Tag Archives: monogamy

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.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

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.

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.

Vice Media Attacks Mormons – While Masturbating to Pornography Featuring Mormons

If I was creating a religion from scratch, it would probably look a lot like Mormonism. They get all the key features right:

1. Early marriage of young couples.

2. Patriarchy.

3. Just-this-side of explicitly White.

4. The right amoung of mystery and ritual and a hierarchy that is kind of secret.

Interesting line, the interviewee suggests that religion makes people slutty, and the interviewer agrees and says “it worked for me.” This is a post-hoc rationalization of what actually happens – what actually happens if the early sex drive is not steered into marriage, it will go crazy.

Since anecdotes are evidence to these people, my own. One girlfriend and I actually staged a “wedding” after we had been together for a year. It was very paganish. She had her bridesmaids and I had my grooms, it was in an amazing part of nature. It was utterly sweet and extremely erotic.

Neither of us had the experience of the traditional build up to a young marriage – we were both sluts at that point and were living together and decided to do it on the spur of the moment. Our sex life was uber-fantastic but both of us – apparently – were yearning for something a bit more. Some ritual, some commitment, some “magic” in the antropological sense.

Like a bunch of pagans, we immediately retired to a tent and consummated the marriage with just the slightest hint of privacy.

She wasn’t religious at all, and I had abandoned religion years before. It wasn’t religion that made us slutty, it was in fact the lack of it.

I find it interesting how HATED the Mormons are by the secular culture. The Vice interviewer even mocks a Mormon anti-porn conference as “a thousand white people who claim to not masturbate.” (NOTE how the attacks on Whites are paired with the anti-sex attitudes of replacing sex with masturbation.) Just watch how hostile Vice is to the Mormons while in another video they absolutely fawn over the Sascha Gray porn star.

Vice lies and conflates “anti-porn” with “anti-sex” which obviously just isn’t true. Porn does not equal sex. In fact, as porn has become mainstream – teenagers are having LESS sex than ever.

(Also note the appeals to authority, “the psychiatric community finds no harm in porn” – which is not true. Scientific studies have shown that porn IS addictive by the same mechanisms that various other drugs and vices are addictive. It just shows how fragile the anti-sex, anti-monogamy left’s consensus really is.)

Interestingly too that the pornographer they interview:

1) Literally finds the Mormon marriage rituals to be highly erotic. There goes the idea that they are “anti-sex!” Do leftists even TRY to make sense?

2) The pornographer is a dyke, and I’d bet is extremely masculine looking/presenting. So it’s pretty obvious that all those pretty blonde girls in white dresses she is filming is just her making up for all those pretty blonde – and straight – Mormon girls that wouldn’t dyke out with her in high school. Porn is her way of getting back at all the normal people. Pure resentment. If she was a man, the rad feminists would call what she is doing “misogyny.” She’s the lesbian version of the Asian manosphere “Supreme Gentleman” that murdered all those people in California.

3) She tries to imply something sinister about Mormon male authority figures – OF COURSE.

I think it’s pretty obvious who has a healthy sexuality and who does not. Mormons marry young, are extremely PRO-SEX, and have big families.

Vice Media employees watch porn, masturbate, have OBVIOUS hang ups about sex, and have a TINY fertility rate. They probably have more abortions than live children.

Mormons are Pro-Sex, while Vice Media – and the anti-white left – are ANTI-SEX. They are like something out of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League.

This is an aspect of the culture war that the pro-whites and “the right” (whatever that means) could WIN. But they don’t have a rhetoric about sex in the modern era. Partially, because before the sexual revolution, they didn’t need one. The sexual revolution hit and they just did what conservatives do, tried to ignore it, then made some concession, then ran and hid.

That’s why you need Hipster Racist, who knows how to take on the anti-sex forces of the sexual revolution. The pro-white “right” needs to explain how utterly PRO-SEX we are, and how the entire purpose of the Politically Correct, anti-White left is to spoil healthy fun sex for everyone.

Patriarchy, Promiscuity, and Capitalism

In high school my first “long term” (i.e., almost a year) relationship, my first “girlfriend” was a pretty, but rather plain, girl my age. Our romantic matching was quite simple, a quite simple exchange. I gave her romantic attention and was her “arm candy” increasing her social status among other girls, and in return I got to have sex with her all the time. Both of us were mostly happy with the arrangement. I broke up with her because I found out that she had had sex with another guy when we were “on a break.” Apparently, all her girlfriends knew it but I didn’t. I had been “cucked” essentially.

Although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin when we got together, she was “technically” a virgin and that tiny imbalance in sexual experience suited both of us just fine. In fact, perhaps my first “red pill” when it came to dealing with girls was when I “admitted” to her that although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin in the sense of penis-in-vagina intercourse, and I had a lot of experience with a number of other girls that “counted” (because I ejaculated in/on them in various places) I had really only “done it” – officially – penis in vagina – with one other girl and only a handful of times.

When she realized that I was not, in fact, the 16 year old serial womanizer she thought I was, it totally broke her fantasy. Not long thereafter, we “had a break” in which the first thing she did was hop into bed with a new boy at her school. Apparently, this was not as thrilling for her as she thought it would be, and she also apparently realized that she could not, in fact, replace me with a higher status male and that her teenage pussy was not the ticket to Alpha Fucks that she thought it was. If her girlfriends were to be believed, he also didn’t have the sexual intensity that I had, being mostly of the “in and out for a few minutes” school.

So she engaged in a conspiracy with her girlfriends to lie about this dalliance and got me back for a few months, until I was told of the “affair” by one of her girlfriends, who happened to want me for herself. Once I found out, I was humiliated, and immediately the magic went out of our relationship. I was only barely aware of it at the time, but a huge, huge factor in my attraction for her was the fact that I was the one that popped her cherry. I found not only honor bound, in a sense, to invest in our relationship, but the fact I was her only boy made me feel like I possessed her – and she possessed me – on deep level. It was more than just sex, it was essentially a kind of marriage.

When her very typical female promiscuity disabused me of my patriarchal sexism and hymen fetishism, interestingly enough I did not, in fact, become a Male Feminist Ally. Quite the opposite in fact. Once word was out that Hipster and Virgin were no longer a couple, my dance card filled up QUICKLY. I found out that having a reputation for being a “nice guy” – one who was loyal, in fact, with an instinct for monogamy – had not only preceded me but she had talked up my sexual prowess to all her girlfriends. Whether she “meant it” or was merely bragging to her friends hardly mattered.

So within a month I did, in fact, become the serial womanizer that she had been disappointed to find out that I was not. All of a sudden a half dozen 16 year old girls with ripe bodies and long pretty hair were calling me on my parent’s phone, offering to drive over to my house, pick me up, take me to their houses when their parents weren’t home, and “let me” do whatever I wanted. So I enthusiastically took all of them up on their offers. The next few years was spent engaging in essentially booty calls for dozens of high school girls who had admired me from afar waiting for the Virgin to get her claws off of me.

In manosphere terms I had been pre-selected, with just enough “alpha” traits combined with just enough “beta” traits, to be in high demand. I had long hair, a brooding manner, with just enough “bad boy with a heart of gold” allure that these girls were always on their toes to treat me well and fuck me well.

I started to notice patterns of my own behavior in the “types” of girls and how I felt about them that – as any good feminist will tell you – was surprisingly class based. I considered my background to be “middle middle class.” There were obvious class markers that showed me which families were higher class, and which families were lower class – than us. Obvious markers were the size of their parent’s house and the cars they were bought by their fathers. Other more subtle class markers were education, raw IQ, and aspects of socialization.

I remember a handful of girls that were clearly one – sometimes two – steps above me in the capitalist class hierarchy. I found that these girls were absolutely mercenary with me. They were sexually aggressive, somewhat intimidating in a social sense, demanding of me in social settings, and I had to be on my best behavior to avoid subtle behaviors that marked me as lower class. These subtle behaviors were almost always related to “sub-political” issues. All of the rich girls were “liberal,” sexually liberated, “feminist” in a certain you-go-girl type way, and universally (with one exception, the rich Christian girls) hostile to my religious background. Some of them – not all, but more than other groups – simply had a more “alpha” personality than me. They were highly social, good at social situations, highly verbal, and even more “intellectual” than me – although this “intellectualism” simply meant knowing which social attitudes to have, which movies and bands were cool (Jane’s Addiction = high status, Tom Petty = low status) – this sort of “intellectualism” had nothing to do with scores on the trig tests or even logical and grammatical consistency. It was class in the sense of Jane Austen.

I got all sorts of sex out of these girls but I never connected with them emotionally. I’m assuming it was simply that I was willing to “put in the work” and keep it going until they were satisfied. Hey, at 16-19, if it didn’t last long enough, just wait 10 minutes and go again until it does. After five or six girls, you pretty much figure it out, where everything is, and the girls in touch with their own bodies just needed you to stay hard while they rode you and pressed their clit against your pelvic bone.

But emotionally? Pfft, I’d never share anything even remotely intimate with these girls, never show a weakness, never say what I really felt, maintained a stoic attitude because it seemed like any slip was a one way ticket out of their social class. Didn’t want any provocative opinions, nothing proprietary, nothing sexist or racist (all of us were uber-white, of course.)

But the girls down one step in the class hierarchy? The ones whose fathers (if they even knew their fathers) that didn’t have a college education, were mechanics and workmen? To them I was alpha and they were – something. This is where my true Patriarchal Class Predator came out. I’ll never forget the one, literally hours on the right side of legal when we first “hung out” – it was as if I was a porn star. I always left her with a broad smile on her face. With these girls, at parties, I would literally hunt them. The predator/prey dynamic was intense and the power imbalance make the sex absolutely fucking explosive – for both of us.

And apparently I had a finely honed predatory sense for just these girls. My entire body language changed around them. I was never the “rapey” type – that is far too simplistic to describe the dynamic. With the rich girls I just waited until they made an unambiguous move and if they teased too much – well, big deal there were unlimited fish in the sea. Virginia suburbs in the 1990s – tens of thousands of young White girls, 16-25, with an hour’s drive in my car. But with the working class girls, I was the alpha, and the top. I had just enough class markers to show that my eventual class status would be higher than their fathers – but none of this was conscious to either one of us. They would have just thought “he’s so smart and funny.” But I was still close enough to their class that they weren’t just disposable playthings and my masculinity was just a bit softer – thus less intimidating – then their rougher fathers and brothers. I was in fact, a Supreme Gentleman, someone who really “got girls.” But my confidence was enough to signal to them that I could get sex anywhere, thus their had to be something more than just pussy to get and keep my interests.

These were the girls that after sex I fell in love with even if I still aspired to get one of those rich girls. The power dynamic just worked. There is no such thing as “equality” and face it, girls get off on a power imbalance. It’s the core of their sex drive. It’s only exploitative when men leverage it.

Feminists are wrong when they say rape is about power not sex – no. Paglia is correct. Rape is about sex. But sex is about power. Oscar Wilde said “everything is about sex, except for sex; sex is about power.”

Spot The Class Markers

The social conditions at the time were a major cultural war between an emerging bureaucratic managerial class, highly educated, socially liberal, secular, completely dominant in academia and other institutions. The conservatives, especially the Christians, were concentrated lower on the class hierarchy

Black people had their own communities, of course, and were simply corralled by the Rich White Liberals to vote for the Democrats via Section 8 and make-work jobs in lower-end government bureaucracies. The daughters of the Rich White Liberals wouldn’t be caught dead “mudsharking” – but would of course pretend it was awesome if their lower class counterparts did it – less competition for White men!

But the conservative partiarchs and Christians did have their own institution that provided them with a major amount of power – the military and the Defense contractors. The military and the Defense companies were staffed with socially conservative, conventionally masculine, and very high IQ and very educated White partiarchal men, and their wives staffed the school boards that held the line against the worst class predation of the liberal bureaucrat class and racial integration.

As usual, it was the working class White Christians that lost out because the “anti-communist” movement of the John Birch style – as well as the Christian movement since FDR – was always invested heavily in capitalism and “communist” was just a slur that meant social democracy, business regulations, and union busting. Here, E. Michael Jones gets it right – you get a form of early neo-conservative that will keep the Fag Pride Parades out of your neighborhood, keep you separated from the high crime Blacks, and give a sort of lip service respect to your cultural values, and in return you get low wages, capital flight, and job outsourcing. (You can’t offshore military jobs and secret clearance jobs, remember.)

Or you get liberalism, which means you’ll get a dollar an hour above minimum wage, integration with blacks in your school (if your daughter is raped by one, she’ll have easy access to an abortion, if you son is beaten by a gang of blacks, well he was probably a racist and deserved it) but your culture and your values will be demonized.

Eventually, both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals, decided that the White Working class – even the White middle class – was just too problematic, and Blacks were never going to get their act together, so the only solution was to replace Americans – White Americans – with “immigrants.”

Common sense patriarchal values – you don’t let your daughter “sample” every nice looking bad boy for a decade before marriage – and also you don’t want your son being manipulated emotionally and socially by “those kind of” manipulative teenage girls very aware of their own sexual power who probably wouldn’t make good wives and mothers – were replaced with the a kind of third wave feminism that is just Puritanism in reverse. Now your sons a rapist if he doesn’t give his hook up an orgasm or he breaks up with her before she breaks up with him. Your daughter is taught to be both sexually aggressive and promiscuous – and to claim victimhood at the same time. Dad’s earning power is destroyed by both the conservative business class AND the neo-liberals that have financialized and offshored everything. But hey – they will let mom work too, and provide the kids with day care! You know, pay working class women to take care of other working class women’s children so they can work to make up for the lost income of Dad.

That way the teenagers have no supervision thus can engage in all the suburban promiscuity they can handle. It’s liberation, don’t you know.

All because we can’t acknolwedge obvious facts about human nature – one, SEX IS ABOUT POWER and the more of a power difference, the HOTTER the sex. We can’t acknowledge that women are not just men with boobs, but biologically evolved to create and nurture life. Because we have lost community social capital to financialization AND racial integration. Racial integration = racial conflict, and in the anti-white zeitgeist, whites are automatically to blame.

And in our present context, it’s because working class White solidarity was destroyed by religious hucksters who said “labor union = atheist communism” and that “greed is good” (in the new version of the New Testament, apparently) and working class White family formation was destroyed by birth control, condoms, sexual liberation – and the fact that teenagers had no supervision so do what comes naturally.

And nothing comes more naturally to teenagers than fucking.

Radical Feminists Are The Only Interesting Feminists

Reddit.com is going through another bout of censorship and it’s typical – “Nazi” subreddits are being banned, the minority of “right wing” and some principled types are complaining that Communist and other radical left subs and comments – often openly encouraging violence – are still being allowed.

But one new development is rather interesting, some transgender activists are demanding a radical feminist sub, https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical, be banned for “transphobia.” GenderCritical is a “radical feminist” sub that does not accept that “transwomen” are real women, rejects the entire “trans” movement, and posits that “transwomen” are really just men, dressing up or otherwise mimicking women, in order to invade women’s spaces.

The intersection of radical feminism and traditional (Western, Christian) morality has always fascinated me. In the 1970s, feminists and Christians both fought against pornography and the sex/prostitution industry.

Another interesting development: in England, a feminist conference was violently “protested” by transsexual activists that have weaponized the term “TERF” – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The trans activists made the simple comparison: TERFs are “Nazis” and since it’s ok to punch a “Nazi” it’s ok to punch a “TERF.” One proceeded to do just that – a man wearing a dress punched an elderly woman feminist in the face, and the trans activists justified it because TERF=Nazi and it’s ok to “punch a Nazi.”

Reading the GenderCritical subreddit is fascinating, you have the same bizarre mix you typically see with feminism. On the one hand, there are silly girls being bitchy and obvious man-hating shrews moaning about the patriarchy, and the ever present leftists trying to pair Black men and “women-as-a-class” as being “oppressed” by the White Male Patriarchy.

But you also have some quite sensible women making quite sensible points – why is it that “liberal feminists” are siding with radical Islamics, perhaps the most openly “misogynist” culture there is? You have quite sensible women decrying prostitution and the sex industry, the recently deceased (bisexual CIA lackey) Hugh Hefner, and very legitimate normal seeming women decrying boorish behavior on the part of men. All perfectly understandable and even a “right wing” liberal racist sexist like this author finds myself nodding in agreement with half of what these women are saying.

I came across a fascinating site, https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/ which is a radical lesbian separatist feminist site that has some very interesting biological analyses about sex – literally, on the cellular level. In this analysis, maleness itself, the Y-chromosome, is a sort of parasite. I don’t know enough biology to properly judge how much of this is true or false, but some things that stuck out for me:

– Semen: Men’s Chemical War Against Women. Past Evolutionary Context for Seminal Engineering: how females not signaling estrus trumped males.

It’s been discussed that semen has “calming” – or in this analysis, paralyzing, effects on women. Semen is a way for the y-chromosome to inject itself into women, turn off one of the x-chromosomes, and actually inhibits parthenogenesis – the creation of a baby without a male “sperm donor.”

– The invention of the birth control pill coincided with the mainstreaming of oral sex

This seems to be somewhat of E. Michael Jones style coincidence-shopping, but it’s still rather interesting. Spermicides and birth control and other ways of killing sperm/preventing impregnation of women were followed quickly by men figuring out other ways of getting semen into women. The vagina can be a very sperm hostile place and “sperm competition” is an evolutionary explanation for a lot of seemingly unintuitive aspects of human sexuality. The author notes that injecting sperm into a woman’s throat is a way of getting semen into a woman’s body which, while not making her pregnant, does in fact have some of the “calming”/”paralyzing” effect on women. It makes women “docile” – it’s like a species that has a toxin that paralyzes its prey, but in this case, it perpetuates the y-chromosome.

The author also notes that anal sex is now being mainstreamed, another way of getting semen into a woman’s body that, while obviously not getting a woman pregnant or perpetuating the y-chromosome, does allow semen into a woman’s body to work its paralyzing effect. We’ve seen studies showing that genetic material from sperm shows up in women’s brains.

She also notes that the porno mainstreaming of “facials” and otherwise ejaculating on women is yet another way to get the chemicals and hormones found in semen into women through their pores! For these lesbian separatists, semen itself is a sort of toxin – talk about “toxic masculinity!” There’s also some interesting discussing of female/males of other animal species. To her, semen itself is toxic (it certainly is a carrier of disease) and the “male hormone” testosterone is the obvious “cause” of violence. Feminists are completely correct that women are – “as a class” – at the mercy of male violence (as are other men, of course.) Testosterone makes men fight other men and then they inject that “toxic masculinity” into women, perpetuating the y chromosome.

This is sort of a futurist “evolutionary end of men” type thing, but it would be pointless – and rather girlish – of “manosphere” types to get angry or outraged by this stuff; I find it really quite interesting and as a “race and sex realist” and someone who thinks evolutionary biology can likely explain the human condition more than anything else (religion, metaphysics, etc.) I’m looking forward to reading her new posts:

* The Chicken IS the Egg. Parthenogenesis and the Mysterious Evolution of Males.

* Testosterone: What it Does.

* X-Inactivation: How Dudes’ Dying-Y-Asses Get Saved as One of Women’s Two X-Chromosomes is Turned Off for Life.

* Female Bonding/Female Trashing: Chimps, Bonobos and Homo Sapiens

I also found out that the first “manosphere” post that I ever made – the one that had me libeled by the male feminist manboobz.com and made me a two year long hit on the reddit.com manosphere subs – actually has scientific proof for what I posited: it’s called the “Cheerleader Effect.”

I suggested that men in groups – the “mannerbund” – made men more attractive to women, and what do you know – it does. And women in groups – like a cheerleading squad – also makes women more attractive to men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerleader_effect

To finish off, here’s a kind of interesting “male feminist” media analysis of the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope. It’s Beta Male Geek Fantasy – some alien/robot with a woman’s body but the naive mind of a girl falls in love with geek boy who gets to introduce her to the wonders of sex – and he’s the Alpha Male for her because she knows nothing of the world. It’s really just the male version of 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. In 50SOG and Twilight, Alpha Male CEO Businessman – or Sexy Supernatural Vampire with Magical Powers – falls head over heels in love with Average Everygirl.

But of course the purpose of the “deconstruction” of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope is simply to sell cuckoldry to men, the male feminist ends with demanding that sci-fi media creators stop selling youth and virginity and chastity as sexy, and instead tell men that “experience is sexy” – i.e., Man Up And Marry Those Sluts – and that any man who wants the youth, chastity, virginity (and by extension, fertility) of a woman is just “fearful” and “scared” and “insecure” – he’s just afraid that her former lovers may have had a bigger dick and be better in bed.

Both sides – the radical feminists and the liberal male feminists – as well as the “dudebros” and pornographers and Hugh Hefner Playboy PUAs – want to continue to destroy monogamy, thus the nuclear family, thus humanity itself – but they always “just happen” to only target Whites, of course. Monogamy – patriarchy – is a delicate balance of women’s and men’s evolutionary interests that preserves the recessive traits of Northwestern Europeans and gives men an incentive to invest in their children (and the mothers of their children) – thus creating White civilization. So of course it is constantly attacked. Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the European Catholic Church comes into play here (and it’s not at all a completely pro-Catholic analysis either) – but for 1000 years it was Christianity that spread the monogamy of the Roman Empire to Europeans generally, thus had a significant impact of the genetics of the White race.

Born Sexy Yesterday

The Truth About Pizzagate, Pedophiles, and Sex Cults

Clicking around I wound up on the ISGP again and read their breakdown/debunking of “Pizzagate:”

https://isgp-studies.com/pizzagate

While they debunk the particulars of “Pizzagate” and suggest it was a partisan psy-op against the Clinton campaign (very likely) they do not discount the notion of high level “sex cults” which may include pedophilia, torture, and perhaps even actual murder.

It seems quite likely that such “elite” cults do, in fact, exist. But the “conspiracy theories” of such cults are likely an example of regular people displacing their own demons, as it were, on the elites.

People are greedy; greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Average normal people are greedy, but their greed is small, because their lives are small. Therefore it’s normal and understandable. The rich, the Wall Street elites, they are greedy too, but of course their greed is much larger in scope, much more flashy, much more ostentatious.

As no less than Adolph Hitler pointed out about Communist propaganda: people might be skeptical of a little lie, because in their lives they tell little lies all the time. But they wouldn’t imagine telling big lies – lies as big as the Communists told – because those aren’t the kind of little lies they tell in their own lives.

There’s an amusing song by country singer Hank Williams called “Naked Women and Beer.” Some of the lyrics:

Now we have got some strange laws
The most hypocritical thing around these days
Cause where I live in Tennessee
Why an auto parts calander
Hey thats pornography
But go right down the road, read what the sign says

Naked women and beer
We got it all in here
For your eyes and your ears
They show it all in the clear
Way up north and down south
Whoo, somebody shut my mouth

If you want to find a “cult” that engages in public sexual acts, where women’s youth is fetishized, women wearing schoolgirl outfits, something that may even include a little “kink” and a little S&M?

You don’t have to look to the wealthy elites in Manhattan and London. Just go to any suburb anywhere in America and go to your local, working and middle class strip club. It’s all there.

Exploitation of youth? Strippers are at the height of their demand the day after their 18th birthday – that’s a teenager. Child molestation? What kind of girls become strippers and porn stars anyway? The stereotype is that they were molested, likely by their father, step-father, or an uncle. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Some women may claim to have been sexually absued by a powerful cult of politicians, “high society” men, and elites – but the more likely case is that it was men of their own class, their own social circles, and their own families.

But it’s comforting for people to project such things on far away “elites.” Their sex clubs are likely cleaner with better lighting, and the participants better dressed, not the run down strip club in a warehouse district on the wrong side of town.

But isn’t the substance the same?

The feminists in the 1960s and 1970s rebelled against beauty pageants, complaining that women were lined up “like cattle” their bodies judged on their “parts” like a side of beef. Weren’t they right? Isn’t that exactly how it operates? Feminists complain that men “objectify” women’s bodies – isn’t that true? The neurology shows that men’s brains light up in the same places when looking at women as they do when contemplating … power tools. They are literally thinking about them objectively and how they will “use” them, as tools, for a specific end.

Traditional societies have always understood this, and Western societies in particular have always understood this, which is why sex was deemed a private affair, why monogamy was encouraged, why boys and girls were raised separately, why segregation of the sexes was the rule, and pornography and sexual imagery was forbidden. Why women and girls were to dress modestly, so as not to tempt men and boys.

When I was young the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, a little six year old girl, was the tabloid story of the year. What made the story so salacious is that her parents – an upper class family active in local GOP party politics – had entered her in “baby beauty pageants” which were considered by most to over-sexualize little girls. Yet the participants – the mothers, usually – seemed to be fine with this and encouraged and/or forced their daughters – children – to participate.

In 2017, the Current Year, more conservative leaning mothers are constantly complaining that they can’t even go to the mall and find modest apparel for the daughters, even daughters many years away from puberty. And anyone who has ever known a teenage girl going through puberty knows that you essentially have to FORCE them to wear modest attire, because they want nothing more than to show off their new bodies and get the attention of boys, and men. Men objectify, and women want to be objectified. It starts the summer boys start growing body hair and girls get their periods.

The sexual revolutionaries were completely correct that there was a “double face” regarding sex, that underneath the pleasant and modest public faces humans are a cauldron of sexuality. But there was no hypocrisy here, the public and private spheres were kept separate precisely because of the power of sex.

“Liberals” love to complain that American TV shows a lot of violence but won’t allow a woman’s bare breast on TV. But those differing standards for sex and violence exist for a reason. Little boys will start play fighting as toddlers – and that play fighting can turn to real fighting at the drop of a hat. Boys are taught to control their violent urges from childhood on – we use sports as a way for boys to channel their violent and competitive urges in a safe and socially constructive way.

We put our daughters in ballet, gymnastics, and dance classes to channel their own sexual – and competitive – urges in a safe and socially constructive way. We try to postpone sexual maturity for our children as long as possible so their brains have a chance to catch up to their bodies. There is nothing hypocritical about this – it’s the basis of civilization. It’s what makes us different than animals. The evolutionary reason that human babies are helpless at birth is so mothers can pass a child through their birth canals while the baby’s head is still small – child bearing is painful enough as it is. This allows humans to develop bigger skulls that house bigger brains.

Of course “the elites” engage in “Eyes Wide Shut” style sexual parties. Of course the elites recruit young girls – very young girls, teenage girls – as sexual objects and sexual playthings. It’s not because they are elites – it’s because they are humans. Average regular middle and working class men do the same thing when they have a chance – and average, regular middle and working class women fantasize about being those sexual objects and sexual playthings.

And of course, quite often, these normal sexual dynamics are sometimes perverted into the fetishization of youth and the sexualization of violence. In BDSM it is called “power exchange” because – just like electrical current – the potential difference is what makes the electricity flow, the potential difference is what causes electrical current – just like the power difference between men and women is that spark and the charge of sexuality. The fact that a man is so much stronger than a woman is what women find sexually appealing in men. The fact that a woman is so much more vulnerable – and delicate – than a man is what men find sexually appealing in a woman. S&M is just that dynamic with the addition of costumes and props.

But when one class is much higher on the power scale than another class, the inevitable happens – instead of companionate marriage, the powerful men use the women of the oppressed class as concubines. The moronic “right wingers” who are constantly opposing “egalitarianism” will simply or ignore or excuse this. When a King of England did NOT have mistresses, his subjects assumed he was a sodomite. Where does socially conservative monogamy go when the elite class uses the women of the lower classes as, essentially, sex slaves? That is how you get a degenerate elite. That is how you get – in 2002 Italy, in fact, when Burlesconi was President – poor men pimping their underage daughters off to lecherous old wealthy men. That is how a girl’s youth becomes a product to sell, a way to feed the family.

Is that was the “anti-egalitarians” want? Which NRx “neo-reactionary” “social conservative” father is the first to auction his teenage daughter’s virginity off to the “God Emperor King” because “monarchy is better than democracy?” Which “conservative right wing” man is going to hold his shoes while walking around the castle as the King gets first night privileges with his new bride?

All of a sudden “all men are created equal” has something to recommend it, yes? All of a sudden the idea that the law binds both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, has a certain logic behind it, does it not? If that is not what right wing religious people mean by “objective morality” than what good are they? If the gods are not just, why worship them?

The origin of sex cults, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and the fetishization of youth is when there is TOO MUCH INEQUALITY. When societies are divided among the powerful and the powerless. In fact, one of the reason we need to have mono-racial societies – even mono-ethnic societies – is precisely because races, ethnicities, and individuals are NOT, by nature, equal. So separating these unequal humans into their own tribes where there is some semblance of a rough equality is the only way to protect your daughters from sex cults, pedophiles, and pimps.

Equality is what makes your daughter a wife, not a whore. Racially homogeneous – and roughly egalitarian – societies are what gives your daughter the chance at being a respected mother as opposed to a disposable concubine. It’s what allows your son to have an exclusive wife and not another man’s sloppy seconds.

And it’s what allows your grandchildren to be citizens, not slaves; heirs, not bastards, patriarchs, not cannon fodder.

Feminists and White Knights

Feminists and White Knights both share a certain assumption; that is that women are morally superior to men. I would posit it is exactly the opposite, by anyone’s usual understanding of morality, men are morally superior to women. The most obvious case is in the example of truth – men tend to want the truth and want to tell the truth. Women lie automatically, women are deceptive by nature. Because men tend to be physically stronger than women, women have evolved to do things indirectly; they manipulate men indirectly because they generally can’t bash men over the head with a club and make them do what they want.

Why is it women get so furious at the idea of an older man with a younger woman? Isn’t it obvious? They are jealous of younger women. They used to be young, fertile, and sexy. Then, they age, and are no longer young, fertile, and attractive, so they lash out.

You will notice, however, it’s only OLD women that have a problem with younger women and older men. Younger women LOVE the attention of older men.

Since women – through feminism – liberated themselves from patriarchy, they have come up with a new system of morality that they expect men to follow. According to this logic: it’s ok when women are promiscuous, no slut shaming. It’s ok when older women go with younger men – cougars are liberated. But it’s bad when older men go with younger women. Why? It’s simply because that’s when men have more power.

When women come up with a system of morality, it’s hilariously self-serving. In whatever situation women have the upper hand, that’s good, and in whatever way men have the upper hand, that’s bad.

Mrs. Duggar - a Christian, not a White Nationalist - that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.
Mrs. Duggar – a Christian, not a White Nationalist – that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.

Did you know that in the beginning of feminism, in the earliest days, feminists did NOT pose as victims? In the book that started it, The Feminine Mystique, the Jewish Communist author shamed women for wanting domestic life. There was no assumption that women were victims of men. But that sort of feminism didn’t last, becuase by pretending men were “oppressing” women with patriarchy, anything a woman did was ok, anything a woman did was justified, because it was a “strike against patriarchy.” Sort of like how a shoplifter justifies his theft because “the big companies rip off people anyway” women justified any selfish and immoral thing they did because “well, men are oppressing us.”

Since women revolted against monogamy, they had to come up with a new system of morality to serve their interests. Hence, the absolute rage at older men dating younger women. That’s their new rule. “It’s ok for women to be promiscuous, it’s ok for women to use birth control, have abortions, but when we are ready, at 30, men must then marry us, settle down, and not go with younger women.”

It’s just that – self-serving, and nothing else. Women, generally speaking, aren’t even smart enough to hide their self-interest in this case. I mean, just get a load of this article – this is “alpha fucks, beta bucks” spelled out openly and in detail. And the bimbo who wrote it just can’t understand why men are disgusted with her attitude.

http://www.rantchic.com/2014/01/14/men-you-marry-vs-men-you-bang/

Monogamy was good for women, and it was especially good for OLDER women. Monogamy meant that a man wasn’t allowed to toss aside an aging wife for a hot young thing. But women rebelled against monogamy – they just wanted to get rid of the part that reigned in THEIR behavior, while keeping the parts that reigned in MEN’S behavior.

Monogamy was good for FAMILIES. When women had children YOUNG – as in late teens and early 20s – they lived long enough to see their grandchildren, and sometimes their great grandchildren. When women had many children, not just one or two, you had tight knit clans. A woman would AGE GRACEFULLY – she would become a well respected Matriarch of a family, adored by her children, grand children, and great grandchildren.

Mostly, what women accuse men of doing is what they themselves are doing. Women say that men aren’t “aging gracefully” – that’s just a projection. It’s women that have stopped aging gracefully. I mean, Botox? Hair dye? It’s laughable.

Now, young men, look around you. Read the women’s blogs. Is there a SINGLE example of a White Nationalist woman mentoring younger women? Is there a SINGLE example of old WN women warning younger women to avoid the mistakes that they themselves made?

Not on your life. It’s the exact opposite. The WN movement is FULL of old divorcees whining about men. That is why I said to younger men, on MWIR a while back – go for Christian women. Christian women are the ONLY ones that still at least pay lip service to traditional morality. There are lots and lots of Christian women blogs (like SunshineMary’s old blog) mentoring younger women to avoid the Slut Club.

White Nationalist women? Not a one. The type of women that are attracted to controversial social movements like White Nationalism are outliers – they tend to be more masculine, less feminine, and more “feisty” – meaning, bitchy.

These WN women are doing no one any favors. Most of them – with a few notable exceptions – do nothing but chant “nigger kike spic” – which makes US look bad and makes our enemies look good by comparison. They are an embarrassment to the movement. They are the female equivalent of the Costume Clowns, fat dudes with swastikas on their arms chanting about how much they hate people. There’s a reason people often get suspicious that these people are being paid by the enemy, because they do the enemy’s work for them.

Here’s a fun experiment – go to some moron Nazi site like DailyStormer – read the WN women that post there. Long, obscene screeds, weird homoerotic rants about anal sex, and superstitions about Jews. Compare and contrast a fact-based deconstruction of Jewish anti-Whiteness from someone like Kevin MacDonald to the faux-Catholic White Nationalist women. There’s just no comparison.

It’s so ironic that, as far as I can tell, most of the women that troll the WN sites are DIVORCED, OLD, and in many cases, CHILDLESS. These are the women that many WN men “white knight” for. These are the women that screech the loudest about the “manosphere” too.

Here’s another eye-opening thing to see: go to the DailyStormer thread about 50 Shades of Grey. Read an article there posted by some woman saying that 50 Shades of Grey is “pedophilia hiding in plain sight.” How is 50 Shades of Grey really about pedophilia?

*Because the character was a virgin.*

You hear that men? If you want to marry a virgin bride, you’re actually a pedophile, according to old feminist faux-traditionalists. You can see the Feminine Imperative in action. If you don’t want to marry an old whore, you’re a pedophile.

Mrs. Romney - a Mormon, not a White Nationalist - that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.
Mrs. Romney – a Mormon, not a White Nationalist – that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.

At the end of the day, however, women are just women looking out for their own interests. They evolved to be the way they are, and there is nothing wrong with the way they are. The real question is – why do men “white knight” for these feminists?

I can guess. These “white knight” men are submissive men. They are looking for a Mommy Figure and probably get off on a Dominatrix type. Hey, different strokes for different folks, but I, like most men, tend to want to wear the pants in a relationship.

Here’s the deal, religion aside: sexual morality is a JOKE when young, fertile women are having promiscuous sex on birth control. Complaining about “PUAs” is idiotic when young fertile women – the people who create the race – are “pick up artists” themselves. Complaining about men is a JOKE when white women are aborting nearly as many white babies as they are bearing. Bitching about men fucking younger women is laughable when women divorce their husbands and split up their families nearly half the time. Talking about the 14 Words is one big pile of steaming nonsense when not a one White Nationalist woman is even promoting the idea of women marrying and having children young.

As is usual, this battle will be fought and won by white men, and white women will be dragged along, kicking and screaming. For the most part, it’s best to just ignore them – ESPECIALLY the old ones.

Now, a quick parting shot AGAINST the “Christian manosphere.” There are thousands of “Christian manosphere” blogs complaining about Christian women, saying that Christian women are just as slutty as their secular counterparts and that Christian women aren’t interested in Christian men.

YET – however – one of the most prominent Christian manosphere bloggers has a young, virgin Christian woman – who is quite pretty – that is perfectly willing to marry him – but he won’t marry her. He continues to blog about how there are no good Christian women, yet he has one who all but offered herself to him, and he still wouldn’t marry her.

He really has no right to complain. I know both of them read this blog at least occasionally.

Uh – MAN UP, dude. You know who you are.

Are Christians Fucking Stupid?

I just discovered this. A big argument against early marriage is “well you want your daughter to go to college, right? How can she go to college if she’s married with children?”

Are Christians so literally – measurably – dim that they bought this “argument?”

I’m sorry, please point out the statute forbidding married women from attending college? Please point out the statute forbidding mothers from attending college?

What – there is no such law?

Then why are Christians and other supposed “traditionalists” wetting their pants anytime a leftist whines about early marriage preventing women from going to college?

What you will find, quick like, is that your own women – the so-called “traditional” women – are against early marriage too. They want girls to be able to postpone marriage and child bearing as long as possible. Also, no hang ups about girls losing their virginity to their husbands – that’s so 1950s – even for conservatives.

The a) age that women lose their virginity b) to whom, and c) whether they have children or use birth control – is the main issue in the so called “manosphere” – and “feminism” – and all the handwaving over “PUA” and “game” and “men’s right” and all that rot just prove it.

But everyone is afraid of discussing the obvious issue.

I blame the fathers, personally. They married sluts and are afraid to “man up” in front of their slut wives and reign in their daughters. All it would take is telling little Johnny he can only get the pussy if he “mans up” and marries her first.

But wives will NOT allow their fathers to do that – and the fathers, evidently either too cowed by Divorce Inc., or otherwise just beta schlubs, are too chicken to stand up to their wives.

So, their daughters slut it up with sleazy hipsters then expect to marry a “nice guy” someday.

Give them two options – a) kill all the sleazy hipsters and “PUAs” that “seduced” your innocent daughters who were raped, they totally didn’t want it …

or b) marry your daughter off before she starts spreading her legs for whichever mildly handsome guy happens to flirt with her that day…

and Christians and conservatives clearly prefer option a).

And they will whine all day long about boys who “ruined” their daughters and who should have just kept it in their pants – and out of their daughter’s mouth – then complain when Nice Guy won’t marry her at 30/99 dicks later?

Good job, guys. No, don’t shake my hand – you don’t want to know where it’s been.

Cue the wailing from the Elder Sluts – especially the Racist Feminists – who would rather Western society die a slow death than ever restrict a young woman’s sluttiness. That might imply they weren’t perfect and it was all the men’s fault.

Yes, I’m looking at you, aging Second Wavers … what about Playboy now?