www.blog.jim.com

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

He is most certainly meant to polygynous. We are descended from far more women than men, indicating that among our ancestors most men failed to reproduce, and a few men reproduced massively.

Civilization requires patriarchy and monogamy, but any argument for monogamy presupposes patriarchy, that women are owned by their fathers, who transfer ownership to husbands. If fertile age women are allowed to wander round fucking who they please, they all fuck Jeremy Meeks – and if Jeremy Meeks is too busy to fuck them, they fuck Jian Ghomeshi. If you emancipate women, Jeremy Meeks gets most of the pussy, and nice guys get used up burned out thirty year olds.

For monogamy to exist, it has to be forcefully and coercively imposed on women. Women have submit.

Monogamy should be understood as a system of rationing to deal with the shortages that result from price controlling pussy.

Monogamy is a part of a deal between fighting men, where each man who is willing to work and fight gets at least one women, men disinclined to work or fight get kicked out, and women are not consulted about the deal.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

I disagree. The current official relationship between men and women is so artificial and unnatural, so contrary to nature, so perverse and obscene, that if we were to revert to the eighteenth century system (strip women of the vote, place women firmly under the control of fathers or husbands, and treat any fertile age women without fathers or husbands as a problem to be solved like lost children) the inconceivably shocking would suddenly become the entirely normal, just as Trump casually opened up the Overton window.

When Trump said the unsayable, it suddenly became sayable. If the government were to do the undoable, it would suddenly become doable.

You know how when you pass a harsh shit test the drama instantly goes away, and then after a bit, everything comes up roses. Emancipation is a shit test. Pass it, there will be no drama, and, after a short interval as women realize men are not kidding, everything will come up roses.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

[The post is called "Against Sexual Consent"]

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other. Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war. Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers. Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal. Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator. So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex. It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion. Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition. In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees. On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner. Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males. Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence. Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female. This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well. And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies. Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking. Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved. And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

I am opposed to anyone voting, except perhaps married men of property and wealth who are raising or have raised their biological children with their wives, but the worst voters are single women.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the west, due to importation of masses of North Africans to maintain the vote for failed welfare statism. When Swedish men say “Hands off our women”, Swedish women say “We are not your women”, and vote for more mass nonwhite immigration and ridiculously light slap-on-the-wrist penalties for rape.

Women do not really want the kind of society where sex happens by consent. (Check the xhamster porn videos preferred by women) Thus single women subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, want our society to be conquered, the men killed, and they themselves sexually enslaved.

In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor. If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.

So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.

The strong independent woman, the woman living the lifestyle that feminism and school teaches her she should have, has few or no children, for children take two, and the commitment to stick it out when things go bad. In the ancestral environment, if you were a strong independent woman you were surrounded by weak contemptible men, in which case abduction, rape, and slavery was a good way to meet manly men.

Suppose the Taliban was to somehow do a Boko Haram and abduct a bunch of baristas with post graduate degrees in victim studies and a hundred thousand dollars of student debt. They would probably wind up having six children and umpteen grandchildren each, so we would expect women to have evolved to rather like this sort of thing.

Or, alternatively, you can believe that women was created to be a helpmeet to man, and in the fall was condemned to desire this sort of thing.

Lots of existing societies have arranged marriages or marriage by abduction. It seems to work just fine. When parents, society, or respectable authority tell women to fuck someone, they fuck him, and are happy to do so.

Large numbers of well educated and wealthy English gentlewomen in eighteenth century England married whom they were damned well told to, and I don’t see any memoirs or books from any of them complaining about it.

We hear a lot about women being involuntarily trafficked to brothels, and sometimes it happens, though less than advertised, but when white nights go forth to rescue these poor oppressed and victimized damsels in distress, they are invariably disappointed.

Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli, whereas commanding a woman to warm some man’s bed is like commanding children to eat their icecream.

In eighteenth century Australia there was a fair bit of lighthearted and unserious female resistance to shotgun marriages, they were far from entirely compliant, but looking at these incidents, those resisting shotgun marriage do not seem like poor pitiful victims of male sexual desire, but lustful bawds who were worried that the party was going to end.

Since Victorian times, historians have sought to depict eighteenth century Australian women as sexually exploited and sexually hyper oppressed, but they just cannot seem to find any examples of women seriously resenting, complaining about or resisting this supposedly horrid extreme sexual oppression. We see lots of disciplinary issues where women were punished for talking back to the husband that they were assigned to, or punished for failing to work as directed by their husband, or being absent without leave for short periods. We just don’t see any disciplinary issues, zero, despite vigorous and alarmingly imaginative search by historians, that seem plausibly related to disinclination to go to bed with the man to whom she was assigned.

Consent is useful and valuable to the extent that a women voluntarily swears to honor and obey her husband, and to stick it out till parted by death, and eighteenth century Australian authorities were pretty keen on obtaining more or less voluntary consent for that purpose. If she is not credibly swearing that before God and man, consent serves no useful purpose to husband, family and society, women don’t really like it all that much, and the eighteenth century British and Australian authorities were untroubled by the lack of it.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

In 1985, when cutting first appeared, girls cutting themselves was something astonishing, something no one had heard of, that psychiatric interns had never heard of.

Now a significant minority of women cut themselves. Hard to say how many, but probably a few percent. Not a substantial minority, but not a tiny minority either. Hot fertile age women. Women with strong sexual needs and completely screwed up sex lives, usually sex lives screwed up by their own self destructive bad choices. “Strong independent women” who are not in the least strong, and greatly fear independence. White women. Women totally raised in feminism.

As the epidemic grows, only now is the psychiatric industry coming up with a diagnostic category “Non suicidal self harm” We did not have a word for cutting until recently, and psychiatrists are only now coming up with a word for it, and not a very apt word yet, for the category self harm is deliberately over inclusive, in order to avoid being exclusively female, including a great deal of what would be more aptly called “stupidity”, so that some males can be put in the same category. (The obvious difference being that after doing something very stupid once or twice, males usually stop doing that particular stupid thing.) It is politically disturbing to have a psychiatric category that is near one hundred percent female, so calling it what everyone calls it, “cutting”, is politically incorrect. Yes. Males sometimes, rarely, cut themselves. Discover it hurts like the blazes, then do not do it again.

If you google for “self harm”, the PC term, you don’t get information on cutting, but deceptive and malicious misinformation on cutting, misinformation intended to cause harm and suffering, and if you google “cutting” any page that comes up with words “self harm” in it is overwhelmingly likely to be malicious misinformation.

[Picture of a woman will many self-inflicted cut marks]

As it says in the Book of Genesis, women are psychologically maladapted to equality.

Think how much more comfortable she would be, how much more at peace she would be, how much saner she would be, how much happier she would be, if those were her owner’s whip marks.

Reading between the lines of girls making videos and posts about cutting themselves, they are saying to the numerous boys that pumped them and dumped them “Punish me, don’t ignore me.”

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

If you believe that you are entitled, that women should obey, submit, serve, that unless you are buying sex by the hour, women should be sacrificing their own good to serve you, then red pill behavior comes naturally.

If, on the other hand, you believe that women are equals, then it seems obvious that you should treat them “fairly” – which is to say, as if buying sex by the hour. Even if you know the red pill intellectually, it seems horribly unfair that women should respond to you doing good to them by doing bad to you, and equally unfair that the more you demand from women, the more you get.

If you don’t know the red pill, but believe that women should submit and obey, you will naturally act red pill. If you do know the red pill, but believe women are equals, then doing what gets you laid will seem artificial, unnatural, repugnant, and immoral, and women will seem bad when such behavior works.

If you think of woman as equals, you cannot judge yourself to be a good man when you do what gets you laid, and you cannot judge a woman to be a good woman when you do what gets you laid, and then she obeys you, has sex with you, and serves you.

But such a woman is a good woman. Women are content to serve, and should be content. Only whores are equals, and equal women are whores.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Nazis are commies and commies are progressives.

If you are a Nazi, you think that the rot set in around 1930-1950. If you are a progressive, you think the rot has not set in yet.

So if you are a Nazi, you pretty much want the New Deal, or the New Deal on steroids. Nazis are leftists who have been left behind by the movement ever leftwards.

If you are a Nazi, you think leftism is fine except for Freudian Theory, second wave Feminism, race denialism, and the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism, all of which can be plausibly blamed on Jews.

But when the Supremes hypocritically endorsed “separate but equal”, that was race denialism, with a touch of hypocrisy to make it actually workable.

The Jewish problem is that Jewish conversos to progressivism failed to pick up on the hypocrisy, and started demanding that people actually live according the moral standards that everyone piously endorsed around 1820 or so.

The rot did not set in with cultural Marxism. The rot set in with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. There is your race denialism right there.

As for feminism and the destruction of marriage, the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline in 1820 established the moral principle that women are so naturally pure and virtuous, that it is mere cruelty to enforce the marriage contract on women, it should only be enforced on the naturally wicked and despicable sex, men.

If you want to get out of the trap, say after me: “All men were not created equal, some should command some should obey, some should not merely obey, but are naturally slaves, and should not be allowed to make their own decisions. If found wandering loose causing problems, should be placed under the control of an owner. Women’s sexual choices are apt to be dangerous to society and to themselves, thus fertile age women should always be controlled by husbands or fathers. A women not subject to a man is suffering misfortune, as for example an orphan or widow, or is wicked and needs punishment, as for example a harlot.”

As soon as you denounce the declaration of independence and the emancipation of women the logical case the Jews are a big problem collapses. And the emotional case for hating Jews is the same as that of any market dominant minority, envy and covetousness, which is also at the root of declaration of independence and the emancipation of women.

Getting rid of the Jews will not help you. The problem is inside your head. They are not emitting evil mind control rays at you. You have been emitting evil mind control rays at them. Umpteenth wave feminism is the logical consequence of the failure to divorce Queen Caroline.

Jim #racist blog.reaction.la

There is a rule that people like Jorge Ramos are entitled to act like like the subhuman savages that they are, and white males must respectfully suck it up.

Trump broke that rule.

People like Jorge Ramos should not be allowed out in public without a leash. All men are not created equal, and forcing people to act as if they were unavoidably and necessarily oppresses the superior.

This post categorized in culture rather than politics, because election campaigns are merely theater. Trump bouncing Jorge Ramos is more important than anything a president can do.

Jim #racist blog.reaction.la

[On black migrants in Europe]

These guys were sleeping in mud and thatch huts before they came, if they were not sleeping in the long grass. Now they get a house some white man built. And when they turn that house into a burned out ruin, after the fashion of Detroit, built by whites, burned by blacks, they will complain of racism and systematic discrimination because whites still have nicer stuff than they do, so they need to take more white stuff and wreck it also.

Blacks are like locusts. They take the stuff that white people built, for example the American inner city, destroy it, and then move on to take something else. They cannot be stopped because the state apparatus forbids white collective self defense, while encouraging black collective rioting, encouraging collective attacks on random isolated whites motivated by black hatred of whites and black sense of collective identity. This raises the cost of housing for white people to unaffordable levels, preventing family formation.

Whites move out from their houses because of state sponsored collective black violence, as is happening now in Baltimore and Ferguson, and blacks move in to houses white people built.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Women want to be owned. They want to be owned by someone that loves them, but not someone that needs them. If you don’t think women are entitled to make decisions, nor good at determining their best interest and acting on it, you will not be acting needy. If you simply believe that decisions are yours to make, that her decisions are made by your permission and are ultimately subject to your approval, if you don’t believe that women have agency, in the sense that they are not morally entitled to agency and are not good at exercising it, you will express that belief non verbally and she will gladly accept that belief – provided of course that that belief comes out of love.

If you want to reproduce, you should believe that women should be property, should be pets, are happier that way, and that a society that allows them agency is corrupt, ridiculous, immoral, and absurd.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

As predicted, moving left faster and faster. All my life, we have been moving left, and the rate of movement left has been accelerating.

Harvard University was founded in 1637 by radical leftists plotting to conquer the world, though it was at the time a very minor part of the left wing conspiracy. The main action took place in England. When Cromwell halted the left singularity in England in 1648, Harvard became the primary center of the conspiracy.

And they have been getting crazier and more powerful ever since.

The latest developments:

1. Baltimore, Ferguson, and the supreme court case on disparate impact in housing amount to a resumption of the 1950s Warren Court program of ethnically cleansing whites out of what they have built. Difference is that due to the mass importation of illegal immigrants to live on crime, welfare, affirmative action jobs and government jobs, they now have the votes to sustain that policy all the way to its logical conclusion. Baltimore was our Kristallnacht.

2. Finishing off marriage, not that there was enough left to be worth preserving.

3. Obamacare case sets the important precedent that the bureaucracy can budget and legislate, rendering the house of representatives and the senate obsolete ritual survivals, like Buckingham palace.

4. Lowering the Confederate battleflag, and raising the butthole sex flag. Not only is what is left of marriage to be destroyed, but all must enthusiastically applaud its destruction, and you don’t want to be the first one to stop applauding. So that I am not going to be first to stop applauding, will be leaving this flag on my blog permanently.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO. And observe. Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business. In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.

In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time. The company is boyfriend and family.

For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.

...

Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

We need sufficient pious hypocrisy that the established religion cannot be used to attack the establishment, nor used to cast out some large part of the population as insufficiently holy.

Spandrel argues that a semi hereditary priesthood, or an official priesthood, a state manufactured religio, is likely to be insufficiently sincere, and will therefore be defeated by dangerously sincere outsiders.

It is only going to be defeated by dangerously sincere outsiders if you give the competition a fair go and a level playing field. Don’t do that! Bribe the indolence of the clergy with ample privilege over the competition.

...

Japanese religio is today progressive and feminist, because MacArthur commanded it to be. Should international political conditions change, it could rather rapidly cease to be progressive and feminist.

Japan is sinking into crisis because of population collapse. It currently attempts to fix the problem with ever more extreme applications of Keynesianism. To really fix it, need to restore the pre MacArthur status of women. Japan’s strong and cohesive religio is a tool that could do such a thing, though the will to apply this entirely functional and dangerously potent tool is absent, being discredited by the things the tool was applied for in the events leading up to World War II. I don’t think Japan has the will to save itself, but it has the tools to do so, and these tools could be copied.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

You are I suspect getting your analysis from Steve Sailer: He is a Nazi, therefore right on race, wrong on economics, and wrong on Jews. He thinks the trouble with the elite is that its full of Jews, and we should have instead the authentic, genuinely superior elite making collective decisions. He mistakes the Cathedral for the Jews, and the Jews for the Cathedral. It is true that the Cathedral is full of Jews, but the leadership of the opposition to the Cathedral was also full of Jews. Moldbugs analysis of Cathedral Jewry is more accurate. Cathedral Jews are converts away from Judaism, having converted into the post protestant religions of global warming and transnational progressivism, which conversion manifests as their hatred of Israel.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

In the recent violence six police were injured, and nineteen people arrested, eight of who were triad members.

About half of those injured were police – therefore the police are acting to protect the protestors and or coming down like the wrath of God on the counterprotestors – much like the “antifascist” riots in Europe, where the antifascists assemble to beat up “fascists”, beat them up, and then the police beat up “fascists” for provoking other people to beat them up.

The protestors complain the police are not doing enough to protect them, and perhaps they are not – but they are doing a lot more to protect the protestors than they are to clear the streets.

When the “triads” attempt to exercise their right to use the streets, the police stop them, backing the protestor symbolic blockade with actual police violence, without which it could never succeed.

Over and over again, Leung Chun-ying orders police to clear the streets, and over and over again, police obey in a deliberately ineffectual manner.

At the very least, the police in Hong Kong are showing far more enthusiasm for acting effectively to protect the protestors blocking the roads than they are for acting effectively to clear the roads.

If Peking does not want Hong Kong turned into a Cathedral beachhead against China, it is going to have to thoroughly purge Hong Kong government employees – fire everyone who believes in democracy, equality, and social justice.

Because of the two systems agreement, it would be inappropriate to have the same archbishop and grand inquisitor for Hong Kong and the Mainland. Peking should appoint an inquisition and grand inquisitor with credible Hong Kong system credentials, and charge them with thoroughly removing Cathedral agents from Hong Kong government employment and the Hong Kong education system.

Democracy, equality, and social justice have never been part of what traditionally makes Hong Kong Hong Kong. They are a threat to what Hong Kong has always been.

Jim #fundie #sexist blog.reaction.la

Calvinism in New England was scorned by the heresy of Unitarianism, which deemed itself holier, but Unitarianism only lasted about a generation before it collapsed into Emersonian subjectivist Transcendentalism, which then swiftly (in less than a generation) collapsed into politics (abolition, feminism etc).

If we look at the New Testament position on slavery it is of course passivist and pacifist. Christians are encouraged, but not required, to free their slaves. Slaves are discouraged from rebelling and running away. Masters are required to be benevolent.

What happened when many Christian Churches adopted an activist position on slavery, a clearly heretical position on slavery?

An activist position on slavery requires war. War requires dreadful means, requires lies, terror, murder, and artificial famine – all in an undeniably good cause, of course.

Lo and behold, those churches that adopted an activist position against slavery ceased to be Christian. So that heresy, quite predictably, turned deadly.

But, once anti slavery became the law of the land, then a good Christian should of course support that law, so anti slavery did not destroy Christianity.

But now, however pretty much all Churches, have adopted the modern marriage vows, implying a clearly heretical position on marriage, which vows undermine and disrupt marriage, which in turn results in preaching that is fundamentally hostile to marriage as a binding contract.

Equality requires fences, that is to say, requires the dissolution of marriage. An actually functioning marriage is always patriarchal. Show me a man who picks up fifty percent of the socks, and I will show you a man who sleeps on the couch, while once a week or so his wife’s lover drops in to rough her up and take her money.

A genuinely Christian Church can no more support modern marriage, than it could support holy war on slavery. In so doing, is necessarily holier than Jesus, and so, runs through unitarianism to vagueness to leftism, and the Church building is remodeled to become a left wing bookstore.

The modern position on wedding vows is leading to pretty much the same consequences as the activist position on slavery did.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Just as the cure for Chinese poverty was to import the economic laws and customs of Hong Kong into Shanghai, the cure for Singaporean infertility is to import the marital laws and customs of Timor Leste, where women cannot own property, because they are wards of their parents until they become wards of their husbands.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

If they don’t get that class at age 12, because they went to a Muslim school, or because they did not go to school, their expected number of children is six or seven, even if they went to a high class ladies Muslim school. If they got western education at age twelve, then they have western fertility levels, far below replacement.

There is something taught to twelve year old girls in Nepal in Western schools, but not in Muslim schools, that drops fertility from six or seven children per female to less than 1.5 children per female.

This is what Boko Haram is complaining about. They view it, reasonably enough, as genocidal.

...

Here is my theory explaining this observation:

If women are emancipated, fertility collapses. But merely legal emancipation has limited effect, because females are extremely vulnerable to social pressure and conformity, so that peer pressure, social pressure and parental pressure, can and routinely does prevent emancipation from being effective, and thus prevents fertility from collapsing.

So the Cathedral has to reach into society through propaganda in school and television, and remake society to emancipate women, then fertility collapses because the girls spend their hottest and most fertile years fucking bad boys.

If women are low status relative to males, all males look attractive to them.

If women are restrained from screwing outside of marriage, if they cannot get their hands on males and males cannot get their hands on them (except in parentally supervised dancing with parentally selected partners) they want to get married. If all males look attractive to them, they can get married, and will love their husbands.

If women get married young, love their husbands, and submit to their husband’s authority, they will have a reasonable number of children – around six or seven, if the husband can afford it.

If, on the other hand they perceive themselves as equal to males, they will look around for males that are somehow higher status – typically convicted felons and such, for example Jeremy Meeks. They spend their fertile years fucking those guys, and only when the booty calls stop, only then do they condescend to reluctantly notice someone who is inclined to support and father children. And many of them, particularly the most intelligent, the most highly educated, the most wealthy and successful, for example the infamous lawyer pussy, when they are too old to get booty calls from Jeremy Meeks any more, will find all males that might return their interest beneath their notice, and wind up as cat ladies.

...

To have eugenic population growth: Abolish welfare and put female sexuality and reproduction under parental control, until they get married whereupon their sexuality and reproduction comes under their husband’s control.

Parents will delay their daughters reproduction until their daughters get married. Parents will only allow males able and willing to support a wife and children to court their daughters, and only allow them to court their daughters for marriage, not sex.

Wealthy people will marry young, poor people will marry late.

In order to reproduce successfully, reproduce biologically and culturally, men and women have to behave in different and complementary ways.

For the family unit to function, it has to have a single head, and that head has to be the man, because women will not endure sex if they are the head. And it has to be legally and socially binding.

If, on the other hand, women are free, their natural inclination is to engage their hypergamy with a minority of males outside the family unit, which natural inclination is reinforced as the normal life course, normal behavior, by school and television, which results in non reproductive sex. Successful societies repress this, frequently employing alarmingly drastic means, but the ordinary pressures of social conformity and adverse economic and life outcomes suffice to reduce it to quite manageable levels. Adulteresses in Timor Leste are punished only by social stigma and divorce without property, rights to children, or alimony. Stoning is not required to reduce the problem to acceptable levels.

Jim #racist blog.reaction.la

Let us compare the best of slavery with the worst of abolitionism.

In the West Indies, free blacks were apt to be re-enslaved: If found with no visible means of support, would be sent to the workhouse, on the assumption that otherwise they would be stealing or starving or very likely both.

The workhouse would then attempt to find owners for them, but often these were blacks with problems. The workhouse would find if they had a former owner, and twist his arm to take them back. If no one suitable wanted them, the workhouse would support them indefinitely on public and private charity.

So the workhouses in the West Indies, or at least some of them, were operating like a no kill pet shelter. Obviously the people operating these believed they were doing good, and had plausible reason to believe they were doing good. The benefactors could see their beneficiaries and look them in the eye. They might well wind up owning a couple of their beneficiaries, as someone operating a no kill pet shelter often winds up with more than his fair share of problem pets.

Let us compare with the holier than thou abolitionists who caused a civil war that killed a large part of the white male population, burned cities to the ground, and created artificial famine.

After the slaves were freed, a significant proportion died, being generally incompetent to look after themselves. The abolitionists, having denied that blacks needed a paternalistic welfare state, were disinclined to provide one, even as the death rate among their supposed beneficiaries rose to quite alarming levels.

After the civil war and abolition, black productivity as freemen was markedly lower than black productivity as slaves, leading to markedly lower material living standards. In part this must have been because of “slave driving” – that slaves were forced to work considerably harder than they would have otherwise been inclined to work, but in part it was because the employer could not trust a black employee to behave well, whereas he could make sure a slave behaved well.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

The problem is not that they are abducting women and selling them as wives, but that they are abducting Christian girls and selling them to Muslim men. This is not bad for Christian girls. It is bad for Christian men.

The Cathedral, oddly, seems far more frightened of Christian Holy War than Muslim Jihad (observe their disturbing response to ethnic cleansing by Christians in the Central Africa Republic), so is reluctant to mention who is being abducted.

When group A abducts girls from group B, if it makes the girls available for general public use by group A members, this is extremely bad for the girls, since no one man has an incentive to take care of them. But if it assigns them to particular individual men of group A, then not only does that individual have an incentive to take care of the girl and her children, but the apparatus of violence and coercion that made the transfer likely means that he has greater paternal security, and greater reason to expect the girl to stick around, and thus greater incentive to care for the girl and her children than occurs in the Cathedral approved free love/leking outcome. Boko Haram believes that western education for girls is bad, because it indoctrinates them with immoral and self destructive ideas, and that girls should be married off at an early age. Seems to me that they are obviously right about this. The success in Christian societies of the Cathedral program of undermining marriage means that Christian men lack incentive to defend their women from Muslim men, as we see not only in Africa, but in Sweden and England.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

However for many tasks, tasks suitable to stupid people, tasks for bad people, tasks where you want people to reliably do as they are told rather than make good decisions, the sort of tasks that most black people are suitable for, slavery was markedly more productive and efficient than free labor, with the slave producing more value for himself and his owner with less labor, than he did when freed.

...

If masters and slaves were better off than employers and employees, an economist would ask, why could they not just cut a deal to do what they previously did, only without chains and beatings, do the same tasks in the same way, only as employees?

The answer is that question is: that the former slaves, once freed, could not credibly commit to stick to such a deal, and generally did not stick to such a deal, thus economically worse off. Stupid people, prone to violence, with short time horizons, needed masters.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Heartiste and Steve Sailer provide compelling evidence that females should not be allowed to make their own sexual and reproductive choices. Their hormones make them stupid. Thus we have a bunch of baby murderers running around who will doubtless repeat their parent’s choices. And here is another video of raging hormones on parade. Most females, upon meeting a seemingly high status male, will jump his bones given a few minutes of opportunity, which is why societies where virginity was important and illegitimacy disastrous kept fertile age women on a very tight leash.

My personal highly unscientific observation is that the lower a woman’s self esteem, the better her behavior, and vise versa, since the lower her self esteem, the more vulnerable she is to social pressure and male authority. It is the girl with high self esteem that follows her pussy.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

The fundamental realization of the Dark Enlightenment is that all men are not created equal, not individual men, nor the various groups and categories of men, nor are women equal to men, that these beliefs and others like them are religious beliefs, that society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism, but this is a new religion, an evil religion, and, if you are a Christian, a demonic religion.

The Dark Enlightenment does not propose that leftism went wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, but that it was fundamentally and terribly wrong a couple of centuries ago, and we have been heading to hell in a handbasket ever since at a rapidly increasing rate – that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state, that it is another good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.

...

And if you let such people, inferior people, vote, they will always vote against other people’s rights and other people’s property, being themselves incapable of exercising rights, and themselves too feckless and destructive to have nice things. If they vote, they vote to drag everyone down to their own subhuman level, a desire politicians are eager to fulfill.

And if God created woman, he created woman to be a help meet for man. And if the blind forces of natural selection shaped women, they shaped women to function in a role profoundly unequal to her husband and her father, for in the ancestral environment, women were completely dependent upon men, resulting a female psychology that is apt to produce bad results for independent women, as is readily observable as one walks past a fertility clinic and looks at the clientele going in and out.

Next page