Jim's Blog

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.

Bullshit.

The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.

I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole in front of women. A confrontational bully. It works. What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

But the character I play is not the man that that builds or maintains civilizations. It is the man that is high status in a world of female dominance, where women are more equal than men. It is not the man who should be high status, not the man that a civilization needs to make high status in order for that civilization to succeed.

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

But recognizing that this is the man that women want is a good corrective to what progs teach men to be. That man is a lot closer to the man that builds civilization than the emasculated man.

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity.

When whites are driven out of affluent middle class areas which then become terrifying run down burned out urban jungles, it is not Jews that they are fleeing.

The inner city used to be where the affluent, the rich, and the upwardly mobile lived. It is not Jews that destroyed the inner city, Detroit, Ferguson, and are now destroying Chicago.

Female bad behavior comes from desire to fuck taciturn narcissistic assholes, starting at age eight or nine. If it was Jewish influence, they would want to fuck neurotic talkative dweebs resembling Woody Allen. Margaret Mead fucked people of both sexes and numerous races, but did not fuck Franz Boas.

Blaming Jews is yet another good news religion, because it is easy to gas the Jews, but considerably more difficult, and more disturbing, to keep women under loc parentis supervision from eight to menopause. So the program of restoring civilization sounds a lot easier if all you have to do to get things back on track is gas the Jews.

If we blame the Enlightenment, in particular and especially the extravagantly absurd claim that all men are created equal, if we blame blacks, single women, and the holiness spiral, then it looks like a harder problem, that requires us to do things that are inherently unpopular and unholy, whereas exterminating a market dominant minority is always popular, and you can very easily get away with representing it as holy. Jews are a market dominant minority, and we whites are about to become a market dominant minority.

People who hope to win an election with a universal franchise have to blame the Jews, or else blame whites in general. You cannot shut down a holiness spiral in a democracy except with another holiness spiral.

Muslims in Europe and America are very close to successfully representing gassing the Jews as holy, and shortly thereafter will go to work on similar representation of whites.

Notice eager Jewish collaboration in Muslim efforts to represent gassing the Jews as holy. This falsifies the doctrine that Jewish misbehavior is collectively rational behavior that advances the interests of “the Jews”.

I have often said that going after the Jews is goring the matador’s cape, rather than goring the matador. You have to shut down the holiness spiral itself, rather than a category of people that contains a disturbingly large proportion of exceptionally enthusiastic demon worshipers.

Shutting down the holiness spiral requires something like an inquisition. We don’t need to burn people at the stake, though Charles the second did need to burn a few people at the stake, in particular one alarmingly and excessively holy female heretic, whose holiness was inconveniently and irritatingly genuine, and whose Unitarian Christian derived belief system was alarmingly twenty first century. But mostly what Charles the second did was fire everyone in state and quasi state jobs, and invite them to re-apply for their old jobs. In the job interview, the applicant was asked whether he would “conform” – conform to the new standard of moderate holiness, which prohibited excessive holiness in general, and the old form of holiness in particular. If one declined to say he would conform, he did not get burned at the stake – but neither did he get his old job back. Many who declined to conform departed under their own power to New England. A few said they would conform, got their old jobs back, but then engaged in apostacy, and those ones Charles came down on pretty hard, but usually they got ridiculed and their careers got ruined, rather than burned at the stake. Looks to me that only one genuinely sincere and genuinely holy heretic got burned at the stake by Charles the Second, and all the others that were burned were two faced slimy lying hypocrites, and that most of the apostates just got laughed at and their careers stalled, rather than burned at the stake, or even fired. But you really do need to sometimes take firm measures against stubborn and excessively ostentatious holiness.

The problem with Jews is that they are a market dominant minority with a strong identity. Being a market dominant minority with a strong identity they are particularly subject to potential persecution, plus, in even in the absence of actual persecution, they still have an extremely strong persecution mythos, which makes them paranoid and hostile. Since one is going to get treated as a persecutor no matter what, one feels inclined to actually persecute them.

Jews are are inclined to attack the fabric of the host society, because when it’s strong it attacks them, and when it’s weak it lays off. The fabric of society is essentially everything “fascist”, so they are naturally anti-fascist insofar as they identify as jewish. Obviously this pattern has been reinforced. The reform jews most so because they are actually trying to integrate, which they can’t if everyone is Nordic Catholic “Fascists”.

When they engage in a holiness spiral, they don’t have any personal attachment to the things that their utopian schemes will destroy, or any concern about the reasons it won’t work. Whereas a white man would say “what about my job, family, community, ancestors, people, church, business”, your typical academic jew would say “Certain elements of the bourgeois will feel the move to equality as oppression (and I never liked those dumb goyim anyways)”.

Their talents make them useful to short-sighted elites, which puts them in the position of High, but with more mobility, more of a mobile bandit; they can always go elsewhere and feel just as at home. In addition to the insecurity they feel as a persecuted minority, they are naturally aligned with High which has in our recent history been engaged in destructive anti-fascism.

Their talents further mean that they are quite good at the subversion, which, lacking attachment to their host society, they naturally get into.

But the problem is not Jewish participation in subversion, it is that subversion is profitable, respected, and rewarded. Make it unprofitable, despised, and dangerous, and there will not be a Jew in sight.

Civilization is the art of people living together in large numbers: The basic problems of civilization are shutting down violence, ensuring that men and women agree to stick together for richer or poorer, or better or worse, and are forced to stick by that agreement, and securing property rights. Leftism is an attack on all of these, leftism is siding with the forces of entropy for political advantage, and Nazism is just leftism that has been left behind by a hundred years of movement even further left. “Fascism” is freedom, freedom is made possible by law, law is made possible by first establishing order, order is made possible by peace, peace first require victory, and victory requires war. Leftism reverses this chain of causation and moves us back towards the war of all against all. Leftism weaponizes covetousness and envy to attack property rights and female sexual lust to attack marriage. Single women, rather than Jews, vote for the mass import of rapeugees, because unconsciously they hope to be sold naked in chains on the auction block.

Observe what is happening with the Rohingya. The Rohingya correctly believe that a good Muslim should live under Muslim rule, and that a Muslim should establish Muslim rule wherever he lives. They attempted to establish a Muslim state in Burma, the Burmese were not having any, and are now expelling them. The expelled Rohingya don’t want to go to the USA. They want to go to a Muslim state, but Islamic states fear that if they accept the Rohingya, the Rohingya will decide that their hosts are insufficiently Islamic, or the wrong kind of Islamic. The US government wants them, wants to dump the on marginal electorates in flyover country, and you really cannot blame the Jews for this. You cannot blame the Rohingya for this. They don’t want to go to an infidel state. It is single female lust for men manly enough to subjugate them. If a bunch of east europeans were fleeing some place, I bet the PUAs would be keen on bringing them here.