Tag Archives: marriage

German (!) Ecologist Helga Vierich Schools Derrick Jensen On Patriarchy

Starting about about minute 40, Helga Vierich describes her study of a primitive tribe in Western Africa and their agricultural practices.

She explains their limited agriculture, and how each family tries to grow enough to have a surplus at the end of harvest season, which they store in granaries.

This is where evil hierarchy comes into play. Each family or group of families has a granary, and they pay a kind of “tax” to the headman out of their surplus, which the headman stores in his extra granary. Then, each of the headmen – the patriarchs – pay a “tax” of some of that surplus to the Head Headmen, the Grand Patriarch, who had a total of eight granaries, full of the surplus of the expropriated workers lower down the hierarchy.

Vierich admits that this bothered her, and when the Grand Patriarch, the Headman of the Headman, showed off to this Blue-Eyed Devil Paleface how many granaries he had and how they were all full, she thought a nasty thought to herself.

Until the Grand Patriarch bragged:

“Yes, I have eight full granaries. So when the next drought comes, even if it lasts for four years, I will be able to feed the entire tribe for eight years, and no one will starve.”

Well, gee, who could have ever imagined? The Grand Patriarch had not just authority over the tribe, but the ultimate responsibility for the tribe.

Vierich also mentions “husbands and wives” who live with their biological children. Oops, there you go, it’s the patriarchal institution of marriage and the nuclear family based in biology. No mention of lesbian orgies, “free love” or “liberated sexuality.” Nope, even these most primitive people have established the social construct of marriage and practice “family values.”

In another video Jensen mentions an anthropologist that explained some tribes understood that people have both a selfish instinct and a social instinct, and that good societies create social institutions that align those two interests. He gives an example: if he catches a bunch of salmon, but selfishly keeps them to himself, he will be socially shamed. But if he then shares these salmon with the rest of the tribe, he will be praised. Thus, his selfish instict for status-seeking is aligned with his social instincts.

Jensen mentions this is just common sense and asks why it took an anthopologist to figure this out. Good one, Jensen, but why haven’t you figured out that the male hierarchy, and patriarchy, is precisely this sort of alignment of interests?

Vierich also mentions a group of “elected officials” which reading between the lines means that the men of the tribe select among themselves leaders. I bet there are no women voting in this. Each Patriarch casts a vote for one of his fellow Patriarchs for Head Patriarch. There is no need to get the women and the children involved in this process, because each Husband is responsible to his Wife and their children.

The men who get elected as leaders are the ones who have a good reputation, the ones who have proven themselves smart, responsible, and fair. Selfish and incompetent men do not get chosen by their fellow men as leader.

Now, since this is a stone age tribe, and not white, we know that Derrick Jensen believes we must follow their example.

So when will Derrick Jensen give up White Middle-Class Lesbian Feminism and start promoting Natural Patriarchy and Family Values – the kind of social system that protects women and children and has their best interests at heart?

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.


It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

“Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe”

The Atlantic was once a respectable White Anglo-Saxon Protestant magazine for the New England liberal elites.

Since it was bought by the Jew Jeffrey Goldberg it has devolved into a laughable tabloid trying to sell hardcore Zionist Jew apartheid and Palestinian genocide – and White Genocide – to the remnants of the White upper middle classes. Goldberg actually hired George W. Bush’s old speechwriter David Frum, who coined the term “Axis of Evil” to get Americans to destroy Israel’s enemies, Iraq and Iran. Why? Because Judaism is a racist hate cult that wants to murder Arabs particularly and Muslims in general.

Taking advice from a racist hate cult that wants your people genocided is generally a bad idea.

So of course now The Atlantic is no longer a magazine for intellectual White liberals, but is reduced to Salon.com style Social Justice Warriorism. A recent article asks: Why Don’t More Men Take Their Wives’ Last Names?

You can read it if you want, here:


But of course the answer is simple. Patriarchy is the bedrock of civilization, and the way you connect fathers to sons – and thereby get men to invest in children and grandchildren – is by offering them immortality through a family name. A legacy.

As my former co-blogger Cly once pointed out, it used to be common for the American (and I suppose European) middle classes to name their small family businesses “Smith and Sons.”

Why this emphasis on the male lineage? Because everyone already knows the matriarchal lineage. “Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe.” You have to convince the father the children are actually his and women have created an entire culture around doing just that.

Not only do grandmothers assure their sons in law that “your baby has your eyes” – they now even claim that the sonograms look “just like” the supposed father!

He looks just like you! A spitting image of daddy. He even has your eyes! Trust me!

As soon as patriarchy – including young women being married as virgins – went out of style – so did marriage. Otherwise, what is the point? Of all the problems caused by the destruction of traditional marriage, for me the most annoying are all the articles in blogs by post-wall women complaining “where have all the good men gone?” “How come after spending my 20s engaging in promiscuity that would make a Parisian whore blush I can’t find a wealthy, handsome man to pretend I’m a nervous 17 year old virgin bride and pledge the rest of his life to me in return for a single child that is probably his?”

If I were a petty man, I’d guffaw at all the middle aged single women I’ve seen go ballistic when a successful 30 year old man ignores all the single over-credentialed 30 year old women to take up with young, fertile 20-somethinig baristas. Hell, I know of this because I’ve done it myself – and seen the reaction.

But the costs to my people and my society is just too damn high – below replacement fertility, bitter spinsters and “single” mothers, and an epidemic of divorce.

If any older White women actually cared about our people, they would be the FIRST telling those young, fertile, attractive women – “he’s a good catch – marry him now and start making babies! You’ll be happier in the long term.”

Listening to some nutty feminist being published by a bunch of racist, White-and-Palestinian-genociding Zionist Jews telling us that instead men should take their wive’s name in some sort of bizarre cross-dressing fetish that appeals to no one is pretty much the worst thing that anyone could do.

What next? Gender-bending for kids?

You want to take MY last name? What are you gay?

Women Wear Makeup And Sexy Clothes Because Men Play Hard To Get


I know it may be an unpopular opinion here, but if women have been dressing to attract men in one way or another for the last couple hundred years in western civilization, it’s because they find the men hard to attract. If it was easy, they wouldn’t go through all the bother. If all women took off their makeup and dressed in average clothes, only a small percentage would be considered good-looking by men. Women did not dress in a fashion to sexually attract men back in the day of the arranged marriage. They used to dress more modestly back in the Middle Ages and in previous times. They only started really dressing up once they were expected to find their mates themselves because they felt it wouldn’t work otherwise.

The goal isn’t just to attract a man’s eyes, it’s to get him to make a commitment to marriage. The latter has always been hard for woman. Before the modern era, young people went through a long engagement to find out whether they were compatible or not, and engagements were still broken right and left in those days. In this era, plenty of men refuse to marry or have kids if they can get sex for free without a commitment. The financial investment women make in trying to get a commitment out of a man has always been huge in proportion to her income, when you add in the amount of money spent on clothes, jewelry, hair, and makeup, much of it purchased on a young girl’s working salary, which is never that high at any sort of starter job. In the days of the arranged marriage, many men would refuse to commit if it wasn’t for a financial sum given to him provided by her family, which was called a dowry. Marriage has always been harder for women to achieve than a lot of men understand.

— “Anon”


Don’t make me sing this part of the song,
The lyrics are so bad, so we’re going to skip ahead
To the single ladies part instead…

— Nataly Dawn, Pomplamoose, “Single Ladies”

Which Way, White Man?


The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.

Why The Accusations Against Roy Moore Are Probably True

Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.

According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.

One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.

The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.

She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.

This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.

We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.

Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.

Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.

Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.

There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.

Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.

Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.

If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.

But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.

Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.

But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.

But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.

Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.

Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.

Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.

And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.

The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.

If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.

The Concubine Class

Chicks dig power; power, specifically, a power differential, is at the core of women’s sexuality.

The Christian manosphere types came up with the acronym LAMPS, later changed to the more Biblical PSALMS, to describe what women find attractive in men. I always think it’s funny, because what women find attractive in men is obvious to all women, and perhaps even most men. But clueless guys are always saying, “damn it she keeps on fucking all those assholes that don’t really care about her!”

So LAMPS, Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status.

Think of yoga. Yoga chicks are hot, right? It’s sexy to see them doing all their poses, right? In high culture, perhaps the ultimate woman is the ballerina, and in the modern Olympics, it’s the figure skater. That is the sort of athleticism we expect in our women.

What about men? Also easy. What is the most popular sport in the world? Soccer. You think that when girls look at European soccer players, they aren’t getting randy and having sexy thoughts? So, looks and athleticism, athleticism simply being the beauty of the body. Beauty. Women like beauty in men, same as men like in women.

I know, these manosphere guys are like autistic, but hey, I’m just trying to help.

Now this is what the “betas” hate. Women love *power* – that’s the other part. Money, Power, and Status.

Ok, so status. Think about college. Which men have status in the college? Well, the hockey players, the White athletes. The rich guys. You know, like the frat boys. Is it any surprise that it’s frat boys that college girls have sexual fantasies about? They are not fantasizing about servicing the Audio Visual club or the Sociology department. They are fantasizing about servicing the frat boys on the Lacrosse team.

So, chicks form sororities.

See, this is the most sexist thing I’m ever going to say. Women mimic men in this hilarious way. Remember when you were kids, and some girl was a “tomboy” and liked to roughhouse with the boys? So, these college girls see men forming the Male Hierarchy: the sports team, the fraternity, etc. So women, engaging in what is, essentially, cargo-cult masculinity, say, “well the boys formed a hierarchy, we can too!” So they make a “sorority” which is just a group of girls mimicking what they see boys doing.

Then, the sororities hold parties and invite fraternity boys so the boys will fuck them. Which they do.

So, then you graduate. Imagine you are a typical White man, 25 years old. Let’s say you have a job, and you work long hours, working on getting a promotion, and a raise, and saving up your money until you establish yourself.

Well, you’re 25 right? You are going to get horny. But you don’t have time for a wife, or even a girlfriend really. You aren’t ready to marry and have a family – at 25? That’s crazy too young, right?

So what are you going to do? Well, you are going to avail yourself of the Concubine Class.

So, women see men getting jobs at these corporations, and they engage in cargo-cult masculinity and mimic what they see the men doing. So the men go work for these corporations. So the girls want to as well. So they get a job as a secretary, or in the Human Resources Department. These girls may or may not be smart, but they don’t have any clue what they are doing, generally. They would almost certainly be happier as a wife and mother, but unfortunately, the boys that are in their league, looks wise, status wise … CLASS WISE … are actually making less than them, or have jobs seen as lower status than them. Their potential boyfriends might be plumbers or something, while they wear sharp looking blouses and skirts to work.


Since women get aroused by power differentials, they want a man who is:

Better looking than them (Looks)

Has a beautiful, masculine body (Athleticism)

and has more Money, Power, and Status than her.

How many men can actually fulfill those requirements?

Not many.

So, the handful of men that DO fulfill those requirements, what do you think they are going to do?

Well, the are going to see these girls as the Concubine Class.

Which they are.

It gets even more interesting when you add race into the mix. So once I had this hot little 21 year old Indian chick. Believe me, I have no fetish for Indian chicks and really do not find most of them attractive. This girl was. Come on, I’m probably 28, and some young little thing right out of college starts throwing herself at me. I actually used to go out the side entrance to avoid her. Young girls, being dumb, don’t even realize how transparent they are when it comes to flirting.

So, all of the Indian guys see her chatting me up, so what do you think they think?

They are thinking, “goddamn Americanized whore!”

What are the Indian chicks thinking? They are thinking, “By the many arms of Vishnu, I’d love nothing more than to bag one of these White American men, think of how light skinned my kids would be!”

Of course, the typical White guy isn’t really interested in having little brown babies. But some slightly off-color poon? An exotic concubine for a weekend?

Yeah, maybe, you know.

But even in an all white context, the end of monogamy has singnaled a new sexual regime, and funnily enough, it looks a lot like the traditional sexual regime. Men at he top of the hierarchy of Money Power Status have themselves, essentially, a harem. Usually it’s one at a time, but you’d be surprised.

Now, of course, women think that they are just playing the game too. Girls just wanna have fun, and plenty of these boys are not marriage material anyway. They are not Mr. Right, they are Mr. Right Now.

But girls can only play this game for 15 years. From the age of 15, to the age of 30, that is pretty much all they got. Then, they are regulated to second stringers as the new crop of hotties comes of age.

Guys have about, er I dunno, from 15 to 40? 50? At age 50, you know, you just give the 20 something keys so she and her girlfriends can use the pool when you’re away. Either her, or one of her girlfriends, will do what is necessary to keep access to that money, power, and status. Even if it’s some old dude. And I guess once a man really ages out, like Bill Clinton, he’ll just move to call girls.

This is, after all, the actual Traditional Arrangment. The men at the top have always been polygamous. In the Muslim world, men can have up to four wives. Does anyone doubt some Chinese businessman living in Hong Kong has a few Chinese hotties adorning his yacht?

So you see, when you look at those girls at Spring Break, dancing around in their bikinis, you can tell where you stand by your reaction to it.

If your reaction is, “damn it women these days are such sluts. Are there any decent girls left? How am I going to find a wife if all these girls are slutting around in their bikinis at Spring Break?” that means you see these women as the Wife Class.

If your reaction is, “the one of the left. Let’s hire her as an intern after classes” that puts a whole new spin on it, doesn’t it? You see these women as the Concubine Class. You do, or will, have enough power and status and money to be attractive to these women. If you have looks and athleticism too, you get the cream of the crop – not just young concubines, but particularly hot young concubines.

All the career gals saying “well women like sex too. Women don’t have to be married. Women can have a rewarding career.” Ok sure, but you know what? Most people, men nor women, don’t have great careers. Most people kind of hate their jobs. Most women do not, in fact, have fabulous careers where they “lean in” and finally break that glass ceiling and get the corner office.

Come on. And even the tiny few women that do, they get so angry and write so many articles on the internet saying, “well, the men my age at my salary level, they are too busy fucking girls right out of college! And they aren’t even settling down anyway! It’s so sexist! Sure that girl may be 22, have a perfect body, and will fuck his brains out every day, but I have a freaking Master’s Degree and even make as much money as him!”


Traditionally, what women did was to support a system of monogamy. They could never and will never enforce monogamy on the top men, but they can get most men to settle down and become husbands and fathers. But the more concubines there are, the fewer men are going to settle for monogamy.

Of course, there is an easy, simple solution. Girls need to get married right after high school. A girl needs to be married by 21. She needs to pop out two kids immediately thereafter. This “catches” the man for life. There is no reason girls have to go to college before they have a family. You can go to college at 28 instead of 18. Do family first, then get the degree.

But let’s be honest – it’s actually rather exciting to be a concubine isn’t it?

Ask a typical guy, would you rather have one average looking wife, or have three good looking college girls waiting for you when you came home?

Everyone understands the deal.

But as a typical woman, would you rather have one average Joe husband, or would you like to have a torrid affair with a wealthy, mysterious man of means before you settle down with average Joe?

Guys get real butthurt when they find out her answer is about like his.

Those good looking, wealthy men of means, something like Spring Break is just a menu to them. “I’ll take that one, that one, and that one.” The manosphere guys are young, you can tell, because they see these things through a young man’s eyes. They are looking for girls in their class, that class being socio-economic as well as looks. But for upper class men, the prole women are concubines, and they always have been.

When the middle and working classes had a system of monogamy, there were few concubines available. Oh, believe me, they were still there it just hadn’t become institutionalized. Spring Break is institutionalizing the Concubine Class.

Because women love power, the men who have power are the men that the women want.

People who see this through the lens of morality are missing the greater point. The Concubine Class is emerging out of the former middle class. The male peers of these girls are simply not going to be economically able to be fathers, so the girls that otherwise would have married these men are going to go to college and start “careers.”

As was said recently, these are Pink Collar jobs. But they pay as much, if not more, than the jobs that the male peers of these women would get.

Who is creating these Pink Collar jobs?

Well, surprise surprise. It’s men with money, and they want to hire your daughter to come work for them.

What happens when one nation occupies another? What happened when Germany invaded France, and France lost? Well, all of a sudden French women took quite a shine to those handsome Germans in their spiffy uniforms, eh?

I remember when the stories emerged out of Iraq. One of the military contractors had set up a system. Blowjobs from local Iraqi girls: one dollar. Girls from teenager to 20 somethings. It was a scandal because it even involved some officers.

I just read that after their defeat, the Japanese immediately set up brothels for the occupying Americans. They “got out in front” of the problem. Anytime you have a bunch of high testosterone men from one group lording it over another group, the women from the defeated group become the Concubine Class for the victorious group. They didn’t want American soldiers seducing and raping Japanese women randomly, so they recruited a Concubine Class to contain the problem. You gotta give the Japanese credit, they know how to solve problems.

The fact that we have “loose morals” these days and the fact we have reliable birth control certainly has an impact, and makes the situation a bit more extreme, but this is not a new pattern. It has always been this way.

So if you are the father of a daughter, it really would make sense to decide if you want your daughter to become a Wife, or a Concubine.

Don’t “let her make her own decisions about her own body” – LOL what a fucking joke. She is not going to make good decisions based on long term goals. She is going to get horny around all that power and won’t even understand what comes over her.

Blogger Heartiste recently had an article about seducing “prole girls.” He mentioned how you could go to some small town, and signal that you have an exciting, fancy job in the city. It’s just a blatant power display, it’s no different than flexing your muscles or her bending over and showing her ass.

Can upper class, white collar guys go to some small town and seduce prole girls? Of course, it’s the easiest thing in the world. In fact, you can see how, in some ways, the manosphere is creating it’s own Concubine Class from the ruins of the former White American middle class.

It’s becoming institutionalized.

Neat huh?

I’m not a progressives, progressives believe that history is linear, it goes from bad and primitive and progresses to good and sophisticted. As a traditionalist, I realize that history goes in cycles; groups vie for power, some groups defeat other groups. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.

Why I Don’t Do Outrage Porn


Some guys go to Spring Break and have sex with these girls. This makes the guys who don’t get to have sex very jealous. But of course, if they were good looking enough and had enough “game” they would have sex with these girls too. So they really can’t blame the men that do this.

So, they blame the women for having sex with other men.

It must have been my first experience of “Slut Shaming.” So, anyway, I was fucking this guy’s girlfriend. We had spent half a week at my place humping away. This girl was a really sexy little thing too. Blonde hair, blue eyes, teenie tiny with a cute little round bottom and perky tits. Goodness, I loved fucking this girl.

So anyway one day her boyfriend realizes what’s going on so he comes over to my place. He says, “oh so you’re the one fucking her now, huh? Well congratulations.” I mean, I felt bad for the guy, but I didn’t go out of my way to seduce his girlfriend. She saw me once, phoned around all her friends to find out my phone number, calls me up say she wants to “hang out” and she comes over. We go to my bedroom, she pulls out some weed and rolls a joint. We smoke it.

So, she lies back on the bed and just looks at me. I figure, hey, she called me, she smoked me out, now she’s laying in my bed. I guess she wants to make out. So, I kiss her, we start making out then start ripping each other’s clothes off and start fucking. I mean, I knew she had a boyfriend, but you know, she was really super-duper cute and I was a horny teenager.

So anyway, her boyfriend doesn’t really seem mad at me, honestly. But he starts screaming at her, calling her a slut, etc. etc. I mean, he did have a point. She was his “girlfriend” and she didn’t even bother to tell him they were “breaking up” so she could have sex with hotter men. So he gets his yell on, and at some point I’m like, “ok dude enough. Sorry it didn’t work out.” So he drives away, then his girlfriend and I fuck again. I couldn’t help myself, I just sort of fell over and my dick went in her pussy by accident. It wasn’t slutty because it didn’t count, we barely knew each other.

So that thread on the Daily Stormer, it follows the same pattern most of this “outrage porn” does. You can smell the beta butthurt as all of these guys are getting boners looking at all these hot drunk girls in bikinis. They want nothing more than to fuck these girls, but they can’t. So they start calling these girls sluts.

Which they are – don’t get me wrong. They showed up to Spring Break and got drunk so they could get fucked silly by guys they don’t know. It doesn’t count if you’re in another state. Girls just wanna have fun.

Then, of course, inevitably the women show up. They start whining at the men. The typical woman says something like, “well you men go after these sluts, so what do you expect? If you wanted smart intelligent women with a brain in their head you would go to the library or something.” But of course that’s just silly. The real purveyors of the Madonna/Whore axis are women. They are always saying that it is those other girls that are sluts. And as one of the commenters said, these girls are above average in attractiveness, they are the daughters of the upper middle class, and while obvious in their drunken state they aren’t going to be discussing the finer points of Edith Wharton, but they are probably above average in IQ too.

Chances are, the typical Daily Stormer commenter is not as smart, not as rich, and not as good looking as the men and women at Spring Break.

All women are sluts, really, at least all women like sex and now that they have reliable birth control they are going to fuck at least a few different men before they hopefully find one who will stick around. If this was a problem, and people wanted this problem solved, they would.

They would be doing what Scott over at the courtshippledge website is doing. Finding families with marriageable boys and girls and hooking them up together. Really, it’s not very complicated. When it comes to teenagers and young adults, you pretty much just stick them in a room and nature will work it out naturally. If you want them to be married first, get a dress and say the vows first, but it all ends the same.

But White fathers, at least of the middle classes, really don’t seem to want their daughters to get married and have their grandchildren. No men are good enough for them, so they just sort of look the other way as their daughters slut it up with boys. Once she actually marries, she’s not daddy little girl anymore so these fathers postpone that as long as possible. Delayed marriage = unmarried sex. Duh. This isn’t rocket science.

But White Nationalists – at least the comedy/Daily Stormer version – don’t really care about marriage, they just like pointing and gawking at “degeneracy.” They go and find videos of slutty girls. They go and look for mudsharks (it’s that cuck fetish, white guys fantasizing about Negroes fucking their girlfriends.) Sometimes they look for pictures of Gay Pride parades and point and gawk and dudes in buttless chaps wearing makeup. They also love Negro crime and videos like at HipHopStar.com showing blacks acting ghetto.

This is the kind of thing that DS types enjoy – it is their hobby. It is not in any way done because they care about White people and feel that sexual liberation is hurting White families.

No, they do it because they love to stroke their outrage boners.

Think about this. Men only need *ONE* wife. That means each of these men only needs to find *ONE* single White girl who isn’t a slut. But I’m guessing that they are not actually looking for a White woman to wife up. They are looking for degeneracy. They are looking for sluts. They are looking for mudsharks. They are looking for queers. They are looking for ghetto Negroes.

It’s their hobby.

I’m not trying to stop them or anything. They can have at it. But I don’t see how it helps anything. It doesn’t solve a problem. It does not convince the undecided. It doesn’t make White people care about themselves as a group and recognize their own group interest.

Because it’s not supposed to. It is merely there to generate an outrage boner so they can stroke away.

Downton Abbey

So I’m through Season 3 of Downton Abbey. The typical critics are up in arms about it and the fact it is an international sensation. The leftists of the Labor party are steaming mad that the international audience prefers the stately, classist, “reactionary” Britain of old to the multi-cultural, globalist Commissar state of Political Correctness that they have transformed Great Britain into.

Of course, the entire show is about old fashioned men having to get with the times of Women’s Libbers and their “liberated sexuality” and they even throw in gay rights for good measure. Thankfully, so far, they haven’t forced any Magic Negroes on the audience, yet, although the matriarch is said to be a half-jewess.

All the best characters are uber-reactionaries and elitist snobs, of course. The old lady Dowager Countess basically steals every scene and even the IRA rebel and middle class heir evolve into responsibility-accepting oligarchs.

The best part about it though was the absolute business-like way marriage is done. The women approach marriage as an economic proposition – the duty of family is what is important, if the marriage happens to develop into a loving relationship with good sex, it’s all gravy. On the other hand, there is a nod to actual women’s sexuality, the eldest daughter hops right into bed with the first handsome (white) Turk that sneaks into her bedroom, but instead of crying “rape” she readily admits it was consensual.

Yes, I know, I always very late with these reviews but at my age I’m far behind the times when it comes to popular entertainment.

Why They Hate 50 Shades Of Grey

Mr. Grey: “I could hold you to some impossibly high ideal, like Angel Clare, or I could debase you completely, like Alec d’Urberville.”

Anastasia: “Well, if there’s only two options, I take debasement.”

The film version of 50 Shades of Grey came out this weekend, and the media, online and off, is in full hate mode. Full disclosure: I’ve never read it. But my lady friend did, and her opinion was the typical one: poorly written and kind of goofy. I think she was upset it wasn’t really racy enough. For all of the brouhaha about the BDSM, apparently Mr. Grey didn’t even spank Ana all that much.


On reddit’s conspiracy section, someone asked: why all this hate toward some silly romance novel? The hate and “controversy” over what amounts to “Wuthering Heights with spanking” is somewhat astounding. I realize some in the White Nationalist crowd get their klan robes in a bunch over anything sexual that isn’t married missionary position. Forget the queers and the sluts – even a husband tying up his wife is “degenerate” and caused by “jew porn” and yet another sign of the Total Collapse Of Western Society And Christendom. So, our friends over at the Daily Stormer have added BDSM to their long list of “degeneracy” along with the homos and sluts and miscegenators.

The manosphere types, especially the Christians, often mention that feminism has infected even the right wing conservatives and the Church. White men are “White Knights” – especially the older generation – and automatically cater to whatever women want, acting like “manginas.”

I would posit it’s all of a piece. Sure, traditional conservatives and Christians are not “feminist” in the cultural Marxist sense of the word; believing that women and men are separate “social classes” engaged in the “class struggle” of oppressors vs. the oppressed. But there is a wide and deep habit of “White Knighting” in traditionalist circles – and it is absolutely related to the bizarre hatred toward 50 Shades of Grey – a silly piece of erotica with some spanking and bondage, after all.

Not only does feminism “shame” male sexuality – we’re all rapists, wife beaters and we “objectify” women’s bodies, after all – but so does conservatism and modern Christianity. For the right-wingers, feminists are correct that men are deeply afraid of women’s sexuality. But it’s for a good reason.

If men really knew what turns women on, civilization would come to a halt, because so much of civilization is based on chivalry and wanting to believe that women tend toward monogamy and are attracted to “good men.”

They are not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

When men discuss their own sexuality, they quite often focus on how shallow it is – a nice pair of tits and a round ass. Men will go on and on about how they will “fuck anything that moves” and how men are all “sluts.” But these same men project this quite Victorian notion onto women. You see this in the worst parts of the manosphere, who really do believe – and the feminists have them correctly pegged here – that women want to “trade sex for resources.” The man provides the “resources” and the women pay for it with sex – which the man wants, and the women don’t, really.

Then, when these manosphere men look at how women actually behave – quite the opposite of their Victorian fantasy – they get angry and resentful. They drag the women down from that pedestal they placed her on and disparage her as a “hypergamous slut.”

I feel for women, I really do, because they are only allowed to be a Madonna, or a Whore. There’s never anything in between.


Of course, the feminists hate 50 Shades of Grey because Ana is submissive and Mr. Grey is dominant. It’s essentially a Patriarchal Rape Fantasy, and feminists hate women’s sexuality even more than Conservative men do. The same feminists that hate the idea of 50 Shades would be praising a similar novel up and down if the roles were reversed. If it was a high powered woman CEO Dominatrix that loves to spank young studly pool boys, the feminists would love it (even though it would leave them drier than the Sahara Desert.) But the fact the novel essentially portrays traditional roles – the man is powerful, the woman is submissive – they hate it.

You will find the worst hate coming from the uber-feminist “BDSM Community.” The “BDSM Community” has done nothing but shriek about 50 Shades of Grey, saying it’s not “real BDSM” – they didn’t even use s safe word!!! – and that it’s really just abuse. The BDSM community keeps hating on the “50 Shaders” – young women interested in BDSM because of reading the novel, and how they “totally have the wrong idea.” Just like hipsters upset that the mainstream has finally caught on to some underground band, the “BDSM Community” feels like it’s losing it’s monopoly on what “real BDSM is” and love nothing more than to morally posture about how everyone else is doing it “wrong.”

Believe me, the “BDSM Community” is more obnoxious than the worst sorts of “Social Justice Warriors” blathering on about “transphobia” and “tolerance for Otherkin.”

Of course, the humorless conservatives, including Christians, are not only afraid of their own penises, but doubly afraid of vaginas, apparently. Bondage? That’s “degenerate!” “Spanking? Only an evil, sick man would be rough with a woman! Sex is supposed to be about tender caresses and the missionary position. My wife in an innocent angel, why, she doesn’t get turned on ever, except when I rub her feet on date night! My daughter is totally chaste and she tells all those nasty boys “no” – she would never purposefully and with malice aforethought seduce a man – especially not an older man! That’s just sick!”

To any man who actually has experience with women, these guys are jokes. I remember these fathers well, from high school and college. They “trusted” their daughters, so no problem her taking the car and meeting up with Sleazy Hipster Boyfriend for some good, clean teenage fun.

Like bowling or watching a movie, you know. Certainly not blowjobs in the car, threesomes and all sorts of raunchy sex. Only “those kinds of girls” do that – “not my wife and daughter.”

You have to laugh.

Women are sexually aroused by power. It doesn’t make any difference whether the man with the power is “good” or “evil” – in fact, I suspect women have an instinct toward “evil men” frankly. Women are sexually aroused by being overwhelmed by that power, to submitting to that power – willingly, or even hotter, unwillingly.

The key part of the Rape Fantasy is that the woman is so desirable that the man, powerful though he is, is in fact, overpowered by her – by his desire for her.

Feminism makes women deeply ashamed of their own sexuality, and that is why the “BDSM Community” was invented. Gals want what they want sexually, so the “BDSM Community” does its best to contain their submissive natures. That is why there is all the obsession with “safe words” and “consent” and “role play.” It has to be “just playing,” “just role play,” and “verbally consented to without duress.”

To feminists, a woman consenting to be tied up and flogged at a sex club is fine – but a wife obeying her husband; that’s sexist misogyny. A woman who is a “slave” in the “BDSM Community” can be collared and made to eat dogfood – that’s just a “kink.” But a girl putting out for her boyfriend to keep him happy – that’s “date rape.”

Conservatives are right, in a sense. Because of women’s hypergamous nature, unleashed female sexuality will destroy a civilization. Monogamy exists for a reason, patriarchy exists for a reason. Patriarchy makes men invest in children, and monogamy is how men are assured that the children are his. Without monogamy and without patriarchy, men have no incentive to invest in the future, in the society, in the tribe. Without Patriarchy and Monogamy, there is no civilization.


Women are hypergamous, and polygamy is the nature state of humans. Women have little problem sharing a high status man with other women. The wives of wealthy and desirable men have been looking the other way at their husband’s affairs since forever – it’s the natural state of things. Most women would rather put up with cheating from a handsome, wealthy man than be married to a faithful but poor schlub.

The reason we have monogamy is because, left to their own devices, women would share the top 50% of men, and the bottom 50% of men would have no women at all.

Yet, for a society to actually work, you need the bottom half of men. It’s those “betas” that make the trains run on time, not to mention kill the ragheads that are living on top of our oil.

Since reliable, scientific birth control was invented, women have been able to pursue a “double strategy” – the so called “alpha fucks and beta bucks.” By postponing marriage, children, and family formation, women have been able to get sex from men “out of their league” while young, but still be able to find a caring man “in her league” for marriage. Men who object to their wives previous promiscuity are simply shamed as “insecure” and the whole point of giving out free condoms in high school is to make sure that there are no virgins left by the time boys and girls are of marriageable age.

That’s by design, because men might choose the virgins for marriage, thus incentivize women to remain chaste.

This worked for 50 years, until the internet destroyed the consensus, like it has the consensus on so many things. The “manosphere” has sort of let the cat out of the bag. The numbers don’t lie – marriage is a dead institution. If present trends continue – and they almost certainly will – most people will never marry. Fertility will continue to drop like a rock, and more and more men will simply “opt out” of society.

It’s laughable to read the complaints of pseudo-feminist women wondering where all the chivalry has gone. Chances are, women aren’t even going to be taken out on proper dates anymore. For the average men, women have virtually nothing to offer him – but sex. As the days of a wife, a mother to your children, and an exclusive lover are gone, what do women have that men need? Just the sex, that’s it.

You can see the results of this with the increasingly crass attitudes of men toward women, and vice-versa. Many advanced cultures are going through this phenomenon, Japan being a noticeable example, with their “herbivore men” who don’t bother chasing women, never get married, and simply drop out of the culture. They do not contribute to the culture except in the most minimal way, as consumers.

The same thing is happening in the USA, although mass non-white immigration and multi-culturalism obscures the effects somewhat. The bottom is dropping out of the White middle class, and it dropped out of the White working class 30 years ago – exactly at the time when the Sexual Revolution was finally mainstreamed.

This is not a coincidence.

Feminists and Conservative both hate 50 Shades for the same basic reason: it’s an accurate account of women’s sexuality. Feminists hate it because it reminds them that women want “the wrong thing.” Women are supposed to want an “equal relationship with a peer who respects her as a person.” But women tend to actually go for men who are higher status than her, and if he’s “emotionally unavailable” she just wants him more. Conservatives are also upset that women want “the wrong thing.” Women are supposed to want a Good Conservative Christian – you know, like them. Instead, women go for the Bad Men, even men who are “abusive” and they generally don’t get wet for the husband that reads the Bible to her before he gently fucks her in the missionary position. Worse for the conservatives, women are not particularly interested in monogamy. They want one man – at a time – but are always looking for the opportunity to “trade up” and while young, they are in no hurry to marry the Beta Boy Next Door that’s “in her league” – not when she still has access to Studly Hockey Players to gang-bang after practice.

That is where all this hate for a silly romance novel with some bondage and spanking comes from. It’s not about the bondage and spanking.

It’s about power.

That’s why they call it “Power Exchange.”