Of all of Britain’s monarchs, by their track record — the success of their countries during their reign — we might have to give the highest honors to Queen Victoria, who reigned from 1837 to 1901. This was a time when British Kings really did have a lot of power, although over time this diminished.

During this time, Britain was master of the world. It gained full control of India; expanded throughout Africa; and gained influence in Asia and the Americas. The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was the leader in the increasing industrialization of the world; particularly before 1880, after which the United States took a leading role. During the entirety of Victoria’s reign, over sixty years, Britain just got wealthier and more powerful. In military might, domestic wealth and prosperity, a full array of social virtues, and indeed as the primary inventor of the modern industrial world as we know it, Britain was at the top of its game.

How did Victoria do this?

For one thing, she did not engage in any large wars. But, besides that, as the monarch of the richest and most powerful country in Europe, master of the world’s largest empire, in full view on the world’s stage she … acted out the role of the middle-class housewife.

Mostly, she left the job of governing the world to men — an array of very capable men, including her own husband. She was a strong anti-feminist, an overt opponent of the suffragette movement. Imagine this! The Queen of the world’s most powerful country, the country that literally invented modern Parliamentary democracy, thought that women shouldn’t vote. “We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, must dislike these masculine occupations” she wrote.

Later, she wrote that she “feels so strongly upon this dangerous and unchristian and unnatural cry and movement of ‘woman’s rights’… that she is most anxious that [prime minister] Mr Gladstone and others should take some steps to check this alarming danger and to make whatever use they can of her name… Let woman be what God intended; a helpmate for a man – but with totally different duties and vocations.”

And this:

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. … It is a subject which makes the Queen so furious she cannot contain herself. God created man and woman different — and let each remain in their own position.

She was, at the time, not only ruler of Britain, but India, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, half of Africa, most of the islands of the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and Egypt.

She had nine children and — unlike the typical patterns of Monarchs in Europe at the time, both male and female — was completely faithful to her husband, Prince Albert.

She became Queen at age 19, still unmarried. Following convention of the day, she lived with her Mother.

Alexandrina Victoria, on accession to the throne.

She married the next year, and said this of her husband:

I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert … his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness—really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! … to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before—was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!

1843 portrait, Age 24.

Lytton Strachey wrote a biography of Victoria, which came out in 1921. He described how things were done toward the end of Albert’s life, after twenty years of marriage.

Basically, she left the problems of government to her husband.

The weak-willed youth [Albert] who took no interest in polities and never read a newspaper had grown into a man of unbending determination whose tireless energies were incessantly concentrated upon the laborious business of government and the highest questions of State. He was busy now from morning till night. In the winter, before the dawn, he was to be seen, seated at his writing-table, working by the light of the green reading—lamp which he had brought over with him from Germany, and the construction of which he had much improved by an ingenious device. Victoria was early too, but she was not so early as Albert; and when, in the chill darkness, she took her seat at her own writing-table, placed side by side with his, she invariably found upon it a neat pile of papers arranged for her inspection and her signature. The day, thus begun, continued in unremitting industry. At breakfast, the newspapers—the once hated newspapers—made their appearance, and the Prince, absorbed in their perusal, would answer no questions, or, if an article struck him, would read it aloud. After, that there were ministers and secretaries to interview; there was a vast correspondence to be carried on; there were numerous memoranda to be made. Victoria, treasuring every word, preserving every letter, was all breathless attention and eager obedience. Sometimes Albert would actually ask her advice. He [German] consulted her about his English: “Lese recht aufmerksam, und sage wenn irgend ein Fehler ist,”[“Read this carefully, and tell me if there are any mistakes in it.”] he would say; or, as he handed her a draft for her signature, he would observe, “Ich hab’ Dir hier ein Draft gemacht, lese es mal! Ich dachte es ware recht so.”[“Here is a draft I have made for you. Read it. I should think this would do.”] Thus the diligent, scrupulous, absorbing hours passed by. Fewer and fewer grew the moments of recreation and of exercise. The demands of society were narrowed down to the smallest limits, and even then but grudgingly attended to. It was no longer a mere pleasure, it was a positive necessity, to go to bed as early as possible in order to be up and at work on the morrow betimes.

Albert, Victoria, and their nine children, 1857 (Age 38).
Albert looks ten years older here, but actually he was a couple months younger.
Albert died in 1861, Age 42.
Note that everyone is dressed in clothing then typical of the Upper Middle Class, not royalty.

The important and exacting business of government, which became at last the dominating preoccupation in Albert’s mind, still left unimpaired his old tastes and interests; he remained devoted to art, to science, to philosophy, and a multitude of subsidiary activities showed how his energies increased as the demands upon them grew. For whenever duty called, the Prince was all alertness. With indefatigable perseverance he opened museums, laid the foundation stones of hospitals, made speeches to the Royal Agricultural Society, and attended meetings of the British Association. The National Gallery particularly interested him: he drew up careful regulations for the arrangement of the pictures according to schools; and he attempted—though in vain—to have the whole collection transported to South Kensington. Feodora, now the Princess Hohenlohe, after a visit to England, expressed in a letter to Victoria her admiration of Albert both as a private and a public character. Nor did she rely only on her own opinion. “I must just copy out,” she said, “what Mr. Klumpp wrote to me some little time ago, and which is quite true—’Prince Albert is one of the few Royal personages who can sacrifice to any principle (as soon as it has become evident to them to be good and noble) all those notions (or sentiments) to which others, owing to their narrow-mindedness, or to the prejudices of their rank, are so thoroughly inclined strongly to cling.’ There is something so truly religious in this,” the Princess added, “as well as humane and just, most soothing to my feelings which are so often hurt and disturbed by what I hear and see.”

Victoria, from the depth of her heart, subscribed to all the eulogies of Feodora and Mr. Klumpp. She only found that they were insufficient. As she watched her beloved Albert, after toiling with state documents and public functions, devoting every spare moment of his time to domestic duties, to artistic appreciation, and to intellectual improvements; as she listened to him cracking his jokes at the luncheon table, or playing Mendelssohn on the organ, or pointing out the merits of Sir Edwin Landseer’s pictures; as she followed him round while he gave instructions about the breeding of cattle, or decided that the Gainsboroughs must be hung higher up so that the Winterhalters might be properly seen—she felt perfectly certain that no other wife had ever had such a husband.

Her devotion to husband and family, played out on the world stage, became the model that all of British society imitated. The degeneracy of the 18th century faded; and the Victorian Age remains not only an example of moral discipline and strong family values compared to the twentieth century, but also, to all previous British history.

Diamond Jubilee portrait, 1897. (Age 78)

With wives like these, it is no surprise that British men kicked the whole world’s ass, whether in industry and commerce; science, letters and learning; or warfare.

Among these men were her own husband, who, with Victoria’s support and encouragement, went from being a floppy youth with typical rich-kid vices, to an exemplar of masculine expertise, industry and leadership.

This is how Queen Victoria became, as measured by the success of her country during her rule, one of the greatest national leaders of all time.

In the past two weeks or so, there has been a burst of interest in the divide between Leftist females and — although hardly conservative — a lot Less Leftist males.

In Poland:

Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) opined:

“Peachy Keenan,” who had a pretty good book recently, recalls her own Libtard Era:

In other words, you have to Tell The Bitches What To Do.

This includes: what to do to be a viable prospective Wife and Mother, at least a good enough risk that someone is willing to take a chance on her.

Although we generally attribute low birth rates in the US to “degeneracy,” birth rates are even lower among those Asian societies that are more “traditional” in character. Also, the divorce laws, and other such factors, are different than in the US, and generally more family-friendly. What’s going on?

The first, and obvious, thing is that the married birth rate in the US is about the same as in Asia. About 40% of children in the US are from unmarried mothers, while in Asia the figure is more like 3%. Multiply the present US birth rate (1.78 tfr) by 60% (married mothers), and you get an Asian-like figure (1.06 tfr). (South Korea recently posted a total fertility rate of 0.78.)

The idea of the stay-at-home Mom is more common in Asia, such as Korea, Japan, Taiwan or Singapore. This is generally thought of as high status. However, there has nevertheless been a creeping feminism. Women go to college, and then get jobs. This itself chews up a lot of time and energy, and also, does not press women toward marriage since they can live alone. We also have the factor that women don’t want to marry men that make less than they do, or even the same amount.

We then have the factor of extreme K-selection tendencies, especially in Asia, but also among typical upper-middle-class families in the US. All of childhood becomes a constant struggle to “achieve” according to some metric, although nobody seems to be getting much of an education in this process, or even developing meaningful hobbies or other interests. This struggle for “achievement” is exhausting for parents and children alike. As these children become parents themselves, they do not want to put their children through this process, nor undertake the parental responsibilities involved either. Probably, they should just give it up, relax, and find something better to do. But, instead, I think that there is a tendency to think that, if a child doesn’t “achieve” according to this process, there isn’t much point in doing the whole thing at all. Who wants to plan on failure in advance?

All this activity for “achievement” takes enormities of time, energy and effort. It is a daunting prospect for one child, and difficult to imagine even for two children, especially if the wife is also working. Three seems like fantasy. But, in the past, even the wealthy adopted more of an R-Selection process, or the more the merrier. Even with all the advantages of wealth, you would get some good kids and some not so good. Look at Pride and Prejudice for example. Mr. Bennett had five daughters, all raised with roughly the same care. Two were excellent, one was rotten, and two were middling. That’s why you had five.

Related to this is the extreme cost of all these things. With a stay-at-home Mom, daycare costs are not an issue. However, that also means that the family must live within a lower income. College costs are daunting for even one child, and more than two seems like total fantasy. In the US, working Moms face daycare costs, and $1000 a month is common. $2000 a month is common in some cities. That consumes a lot of after-tax income for one working Mom, and becomes ridiculous at three. The way out of all this is, of course, staying at home, and homeschooling, since then you have the private school/public school issue.

Retirement is an interesting issue. Old people need care, especially as they get over 75 — and, with better medicine, a lot of people are reaching those ages, rather than dying from some other factor before that time. Traditionally, children were a retirement plan. But today, both children and elderly reject the idea of living with their children in retirement. Money is their retirement plan; and with more children, they may feel there is less money.

This is mostly a good thing, since not many of these teens are married. Note the peak in teen births in the 1950s. The 1950s were about the best time, in terms of moral tone, in living memory, but already there had been a long deterioration from the way things were around 1900.

The difference just since 2008 — from 41.5 to 17.4 — is amazing. Also, this is only to 2018, already six years ago. Probably, we should have a few more teen births, among those women who get married at 18.

Has anything positive been achieved by allowing women to vote? By all indicators, the result has been worse, not better. But, women themselves anticipated this; which is why most women did not support women’s suffrage.

If we look at the 18th and 19th century history of Feminism/suffrage, we find that it was driven by unmarried women over 30. With their hopes of home and family fading, they wanted some place in the world. But, these women were a small minority.

Most all feminism, from the 18th century (Mary Wollstonecraft) to today, assumes that there will be no children to raise. Because, once you have children to raise, women should be doing that, in the home full time.

Our Polly is a sad slut, nor heeds what we have taught her;
I wonder any man alive will ever rear a daughter;
For when she’s drest with care and cost, all tempting, fine, and gay;
As men should serve a cucumber, she flings herself away.

Beggar’s Opera (1728)

Young women will always “throw themselves away.” Unfortunately, now parents themselves throw their daughters to the wind, mostly by sending them to college. I think young women themselves have come to understand that they are at some considerable risk; and many are careful as a result. But, they still don’t know what to do. How could they? Trial and error? The better women tend to embrace careerism, as simply the only clear alternative. But where does that lead. Young women should stay at home, educate at home if desired, and marry young.

Since I am mining Jim’s Blog for good material — which everyone should do — here are his thoughts from 2019 on Marriage.

Like him, I conclude that we will need to form a new “Home and Family Tribe,” which will largely take the form of religion. There is no particular need for a new religion here, and, as Jim shows, Christianity actually works quite well. Indeed, Jim argues that Christianity spread in the late Roman world precisely because it served as a Home and Family Tribe in the midst of a breakdown of Roman society, much like our own.

Marriage

The core of the reactionary program is to make marriage legal again. Without marriage, the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, and reproduction is dysgenic.

Leftist marriage, modern marriage, is gay. Marriage has been gay since 1928.

Obviously reactionaries must reintroduce marriage that is suitable for heterogamous organisms, and we will have to introduce it as a matter of faith and morals before we can introduce it as a matter of law.

The left offers your wife cash and prizes for destroying the family assets, destroying you and destroying your children. The lawyer and the marriage counselor will tell her she is oppressed, and she can get a court order that gives her cash and prizes, raises her status, and will result in her marrying a six foot six billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.

Modern marriage is gay. Everyone who gets married gets gay married. If your wedding vows are symmetric and interchangeable, the same of the man as for the woman, your marriage is gay and you are being gay married.

If your wedding has a master of ceremonies or a priest who acts like he, rather than the groom, is the big important man at the wedding, that he is the alpha male, your wedding is gay, and you are being gay married. (And the master of ceremonies is usually gay, and if he is not gay, he thinks that two males pretending to marry each other with the intention of cruising for nine year old boys to transexualize is smart and fashionable.)

The wedding organizer appoints a gay master of ceremonies whose main job is to define the groom as Homer Simpson, to emasculate him in the eyes of the bride. The minister conducts a gay wedding ceremony that treats the bride and groom as equal and interchangeable, even though experience has demonstrated that wives will not tolerate househusbands, and will invariably leave a domesticated man for a wild man who beats her, rapes her, and rapes and beats her husband’s children.

…

I agree that, at a wedding, the Husband should be the master of the show, followed by the bride’s Father — not the Church, or State. If the Church or State is the Chief, then basically the man is signing himself into slavery, enforced by the Church and State. And what woman can respect that?

Also, we should make sure that our best women, from the best families, the high IQ girls, the best looking girls, the girls with the best character, behavior and morals — should reproduce in large numbers.

Despite the general tone of degeneracy, the reality is that young people today are engaging in less “high risk” activity than in any time in recent memory. You might call it a “regeneracy,” although it is rather disorganized, and mostly consists of people stumbling around doing nothing because they don’t like what’s on offer much. Miles Mathis argued that this trend is a sign of dysfunction, not health. I agree that the common theme here is a decline in social activity in general, although that may be accompanied by a decline in drinking. Nevertheless, it is easier to start from a clean slate.

Here is data from 12-th graders in High School:

This goes to 2021, already three years ago, and I would imagine that the trend hasn’t changed.

The key age group for potential wives is, just as in the past, around the 16-20 year old range. In some ways, this age group is now more promising than it has been in a long time.

“Jim’s Blog” has a lot of provocative material that is, actually, hard to argue against. Here he says that we should “make women property again.” Of course we don’t mean negro slaves. That never happened in the past. The Bennet Sisters of Pride and Prejudice were very well taken care of, by their fathers and husbands, and led a life of upper-class ease. But, they certainly were not “equal” to men. Much of the plot revolves around the “entail” of the Bennet estate, to a distant male relative. Women could not inherit property.

Why not? Why was British law set up that way? Why was this part of what made Britain such a gigantic success in the 19th century?

Of course, a woman could enjoy the property inherited by a man, by marrying him. This is what the Bennet sisters do, with much success.

In other words, just as Jim says by including “again” in the title, we should look at the way things were — in very successful societies. Women didn’t have that much freedom, for the simple reason that, when women are given their freedom, they make a mess of things. This is also why women don’t want freedom, but immediately look for a man that will make property of them. What seems necessary for a man, free air to breathe, seems acutely dangerous to a woman, because she knows that she doesn’t have the tools to make a good go of it. Mostly, these women become Property of the Corporation, or the Government. In the past women lived at their father’s home, until their care and responsibility was given to another man through marriage. Basically, it was a transaction between the father and a young man, somewhat like property.

Jim makes an interesting point.

When a man becomes a slave, property of another, he fails to reproduce (except to generate more slaves).

Free men have families.

When a woman becomes property, she has a dozen grandchildren.

Free women are infertile, or raise bastard children that become a cancer on society.

For example, we have now had a good fifteen years of amazing “Red Pill” discussion, if we begin with the original publican of Sexual Utopia in Power in 2006.

read Sexual Utopia in Power

Today, what have women done that comes anywhere near this? We have nothing but the usual moaning about “where have all the good men gone?” on TikTok. There are women of insight, but it is of a different character, with Lori Alexander of The Transformed Wife a good example.

Make women property again

Women are different.

Very different.

This is not a game post. This post is about the application of Game and Evolutionary Game Theory to religion and political organization.

If you look at the landscapes we create everywhere, it is apparent that we long for our ancestral savannah, the lightly treed environment we entered when we came down from the trees and stood off the lions. And women long for their ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Women reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property, and their behavior makes no sense unless you understand this.

As I have so often repeated: If a man is defeated, conquered and subdued, perhaps because his tribe and country is conquered and subdued, he is unlikely to reproduce. If a woman is defeated, conquered and subdued, she has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium, escaped from prisoner’s dilemma, and also been transferred from weak men and a weak tribe to strong men and a strong tribe, and is therefore likely to be highly successful at reproducing.

Women are always shit testing you. That is why they are so disruptive and destructive in the work place. But they are not really playing to win. They are playing to be subdued by a strong man.

Female aggression against men, shit testing, is fundamentally different from male aggression, because a man is playing to win, and if it looks like he is going to lose, seeks a compromise to lose without losing too much face, while a woman immediately heads out on a thin limb hoping it will break under her. Thus a woman is most apt to dig in her heels bitterly, stubbornly, and utterly intransigently on an issue where her position is completely indefensible, stupid, self destructive, and illegitimate. If on the other hand she has some legitimate issue with you, she will get angry with you without telling you what her anger is all about. You are supposed to divine it by mental telepathy, whereas if a man has some legitimate point giving rise to a dispute with another man, he will lay it out so plainly that a dog could understand it.

The only time a woman will plainly tell you her grievance is when it is absolutely ridiculous and completely illegitimate.

A man is playing a conflict with a man to win by getting the issue resolved in his favor. A woman plays a conflict to discover who is the stronger, to discover if you are capable of frightening and intimidating her, and thus will always play a conflict more intransigently than a man ever will. This is why men and women can never be friends. When you have a buddy, you will engage in mutual domination and mutual submission, as for example friendly insults and the slap on the back. With women, it is dominate or be dominated. That is why if they have grievance with you, will not tell you what it is, but will instead command you to divine it by mental telepathy, or perhaps by confessing to a long, long list of your sins, hoping for her to tell you which one is the right one.

Women are incapable of performing sexually, of enjoying sex, or even of performing the courtship dance, unless they are at least a little bit dominated and intimidated. Not all women are into outright bondage and beatings, but all women without exception are into subtler forms of domination and submission. All women are like that. No woman will get it on with a man that she is not afraid of. No Women Are Like That. They just physically do not respond unless they feel that they could be compelled. There are no women as the blue pill imagines them to be, no women as they are depicted in very single video of courtship and mating. None. Not in our society, and not in trad conservative societies. This is the big lie from the media that everyone is immersed in from childhood.

Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines, and unquestioned authority to execute any of them or all of them for any reason or no reason at all, has had women troubles, and many an empire has fallen from women troubles.

A woman will always attempt to top from the bottom, no matter how much she is into domination and submission. A game of pretend domination and pretend submission just is not an adequate substitute for the real thing, so if you are playing a domination and submission game, she will always test and provoke you into making the game a reality by topping from the bottom.

Women have not been subject to selective pressures on their sexual behavior since we looked rather like apes, because populations that allowed female sexual choice disappeared. The men were disinclined to invest in children, or defend land.

Long ago we came down from the trees and out onto our now beloved savannah. If you don’t have some handy trees, need to be able to stand off lions, so you need reasonably sized group of males with strong male/male cohesion. And the males need to have to have some mighty strong motives to defend females and young. And, out on the savannah, no fruit, or considerably less fruit. The stable isotope ratios in the bones of all our hunter gatherer ancestors that walked, rather than swung through the trees, shows that they ate high on the trophic chain, deer, fish, and other predators. Humans do fine on an all meat diet, die on an all veggie diet. (Vegan without fish, eggs, cheese, and milk)

We seem to be adapted to eating a substantial proportion of other carnivores, hence the health advantages of fish. We are not true omnivores, because we cannot survive on an all vegetable diet, and we are adapted to getting a significant portion of our meat from other carnivores. We have been top predator for a very long time. The stable isotope ratio in old bones generally shows that we ate higher in the food chain than wolves or big cats – possibly we ate fish, which ate other fish. Most of these bones long predate the invention of nets and fishing lines, so possibly we ate wolves and lions.

Only males hunt, because adult males are pre-adapted physically and psychologically for violence. So women and children relied on the mighty hunter bringing home the bacon. And if you have defect/defect equilibrium, a society of players and bitches, well, the women can eat by whoring themselves out, until they are past fertile age, whereupon they starve or get eaten by lions, but out on our beloved savannah, their bastard children are going to die. From the isotope ratios in old bones we can infer that women have been property for a very long time.

And the simplest way to end defect/defect equilibrium is that the males assign the women according to deals they make with each other, and let the women think that the top alpha assigned the women. If the women get a say in it, defection is on the table.

point deer, make horse, 指鹿为马

Senator Roark in “Sin City”:
“Power don’t come from a badge or a gun.  Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you’ve got ’em by the balls.”

They are sons of the father of lies, and their shibboleth is always a big lie.

So we need to make our big shibboleth a big truth that contradicts one of the big lies. The biggest and most shocking truth: That the sexual nature of women is maladapted to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, we need to make women property again.

Each man must be King under his own roof.

And we need a national sovereign, and a national high priest, that backs the sovereign and high priest under every roof.

That women need to be property, for the good of society, and because each of them is individually seeking a man strong enough to make her property, that men need to make them property, is the best shibboleth to organize around. All faiths that support that can work together. All conflict between males is always ultimately conflict over women, so faiths that fail to support propertization of female sexual and reproductive services will always suffer internal and external conflict, leading to holiness spirals, while faiths that support male property rights over women and support propertization of loose women, are less apt to get into internal and external conflicts.

vive la différence

The largest difference between men and women is inside. We pursue very different reproductive strategies, which shapes everything we do in life.

The evil form of this strategy is players and bitches, defect/defect equilibrium, the lek mating pattern. The virtuous form of this strategy is husband and wife, marriage 1.0, eighteenth century marriage, which is now illegal. All happy families are quietly and furtively eighteenth century. All happy families are alike. There is only one way that works, only one form of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women. Women and dogs need a master, and are never happy if they lack a master, will always behave very badly if they think they are the alpha of the pack.

Proscribing honor killing is unwise, because good men will engage in honor killing anyway (there is always a handy swamp or ocean) and because you are pressuring men to adopt the player strategy so that they will not feel the compulsion to kill adulterers.

If state, church, society, and family, do not impose strong control over women’s sexual and reproductive choices, we get defect/defect equilibrium, resulting in failure to reproduce and dysgenic reproduction, and resulting in only a small minority of men getting all the pussy, thus demotivating the vast majority of men. If you own a woman, you want a nice house and a nice garden. A third world peasant with a wife and children is apt to live in a very nice mud and bamboo hut (it is very impressive what can be done with bamboo and a machete) with a very nice garden while a first world involuntary celibate is apt to live in a tiny, but high tech, box with crap furniture, even if he has a very high salary. The third world peasant with a wife and children has a much larger, more comfortable, and more attractive living space with nicer furniture than the first world webmaster in his little box, because the involuntary celibate, despite his affluence, does not care about his space and his furniture.

Christianity and sexuality

Everything in the bible about sex is a commentary, explanation, or clarification of the final commandment’s application to sex, marriage and children:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

And nothing the bible says about sex makes sense except in this context. If people jump on a line somewhere in the bible and start holiness spiraling on it so that it swallows and destroys the commandments, they are doing what the Jews did to get themselves exiled from Israel.

In a social environment where women are unowned and are frustrated by lack of ownership, old type Christian rules are inapplicable to banging any women you are likely to meet, because old type Christian rules are intended and expected to apply to women in the possession of some man. Fornication is making use of another man’s daughter without his permission, adultery another man’s wife or betrothed. But in today’s society, if a father attempts to restrain the sexual activity of his nine year old daughter, Child Protective Services is apt to take his children and his house away, lose track of his daughter, and sell his sons to a “married” gay couple. (Demand for prepubescent children to sexually exploit is primarily demand for small boys, so Child Protective Services cannot get much of a bribe for whoring out his nine year old daughter, so they leave it to her to whore herself out.)

Furthermore, the Old Testament does not make clear, but the Lord Jesus Christ does make clear, that the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them.

Incel and female immorality is not the intended effect, is the grossest possible violation of the commandments.

Christianity leading to inceldom, is like the Jews getting so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken.

Incels are usually incel in part because they are violating the laws of Gnon, and if they invoke Christianity to justify their inceldom, it is usually because they are weak and afraid, not because they are Christian.

Christians who apply old type Christian rules, intended for a society where a woman’s sexual and reproductive services were clearly under control of some man, intended for a society where patriarchs acquired wives for their sons from other patriarchs, are in our collapsed society, violating, not, observing, the commandments.

In a society that does not respect or protect ownership of land, a farmer must still grow potatoes, and to do so, has to anarchically and illegally take possession of some land, breaking numerous erratically, unpredictably, arbitrarily, and infrequently enforced laws and regulations in the process.

And we must anarchically and illegally take possession of women.

Old type Christian law on sex prohibits acting as if in defect defect equilibrium. But we are, in fact in defect/defect defect equilibrium, and a man can only get out of it by conquest and taking possession.

The only way you can start out with a woman in cooperate/cooperate is if your patriarch is acquiring her for you from another patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, who was typically someone who was close kin, or in the the same hierarchy of authority.

And, since you are starting out in defect/defect, it is impossible to conquer and take possession, except by successfully acting within the defect/defect rules. You have to bang them, or else they are going to move on. All women are like that. Including all supposedly good Christian wife material women.

In an orderly society, you first acquire a field, and then you plough it. In a disorderly society, you first plough it, so that other people will know you have a reason to defend it, and think you have a decent chance of succeeding, and then you eventually own it when no one manages to take your crops away from you, or graze his horses on your standing corn. Which likely requires you to have a weapon handy during ploughing and harvest. Gnon does not intend you to starve, and he does not intend you to be incel. You are required to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but by the time that it is time to plough that field, you are already out of cheeks and have walked far too many miles.

Fornication is a particular application of the final commandment.

When you apply those commandments, and read people applying them to sex and family, then unless those people are moderns you need to read them in the social context that the unit of society is the household not the individual, and that men are not women and women are not men.

The prohibition of incest and divorce do not follow directly from the ten commandments, but adultery and fornication does.

And the trouble is that giving fornication a meaning that does not follow from the ten commandments leads directly and immediately to breaking them, as when the Roman Catholic Church before the French Revolution so easily ruled that a marriage was nullified because the woman had not really given consent, or when it encouraged daughters to defy fathers and wives to defy husbands.

This parallels the Jews of the time of Jesus holiness spiraling the law on blood, so that they could wrongfully spill blood, and claim they were acting in accordance with the law of Moses.

To understand what old type Christians meant by whoring, fornication, and adultery, we cannot look at their words, for the meaning of their words has been changed underneath us. We should instead look at what people of that faith who had power, who had legitimate authority, who used that language, actually did, in order to understand what those words actually meant when the faith was live and in power.

They did not suppress men from having sex with unowned women, or even suppress unowned women from having sex. They suppressed unowned women from being unowned. The biblical penalty for sex and/or abduction of a married or betrothed woman is death. The biblical penalty for abduction of a virgin is indissoluble shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for abduction of a unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin …

The story of Tamar and Jacob makes no sense at all if we suppose Tamar was going to be burned alive for prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Makes perfect sense if we suppose she was going to be burned alive for sex outside of and in defiance of the framework of male property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive services.

Similarly, consider how the authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the problem of a whole lot of casual sex going on. They applied swift shotgun marriage, and supported the authority of the husband in those marriages by disturbingly drastic means. They did not punish men or women for having sex in a beach party. They made women get married, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands.

If you give the biblical laws on sex and family, the biblical condemnation of adultery, fornication, and whoring, an interpretation that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and that families do not exist, only individuals, you are turning the Law upside down, resulting in a blue pilled Christianity that tells men that God does not want them to have wives and children.

Recent developments in the Femosphere have taken on a new character.

Fiiiiiinally, women have figured out that things are on fire, and if they don’t get on board with men, they will be abandoned by the side of the road.

As I’ve often said, there will be no “negotiation,” because men know that women are timewasting airheads, and nothing they say has any meaning. You just tell the bitches what to do.

This “Girls Gone Bible” has a different feel than the usual carousel-rider-turned-Tradthot looking for Captain Save A Ho at the local church.

Meanwhile, gentle grandmother Lori Alexander has taken the gloves off. No More Mrs. Nice Grandma.

I’ve been enjoying watching Pearl Davis make people uncomfortable — especially the “Happy Wife-Happy Life” Conservative dingbats that Dalrock pulverized a decade ago.

Even today, Dalrock remains the go-to resource for the Christian Red Pill.

But, even that was from before online dating!

It is so much worse now.