mixed-sex social circle, rather than a harem. And that’s rare, because so many men want to be sultans.

          On the positive side, men are learning to love Trump, which helps us admire each other, because we already admire Trump, and love at least our male family members. This is not exactly logical, but recently, we learned that Trump’s birthday is an occasion for demons to assault a Congressional Baseball game, mostly as assassination attempts, but also as distraction from celebration.

          I had written Trump a long letter congratulating him on turning 71, so I struggled to stay happy that week. Later, the White House newsletter did mention his birthday, but I felt bad that they left it out on that Wednesday. A modest statement that he would postpone the celebrations would have been appropriate. At least Rep. Steve Scalise is recuperating, so we’ll have an almost-martyr on our side. Scalise deserves both an opportunity to forgive his shooter in person, rather than revenge that would be “an eye for an eye,” and a new kind of Purple Heart medal. I have been praying to St. John of San Francisco, who was friends with many American government and military officials, both in D.C. and San Francisco, starting in Shanghai, about this. You are welcome to join me.


          The small, paper icons of him sold by S.F.’s Holy Virgin Cathedral cost from 30 cents to a few dollars each- incredibly cheap!

  13. Poochy says:

    >Which means that if we let nature take its course, a few men will have most of the women.

    What’s wrong with letting nature run it’s course? I’m a big fan of evolution and don’t really like restricting it by artificial means (religion/marriage/one woman for every man).

    If human nature has evolved to a point that this is the natural order of things, so be it. If monogamy is “better” for civilization, then allow nature to select for the “monogamy” genes for future generations.

    • jim says:

      >Which means that if we let nature take its course, a few men will have most of the women.

      What’s wrong with letting nature run it’s course?

      1. Jeremy Meeks.

      2. Eighty to ninety percent of young men have no reason to work, or to fight in defence their society.

      3. Low reproduction, plus unmotivated soldiers, results in foreign conquest by a more patriarchal society.

      If monogamy is “better” for civilization, then allow nature to select for the “monogamy” genes for future generations.

      Nature is not selecting for the “monogamy” genes. We are in defect/defect equilibrium.

      Who is successfully reproducing? It is low IQ men with eighteen kids by eighteen mothers on welfare, and mums with four children by four fathers on welfare and child support.

      • Cavalier says:

        >Eighty to ninety percent of young men have no reason to work

        Men have been dreaming of the Garden of Eden since the beginning of time, and as we’re discovering now, Marx was significantly right with respect to capital and labor, it just took an extra hundred years.

        >or to fight in the defense of their society

        Nukes. More generally, the value of capital relative to a meatbag on the firing line. We’ve now far surpassed the capital-to-unskilled-labor ratio of medieval times: now, state applied violence/protection/defense is not achieved by minutemen recently conscripted riflewielders but by ICBMs and Predator drones.

        >Low reproduction, plus unmotivated soldiers, results in foreign conquest by a more patriarchal society.

        Moslem “invasion” is essentially the neutralization of the greatest (and only legitimate) threat to state power: the bottom eight to ninety percent of young (white) men.

        >Who is successfully reproducing? It is low IQ men with eighteen kids by eighteen mothers on welfare, and mums with four children by four fathers on welfare and child support.

        Please explain the means by which this phenomenon weakens state power. It seems to me to be not just singly but doubly effective, in that it not only decreases the average rebellious potential of the general population but also yokes that most dangerous demographic, saps its strength, and impoverishes it, corresponding to your past observation that the taxation of productive white males is not near any Laffer anything but at a rate apparently designed to emancipate them.

        • Cavalier says:

          Normally I don’t bother with typos, but in this case I will make an exception:

          * by minutemen or recently conscripted riflewielders
          * the bottom eighty to ninety percent
          * apparently designed to eviscerate them

    • peppermint says:

      What you and The Radical Agenda don’t understand is that monogamous Whites can crush anything with their cooperation and then build the best civilizations in which it can appear that everything, including female sexual behavior, is just happening the right way naturally. Then idiots called professors can preach that everyone is basically good and all lives matter equally. You want to countersignal the professors without really contradicting them.

  14. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man!

  15. viking says:

    actually lets start by saying we probably want the same thing, western mating rolled back to upper class standards of the past. We wont argue over exact place and time we get it.
    Lets start with your title, first double standards have been a prime target of left deconstruction. Apes are triggered by unfairness. It may be a given that men and women are not the same thing so can not be equal so double standards are apples and oranges, nevertheless its a harder sell, so is it really important. I cant see why in fact at first glance Id say what we have as you imply is prisoners dilemma, a zero sum game. if we are giving permission to males to be sluts they will try and that makes our main problem more not less difficult.whereas if we proscribe them as well we are seen to be more just and are attacking the problem from both fronts, two locks on one door seem better than keys that open many locks.Most surveys I have seen about the young hookup crowd says women hate it but its all there is this bears out my experience. the left has pushed womens sluttery has a an act of defiance against the patriarchy, its doubtful the jew gives much of a shit about patriarchy per se but he like the general destruction feminism causes in our people.The demographic drop the unstable families once you have cleaved man and woman you have split the atom of a civilization.Im not sure how useful the sperm is cheap meme is while technically true its not so relevant in a technologically advanced society is it?
    women seem to be realizing giving up the pussy monopoly was a bad business decision. women used to enforce chastity equally with men yes slut shaming is more effective than cad shaming because women are more social. but cad shaming worked enough to be worth while.for any of this to work you need to restore culture, and unless we take the jewbugs advice and re introduce most of our white population to serfdom, we need to have a culture that brings even the lowest class whites up to the standards of the highest class whites of yore. we were well into this ( higher ages of consent was part of the attempt) until we were so rudely interupted by jews seizing our culture. You seem to not want to recognize this, always deflecting this core issue. forget all the nazi BS how socialist they may or not be how smart or not how whatever. The fact remains the jew has in fact been destroying our culture and that is the root of our problems.Now if youre squeamish and can find a way to rebuild our culture without expelling the jew tell us how, but any talk of cultural change at this point must account for the jews opposition. because while you write of your plans he has an army of high placed jews and quisling whites reinforcing his cultural destruction of whites.Yeah i get this takes the wind out of our sails and is a bummer. Im not saying we cant think about what we might do once the jew is removed from power but to act as if we can simply defy him while he is in power is a bit naive.

    • jim says:

      if we are giving permission to males to be sluts they will try and that makes our main problem more not less difficult.

      Calling a male a slut tortures language. Males cannot be sluts. Because you are arguing for a position that makes no sense, that denies the differences between the sexes, you use words that make no sense.

      Bad behavior by males is very different behavior to bad behavior by females. Males defect on females by not loving and cherishing, females defect on males by not honoring and obeying.

      • viking says:

        call uncommitted sex whatever doesn’t trigger you the facts remains that double standards open you up to a replay of the jew designed feminist argument that destroyed the old order you seem to wish in some respect to return to.

        Its undeniable the left has tactics of ridiculing bad logic, unfairness, hypocrisy and holding you to your own rules. You are old enough to have lived through the process of feminism you remember the arguments why do you deny how this happened.

        You are also old enough to remember that men too were held to the standard and despite their being men and women who did not hold the standard usually because of childhoods with parents who did not, in the aggregate men held a significant proportion of the social contract of no sex before marriage. for christs sake jim theres still remnants of this today you can here young men today pledging to do their part to make the world safe for virgin marriage.

        But really most importantly how the fuck does your plan work that men are encouraged to have sex and women are told they will be stoned if they allow it, its fucking retarded youre taking a small part of HBD and making it central when it is only a part. women are bred to select alpha for fitness we know culture can influence how they interpret fitness, stop worry about nigger meeks hes a nigger hes not serious competition unless you allow the jew to emasculate you in which case nothing will help

        • peppermint says:

          It is not unfairness or hypocrisy to call women sluts and men studs. It is bad logic to do the reverse and if leftists were ever held to their own rules, well, they just make up random shit as they go along.

          • viking says:

            strickly speaking as i clearly said its not a double standard because men and women are not the same thing. But thats beside the point its bad tactics because its going to work rhetorically to compare them as if they were and to use that to hack the chimp brain fairness instinct. But thats just the beginning of the problem. its attacking the wrong problem ignoring a large part of the problem. s so hard to understand not simply n my lifetime today in many parts of the west women are chaste and men are chaste and even when they are not they are trying to be, even when they are attempting a modified modern chastity of monogamy outside marriage they are acquiescing to the principle. anyway we didnt actually shame men for sluttiness we shamed them for caddiness which is more like contributing to the delinquency of a female, taking advantage of a less mentally able person, and urinating in a public square. to encourage cads was seen as vulgar beneath a gentleman, so at the least a man didnt brag about it. if he had tapped your teenage daughter have much investment and had luckilly not impregnated her he not going to brag about it and you might still get her off at a good price, if he did impregnate her he wasnt going to dare say he was just tapping that ass he was going to say he couldnt help it he loved her so and needed to marry her immediately.Maybe he wasnt your choice of son in law but he might be better alive than dead as the father you had either option the daughter being your property no sex was consensual unless you said so. so you decided to execute for rape or approve a marriage. the power to execute for rape is what gives the power to compel marriage and limits how often these cads lose control of their impulses

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “stop worry about nigger meeks hes a nigger hes not serious competition unless you allow the jew to emasculate you in which case nothing will help”



          “It comes just weeks after shock photos emerged of the married 33-year-old snogging Topman heiress Chloe on a £100,000-a-week yacht off Turkey.

          Chloe, 26, is the daughter of British retail billionaire businessman Sir Philip Green.”

          • viking says:

            exactly its like the kardashians, who cares what niggers do with each other the kardashians are sand niggers and greens are jew niggers caught in the jew trap set for whites. Our concern is what whites do.

            • jim says:

              If blacks and Muslim middle easterners are socially and legally allowed to pass shit tests, and whites are not, white women are going to fuck blacks and Muslim middle easterners.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Ironically, a Jewess.

        • Turtle says:

          > > young men today pledging to do their part to make the world safe for virgin marriage

          I don’t hear that, especially because the world is not a safe place. Marriage itself is safe, by God’s grace, but that is different. I don’t like the sound of ‘pledge’ either; it reminds me of ‘purity balls.’ Try-hard, bizarre, fetishization of sexual virtue is dubious. And chastity is just as much about not having ugly tattoos as about not having ugly sex, but tattoos are quite popular.

          Yes, there are some young men doing everything right, but I don’t know any of them. Any examples you could speak to, Viking?

    • jim says:

      the fact remains the jew has in fact been destroying our culture and that is the root of our problems.

      The Jew is not at the root of our sexual problems, indeed the proposition is transparently nuts.

      Jews are promoting cuckold porn, even though it is highly unpopular. But while cuckold porn may be contributing to our race problems, our sex problems relate to the false life plan and romance literature, for which Jews are not to blame.

      • viking says:

        The jew is indeed at the root of our sexual problems im not big on anti semitism ( by which i mean i like many jews and wish we could salvage them but undestand thats really unlikely) -but its a stone cold fact that the jews hijacked our culture beginning in the 1800s they are the architects of morbid leftism, and feminism and the sexual revolution is indeed one of their masterpieces. If you can not face this you should hang up your reactionary spurs.Did you grow up in kansas or something Im from New York i saw this shit with my own eyes. cuck porn is hardly an issue porn is a part of the sexual revolution, miscegenation can be considered part of several jew projects.
        You guys that want to resist this have to get over your squeamishness, its not about blaming the jew as you like to imply its about being clear about what happened how it happened and what can be done to repair our culture. You simply can not do this if you dont look at the fact that jews were doing something why they were doing it and what they hoped their actions would accomplish. In a nutshell weaker whites was good for the jews good for leftism. so any project that destroyed white culture was pursued through their power and wealth while being fought against as it applied to them. While they pushed miscegenation for whites they pushed against outmarriage for jews. how many jew produced movies have you seen shame white trad sexual morality and how many have you seen shame jewish sexual morality no we are shown the glory of the jewish wedding

        • Poochy says:

          If Jews created and control the left, why are they so anti-Israel and pro-Palestine?

          • viking says:

            because some jews are international jews and some are nationalist jews, but ask yourself this, do you seriously think liberal jews actually actually pro muslim or is it merely a temporary way to assault white nations while seeming to be the good guys, if jews have pretty much conquered white men do you really think they are in doubt they can handle some sand niggers when they are done with them?

        • Antipas says:

          The outmarriage rate for Jews is far far higher than the miscegenation rate for whites.

          • Anonymous says:

            You mean the outmarriage rate of secular Jews; the Orthojews not only replenish their numbers, but will soon enough become a majority among Jews.

            • jim says:

              Prog Jews recruit from Orthodox Jews, always have, always will. Progressivism reproduces memetically via state power, while Orthodox Judaism reproduces biologically.

              • Anonymous says:

                I don’t disagree with any of this. What I find objectiond is the suggestion that the Jews will go extinct through inter-breeding. If there were only secular Jews, that suggestion would be correct. But since there are Orthodox Jews, Jews are not endangered by intermarriage with non-Jews.

                • Anonymous says:


                • jim says:

                  Secular Jews cause problems. Orthodox Jews not so much. If it was not for replenishment of secular Jews from Orthodox, secular Jews would disappear pretty quickly.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Well of course, if X didn’t happen, Y wouldn’t be an issue. But X does happen, and so Y is an issue. It may be that secular Jews are much more of a problem than Orthodox Jews, but Orthodox Jews produce secular Jews. (And, Orthodox Jews are very obnoxious in their own right)

                  The solution, assuming genocide is not chosen, is to redefine the character of secularism in such a manner that Jews can be secular all they want, but can’t be holy while secular – have to choose between being holy as a part of some official religion, or giving up on holiness entirely. So Scott Alexander has to choose between embracing the state religion and joining its priesthood, or dropping the holiness spiralling and devoting himself to truth that is indeed truthful and reason that is indeed reasonable.

                  If his problem is the policeman outside, will choose truth and reason, and stop signalling “no friends to the right”. If his problem is the policeman inside, you’ll see him attempting entryism into the state religion, i.e: “I am holier than thou, therefore I shalt command thee”. And you know what happens next.

                  The underlying idea being holiness-limitation. Let’s see the nation of priests coping with that. It’s hard enough for whites to get holiness spiralling under control. For Jews, that would be the toughest challenge. And so be it.

  16. Dividualist says:

    Jim, one basic problem is that every actually good idea is politically unthinkable without a huge change, 10x as big as Trump. So maybe focus on less effective but doable things sometimes?

    Basically, reducing the attractiveness difference between very attractive and unattractive males, kind of reducing the Male Attractiveness Inequality – see, this sounds like something one could sell to egalitarian liberals? – naturally pushes things towards monogamy as women find it easier to settle.

    No, this does not mean women going slutty is men’s fault, but sometimes you must fix problems that are not your fault. It’s like when my father taught me defensive driving, fixing the idiocy of other drivers at least to the extent that it can affect me. Makes sense.

    Would not solve the issue, would not solve the root problem, but it could reduce the symptom.

    And I think this is what Roosh meant when he said that Game / lifting can save Western Civ.

    The problem is, I think we are already approaching the limit of what can be done in this department, everybody who will do it is already doing it.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      It sounds easier, but it isn’t. Liberals defect because defection shows you have power so any attempt to do that would be stabbed in the back.

    • Anonymous says:

      The strategy for now is to redpill as many men as possible about feminism – not much has changed during the last 4 years. The problem is that the Manosphere, instead of remaining a Manosphere as it was in 2013, has been wholly transformed into a kind of alt-right but with more focus on sexual issues. I maintain that the Manosphere circa 2013 had a radicalization potential that /pol/ could never rival.

      The blogs of people like theantifeminist, Eivind Berge, and various other anti-Feminist writers, and the blogs of incels, and the blogs of redpilled MRAs, and the blogs of people who dissent against the Cathedral’s definitions of “rape” and “abuse” and “underage”, and even some PUA blogs, sent a collective shockwave against the prevailing culture, and were a decent beginning of what could become a sweeping social revolution.

      An MRA who thinks that “race is a social construct” can be redeemed from his leftist brainwashing. But a nazi who thinks that women are angelic, and that young women are particularly angelic, is likely a lost cause. A basic-bitch MRA is more radical, at least potentially, than a basic-bitch nazi – not less. Nesta Helen Webster proposed nothing radical; it was Ernest Belfort Bax who was the real radical. Webster’s ideas could become fairly mainstream back in the early 20th century. Bax could not and did not become mainstream.

    • viking says:

      yes push men to act manly to stop being afraid of niggers to stop thinking millenial faggotry is acceptable men must be able to fight to build things to assert themselves no matter the cultural aprobrium,to refuse to accept the feminist frame. heartiste is correct about much of what he says but he uses it in a destructive way.Hes giving the power to his readers that previously only some of us had and it will make the situation worse further demoralize women and put them on a adversarial footing like the jew wants.

    • viking says:

      Culture hacks women’s fitness tests women are social captives when culture says mens status is thus and womens status is thus women will see it as thus.beta white males can certainly be more manly in a myriad of ways besides lifting I strongly encourage all, and while many whites can outfight niggers its a stretch to think weightlifting is how best to outcompete meeks. even competeing with meeks is beneath us and signals weakness. though i would like to see a facial recognition app scan the net for women who have burned coal and other sordid behavior. I suggest one of you millenial twits develop an app called girlfriend material? (GF?) and to avoid attack another called BF? slut shaming has lost power because the cost is too high and reward too small anonymity lowers cost unknown cost raises cost she doesnt know the values of the suitor she hasnt met yet but the mere existence of GF? implies men care and can not be stopped by feminism from caring. If she has tramp stamps, pics with her cuddling niggers, drunken behavior whatever its all up there on GF?

    • Dave says:

      I tend to agree with Anonymous Conservative that as long as resources are free, or nearly so, women will continue to have sex with whomever they damn well please, i.e. mating with Jeremy Meeks in hopes of giving birth to the next Jeremy Meeks.

      Americans are still the most over-fed, over-housed, over-medicated, over-educated, over-entertained people in the world, so I just don’t see resource constriction forcing us back into a K-selected reproductive strategy any time soon. (In b4 most of our food, housing, etc. is crap, but it sates the appetite).

      Perhaps we’ll return to K-selection after all the r-selected people have overdosed on heroin?

  17. Dividualist says:

    >Therefore we should guard eggs, not sperm. What this means is that it only needs a small number of badboys to render a very large number of women unmarriageable.

    Hm, Jim, how about (also) guarding the small number of badboys? OK, that sounds difficult, but worths a thought. At least that is yet another argument why immigration should be limited to Whites and Asians.

    Alternatively, bad boys like to kill each other so they could be nudged to do that, too, but that results in testosterone-dysgenics.

    Actually that seems like something whites actually did in the past, Swedes and Danes cannot possibly have Viking genetics in the testosterone department, just nope, and it was not even the world wars that killed those, as they were neutral, but somehow they managed to kill off their bad boys. Well, these two countries hold the world record for having the most wars against each other… Or maybe they sent them to America.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Hm, Jim, how about (also) guarding the small number of badboys? ”

      Doesn’t that make them even more attractive to women?

      “Actually that seems like something whites actually did in the past, Swedes and Danes cannot possibly have Viking genetics in the testosterone department, just nope,”

      They spent most of their time sailing across the sea to attack undefended settlements. This was not massively different from the arabs who spent their time sailing across the sea to attack undefended settlements.

      Also the Vikings that went Viking tended to get killed or settle down in the territories they attacked; the Swedes and Danes are probably descendants of people who stayed home.

    • jim says:

      > > Therefore we should guard eggs, not sperm. What this means is that it only needs a small number of badboys to render a very large number of women unmarriageable.

      > Hm, Jim, how about (also) guarding the small number of badboys?

      Plenty more where those came from. If you stop Lord Byron from being a badboy, you get Jeremy Meeks.

      I would rather it was Lord Byron rendering women unmarriageable.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jim, your obsession with “bad boys” is nearly pathological. Go visit backpage and get the relief you need..

        As to Lord Byron, are you trying to imply he wouldn’t be drowning in pussy if he were of this generation ? A rich, handsome, extremely talented writer – he would be fine, more than fine. I guess he’s not butch enough for Jim.

      • viking says:

        meeks gets curtailed with law Byron with culture. Its not a double standard meeks is too stupid to avoid the low bar of law while Byron is to smart to be contained with anything other than culture.

    • Hidden Costs says:

      >We need to guard the bad boys
      No, we don’t. Theres this idea that we have to be egalitarian about it. But we don’t. Women are in control of their sexual choices currently, and it isn’t productive.

      The bad boys will be controlled by virtue of women being under control. As they were in the past… ie, if you follow your “want” for this hot guy, you’re going to end up pregnant and unmarriageable.

  18. AM says:

    As long as we’re changing the social order, we should simply restore the traditional one: women will not have any chance to be lawyerettes, they will not dare speak to men without hubby or a chaperone present, match-makers will arrange pairings with discriminating and discreet savoir-faire (the woman’s wishes being practically the least important factor), and men who make advances on taken women, along with women who put out to anyone but their wedded lords, can all expect a swift death.

    • jim says:

      Well yes, but holding women responsible for female misconduct is a necessary first step in that direction.

    • viking says:

      This is what culture is for. Little can effectively be done by law, law must cater to the lowest standard culture can arbitrate on a case by case basis for the highest outcome. you needn’t even always make a behavior that is often detrimental but sometimes advantageous illegal just make it have a high cultural cost, you can socially punish those who break your taboos like women working and homo artists but you can choose to not notice when you wish. law is like violence its easy but you get what you pay for, culture is much harder but works better, culture is the higher races advantage

Leave a Reply