Don’t Do It

The Home and Family Tribe is going to need some principles and guidelines. Let’s include: Definitely Not This.

This might seem stupid and obvious, but, it is actually what the Cuck Christian Conservatives (that Pearl Davis likes to slap around) are proposing. The only way to get back (or maintain) the 92% marriage rates of the past, is to marry women like this. In the past, men did; but they learned not to. Actually, many women are worse than this — at least, worse looking. Top 30% Only. Even the Top 30% is going to involve a lot of dubious situations, including a majority of young women who are at least nominally Leftist/Feminists, and maybe some that declare themselves “bisexual” although with no actual experience in that. We hope that they can be righted.

Still Online In Real Life

This is a little hard to believe.

But, one result of this, is that people act in real life as if they are online. For men, this means: 80% assume they are “out of the game.” For women: their “standards” reflect their online swiping habits, or the Top 5% (or 1%) of men; and all the consequences that follow from that. 5% of the men can’t marry, or have a monogamous relationship, with 80% of the women.

Pathetic Conservatives

Pearl Davis smacked around tradcon Michael Knowles recently, brilliantly illustrating all the things that Dalrock explained 10 years ago:

tl;dr

Around here, we have old barns that sometimes don’t make it through the winter.

This is, on one hand, a tragic loss of tradition and beauty.

But, if you went into that barn, in the year before it collapsed, you would find that none of it was salvageable. The wood was rotten and crooked. Any concrete foundations were cracked and crumbling. The roof was crumbling (if asphalt) or rusting (if metal). Basically, it was the same as the barn on the right, that is still standing, for now. There was literally nothing to save, which is why the owner didn’t try to save it. If you tried to replace everything that needed replacing, you would literally be building a new barn. So, just let it collapse. Often, the way that a collapsed barn is disposed of is: lighting it on fire.

Marriage and family, before the recent collapse in marriage and childbearing rates, was like that barn the year before it collapsed. There was nothing of the old barn that was structurally sound. You couldn’t even get around to building a new barn, until the old one had collapsed.

Conservatives want the old barn, the one that was just about to fall apart.

You can build a new barn, much like the way that barn was built, when it was new, a hundred and fifty years ago.

For example, it was only a few years ago that about 92% of both White Men and Women eventually married. But, this was often a disaster.

Going forward, it might be a lot less than this. Maybe less than 50%.

But, let’s not be too picky. Let’s just apply some basic minimum standards. Let’s say that a man should not marry a woman who:

  1. Is over 40.
  2. Is a single mom (never married).
  3. Is divorced.
  4. Is a confirmed slut (let’s say, the worst 20%, which gives a lot of room for women who actually wanted a relationship but ended up in side chick rotation.)
  5. Has a sexually transmitted disease.
  6. Is a feminist nutjob; whines about “patriarchy,” claims that a stay-at-home wife is a “slave,” etc.
  7. Has blue hair, excessive tattoos, snot rings, autistic, handicapped, diseases, alcoholic, drug addict, addicted to prescription brain meds, etc.
  8. Is a lesbian, “polyamory” fan, extra good friends with her dog, pole dancer, OF girl, etc.

We will also say that: Ugly women should be left to equally ugly men. In other words, if you are not in the Bottom 40% of Ugly men, then forget about the Bottom 40% of Ugly women, which basically means: fatties.

Since about 25% of White women end up as unmarried Single Moms, and about 50% of the remainder (50% of 75% or 38%) as divorcees, that alone eliminates almost 50% of all women. 20% are sluts (lots of overlap here), about 25% have STDs, and about 25% are, let’s say, unrecoverable Leftist feminist freaks. Then, we drop the 40% of Fuglies. We didn’t even have a line for debt, which is certainly a big penalty. How is a man supposed to take on $100K of a woman’s debt?

This is not a very demanding set of standards. Much of it (single moms, divorcees) is right in line with Biblical guidelines. But, we can see that if we apply just a few basic screens, which I think we have to do, we quickly screen out 50% or more of single women.

I’ve said that we should aim for the Top 30% of women. Mostly, try to get them young, Age 16-18, which is what you have to do to marry around age 18-20, with the stragglers done by Age 25. We will have to provide a viable and actionable alternative to going to college, which means before Age 18. A lot of women are actually not too bad at this age. No debt. No tattoos. Many virgins. No single moms.

This is what a Marriage and Family strategy should look like.

Rather than focusing on all the not-so-good girls, we should focus on those girls that, I think, would be in the Top 30% or, at the very least, the Top 50% of women. There are actually a lot of them out there and they are not too bad.

I think this girl is pretty funny. She is very mopey and that is probably not someone you should get involved with. Nevertheless, I think her “I’m such a loser” routine is strangely attractive. It is the polar opposite of the posturing girlboss. I think she could make a good wife and mother, in a modest, middle-class sort of way. She passes all of our tests above. She could marry an auto mechanic, or a house painter, stay at home, learn to cook, and raise some decent children.

Then there is this woman, “Adrianne,” who seems very nice and available (although she says she has a boyfriend). She’s a strong 8/10 — maybe even a real-life 10/10 if you adjust for digital filters — and did some modeling when younger. She doesn’t like “TradWives” much, but since 90% of young women today have some Leftist-Feminist brainwashing, including regular churchgoers, this is something you would have to deal with.

Maybe, like Domestic Extremist “Peachy Keenan,” she could get over it.

Of course we would all like Conservative Virgin girls who are also 10/10.

But, these women are rare, and they deserve husbands who are as virtuous and good looking as they are.

Whoring Rose

Along with Jenny from Forrest Gump, the list of Hollywood Harlots who destroy everything they come near must include: Rose from the movie Titanic.

How many Hollywood movies have been basically training young women to chase Bad Boys? Aladdin is not just lower class, he is literally a street criminal. Princess Jasmine has her pick of a wide range of suitors, including literal Prince Charmings, and refuses them all. And what is a “Magic Carpet”? Crack cocaine?

Fresh and Fit

Myron Gains, of the “Fresh and Fit” Youtube channel, is another among the secular philosophers, originally of the “PUA” flavor, that ended up more reactionary than 90% of practicing Christians.

We saw this also with “Undead Chronic,” a self-declared FuckBoy, who nevertheless concluded that the answer was: No Hymen, No Diamond.

Duties of Men

Get your Patriarchy On.

The Rise, Fall, And Vital Importance of Territory: Why the Nuclear Family Fails and Why Territory Is The Primary Focus

Humans are not historically centered around the nuclear family. They have and are adapted for family as in kin, tribe, and extended family.

In nature, we have pairbonder species and tournament species.

Pairbonder species involve a male and female, alone in their territory together, perhaps with offspring.

This is decidedly NOT the human dynamic, until the wealth and opportunity of cities combined with rapid transportation and eventually discreete messaging obliterated that.

Since the 1950s especially, we’ve seen the rise of nuclear families, and the expression en masse of pairbonder men.

The problem with pairbonder men is that they are usually controlled by the women, do not build or defend good territory, and in focus all their efforts into the low return tasks of provisioning women and heavy investment into parenting.

A mans value is in building and providing the territory.
@Meta_Trav
has laid this out masterfully. A well designed territory contains:

  • The wordspace and rule set
  • The congregation point
  • male fraternity
  • female sisterhood
  • council that provides moral authority and accountability

How many men are providing territory like this that their wife, children, or community are benefiting from?

Almost zero.

Notice also, that no man can do this by himself. A one person council is a dictatorship.

It requires adult cooperation between men, and their leadership to create cohesive, safe, high stimulation territory.

Territory is not something you “fight over”. It’s built, designed, and engineered. This can be achieved only with mature, adult cooperation.

That said, there will always be those with spite that wish to disrupt, harm, or take over your territory. Rights and benefits exist insofar as you can secure them, and as such defending territory is a key imperative and major reason men form coalitions/packs/fraternity.

Modern mainstream thinking is that thriving families are built by a man investing in a woman and his children alone in the pair territory.

Couldn’t be less true. No one thrives in a house by themselves, a lone wolf, as the large fraction of people live today.

What does work is building territory with other men that affords for, and insures, the cooperation of men in providing: a cohesive, stabilizing rule set; safe haven; congregation point; fraternity for men; sisterhood for women; and plenty of stimulation.

This is a territory in which men, women, and children are able to thrive because they have the love, support, resources, care, and protection of a cohesive territory and community.

Development happens naturally because women and children have all the correct incentives, lots of healthy stimulation, and support to thrive and grow.

Patriarchy > Chivalry

Are we ready to just call it Patriarchy?

Anthropologists say that they can’t find any evidence of any Matriarchal society, at any time or place, among primitives, and certainly not among advanced civilizations. We only have Strong Patriarchy, or Weak Patriarchy.

Given what we have seen, from experiments like Bear Grylls The Island, or from attempts (spectacularly unsuccessful) at all-woman companies — or the tendency, I hear, for woman pastors anywhere to spend all their time basically arguing that women can do whatever they like with no consequences, and otherwise basically making stuff up out of thin air that suits their mood — this makes sense.

There is a certain, perhaps small, subset of Christian women who are actually pretty happy with using the term Patriarchy.

Because, when you reject Feminism, what’s next for a woman?

I was talking a couple days ago with a man that set up a “Christian Academy” (at least Grades 9-12, maybe 7-12 or K-12). He is also a father of six. In other words, the best sort of person. He was explaining to me that part of this school program is a class on “Chivalry” for boys, and “Christian Womanhood” for girls.

Of course I had a moment of cringe. Dalrock destroyed this “Chivalry” ideal a decade ago.

Basically, Chivalry is a pattern of adultery among the noble classes. Typically a married noblewoman, a queen, duchess, etc., would have an affair with one of her servants, probably a Knight in Shining Armor. The basic pattern is that of Arthurian legend, or Queen Guinevere (Arthur’s wife) and Sir Lancelot (one of Arthur’s Knights).

Basically, Guinevere was a Ho, and Lancelot was one of her underlings. This was known as “Courtly Love.”

Wikipedia on “Courtly Love.”

This ancient theme meshed very nicely with Feminism, with the common element that a man is a servant or underling of a woman, and has to “treat her like a Queen.”

Literally a painting of Guinevere and Lancelot.

Obviously, we have to discard that pattern. We act like King Arthur, certainly a Patriarch, and what do we do? We take Guinevere, our adulterous wife, tie her to a post, and whip her.

Literally a painting of Arthur and Guinevere.

From Germania (98 AD), by Roman historian Tacitus:

I think that men are still a little hesitant to be Patriarchs. But, that is what we must do. I think women would like it. Be Arthur, not Lancelot.