Politics played for keeps.

Yes well you can detect this, I find I am fairly good at detecting it, but I notice not everyone being good at it.

In fact, even I do not see a shadow pass. Practice makes perfect?

“Legal ethics is that your lawyer’s relationship with judges and with other lawyers is more important than his relationship to you, so he sells you out.”

I understand that an attorney’s relationship with judges is improtant. Depending on his field, it might be more important that his relationship to a client, but there are very many courts and some lawyers have a case in a specific court only every few years.

I doubt that the relationship of an attorney to other attorneys is more important than his relationship to his client. His clients are his customers, he earns a living from them. Other attorneys are simply his competitors. How can he benefit from a good relationship to them?

Please exlain why you think your above statement to be true.

Now I’ve heard this is true, but what I don’t understand is why it isn’t generally true in divorce law. Even with high priced lawyers (and the women having a bad low priced unconnected lawyer) the man tends to get screwed massively if there isn’t an ironclad prenup (and in some states they don’t respect those).

Also I think this judicial/priesthood/lawyer corruption and how the system actually works deserves its own thread.

Joke: Fucking prostitutes should be illegal.

Woke: Fucking prostitutes should be legal.

Bespoke: Fucking prostitutes should be mandatory if you want to preside as a judge.

We need all judges to have slapped a ho. If you have never slapped a big-booty ho, you are in no position to tell men that they have behaved improperly towards women. A judge who snorts cocaine from strippers’ asses, wears golden chains all the time, answers to monikers such as “pitbull” and “biceps,” and can break almost everyone in the courtroom like a twig, is infinitely better than a beta virgin faggot blue-piller who RESPECTS YOUR FEELINGS AS A WOMAN AND A HUMAN. Questions such as “when was the last time you had sex?” and “do you even have a gym membership?” and “do you enjoy smacking down dem hos?” are so much more relevant than muh formal credentials. An avid ho-slapper won’t send you to jail for whistling at a perky-boobed phat-assed teenage chick down the street – that, I can tell you.

(Yes, I “intersperse” my comments with the occasional humor, but there is a serious notion conveyed here)

@shaman

“The problem is not male misbehavior, and therefore the solution is not the restriction of men. ”

Since both men and women are together were to be executed for sexual crimes. It always takes 2 to tango. Just as it takes 2 to tango in Proverbs 5.

Job made a covenant with his eyes so he is not tempted.

@jim

Okay. Although I do not know what the original disagreement was about.

I mean sex out of wedlock still remains dangerous and destructive.

The Strange woman in Proverbs 5 in contrast to the wife of one’s youth which i cite

Destroying the man who let himself fall into her clutches by coveting her and then acting on said temptation.

And there is no lie about sex outside of the sacred bond of wedlock allowing demons to transfer from the whore to the man who cavorts with her. According to the exorcism testimonies and recorded video evidence that I have come across.

Nor did Jesus not say “To look at a woman to covet her is already adultery in one’s heart” referencing the example of (Job 31:1)(Job 31:9).

Or this making a correlation between whoredom and wickedness(Leviticus 19:29) by itself.

@The Cominator

“The problem is women are pursuing serial monogamy with a small minority of generally bad criminalesque men combined with large swathes of them mutilating their looks in various ways and not fucking around at all.”

Men in the 70s weren’t actually happy with it, hard to believe, it’s all a big Hollywood propaganda job because those men have become MGTOW. They are the MGTOW movement and the debt-slave divorcees, it’s actually that generation, which means they didn’t like it that much. I judge people by their actions and the consequences, I don’t believe them because it’s not that they’re lying to you, most of the time they believe their own lies. But you’ll know the truth by their actions. Like the cat ladies living in eternal wine and prozac, they’are also very, very “happy”, but living in eternal wine and prozac for a reason. Like heroin addicts are very, very “happy”, but living in heroin and agony.

I think you have a valid observation of another phenomena, but college girls are temple prostitutes and no one can deny that.

In any case the argument doesn’t change, because serial monogamy is also sleeping around. Serial monogamy is a woman trying to pit man A against man B to see which one is “more alpha”, like in old Wild West movies. If man A allowed to engage in masculine behavior and dominate her and fight off man B, serial monogamy wouldn’t really exist, since it’s a result of constantly failing to prove to be an alpha because masculinity outlawed. In fact, if masculine behavior encouraged and taught to boys, probably the problem wouldn’t even present itself that much.

And at the same time, the only reason why criminalesque types as you say have any status is because masculinity outlawed. Criminals are pathetic trash, not dangerous. Special forces are actually dangerous. But if a Navy SEAL met a criminal dog and had a confrontation, he’d have to deescalate and avoid confrontation because masculinity outlawed. The difference is that the criminal, the low IQ dog that he is, is willing to engage in behavior that lands you in jail for no reason, while special forces are high IQ and they know it’s not worth it. But if they were allowed to treat criminal dogs as they earn and deserve, criminality would have the status of a homeless bum. Like a medieval knight spitting on slum trash and treating them like subhumans.

A medieval knight is masculinity encouraged, Mr. Prince Charming is a dude who takes pride in bashing skulls with great skill and will bash your skull if you question his honor in any way. In the rules of chivalry written by a 13th century French author I can’t recall right know, it talks about a form of unwritten rule that a knight might duel another knight for his lady, and if he wins he has every right to do with her as he wants including “raping” her. And we all know that in the 13th century criminals were very, very, very low status and hanging from poles, but skull-bashing medieval knights were Prince Charming and centuries after they were still considered Prince Charming. And medieval knights were mostly buddies with intellectuals, not enemies, which made intellectuals high status as well. And it’s also worth mentioning that those intellectuals were hyper chads compared to your average guy today, because masculinity encouraged.

@Turkroach

“If I killed the fatty for eating sausages behind my back or never let him go out so he couldn’t indulge himself, I would be restraining him. What’s wrong with restraining women?”

Like I said, you don’t restrain virtue, you restrain degeneracy. Restraining implies a negative connotation, “forcing” someone to be virtuous is not negative, so you cannot “restrain” women when we are talking about helping them be happy and virtuous.

Sure, if you literally micro handle the fatty you’re technically restraining him, but that sounds like weaselly legal (Jewish for your lingo) interpretation to sell a narrative. You’re helping the fatty to live a better quality life and 30 years longer, implying that this is somehow negative is evil.

You don’t say you “restrain” children like you were chaining them up when you don’t allow certain behaviors, you say you’re educating them, which is the actual honest representation of your actions and the truth.

My opinion is that the “restraining women” meme is influenced by marxist framing, that implies that women want to be men and enjoy being men, even though they end up necking themselves or drowning in wine and prozac. And that we reactionaries are evil, because we are “restraining female sexuality”, when we are doing the opposite, we are allowing women to be women and let them enjoy being women, to be happy and better themselves as women. Because the truth is that women don’t want to sleep around, men are the ones who sleep around, basic biology, what women want is an alpha and to be dominated by an alpha as proven by the facts instead of the obviously false narrative.

Women actually can’t tell for shit what an alpha is anyway, best thing you can do for them is to build their husbands as alphas and let them experience that bliss. And women can’t tell for shit what an actual alpha looks like because they are not men, they do not think like men and do not behave as men. But you put 20 men inside a room long enough and you’ll get a clear hierarchy and a full spectrum of expected social behavior or else.

I don’t think this is talked about enough, it’s discussed from many perspectives but never plainly enough. Civilizations can endure a lot of things but civilizations cannot endure outlawing masculinity, because men are the ones who build civilization and when they stop being men, they stop building it.

Btw, how do you get the quote format here?

We need women to make babies like we once needed horses to pull wagons and niggers to pick cotton. Check out the Biobag; scientists can now grow fetal lambs in a plastic womb. Or use a third-world surrogate like Anthony Stralow did. A man can mother a baby after birth; he just finds such work tedious and boring. It’s also a huge drag on his career, but his cost of living goes way down when he doesn’t have to impress women or pay chilimony to a greedy ex-wife.

He must resist temptation to fondle the kids when bored, lonely, and horny, but a man is lucky when all his problems are inside his own head.

Success in life is largely genetic, so a woman of high genetic quality can sell her eggs to many willing fathers who could never hope to marry such a woman.

But stating the problem as a whore problem (feral women yes) I think gives people the wrong idea and reeks of moralizing tradcucks. This is no age of hedonism no matter how much tradcucks want you to think it is.

Women in the 1970s through a good portion of the 1980s were by most accounts I’ve heard (I’m going off secondhand accounts from boomers and statistics of what people said their sexual habits were like) whores… supposedly not that picky and not all that monogamous even if they were more likely to be married or be in long term relationships then they were today. That is a whore and they were riding the cock carousel.

Women now extremely picky and when they do have men serial monogamous, not whores but status seeking femcels horny for Jeremy Meeks only and outright hateful to other men and a good portion spend large portions of their fertile years larping as lesbians. This is far far worse then a society of whores. They are not so much trying to ride the cock carousel but the cock ladder.

Women don’t dream of being whores either (well SOME do), the real female dream is generally to be the top HAREM girl.

Think of it like a switch that, if successfully activated, turns on (if you pardon the pun) the female’s deep-seated promiscuous penchant, and makes one-night-stands and hook-ups in general possible. The reason it “just happens,” the reason why women are apt to exhibit Spring Break in Cancun behavior, is that — like it or not — we are all the descendants of a million prostitutes who sought to acquire both alpha sperm for their progeny (alpha fucks) and resources for their children (beta bucks). To acquire both of those things, they needed to be able to get down-to-fuck on demand, with or without desire.

We know that during ovulation in particular, women strongly crave to get impregnated by the most aggressive alpha in the world, and that during the other stages of their menstrual cycle (the menstrual, follicular, and luteal stages), they feel somewhat more comfortable spreading for less attractive men, who may provide them some things other than high-quality top-killer sperm. When ovulating, a chick will especially dig harsh sex from a harsh men, when not ovulating, she’ll obviously still desire to fuck Chad, but she’ll be willing to moderately compromise on the extent of Chadhood in return for resources. If you want to know whether or not your girl is really into you, or is with you because it’s convenient, check out her behavior when she is ovulating.

An ovulating woman is likely to massively nuclearly shit test you for alpha traits, and most men are prone to fail. When non-ovulating, her shit tests will be somewhat easier to pass, not because she is hornier, but exactly because she is less horny, digging some things other than just dick, such as the comfort and stability provided by beta bucks. She still craves the D, but it’s less of a monomaniacal fixation than when she is ovulating, hence she is most likely to cuckold her beta husband with Jeremy Meeks when she is ovulating, to get inseminated by his superior seed (as she perceives superiority), and then spend the rest of the menstrual cycle fucking the guy who is paying for her food.

Until patriarchy happened, in our ancestral killer ape condition, pretty much all females were whores – every female was willing to fuck for resources (food, shelter, etc.), as those unwilling to fuck for resources would’ve quickly perished and been out-bred by prostitutes, taking their non-whore genes with them to a very early grave indeed.

To get a picture of what it must’ve been like, imagine being a very rich man in a matriarchal (or Lekking System) Africa; literally every woman will fuck you on demand, if you give her some much-needed resource. Of course, what really turns them on is the biggest highest-status head-hunting killer around, General Butt Naked, but they’ll all gladly fuck your brains out for food and stuff. Maybe when they are ovulating, will prefer to spend their time exclusively in the company of General Butt Naked, but otherwise, they will wander off to the guy who can give them resources, as Mr. Naked might not be so charitable.

Better yet, look at how women behaved during e.g. WW2. Pretty much all women turned into prostitutes, fucking every soldier in town for a small piece of bread, if even that. And I don’t blame them! You’ve read some literature about the war, so perhaps you know what dis shaman nigga be talkin’ about. The switch was activated by the harsh conditions, and the whore inside sprang forth. Here’s Jan Montyn’s account, as quoted by Thomas Goodrich in “Hellstorm”:

A mattress on the floor. And that was all. Marika sat down on the mattress, I on the chair. I accepted a cigarette, although I rarely smoked. Where did I come from? she wanted to know. From Holland. Did I have brothers and sisters? Six. She had one brother, but she did not know whether he was still alive. She had fled from Riga, her parents had been killed. She had been here for less than a month. And a question—no, many questions—burned on the tip of my tongue. . . . But at once she gave a barely perceptible shrug of her shoulders, lay down on the mattress, her eyes open, and muttered: “Come.”

It was Anna who, shortly after midnight, when the party was at its height, enticed me away, outside, without anyone noticing. Between the carts and across the yard, her fingers on her lip. Into the barn. The door was bolted with a wooden cross bar and she led me into the darkness, her hand squeezing mine confidentially. Up a ladder, and then we crawled through the hay, further and further, to the very back of the barn. There was a hollow in the hay, and a hanging oil lamp, and lo and behold, Karin, too. And Hanna. And another girl, no more than thirteen years old, whom I had not noticed at the party.

Not a word was spoken. Everything seemed to have been agreed in advance. Karin and Hanna held me pressed down on my back in the dusty hay, a hand on my mouth. Anna was the one who pulled my trousers down. Anna was the one who crouched on me. And then, Hanna. And then Karin. And then, Anna again. And so it went on, while I, lying helpless on my back, was unable to move. Three pairs of eyes above me, three mouths. Groping hands. Breasts above white lace bodices. Girls’ legs under tucked-up, multicolored skirts. Whose was what? Who was who? While the younger girl watched motionless, wide-eyed. This was her first lesson in love. It was my second.

And here’s Werner Adamczyk’s account from the same book:

I . . . was just dozing off when the large sliding door opened and a crowd of figures stormed into the barn. I jumped up and grabbed my rifle next to me. “Ivan is not getting me without a shot out of my rifle,”was my instinctive thought. Well, it was an attack, but not by Ivan. It was an attack by the females of that farm. They were falling over us, hugging and kissing every soldier in the barn until they were consumed in what nature calls for. One girl or woman, as fat as an elephant, fell over me. In the dim light of the few bulbs lighting the barn, I could see that she was very ugly….

The natural drive for love had overcome them, especially under the conviction that their lives would be over as soon as the Russians arrived here.

All Women Are Like That. Patriarchy restrains female sexuality, and when the restraint breaks down, as when a different tribe of killer apes is about to brutally conquer, what Jan and Werner describe here becomes entirely normal and expected, women providing sex to any male, no matter how beta, in exchange for urgently needed resources, and sometimes not even that, as we see here.

From the flip side, look at how eagerly European women, living the most comfortable lives imaginable, welcome rapeugees who are going to sell them off naked in chains at the market – that’s the “Alpha Fucks” side of the coin, as the “Beta Bucks” side is sufficiently gratified and provided by Western Civilization. All Women Are Like That. We have all inherited the whore genes from our maternal ancestors, who have been strongly selected for the ability to convert their sexuality into resources, while simultaneously digging the sperm of the toughest head-hunter killer in the world; and a strict patriarchy is required to prevent our women from acting on these whore genes, one in which husbands are the highest status, satisfying hypergamy.

If beta, you’ll be wholly invisible to an ovulating woman who needs head-hunter sperm right now – but the thing is, the local gangster is likely to be stony broke and possibly in jail, and unlikely to pay for anything, indeed, the chick is the one who’s paying for him, so when non-ovulating, a chick is more likely to notice you, and allow you some access to her body if that’s what’s needed to open up your pocket. When the local gangster gets out of jail, and she is ovulating, she’ll cuckold you without so much as blinking; otherwise, she might have (somewhat reluctant and unenthusiastic) sex with you, if there’s no one to provide for her. That’s what being a beta provider has always been.

When you say that girls from tougher neighborhoods are more likely to be nice to you than spoiled brats, that’s the side of Beta Bucks playing for you – if their material comfort were wholly satisfied, you would be invisible, but since it isn’t, and they know that they need someone to provide for them, they are more open to spreading for you, not because their innate nature is magically different than that of more affluent girls, but because the sex-for-resources genes are activated in them.

These girls from tough neighborhoods are just as likely as spoiled princesses to bang Chad’s brains out when they are ovulating, but when non-ovulating, such a girl might notice you, because she is looking for the BB in addition to the AF.

I think Jim and shaman are both describing two cheeks of the same elephant. All animals, not just humans, demonstrate major behavioral differences when their basic needs are satisfied. Domestic cats show all sorts of affection when they’re hungry or in pain, but – counterintuitively for some – can’t hunt for shit unless they’re well-fed. Male bears that don’t get the right nutrition completely lose their sex drive. And so on.

There is always going to be a spectrum of traits, so some women won’t put out for a man who’s too beta just because she missed a meal, and most women won’t put out for omegas ever, even if the alternative is literally death. But the amount of alpha-ness required to pass shit tests varies with the individual woman, her odds of survival without a man, her menstrual cycle, and probably some other environmental factors. That’s why some betas, sometimes, “get lucky”, and then not long afterward tend to get dumped or cucked.

None of this suggests that there is ever a time when shit tests don’t happen, or when women actually prefer betas over alphas, which would be absurd. But the idea that women cannot even stomach the idea of ever getting boned by any guy who is not the supreme alpha seems itself to be accepting of the blue-pill idea that women want to be chaste. They do have some higher brain functions and while their sexuality is naturally tuned to chase alpha cock, it’s also quite malleable – they can even have “sex” with other women – and really isn’t a big deal for them to whore themselves out to lesser men if it helps them get by in the short term.

That’s not gold-digging at all, just survival. Women may have evolved to identify with conquerors after hundreds of years of war, but if they weren’t able to deal with beta sex once in a while then I don’t think our species could ever have survived the hunter-gatherer days.