Thursday, September 29, 2011

Reconsidering Sexual Repression

Science Fiction Author and Blogger Eric S. Raymond has a post up on Reconsidering Sexual Repression. Basically his point is that we will likely have to give up two of the following three things: family formation, sexual equality (women equal to men in all legal and social and cultural forms), and sexual liberty (no restrictions legal or social in any way of women's sexual activity). Raymond believes that giving up family formation is out of the question, so that the other two must go, by giving up sexual equality, in the form of "submissiveness" to men. Raymond of course is quite wrong (and considers the question only from the viewpoint, and a skewed, "White Knight" perspective at that, of women). But still it is quite interesting to see an older man struggle with the obvious, that the sexual order of the day is simply unsustainable.

Now, Raymond is wrong because women have already given up family formation. Women, of all races, and classes, are bailing on the nuclear family and having single motherhood instead. Women are doing this by choice, deliberate choice, because women have pretty much complete control over their own fertility. If they don't want to get pregnant, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill (a girl of maybe, 15 was there with her mother getting it at my local pharmacy about a year ago, proud and giggling, Mexican of course), various patches (heavily advertised on TV), and more. Plus of course abortions. If women did want to have kids, there are plenty of guys out there who are husband material. They just are not as sexy as the bad boys.

No, women are choosing, in various amounts among different races and classes, but still broadly choosing single motherhood with bad boys over marriage with some boring Beta Male who does nothing but provide and lacks that sexy domination women crave.

Black women moved from 24% illegitimacy in the 1960's, to over 70% nationally today, and over 90% in the urban core. Hispanic women moved from 17% illegitimacy in 1980 to over 50% today. Charles Murray's talk at the AEI on the State of White America had the following highlights:

Women in the upper 20% of income still got married and had kids, illegitimacy was only 4-5% for this group.
Women in the middle 40% of income had a 20% illegitimacy rate.
Women in the lower 20% of income had a 40% illegitimacy rate.

Clearly, there are a bunch of things going on. If you have a lot of money, being Beta is not an impediment to marriage. You can still be "Alpha" and have all those unsexy qualities women loathe: idealizing or pedalizing your mate, telling her constantly you love her, never checking out other women, never instilling uncertainty about the relationship, never being that guy other women want to have ... all that and more can be done and a marriage maintained if you are in the upper 20% of income. Being even a mini-master of the Universe makes a man by definition, sexy to women. Even his wife! So she won't divorce him, and will marry him in the first place. Since other men defer to him, due to his wealth and power, he's sexy! Thus worth having.

And of course, being married to him means a summer cottage in the Hamptons, heck summer as a verb not a season.

For women in the middle class, that increasingly is not in the cards. Raymond is correct, women find men who are their equal ... unsexy. No woman, anywhere, wanted a man who was her equal. That's a ticket to palookaville. Or single motherhood. If women in the Upper Classes have their pick of the mini-masters of the Universe, middle class women have Joe from Accounting. And no one wants Joe. He does not intimidate anyone, he does not boss any one around, no one fears him, he's not made of money, and thus power. Nothing. Why bother?

Shame, social inertia, a desire for security, those things still have limited White Middle class women to "only" 20% illegitimacy. But the tide cannot be held back forever.

Consider lower class White women. The ones most in need of a husband, to add another income to the table, to provide help in child rearing, to provide an extra security level. These women have reached near Hispanic/Mexican levels of illegitimacy. Why?

One reason is, that the men around them are not equal ... they're inferior! And no one wants inferior men. The only men they find even remotely sexy are those men ... other men are afraid of, and for good reason. The thugs. The bad boys. The crazy ones. These seem to be the only guys White Working Class women find suitable for impregnating them.

And lets review, shall we? Condoms. The Pill. The Patch. The Morning After Pill. Abortion. No woman gets pregnant by a guy she does not want to be pregnant by, in a sustained and deliberate choice. The same is true for Black women, who actively choose the thuggiest of thugs, because that is the only kind of man they find sexy -- one that other men fear. Mexican women are the same, consistently choosing for fathers, not the decent and hardworking men around them, which yes there are many still who would make them excellent husbands and fathers, but the dangerous gang-bangers and thugs.

As Roissy points out, Anders Brevik, who killed over 70 people, most of them defenseless teens, is getting mountains of love letters. If Chicks Dig Jerks, and they do, they dig even more thugs, bad boys, and violent men. As Roissy put it:

As everyday observation to those with the eyes to see demonstrates, the primary motivation is women’s love for unrepentant, rule-breaking assholes. That is the elemental, core female hindbrain algorithm that governs all other lustful dispositions and is the catalyst for her mate choice decisions.

Women love assholes because they are assholes. Because it inspires in women those emotions that most delight their pleasure centers. And that, based on the reaction it engenders from civilized men and women alike, is the truth too scary to contemplate.

Women love assholes. Any perusal of Twilight, or the other vampire chick-lit, will tell you that. As will any Rom-Com. This is just hard-wired. But it is not what you think. Because women did not always have the urge for assholes.

When women had significant social inequality, but mostly full legal equality, most women did not swoon for jerks. Assholes and thugs did not make women aroused. The comment by "Bounder" on Roissy's post Chicks Dig Jerks: Prison Edition would have been from Planet Bizarro fifty years ago:

I’m an attorney (fuck you too) and this impulse is even more pronounced among the alpha lawyer women. Frequently female attorneys are caught sexing their scumbag clients.

It starts early. HRC [Human Rights Coalition -- ed] has inmate letter writing campaigns and tons of female law students attend spending their 130+ IQs writing to 75 IQ scumbags. It is beyond fucking hilarious.

The female passion for thugs is one unknown, mostly, to men and women of about fifty years ago or more. It is entirely due to women being fully socially and culturally as well as legally equal to men. If not, in fact, superior.

Raymond is right, women find men their equal to be ... unsexy. Hence the "sexy" TV shows set in the 1960's, Mad Men and Pan Am and Playboy Bunny Club. Where the big shots are sexy master of the universe, and women compete to be his number one squeeze. Today Mr. Big would find a sexual harassment lawsuit, a workplace hostile to women finding, and all the men would be sexually invisible because they would not be the sexy guys higher up in the totem pole but men at the same position if not in fact, significantly lower down.

Almost no woman (with any options at all, any!) will find a man her equal even remotely sexy. None will find a man inferior to him sexy.

And as we've seen, no woman will have kids with a man she finds unsexy. But certainly will have kids on her own with men she finds sexy but knows won't stick around.

Raymond looks at it from the wrong angle: how can society get women a good husband? Given that women have now gotten the best of all possible worlds: maximum access to sexy men, and single motherhood with said sexy men. This is exactly what women wanted, because they in fact created it. They chose, actively, the men they slept with. And they chose to have kids with them, knowing them unlikely in the extreme to stick around and marry them and raise kids. Women, collectively, of their own free will, chose to trade sexy now and kids with sexy now over some guy sticking around. Figuring that they will be happier with kids by an Alpha, even dirt poor, than married and middle class with some icky Beta Male. Who lacks even the most tiny bit of sexiness.

Women don't want husbands ... of men who are equal. Nor are men bailing out of marriage. Women choose, and choose increasingly except for Upper Class White women (a tiny demo by the way) ... bad boys and single motherhood. Women are only interested in buying marriage if the man is sexy. Submission? They already have to offer that ... to the bad boys. Thats part of just admission into his bedroom.

Raymond's problem is his mental model. He assumes women want the things they wanted, in 1950, when significant but not unbridgeable social inequalities made most men fairly sexy to most women, and thus helped maintain the nuclear family and marriage. The men they would marry, were all relatively sexy, because they themselves while not subservient chattel, had significant social inequalities.

Now, women will NOT COMPROMISE ON THE SEXY. Not a bit. Men must be sexy to be considered for sex, and then marriage. All the re-jiggering of gender equality (and thus sexual freedom for women) won't address that, and is unlikely anyway. Women are no more going to demand, that they be now made socially unequal in any way, to their male peers. Why would they? What's in it for them? Having had a taste of the most Alpha of Alphas, be it the hipster jerk of Williamsburg for Middle Class White women, or the true thug for Working Class women of all colors, why would they go back? How can they go back? How can society re-make itself, depending on female consumer spending, so that most ordinary men are sexy enough for women to consider sleeping with and then marrying?


So family formation in the nuclear way is over. Family means, for Black women, a single mother and two children or more, each with different fathers (Black women lead the nation at more than 50% of all births of a second or later child to a different father than the previous). Of course, that makes for an interesting sibling dynamic, one fraught with rivalry more than love. But its damn sexy, dammit, for the women involved.

Family, for Mexican women, means basically the same thing, just not as much as quickly. For Working Class White women, it is closing in on the Black family model, and it is even for the Middle Class White women.

Which means just as in the Black demographic, you will see, rapidly growing, a lot of men who never married, and remain outside of both sex and reproduction. These are life's losers, and their way to "win" is to thug it up, as much as possible, because if other men fear them, women will love them. Yes, that is the equation.

Children, meanwhile, will live in a chaotic, threatening, and violent situation. One in which power is defined by the ability and willingness to deploy as much violence as possible as unexpectedly as possible. They will be poor, and their prospects very poor. The way in which people reproduce is the man becomes a sexy killer, and the most brutal of them gets the most beautiful girl. Men who are insufficiently violent, brutal, and ruthless get weeded out one or another from reproduction, only the most violent reproduce, and none take an interest or care in their children. This is the way in which most of humanity has lived, for most of its existence, and is a poverty-factory though one that produces for women some very sexy men. Men reliably more powerful and with higher status than themselves.

This is the ugly truth of it. Western Civilization is built upon repression. NOT as feminists say, half-truthfully, on female repression. But upon repression of women's ability to get the sexiest men. Western Civilization requires soaking up all those men who create violence and poverty into marriage. Into making them stakeholders directly into society, by giving them a small family, all their own, which they will mostly (not always but mostly) work themselves to death to keep and improve. Just as Napoleon ended the French Revolution and made peasants into ultra conservative Frenchmen by giving them small plots of land, so too did the nuclear family make most men into conservative, society improvers. Not ugly conquer-or-die gamblers.

Western Civilization means the end of sexy. The end of sexy men, anyway, as the supply of those truly sexy, the Alphas, who dominate other men and make them afraid, are limited in the extreme. And their ability to create massive harems is also limited. Thus, yes, Western Civilization does depend on sexual repression, but of unlimited choice by women of ultra sexy men. The supply of ultra-sexy men is limited, as are the options for Alphas, and women in Western Civilization have had the restriction on creating a vast pool of thugs, bad boys, and the like to choose from.

Moreover, if they had kids by these men, they'd pay the consequences (other men would not help them or help raise their kids). Lacking a husband, they'd starve, to put it bluntly. Critically, other women would not care, either.

Women were mostly free, to choose from any number of men, even though they could not create a vast pool of sexy men (rogues, outlaws, bad boys, thugs). They had far greater rights than that of other women, in other cultures, races, and places. Their rights increased, not decreased, over time, unlike that of say Muslim women. Women just had to choose wisely, for risk elimination as well as sexiness. Women had to trade-off on the qualities that made them aroused (violent domination of other men, or simply domination and increased status relative to them) versus those that would keep them clothed and fed: faithfulness, agreeableness, income, and ability.

What women could not do is create underwriters for the risk of bad boys, as the modern welfare state does today. Yes, in that sense women were suppressed, as people of Ancient Athens were suppressed by lacking Ipads and free Wi-Fi and streaming video. If a woman chose a bad boy, she chose all the risk. Women taking on the risk are quite capable of making informed judgments on that matter.

So what is likely to happen? More of the same. Birthrates will continue to fall, because women will chase sexy men, of whom there are either just a few, their bosses, the local thugs, Alphas who play in a rock band and have a drug habit, the handsome player. They'll choose single motherhood with the last Alpha guy they can have, fairly late, over marriage and family with a Beta Male fairly young. Thus guaranteeing small family sizes (another component by the way of single motherhood). Welfare is likely to collapse as Whites as well as Blacks and Hispanics demand it, under economic recession that becomes permanent. Creating a sudden drop-off of reproduction for all, as Welfare simply ceases to exist like the Roman Empire in the West around 400 AD. You can't have kids with bad boys, if there is on one to pick up the tab.

Life will get a lot more violent. For everyone. And there will be a race to the bottom for sexy, as delineated by violence. Since in an economic recession, the only way to make other men your inferior is to make them fear you. Men won't stop wanting sex, and the idea that women will return to social inequality no matter how small or marginal is quaint. And as dead as the England where Vicars get around on bicycles (instead of Mosques proclaiming Allah).

What will be interesting (in a Dark Ages sort of way) is the changes brought upon by birthrate collapse, all across the board. Now, the Welfare state subsidizes kids by Mexicans, and to a lesser extent Blacks. A birthrate akin to Whites (generally outside of Welfare for racial, cultural, and legal reasons) means social collapse. A Detroit writ large, ever more portions of cities abandoned to wilderness, smaller and smaller cities, less and less technology, and flight to security where ever "lords" may rule by utter violence. Just like the last Dark Ages.

Is this "all women's fault?"

No. It is no one's fault. It was not the Roman Emperors, nor the people, nor the gladiators, nor those who crucified saints, nor those who bribed Goths, or Vandals, or Huns, for the collapse of the Roman Empire. It just happened, because Romans stopped having kids, and many more died of the plague, of bad harvests and starvation, and so they could not hold onto anything. Bad Emperors came and went, and so did good ones. There just weren't enough Romans, as Roman women had fewer and fewer children, and the Empire became more and more slave and less and less free.

Women did not sit down and take a vote, to destroy Western Civilization. Women did not ask for the pill, the condom, the patch, and more to be invented. They did not ask for social anonymity, high mobility, and the destruction of social repression and cohesion (the two go together). Women did not ask for the modern consumer and media culture. Women did not ask for men to be brought DOWN to their equal or lower.

Yes women in the main agree with most or all of these things, but that is beside the point. Women just want what they want: men who are sexy, which means men who are higher than they are socially. That's hard-wired, it cannot be changed, it is part of women's innate biology. Women ARE flexible in how they pursue sexiness in men, just as men are flexible in how they pursue sexiness in women, for that matter.

The ugly truth is, no one man or woman is willing to admit, that wealth, power, and Western Civilization is built upon sexual repression. Not a total repression of women, but of Alpha men, women's ability to create vast pools of sexy Alpha men (in practice this means thugs) and the ability to get others to underwrite the risk of sexy men.

Western Civilization means NO SEXY MEN. Or damned few, at any rate. No wonder most women HATE HATE HATE Western Civilization. Who finds guys like Norman Borlaug, Jonas Salk, or Philo T. Farnsworth sexy? As opposed to say, Pele, Khadaffi, Carlos the Jackal, or Vladimir Putin? Western Civilization is the long slow grind, the constant search for new advantages, requiring massive amounts of nerdy, focused men who search for advantage because they like it, and are good at it, and need to ... feed their families. Thus nerdy obsessions turn to the Green Revolution, not World of Warcraft. Polio Vaccines not Angry Birds. The invention of Television not Magic the Gathering. Real technology to accomplish something of value, creating Western Advantage, not trivial past-times for men outside the mate market.


Anonymous said...

Roman Empire was vastly christianized by time of its fall. Eastern Roman Empire lasted ~ one thousand years more and was christian.
So, bad boy, welfare supported single motherhood was not the issue in the Empire.

Anonymous said...

Its really as simple as that!!Wish more people could adsmit to these whiskey truths

CamelCaseRob said...

Best post you've made in a long time, Whiskey.

But I'm not clear on why there will be fewer alpha bad boys. Women will be having more and more children with alpha bad boys -- at least percentage wise. The sons of these bad boys are gentically more likely to be bad boys, are they not?

jhbowden said...

Awesome post. Polybius (200-118BC), writing over two millenia ago, had no strong answer for decline/depopulation in his Histories either beyond changing the laws:

"In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth-rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics. If, then, anyone had advised us to send and ask the gods about this, and find out what we ought to say or do, to increase in number and make our cities more populous, would it not seem absurd, the cause of the evil being evident and the remedy being in our own hands? For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew. For in cases where of one or two children the one was carried off by war and the other by sickness, it is evident that the houses must have been left unoccupied, and as in the case of swarms of bees, so by small degrees cities became resourceless and feeble. About this it was of no use at all to ask the gods to suggest a means of deliverance from such an evil." (Book XXXVI)

Whiskey said...

Anon, the Western Empire was not deeply Christianized. In fact, Christianity in Britain was wiped out by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes and had to be re-imported by emissaries of the Pope to King Alfred the Great in the 800s or so. The Eastern Empire held because it was more populous and more Christian and therefore more unified, with the ability to put a lot more Roman soldiers into battle than the West.

CamelCase -- Right now bad boy kids are subsidized by a Welfare State. What happens when that Welfare State collapses? No more kids, as women adjust not to prefer betas suddenly, but no kids (particularly since condoms at least are likely to stick around technology wise).

Anonymous said...

Hey, whiskey, can you provide a link for the 50% of babies to a second father reference re: black women's childbearing? That is an interesting and horrifying little stat and a reference to the data would be super.

The Continental Op said...

It looks like the view of a civilization as an organic body that is born, grows, declines, and dies, is correct.
Exemplars of this view: Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin.

Once it's in decline you know it's over the hill rolling towards death. There is no stopping it. Each one has unique characteristics in each phase. It looks like our decline and death is characterized by what we see around us.

DaFarmer said...

You act as if white pople are simply blacks who have yet to fall to their level,which you expect whites to do eventually.Thats crazy,as we are vastly different. The nigga sitiin on da corna is doing what he has always done,he is doing the most that he is capable of doing. What about the much higher inteligence,ambition,curiousity and adventurisn level in the white man? Anyway,this might interest you. Here is a letter to the local Chi paper,the topic ostensibly the plight of unmarried black women. The write--and I have checked,she is real person!!,is of course mainly interested in HERSELF. Her freaky marriage to a negro is "celebrated":

Anonymous said...

It's posts like this that make Whiskey quite simply the best blogger on the internet, bar none!

I'm your father, Luke! said...

"The female passion for thugs is one unknown, mostly, to men and women of about fifty years ago or more. It is entirely due to women being fully socially and culturally as well as legally equal to men. If not, in fact, superior."

Dude. You are just wrong. Sorry. They have always had a passion for thugs because alphas insure survival of the species in a harsh world. They don't work so great in civilized society but when the shit hits the fan you want an alpha around. What makes the poontang willing to act on those inborn desires is the LACK OF REAL CONSEQUENCES for banging alphas. There are no real consequences because of things like the welfare state. See your Mr. EBT post from last week for details. THAT IS WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, NOT HUMAN NATURE.

You and every other 'conservative' are blind to the truth because deep down, you accept the basic premise of liberals/communists/Marxists/Socialists - that the individual has no inalienable right to his own property.

If you take away the concept of stealing from one individual and giving to another, the welfare state goes away and you unsexy betas can have poontang again. But alas, and I know you read these comments, you cannot wrap your head around that concept. That is probably why you are and will always be a puppet beta douchebag.

Anonymous said...

"Just as Napoleon ended the French Revolution and made peasants into ultra conservative Frenchmen by giving them small plots of land"

I largely agree with your post, but royal land was SOLD (not given) by the revolution (not Napoleon) to finance defense against the attacks of neigbouring monarchies. So, the peasants who had money to buy it were already wealthy and probably highly conservative.

Also, Napoleon was the son of a lawer, not a peasant as you wrote in a previous post.

Anonymous said...


This will be quick, but I get the feeling some of you may be trying to 'wake up' females. You shouldn't be waking up ANYONE - but this it especially important to know that sharing intellectual information with women is COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Women don't care about the NWO.

Here's why.

1) Women don't care weather they live or die.

That's right, it's pointless to point out chemtrails in the sky, chemicals in their birth control, poisons in their diet coke, and aluminum sulfide in their deodorant and tampons. A woman is so stupid she has literally no fear of death. Remember what the honorable Vilar said, women are too stupid to care about life itself. Therefore I conclude that they do not fear it being taken away from them. Women also don't 'live' for anything, they have no goals, desires, ambitions, things to learn about or discover, or things to build and create. Without a reason to live they could care less about who or what is killing them....

2) Women are immortal

Men often divert their life's energies at obtaining some form of immortality on earth. Women are born this way and go through their entire lives in this condition - this makes them unafraid to die - for they have no concept of suffering. Babied by parents, then babied by the credit/welfare system, and then babied again by a mans labor - the woman outlives the man by 30 years because she never had to actually DO any life sustaining work in her entire life. A woman floats through life worried about nothing - so to bring her attention to things that might be killing her is like describing to someone who never suffered what suffering feels like. They won't be able to grasp the concept because they never have suffered before.

3) Women are stupid

Since women never have to contemplate suffering or survival their minds are in a grossly permanent state of underdevelopment - in other words, they are morans. They don't EVER have to THINK about anything. Shoes, chocolate, sex, and clothes is all that engages their primitive minds.


This is a refresher for you fools. In TV and in the movies they often show a male lead REASONING with the female lead on an intellectual level, often involving saving her life. This is FANTASY - it doesn't happen this way in reality. Even if women accept and listen to every warning you have about reality, it will NEVER sink in on the same level that you take it. Again, she doesn't care if she lives or dies. These creatures bleed every month -- and don't die, this only reinforces the immortality ideas that I've put forth above.... so don't ever think about 'saving a woman's life' SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT IT. Only YOU care about weather she lives or not.... never her

jhbowden said...

Women don't care about the NWO.

Most men don't care about professional wrestling either. Just sayin.

stephanbonner said...

ANON 3:10 - "Since women never have to contemplate suffering or survival their minds are in a grossly permanent state of underdevelopment - in other words, they are morans."

I agree with your post, but there are few things I find funnier than when someone mispells the word moron while insulting someone elses intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Moran. A level below moron.

DaFarmer said...

" will always be a puppet beta douchebag." Must we sink so low? Sound like a moran.

Anonymous said...

NWO=New world order
a totalitarian one-world government (welfare)

james said...

There was once inequality in physical size which worked in a man's favour. Men were physically larger than women and thus more dominating. I imagine there was once a time when women could be picked up and manhandled up to the bedroom. Forget about that today. Women today often weigh more than men and men are physically less robust. A woman's physically presence is often more dominating than a man's.

Anonymous said...

"The Spanish flasher chose the wrong place, wrong time and wrong people.

The five Norwegian hands he showed up for was the Norwegian police(on holidays in Spain.)

- We got fed up and wrestled him down, says Helen Solheim, police in the Vice Squad in Stavanger.

The five girlfriends were on holiday in Playa Flamenca, Spain, in early September. One evening, they saw suddenly a flasher in an alley. The man was completely naked except for socks and shoes.

Five women in high heels running after a naked man. It was probably a funny sight, says Helen Solheim, laughing.

The man ran through a park with cacti and palm trees. Then he ran into the street again and fell on the asphalt. The police women were quickly at the man, wrestled him down, and held on. Someone blew the whistle and after a little while, one local police officer and took over. Flasher was not damaged."

The night of his life. If only there was Benny Hill music.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6.36pm

1) This occurred at a place called Playa.
2) Those Norwegian girls are getting more aggressive every year. Not the first nordic girl to chase a latino.

Whiskey said...

I stand corrected, it is 59% for Black women with two or more kids (different fathers), according the cited study.

Anonymous said...

"Western Civilization means NO SEXY MEN. Or damned few, at any rate. No wonder most women HATE HATE HATE Western Civilization."


I think you exaggerate some things, but your kernel of truth is damning.

Whiskey said...

I would not call women stupid either. They want what they want, they no more got a vote on their biology than anyone else. Sexual desire is required for reproduction, sex and kids don't happen out of contemplating the spheres or one-ness of nature.

But what is out of whack, entirely, is a balanced system that embeds everyone with a stake in the future. If large portions of any part of men or women don't have a stake in the future, guess what?

They'll do their best to ruin everyone's day.

rightsaidfred said...

Will evolution favor the provider male? If alpha kids are in a poverty factory, while provided kids have more success, will beta revolution come about?

Anonymous said...

outstanding post whiskey!

keep it up.

Anonymous said...

One thing that is contributing to the Alpha/Beta divide is the fact that in any healthy high tech society Alphas are a liability.

Its a useful trait in a zero sum world but properly governed this world has long since passed that stage.

Or course Alphas and the women who crave sexy men being who they are will just tear it down so they can be themselves, it a natural thing for them to do.


Whats needed I think is for more beta and gamma geeks to study Evo-Psychology and Biology and simply find the DNA that creates Alphas, a little hocus, a little pocus and viola, that trait is eliminated at the genetic level. Just like a flu shot.

All males thereafter are highly stable, smart betas .

Now of course women will be very frustrated with no sexy men around but the sex drive can be reduced in everyone via the same means (if an average is 6 on a 1-10 scale make everyone a 2 or 3) or either be sublimated, medicated or dealt with via toys.

Reproduction can be handled via exo wombs.

Its cold but what the heck, why not take conscious charge of our evolution.

Thats real trans-humanism instead of the pallid "computer in the head" stuff we usually see. Human but better.

Or we could fix the rules of society and find a way to make sure all the men know them and the Alphas are kept in check.
Who knows

Anonymous said...

There is one culture that's compatible with de facto polygamy and casual, ubiquitous violence: Islam. And that should scare everybody.

CamelCaseRob said...

"CamelCase -- Right now bad boy kids are subsidized by a Welfare State. What happens when that Welfare State collapses? No more kids, as women adjust not to prefer betas suddenly, but no kids (particularly since condoms at least are likely to stick around technology wise)."

Whiskey may I suggest an alternative? In today's every globalizing community, it will only take a small number of scientists and engineers combined with robot production to keep the good life rolling for the masses. Even with low IQ bad boys doing most of the breeding there will be enough high IQ betas from the far left end of the bell curve to advance society. I see more an Eloi-Morlock stratification, with Morlocks, instead of twisted monsters, being narrow-shouldered, pasty skinned betas and omegas(just as unappealing to women as Morlock monsters!).

james said...

"You've been watching too many movies."

I've been to the States more than once and you have a lot of fatties(as do we). Western women have a dominating presence, much like an elephant in the room. You can try to pick one of them up if you wish. 'Grabbings' is not going to be a successful strategy on Western girls. You can grab away but they will be hard to move.

Nullpointer said...


Have you seen the new show Terra Nova? It's like far left mental masturbation and compilation of everything wrong with society.

The basic plot is that far-right industrialists driven by greed and avarice environmentally wrecked earth making the air poisonous and creating the need for population controls.

Of course people at Fermilab found a time fissure that leads to an Earth in an alternate timeline that is re-settled by pre-selected pilgrims. Of course the main female lead is a hot exotic looking female (with multiple doctorates in various fields in medicine), while her husband is a simple, but highly competent cop.

The entire series so far consists of sexy violent dominant men, servicing highly credential intellectual women who give up the good life to volunteer in public service. All the women are portrayed as absurdly brave (let me jump off a really tall cliff and jump out of a car and try to run from dinosaurs) and science geniuses who can't help but fall for kind-hearted protectors.

Bill Brasky said...

Only truth can be this depressing.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, you have to read this story about women in polygamous marriages:

"I'd rather share my husband than have a hundred men of lesser quality to myself": Wife of polygamist speaks out about her unconventional life

Anonymous said...

Eric S. Raymond needs to eat some amanitas.

Chief Seattle said...

It's too bad about the nuclear weapons. Otherwise we could have a proper war again, draft millions of young men, kill off a sizable percentage, and the ones that made it back would be both manly and in demand due to the gender imbalance.

Re-read your Homer. Nothing pointless about war. The ones who died were heros. The ones who lived got the spoils. The thugification is just the yearning of young men for deadly competition. If it's allowed to proceed it will engender its own end by altering the gender ratio back to where the average guy has some sexual market value.

ConfederateH said...

I work in IT at a large bank, and it is amazing how quickly women have moved up the management ladder and how few women remain "techies". They all are able to use HR diversity policies and rapidly end up in management attending endless streams of meetings where their "superior social skills" come into play. It is also amazing how much effort they put into looking hot, I would suggest that this is more relevant to their next promotion than any IT skills they may have developed.

Whiskey, have you seen this about the 2 lesbians from Berkely who are giving their adopted 8 year old son hormone treatment to change him into a girl?

Anonymous said...

Those lesbians claim they didn't push him into it, but I can't help but wonder if there was a continuous stream of invective from these women on how inferior and evil men are. If I was this boy I might come to the same conclusion he did: it's better to be a girl, and he will never receive approval from his parents if he's a boy.

ConfederateH said...

@randian, I compare how the system deals with these lesbians with how they deal with James Ball:

My friend was "nuked" by his ex-wife who made claims of child molestation of his youngest daughter in 2 states. He wasn't able to see either daughter for 10 years and for several years he was afraid of being hauled off to prison. Luckily the court appointed psychologist pointed out that the mother was a pathological liar, yet even after that he wasn't allowed to see his daughters. Now I wonder if she wasn't cheating with an alpha male.

dienw said...

7:40 p.m. Mark Levin just reported that Steve Jobs has passed away.

DaFarmer said...

Mark Levin has just reported that Steve Jobs has come back to life!

Anonymous said...

"Following out the logic, the demographic future will belong to cultures that give up either sexual liberty or sexual equality, or both."

This is Raymond's main point, and I agree with Whiskey's rejection of it. There is no reversing these social changes in a given culture. But it has some validity if it is restated as "the demographic future belongs to cultures that reject either sexual liberty or sexual equality, or both."

The cultures that refuse liberalization are the ones that will inherit the earth. The strength of the Islamic religion is its refusal to modernize. Keeping women subordinate channels their hypergamy, allowing polygamy provides a release for it, and the large population of unattached young men that result facilitates an aggressive, warlike culture.

Anonymous said...

What good is the invention of television if all the programming is for chicks. No one knows who invented TV nor do they care. Jersey Shore is on.

dienw said...

"DaFarmer said...

Mark Levin has just reported that Steve Jobs has come back to life!"

As an Microsoft PC.
[Now that is damnation]

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading Madame Bovary. The desire for cads is well illustrated in this book from mid 19th century France. Apparently it's not a new phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

Cuckold. One word sums it up. A cuckolded male is a male who's female mate openly cheats on him with other men. A cuckold male will always be a cuckold male until he cuts his attachment to the female in question. Until the male opens up his options to other women, he will forever be seeking the approval of the woman who is cuckolding him. And to what end? A woman who would cuckold a man is not a woman worth keeping.

In a larger sense, this is exactly what has happened to western men. Western women have opened up there options to other women, but western men still pledge allegence to western women. It is a form of cuckolding on a global scale.

Until western men cut there attachment to western women, they will always remain cuckolds to the western woman.

And considering that there are so many women from other cultures who not only are succussfully careerwise, but also family oriented, (Asian and Indian women in particular), why waste any more time on western women when we have the ideal woman that we are looking for right in front of us?

Until you open yourself up to this, the western woman will always have the upper hand.

Anonymous said...

"In a larger sense, this is exactly what has happened to western men. Western women have opened up there options to other women, but western men still pledge allegence to western women."

I meant to say that western women have opened up there options to other men.

Anonymous said...

Because western women create white babies!

jerry said...

It's been three days, is Jobs still dead?

David Pentuin said...

Competition for status converts women into the "chosen gender," at least with respect to their object of desire (though not with most men). But in terms of mimetic desire the desired object is really nothing notable, so the reality is the collective contagion induced in the crowd. That's what's important, at least for the attitude of women in the fray. In terms of the social equation these women are closer to being men, so it's possible that they might glean the insights of men once they begin to age and are no longer so invested in self justification. A few women who write and create on the *real* level of the great artists (virtually all of whom are men so far) might begin to change the equation. The key is the dawning awareness of the mimetic process, and what it means.

It's not *really* a "sexual marketplace" after all, it's a jungle. And the issue at the center of it is, as it has always been, collective violence. The passive role they've enjoyed at the back and on the margins of the consensus-demanding crowd are denied them, so some are going to end up inevitably as the surrogate victim or scapegoat and others as the oppressors/murderers. The mystique *really* begins to fade...

David Pentuin said...

Come to think of it, the most likely candidate for becoming the surrogate victim is already the focus of the crowd: the alpha. Wouldn't *that* be ironic?

David Pentuin said...

BTW, I like your posts but the main problem I have with your perspective is the notion that desire and appetite are the same, or at least that the former is tied to the latter. Appetite is grounded in biology, which is why it's never been a big problem. Animals don't have a problem with desire, they don't have any. All of their appetites are grounded in biological needs. Desire is cut loose from biology. This is nothing new. It has always been thus, which is why mimetic rivalry is ultimately murderous. Women may not be as strong, and have different biological urges... but their capacity for desire is the same and is conditioned by imitation.

David Pentuin said...

Regarding the Roman Empire, it's clear that during the Gospel period the Empire was in the throes of a "mimetic crisis" which threatened a "war of all against all." The foundation of Rome began with a surrogate victim, first when Romulus killed his twin Remus (a reference to "monstrous twinning") and later when Romulus was murdered by the senate. The murder of Julius Ceasar, only a few decades earlier, was an attempt to re-enact the founding murder, and the tenor of the times was reiterated by Chiaphus' statement that "one should die that the nation might live." But the archaic pattern had lost its magic, and Rome as well as Israel were still threatened. It's the transformation of a war of all against all into a war of all against one.

The Christian Gospel demystified this archaic religion, which Christ Himself identified as "a liar and the father of it" and with the "accuser" Satan. It's not a being so much as an emotional pattern that finds a surrogate for collective violence and obtains release. We still have the impulse, but the mechanism no longer works to avert the mimetic crisis. And now women will be more than passive enablers of the crowd, they'll participate... and perhaps even initiate, the threat of generalized violence.

Being an "alpha" has its down side, just as kings and monarchs always made convenient scapegoats.

Anonymous said...

I don't see any of that happening, David Pentium.

I see a world in which the great bulk of women will choose to have out-of-wedlock children by the small percentage of males who are super physically attractive. They will raise these children alone with aide from the state. All the non-selected males will excluded and form "bachelor groups", remaining game-playing sport-watching men-boys for their entire lives. This last group will get their sex from online porn and escort services and have little social interaction with women. They won't revolt because life will be pleasant enough for them. Women will have their alpha stud memories from when they were young, and be kept busy raising their children and working as they move into their 30s and 40s. No violence on either side.

Rollory said...

"They will raise these children alone with aide from the state. "

No, they will not.

Anonymous said...

I see a world in which the great bulk of women will choose to have out-of-wedlock children by the small percentage of males who are super physically attractive. They will raise these children alone with aide from the state.

That's because traditional marriage has been continually smeared as regressive, outdated, anti-civil rights and everything anti-liberal so logically it will be a shell of its former state. I'll refine your phrase more:

Lower class women = Help from the state

Upper class women = Help from corporations

I truly feel pity and anguish for the middle class. Being squeazed out and attacked by both the minorities on the lower class side and the white liberals/libertarians on the upper class side.

Anonymous said...

It's not the libertarians that are attacking the middle class. They'd just as well not have the government subsidize poverty i.e. out of wedlock mothers.

Rollory said...

The point is that "help from the state" is not going to exist.

"Help from the state" is redistributed tax income. Those beta men would be supporting the kids anyway, through the middleman of the state. It is their productivity that would be redistributed. But the point is that they will not be producing. The tax income will not exist. Therefore it doesn't matter what the state promises or what is voted for; the checks will bounce.

Not to mention that the modern liberal state is already bankrupt in every single instance.

There will not be help from the state. That is a counterfactual. Therefore the women having kids will be compelled to consider the older choice; of going it alone, or of submitting to the bonds of monogamous marriage. Monogamous marriage ceases to be a stable state only because of the temporary productivity bubble of industrial society; we are at the end of that bubble, and society will return to a stable state in another few generations.

CamelCaseRob said...

Rollory - I disagree. First, the U.S government isn't bankrupt despite what the MSM would have you believe. More importantly, I was trying to make the point that the omegas and betas who create the wealth and make civilization run are NOT going to go "galt". Life for us is pleasant enough and we can substitute porn and escorts for relationships with women. (And someday there will be sexbots!)

Rollory said...

That's pure wishful thinking.

Technological civilization is sustained by focused effort and ingenuity, primarily on the part of males. Their motivation for that effort is the guarantee of improving the lot of children they know to be theirs. Take away the motivation, they will not produce. Porn and hookers is on the same level as beer and video games: yes, for that, you can do a lazy part-time job and cover your rent and food and entertainemnt expenses. What you will not do is put in the 40-60 hour weeks and entrepreneurial activity that is required to produce the surplus that the state needs for the redistribution in question. It will not happen. Men working for porn and escorts, or beer and video games, will allow themselves to be somewhat lazy, and that is what makes the difference between $30K/year and $120K/year.

You don't have to go galt. You just have to work for just yourself. The tax money will simply not exist.

As for not believing the MSM, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. They are covering it up way more than they should; the situation is far worse than they let on. Social Security and Medicare will not be paid out to people over 50 as promised, and anybody capable of doing sixth-grade math can see why. The bond market situation is fundamentally equivalent to Greece's; the only reason our rates haven't spiked to 50% and up is because it's the US dollar and that's where everyone else is running to, because everywhere else is closer to the moment of disaster. This doesn't mean the US dollar isn't headed for disaster, it just means it gets there last. When the bond market dislocates, that imposes an immediate 40% cut in federal spending - and it's going to dislocate, the rest of the world just doesn't have the money to lend anymore. This government funding system will not reach 2020 intact, and if you believe otherwise, you're in deliberate denial.

CamelCaseRob said...

Rollory - what you just stated is the conventional wisdom on these blogs. I think the conventional wisdom is wrong and am making these points:

1) In the global economy of the future, it will only take a small group of men (and I *do* mean *men*)on the far right end of the bell curve to make all the advances we need. And robot machines can do a lot of the work. The rest of the population will use the toys they invent and create.

2) Marriage will become rare. Men will live alone and women will live with their children, if they have children.

3) Because women do not like PIV sex nearly as much as men, "hookups" will be between women and men 2-3 points higher on the SMP value scale -- but counting as valuable only looks, humor and personality.

4) Most people need to read up on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The U.S. does not depend upon bond sales for deficit spending.

map said...

"4) Most people need to read up on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The U.S. does not depend upon bond sales for deficit spending."

The what does it depend on?

CamelCaseRob said...

If you want to understand MMT, you'd do better to google Warren Mosler or Cullen Roche, or read the Wikipedia entry on it than depend on me, but it is just a congressional stipulation that the treasury sell bonds not a monetary necessity. As a sovereign currency issuer the U.S. can create dollars by keystroke. It can never run short of them.

Anonymous said...

CamelCaseBob -

Mosler is not correct, but he is instinctually on the right path.

The key point to understand is that America has become the "importer of last resort" in a world economy comprised, paradoxically, of export-led growth protected by trade barriers.

In an effort to duplicate Japan, every nation on earth has turned itself into a giant corporation protecting its own markets from imports while trying to push their exports. In such an "economic sink" the most powerful country that emerges is the one that is willing to take in that output. The "trade surpluses" these nations post with actually measure weakness, not strength, because it show their dependence on moving their output within the United States.

This result of hyper-mercantilism. There is no global economy; only an American economy extended globally.

DaFarmer said...

Re "the US does not depend upon bond sales for funding." "Then what does it depend on?" Bake sales.

CamelCaseRob said...

The U.S. is not a currency user like Greece. It is a currency issuer. It can create as many dollars as it wants or needs to fund itself.

rickl said...

Off topic, but you ought to check this out, Whiskey.

All the Single Ladies

It was so interminably long that I ended up skimming the last half of it, but I thought it would be right up your alley. I look forward to reading your take on it.

DaFarmer said...

I dont think whiskey speaks that language--whatever it is!!

Anonymous said...


Check out:

"Problems with Mixed-Race Marriages and Relationships"


Tree said...


NBC just bought Versus which is my MANLY MANLY Deer hunting & Gun Channel.

I'm scared...

Anonymous said...

The teachings of Srila Prabhupada on women and anti-feminism

The purpose of this essay is to address the issue of feminism and misandry (hatred of men, the opposite of misogyny) and how it has destroyed modern society. We will be analyzing many of the statements made by Srila Prabhupada about women, their role in society, and the anti-feminism stance of his teachings.

Anonymous said...

Newest HBD term: MAMB

Give it a thumbs up:

Rollory said...

CamelCaseRob has no idea what he's talking about. Unfortunately, neither does Bernanke.

Columnist said...

It is easy to out-alpha Islam, by allowing more than four wives.

Anonymous said...

Camcelcaserob -

Hyperinflation anyone? The us cannot keep printing money!

No Show said...

Known Zionist and big-time studio mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, on the other hand, is working hard to make Israel a standard destination for Hollywood’s elite – or at least for Hollywood’s elite comedic voice talents. Last year, he arranged for Jerry Seinfeld’s much-examined visit to Israel to promote his Bee Movie.

That's the very GAY, very Jewish, very rich, Mr Hollywood Jeffrey Katzenberg.

No, he's not Scots Irish or WASP and no he's not anti Israel.

And he's not alone. Jews run Hollywood and gays don't hate Israel.

And sorry, White women don't hate, hate, hate, beta White males.

It's a painful truth that for whatever reason remains threatening to you.

No Show said...

^^^ wrong comment placement. I reposted it in the Ratner post.

Anonymous said...

Easy to fix, abolish welfare payments to single mothers, and change divorce law. Feminists claim that single mothers are strong and independent, and don't need men.

Bullshit, single mothers have the state as the father. Every beta and omega male they turn their noses up at is paying for their flat, their TV and their kid. Fine, if they don't want these men around, then they don't get to have their money.

It is the same with divorce. I'm not talking about guys caught cheating or arseholes who hit their partners (through that does kind of reinforce your point, pathetic arseholes who beatup their partners have no problem getting a women). I'm talking about the I'm bored with him divorce. Fine she doesn't want to be part of a family with him, or share a bed with him. OK, but if she isn't willing to be a wife, then she doesn't get her husbands money.

escorts valencia said...

Thanks so much for this post, pretty worthwhile material.

Blogger said...

Considering getting rich in World of Warcraft?

Save 100's of wasted hours by Installing the DYNASTY: TYCOON GOLD ADDON.

It will automatically hint on the BEST gold making methods inside the game, in real-time.

Blogger said...

ULTIMATE WoW GUIDE has released the ULTIMATE in-game guide for the money hungry World of Warcraft players that only want to reach the highest level and make lots of gold.

Unlike PDF guides our unique guide works in-game, to always tell the player what to do, step-by-step, and in real-time.